SJR 42 - CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RE MARRIAGE SENATOR LOREN LEMAN came forward to present the resolution on behalf of the Senate Health, Education and Social Services committee. SENATOR LEMAN explained that both the resolutions respond to the recent ruling by Superior Court Judge Peter Michalski, which decided that our society's traditional definition of marriage may be unconstitutional. He explained that SJR 42 proposes an amendment to the state constitution that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. SENATOR LEMAN said the judge's ruling ignores the clear public policy statement made by the Legislature in 1996 when it overwhelmingly passed SB 308, known as the definition of marriage bill. SENATOR LEMAN said this bill helped establish important social policy in Alaska. He said Judge Michalski argued the statute disallowing same sex marriage is unconstitutional unless the state can show compelling governmental interest to the contrary. SENATOR LEMAN commented that the judge arrived at this decision through some ironic reasoning, alleging the constitutional right to public recognition of one's choice of a life partner under the right to privacy clause of the Alaska Constitution. SENATOR LEMAN said our laws have never permitted granting licences to same sex marriages and these marriages are currently not recognized in any of the 50 states nor, to the best of his knowledge, any country in the world. SENATOR LEMAN predicted that if the Alaska court forces the state to recognize same sex marriage, state law would be in conflict with federal law in a multitude of ways, creating an explosion of litigation. SENATOR LEMAN noted that the word marriage appears in more than 800 sections of federal statute and the word spouse is used 3,100 times. In all these statutes and regulations the federal government recognizes marriage as a union between one man and one woman, regardless of what the Alaska court says. SENATOR LEMAN concluded that same sex marriage would cause a host of conflict with programs and services ranging from the Internal Revenue Service to Social Security benefits. He said some may argue this demonstrates the need to change the federal statutes, but SENATOR LEMAN maintained his disagreement and said the 1996 vote in Congress on the Defense of Marriage Act shows these proponents have their work cut out for them. SENATOR LEMAN advised CHAIRMAN TAYLOR he would hear arguments on both sides of this contentious issue and his belief is that the preservation of the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman is so important its loss would break down the very foundation of our society. He proposed that the issue is so profound, the people of Alaska should decide. SENATOR LEMAN noted there were amendments to both SR 42 and SCR 25 and offered them to the committee for consideration. He then introduced PROFESSOR LYNN WARDLE as an expert witness. MR. JOHN GAGUINE, representing the Department of Law, replied "no" to a question from CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asking if the amendment to the bill significantly changed the issue. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked MR. GAGUINE if it was appropriate to place this amendment on the ballot. MR. GAGUINE answered that he did not wish to speak for the administration, but said it appears to him that the amendment would moot the litigation, which seems to him its intent. Number 200 PROFESSOR LYNN WARDLE stated he has taught family law for 20 years and has done extensive research on the same issue. He indicated he was speaking on his own behalf. PROF. WARDLE said same sex marriage is not recognized by any jurisdiction in the world. He mentioned that about six jurisdictions, mainly in Scandinavia, have established same-sex domestic partnership, an institution quite different from marriage. PROF. WARDLE suggested that even these jurisdictions make a strong point of the fact that these partnerships differ from marriage. In the past 25 years in this country, many lawsuits have been filed in dozens of courts seeking same-sex marriage and until a short time ago, not a single court had accepted any one of these claims. However, in Hawaii, in 1996, a judge ruled that the refusal to give marriage licences to same- sex couples violated the state constitution. A few months later the Hawaii legislature proposed an amendment to the constitution to essentially overturn that decision, according to PROF. WARDLE. He said that amendment is now awaiting a vote. PROF. WARDLE said the decision of the Alaska judge is even more radical than that handed down in Hawaii. He said that court rejected the claim that there is a constitutional right to same sex marriage, reaching their claim through a convoluted route of legal analysis. In the Alaska case, Judge Michalski interpreted provisions of the Alaska Constitution as granting a fundamental right to same-sex marriage. PROF. WARDLE commented that no other court has ever reached this decision, which he sees as quite radical. He said the ruling is not yet final, but it does establish a clear legal standard that tells the world this is the view of marriage held by the people of Alaska. PROF. WARDLE sees this as an inaccurate portrayal. PROFESSOR WARDLE said marriage is the foundation of society and has always been understood to be between a man and a woman. He said it is unique and uniquely beneficial as men and women have a complementary relationship. He sees this to be the major flaw of the decision: the failure to recognize the heterosexual relationship provides more societal and individual benefits than any other. PROF. WARDLE said there is an honest answer to the question same- sex couples might ask about why their unions, meaningful to them, cannot be recognized in the same way as heterosexual marriage. He said the answer is that a man and a woman contribute fundamental things to society, unique to their relationship. Marriages meet social policy goals and that is why they have been singled out, historically, for preferred status. PROF. WARDLE identified some of the social policy purposes that merit special standing as PROF. WARDLE stressed another flaw in Judge Michalski decision was the tenet that all choices of life partners are equal. PROF WARDLE said the judge's opinion is lacking in the support, evidence and judicial precedence necessary for this type of dramatic conclusion. He believes that a right to privacy does not mandate a state must confer a preferred public status on anyone. He said the logical extension of this opinion would open the door for incestuous and multiple marriages. PROFESSOR WARDLE concluded that this matter goes beyond Alaska, as this decision will affect other states and prompt a constitutional crisis. He said the state has a compelling interest in not redefining marriage in such a radical way, especially in a way that will result in years of costly and confusing litigation. PROFESSOR WARDLE said the case will bring up questions of alimony, property interests, child support, inheritance, succession and benefits, among others. He said other states may refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from Alaska and he believes it is important for the legislature to act now. Finally, PROFESSOR WARDLE summed up by saying the legislature, who are also guardians of the constitution, must represent the people by allowing them to make the final decision regarding the definition of marriage. He urged quick action on this legislation. SENATOR ELLIS asked CHAIRMAN TAYLOR if he would afford the same time to Alaskans as he did to this out of town guest. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR replied he absolutely would and asked if there was a spokesman for the opposition, as there were far too many people present to allow unlimited testimony from each person. SENATOR ELLIS asked how many people were signed up to testify and CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said, counting those in the room as well as teleconference participants, it looked to be approximately 70 total. SENATOR ELLIS asked if the plan was to take two people and then cut off testimony. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR replied he would take one or two after that, and would have to as they were running out of time. Number 375 REVEREND DONALD CECIL, a Professor of Communications at the University of Alaska Southeast, said he wished Alaska's slogan was "Live free or die." He moved to Alaska in 1980 in search of a place where he could live free from interference by the government and others to the greatest possible extent. He wanted to live in a state uncluttered by excessive laws, in a place that allows people to march to the beat of a different drummer so long as no one got hurt. He quoted U.S. Supreme Court justice Lewis Brandice who said, "the makers of our Constitution sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their emotions, and their sensations. They conferred the right to be left alone, the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized man." He mentioned other Supreme Court Justices who validated these sentiments in other writings. REVEREND CECIL said the right to choose a marriage partner is a right of individual freedom and the people testifying in favor of that right are not asking for an endorsement. He said only a small percentage of Alaskans would evermake this choice and other Alaskans would continue living their lives according to their beliefs, freely honoring what is inside themselves biologically and emotionally. Likewise, the small minority of Alaskans would be able to honor what is inside of them and lead their lives according to their deepest beliefs. REVEREND CECIL remarked that the only injury would be to someone else's sacred idea of how others should live their lives. REVEREND CECIL affirmed that he would like to continue living in a state that fully embraces the concept of personal freedom. In his opinion, SJR 42 is an affront to freedom of choice. In the name of freedom for all Alaskans, he recommends they throw out SJR 42 and get back to the more important business before them. In response to SENATOR LEMAN's remarks regarding decisions that are out of the mainstream, REVEREND CECIL quoted Thomas Jefferson, who said, "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions . . . laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind, as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, well, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still a coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their ancestors." MS. SARA BOESSER, representing the Statewide Committee for Equality, said there were 30-40 people out in the hall and another 60 around the state who came to testify against this bill. She said they worked hard to be there and all came expecting to be allowed to speak against this amendment to the Constitution. MS. BOESSER commented that if the remarks of the out-of-state speaker were true, the Attorney General would have no trouble showing the court a compelling reason why same-sex couples should not marry. MS. BOESSER suggested if the committee took the time to listen to all those assembled, they would hear plenty of reasons why lesbians and gays should be allowed to take on the responsibilities and rights of legal marriage. She said they'd hear stories how the inability to marry hurts them and their children, and also how gutting the constitution of fundamental privacy rights is as unAlaskan a precedent as there could be. MS. BOESSER emphasized that her point was the intense pain that the ballot procedure itself will cause innumerable people. She does not believe the committee understands how difficult it will be to face the type of angry, anti-gay onslaught some Alaskans will mount. She is sure over the next few weeks the legislators themselves will receive many cards and letters asking them to drop this proposition and let the court case proceed. Some of these letters may be from angry, upset people; MS. BOESSER said there is nothing she can do to control that, like there is nothing the legislature can do to control the barrage of hateful, prejudiced rhetoric that will ensue if this goes to the ballot. She said if they feel the uncomfortable sting of angry words, they should realize that what they suffer is only the tip of the iceberg when compared to the hate speech, untrue stereotypes and misinformation that will be spread about her and her partner of 17 years. She dreads that. She suggested that when they feel stung, they should think about people like her, hearing daily attacks in the coffee shop, on the radio and in the press, attacks on themselves and their loved ones. MS. BOESSER concluded that this bill, whether it is intended or not, builds a podium for hate speech for eight long months of painful discourse. She charged the committee to understand their personal responsibility in unleashing that pain upon them and their loved ones. She urged the committee to stop the bill now and allow the courts to continue the appeals process. MS. MARSHA BUCK, representing Parents and Friends of Gays and Lesbians (PFLAG), said she is angry about SJR 42 and opposes it. She said she is angry for two reasons: first, because she has a daughter married to another woman and she knows this resolution will increase the hatred, violence and name-calling against her and she is a hardworking, churchgoing, voting person who doesn't deserve that; second, she is angry because she understood the Republican platform was to stay out of citizens' private business and this gets into it in a way she never expected. MS. BUCK noted that the legislature is now on resolution number 42, meaning there are 42 ways in which this Legislature is trying to change the Constitution. This also makes her angry, to see this attack against the Constitution when there are so many other important things to be done, like working on subsistence and school funding. MARSHA BUCK stated that the Constitution protects citizens' rights, including her daughter's rights. She wondered if the Legislature sees the connection between this type of resolution and the increase of hate crimes and violence against gays and lesbians. MS. BUCK identified herself as a long time Juneau resident and indicated she would use her time and resources to oppose this legislation. Number 475 MS. PAM NORTHRIP, a teacher of 25 years from Juneau, reflected on the marriage of her Presbyterian son to his partner by a Catholic priest in a Quaker church. She said the priest explained why he performed the ceremony saying in a world filled with violence, bitterness and hate crimes, it is inherent upon each one of us to do what we can to promote love. She said she hopes none of the committee, in the name of family values, would reject a son or daughter who came to them and revealed that, in addition to all the wonderful things they are, they are gay. MS. NORTHRIP said she has learned in her experience that families come in all sizes, races, and configurations. She said defining families as only mothers and fathers with children excludes single parent, multi-parent, divorced, widowed, multi-racial and adoptive families and tells their children that there is something wrong with them. She said it hurts families and increases our suicide rate. MS. NORTHRIP suggested that acceptance and inclusion do not mandate agreement, but only allow individual freedom and choice. She indicated that the rights of the minority are as important as the opinion of the majority and she is unable to see how the state has any compelling interest to discourage caring, kindness, commitment and love. MS. NORTHRIP hoped the committee would not pass this resolution that defines marriage so narrowly and hurts so many families. SENATOR ELLIS asked CHAIRMAN TAYLOR why he had set up what SENATOR ELLIS saw as an artificial time constraint. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR replied he only had about an hour and a half to take up three different matters. SENATOR ELLIS asked why this matter, due to all the public interest, couldn't be carried over. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR replied he intended to move the bill today. SENATOR ELLIS asked why, saying there were Alaskans who had come to testify and would not be able to do so due to this artificial scheduling crisis. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR agreed, saying if they were to take the time to allow every person to speak, because of the deeply felt emotions on this issue, he thinks every Alaskan would speak. He added he thought that may be part of the agenda also. SENATOR PARNELL asked if testimony could be faxed into the committee and CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said certainly, people could send their comments right through the Legislative Information Offices (LIOs). Number 515 MR. WILSON VALENTINE, an appointed member of the Commission for Human Rights (Juneau) and an Episcopal priest, did not address the right or wrong of homosexual marriages, but came to speak about the goal of the Human Right's Commission, protecting the rights of all people. He fears that if you write into the Constitution a discrimination against any group, you are against human rights and the work that modern people in the human family have been striving to accomplish. MR. VALENTINE said putting into concrete something that discriminates against anyone is wrong. He said the real question is the treatment and protection of the people of Alaska, which should be protected in our Constitution. MR. PETER PINNEY testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, where he spoke on behalf of the 20 people there at the LIO who opposed the bill. MR. PINNEY said he looked at the issue like gun control, if you start placing restrictions on it, who knows where they may end. He mentioned other bills under consideration by the Legislature, including those relating to "charter marriage" and behavior of people with HIV asked if this is how this Legislature wants to be remembered. He said there are other pressing issues. MR. PINNY said, as a long time Republican, he has always disdained intervention in people's lives. He said this action is not an economic one, but rather a moral one and the state needs to pay closer attention to economic issues. MR. PINNEY said the committee could not prove to him that any two people getting married creates a negative economic impact. He said for long time in Alaska, before the pioneers, there was no marriage in Alaska and nothing fell apart. Mr. PINNEY stated he did not feel comfortable with a government legislating against any group, and he especially did not feel comfortable with this Legislature presenting legislation against him. MS. ELLEN TWINAME testified via teleconference from a room of 15 people opposed to the bill at the Anchorage LIO. MS. TWINAME said she does not support this attempt to change the Constitution, which she feels will unfairly deny same-sex couples access to benefits that mixed couples take for granted. She remarked that married people enjoy privileges that have nothing to do with religion or procreation such as tax-breaks, health insurance benefits and rights to make health care and burial decisions for one another. She does not see how same sex marriages could hurt society, and suggested heterosexual couples are enjoying special rights that should belong to everyone. MS. TWINAME concluded by saying that our judiciary should not be afraid to set a precedent because that is how the world gets changed. She believes being the first state to allow same-sex marriages would be a reason for Alaskans to be proud. SENATOR WARD remarked that the person who testified via teleconference from Fairbanks said there was no marriage before the pioneers. SENATOR WARD refuted this, saying Athabascans married for thousands of years and did not have same-sex marriage. MR. MICHAEL JONES testified via teleconference from Sitka. MR. JONES suggested that publicity around this bill has expressed the need for it in order to retain the sanctity of marriage. MR. JONES said this amendment would not sanctify marriage, but only define the exclusivity of marriage. He suggested if the act of marriage is to be sanctified, perhaps outlawing divorce or making it more difficult to obtain would be more appropriate. He said only one of five dictionary definitions he looked at defines marriage in terms of opposite sex partners. MR. JONES concluded by saying the Legislature certainly has more important things to do and he urged them to drop this proposal. TAPE 98-15, SIDE B Number 001 REVEREND HOWARD BESS, a Baptist minister, testified via teleconference from Mat-Su and said marriage is a part of our society and stabilizes social structures and creates an orderly society. However, when government seeks to interfere with a person's choice of a life partner, it defeats the purpose of the government, confuses property rights and disrupts orderly decision making. REVEREND BESS believes the judge's ruling in this case was right on target and was supported by sound legal reasoning. He urged the committee to leave the ruling alone and allow the courts to do their job. MR. MICHAEL JOHNSTONE testified via teleconference from Los Angeles, but said he had lived in Alaska for 23 years. MR. JOHNSTONE is the head of a ministry dedicated to providing a Christian view of homosexuality, and helping individuals who decide to reject homosexuality. His ministry was founded in Alaska. He serves on the board of the National Legal Council as well as the Steering Committee for the National Campaign to protect marriage. MR. JOHNSTONE stated he is a former homosexual, having rejected his homosexuality in 1998. He is HIV+ and developed AIDS in 1997. MR. JOHNSTONE said that the idea of rejecting same sex marriage in terms of public policy is well entrenched, with 28 states already having adopted legislation to prohibit the redefining of marriage. He said the public is clearly against such a change, some would say due to mass homophobia or mean-spirited religious bigots who want to stomp on the freedoms of others, he says it is because people instinctively understand that to redefine marriage is to destroy it and to destroy marriage is to destroy the structure and meaning of families, the glue that bonds society together. MR. JOHNSTONE said despite the best intentions of some homosexuals to replicate the family, they simply cannot, as the family bond is rooted in the ability to create life. MR. JOHNSTONE said if traditional marriage is the superglue of society, same sex marriage and the counterfeit homosexual family is merely white paste. He said same sex marriage is an experiment being played out by intellectual elites and social scientists. He says we have been down this road before, experimenting with marriage and the family through no-fault divorce, which has resulted in destroyed homes, fatherless children and serial marriages. MR. JOHNSTONE said those who utilize the courts in an attempt to thwart the fundamental understanding of the public are the same people whose sexual philosophy is anti-family and anti-children, and who envision a future that embraces the idea that all sex is good and healthy recreation, without norms. MR. JOHNSTONE said their belief is truly in sexual freedom and the ultimate extension of this would be incest, pedophilism and other aberrations. MR. JOHNSTONE concluded that the traditional family is the foundation of strong society and deserves special social privileges, providing fulfillment of important functions such as procreation, education, protection and provision. He commented that the right to privacy is not an absolute, and the state must foster and protect the institution of marriage, as it has through the ages. He believes this amendment does that. MS. LIZ DODD, a local Juneau resident and representative of The Alaska Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said she was somewhat amused to hear SENATOR LEMAN saying Alaska should defer to the federal government on this issue. She hadn't counted him among those who deferred to federal authorities on such things as subsistence, management of the Tongass National Forest and others. She said she grew up in Alaska and has seen a tendency to try and maintain freedom from federal interference to the greatest extent possible. MS. DODD also remarked that it was interesting that SENATOR LEMAN had brought a key person from out of state to comment on this bill, specifically from Utah. She commented that Alaska is not Utah. Alaska is governed by a wonderful, carefully deliberated Constitution crafted by great minds; she said we should not usurp that work without thinking long and hard about it. MS. DODD asked why this proposed amendment would be added to the back of the Constitution rather than being included in Article 1, Section 1, the declaration of rights. LIZ DODD said this amendment seems to make a cataclysmic change to that section of inherent rights, critical rights. These rights affirm that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the rewards of their own industry; that all persons are equal, and entitled to equal rights and opportunities under the law. MS. DODD said the amendment before them drops a footnote to this section excluding some people from its protection when it comes to marriage. She believes this is a dangerous leap, and once it has been made it may never end. She said regardless of a person's belief in same-sex marriage, anyone who cares about the Constitution should be worried that, when a piece of legislation was found to be unconstitutional, this Legislature tried to go back and change it. MS. DODD said, growing up in Juneau, she encountered a lot of strange people, but was trained by her parents to leave people alone. She agreed that it will be a big deal if the state allows same-sex marriages, but explained that this change is coming and why shouldn't it come first in the state that most prizes individual rights and where a person can live and let live. She said she did not hold out much hope, but urged the committee to come to their senses and reject this bill. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked MS. DODD how she could characterize this as a cataclysmic change when there has never been a different interpretation than this amendment assumes. LIZ DODD replied that there had never been a challenge to this assumption previously, as far as she knew. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR argued that there had been a ruling on benefit packages for same sex couples. He added that the courts do not have a monopoly on interpretation of the Constitution, as the Legislature must do it daily. MS. DODD said what she meant was that it is an unprecedented idea, as far as she knows, to take away from Article 1, Section 1, the inherent rights of people. She said this amendment nullifies the concept of inherent rights and allows for an exception that says only some people are equal. She said this is a big change for Alaska and that is why she used the term cataclysmic. SENATOR LEMAN agreed that the change could be made to Article 1, Section 1, but the drafter of the legislation was the person who chose where it would be included. SENATOR LEMAN clarified that this is not his bill, but a resolution, which he supports, by the SENATE HESS COMMITTEE, the true sponsor of the legislation. He also remarked that he did not invite PROF. WARDLE, nor did he pay for his trip, and had only met him that very day. Having said that, he expressed appreciation for the Professor's testimony and his knowledge of the issue. SENATOR LEMAN also mentioned an article, written by MS. DODD, in which she referred to him as a "moralist extremist," saying if he is extreme, along with the 80 per cent of Alaskans who believe in traditional marriage, she should not be worried about the amendment, since the people of Alaska would not support it. SENATOR LEMAN said he is not the aggressor in this case, he is only trying to defend the institution of marriage and put it in the Constitution so a judge cannot misinterpret it. MS. DODD asked to respond, and said the reason she referred to SENATOR LEMAN as an extremist, is because a state legislator should defend the Constitution, not the Bible. She clarified that she was not making a personal attack on LEMAN, only meant to defend against his attack on our Constitution. MR. TOM GORDY, state Chairman of the Christian Coalition, said this decision has opened up a can of worms that could destroy the traditional meaning of marriage as we know it. MR. GORDY referred to several portions of the decision and commented that the decision is what brought everyone there today and necessitated a constitutional amendment. He said the state already has laws prohibiting bigamy and incest, and asked if these prohibitions implicate the right to privacy. MR. GORDY asked if we were prepared as a state to recognize multiple person marriages or incestuous marriages. He said he sees on t.v. sickening things that are being done in our society and added that they will be pushing for these rights, all of which are possible due to this decision. MR. GORDY asked how we keep these things from happening as a result of a liberal judicial system seeking to legislate rather than interpreting laws. He said we must change the Constitution to avoid the crumbling of our society. He suggests we learn from history, saying every single society who has weakened marriage or even eased divorce all came crumbling down. He urged the committee to pass the bill in order to preserve the sanctity of marriage and protect our society. SENATOR MILLER moved amendment #1. SENATOR ELLIS objected to ask what the purpose of the amendment is. SENATOR MILLER said it just cleans up the language. SENATOR PARNELL asked if the new work draft had been adopted and CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said it had not and asked SENATOR MILLER to remove his motion in order to do so. SENATOR MILLER withdrew his motion and SENATOR PARNELL made a motion to adopt the work draft (version "E") as a judiciary committee substitute. SENATOR ELLIS objected, asking what the changes from the previous version are. SENATOR LEMAN said it is an attempt to clarify and ensure the amendment covers what it is intended to do. SENATOR LEMAN said the amendment to the amendment just clarifies things further with some simplified language. SENATOR ELLIS asked about MS. DODD's question about the placement of the amendment. He asked if there was any difference in weight given to any section of the Constitution due to its placement and CHAIRMAN TAYLOR replied that everything in the Constitution is given equal weight, regardless of location. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if there was objection maintained to the work draft and SENATOR ELLIS said there was. Roll call was taken and the work draft was adopted. SENATOR MILLER moved the amendment and SENATOR ELLIS objected, again commenting on what he saw as a false time constraint imposed by CHAIRMAN TAYLOR. SENATOR ELLIS also said there was insufficient time for people around the state to receive the relevant materials and he believed it to be an uninformed decision. He cited these as reasons why he needed to object every chance he could. SENATOR MILLER remarked that the public will have the ultimate input, on the November ballot, if this amendment goes forward. SENATOR ELLIS replied that it is the job of the committee to scrutinize and discuss these issues, and to push it through so quickly in the space of one hearing does a disservice. He said they are not really giving it the consideration it deserves. SENATOR ELLIS said it is all very transparent and rushed and he does not believe the committee is doing an adequate job. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR remarked they had spent an hour and 25 minutes on the matter and he did not consider that rushed. He said the concept is not rocket science. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented that they had testimony where every person in the room indicated they were going to say the same thing. He said, in the room, there were three or so witnesses in support and probably 15 in opposition. He concluded that the testimony, in his opinion, was becoming repetitive and there reaches a certain point where additional testimony is going to do very little to embellish something that has repeatedly been said before. SENATOR ELLIS countered that people on both sides of the issue had taken off work and changed their schedules in order to testify and in normal conditions would have been heard. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he was acting out of courtesy to people waiting to be heard on some other matters that were supposed to come up. Roll call was taken on the amendment and the amendment was adopted. SENATOR MILLER moved CSSJR 42 out of committee with individual recommendations and SENATOR ELLIS objected, saying he thinks those supporting the bill would be better off doing what the judge asked them to do, and show the judge a compelling state interest. SENATOR ELLIS noted that if SENATOR LEMAN and the witness from Utah are correct, it would be easy to prove and that is where they should direct their energy and not attempt to subvert the court decision. He said that this constitutional amendment seems like the easy way, and when the decision was handed down he thought there would be work by the sponsors to show the state's compelling interest. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked what he suggested be done and SENATOR ELLIS said the legal experts know what is required, he envisions the marshaling of opinions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if this wouldn't be done in the appeals process, and did he believe legislation was necessary. SENATOR ELLIS replied he was not sure. SENATOR LEMAN said SENATOR ELLIS had referred to him and indicated that he participate in showing a compelling a state interest. He stated he has not at all been involved in this litigation, but does support a resolution introduced by the HESS committee regarding this matter; specifically SCR 25. With no further discussion, once again the roll was called and SJR 42 moved from committee.