SJR 10-SUPPORT FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT  8:35:09 AM SENATOR FRED DYSON introduced SJR 10. Since 1998 44 states have amended their constitution to better define marriage as between one man and one woman. Courts in Massachusetts, Vermont and California have made decisions casting doubts upon the constitutionality of those laws. Marriages performed in Massachusetts between same sex couple cause difficulty with other states due to the differences in states laws. The US Congress supports the Federal Defense of Marriage Act and Alaska would show support by passing SJR 10. 8:39:24 AM Senator Gene Therriault joined the committee. SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH expressed preference for letting each state decide its own laws. SENATOR DYSON expressed preference for consistency across the nation. 8:41:35 AM CHAIR SEEKINS asked Senator Dyson whether the Massachusetts decision was done by the courts or by the people. SENATOR DYSON responded the courts. SENATOR CHARLIE HUGGINS shared Senator Dyson's perspective. 8:44:14 AM SENATOR FRENCH asked Senator Dyson whether he would support adding an exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause identifying that Alaska does not want to be put in the position of honoring another states laws on marriage. SENATOR DYSON said it would not have the same urgency as SJR 10. CHAIR SEEKINS expressed support for Senator French's suggestion. 8:45:51 AM MR. MICHAEL MACLEOD-BALL, director, Alaska Civil Liberties Union (AkCLU) testified in opposition to the resolution. He said a couple married in another jurisdiction subjects themselves to Alaska's law when moving to Alaska. There is nothing that would require Alaska courts or companies to acknowledge the validity of the marriage. 8:47:34 AM The AkCLU supports the full extension of marriage rights to all couples. The author of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, Mr. Bob Barr, opposes this type of legislation due to states rights. 8:49:19 AM MR. MACLEOD BALL quoted Mr. Barr's testimony to the US Congress: By moving what has traditionally been a state prerogative, local marriage laws, to the federal government it's in direct violation of the principals of federalism. In treating the US Constitution as an appropriate place to impose publicly contested social policies it would cheapen the sacrosanct nature of that document opening the door to future meddling by liberals and conservatives. Third, it is unnecessary as long as the Federal Defense of Marriage Act is enforced. 8:50:39 AM Conservative representatives have expressed concern about the federal preemption of the state having the ability to make its own decisions. Most people are against discrimination. SJR 10 has the potential to take away rights of partners such as hospital rights, pension rights, and inheritance rights. 8:51:53 AM SENATOR THERRIAULT asked Mr. Macleod Ball how Wyoming dealt with the Full Faith and Credit Clause issue. MR. MACLEOD-BALL did not know. SENATOR THERRIAULT speculated they chose to ignore it. MR. MACLEOD BALL quoted Senator John Haynes from Wyoming testimony to the US Congress. "State courts have over 200 years of experience in deciding which out of state marriages they will recognize." What he is talking about is an area reserved for the states and the federal government has traditionally stayed out of it. 8:53:39 AM CHAIR SEEKINS said in this case the people of Alaska have said marriage should be between one man and one woman. MR. MACLEOD-BALL said the issue is whether the people of the United States should make decisions for the people in every state. CHAIR SEEKINS said often courts make decisions that are contrary to what the people would do if they were asked. 8:58:54 AM SENATOR THERRIAULT agreed the beginning of the civil rights movement would not have garnered majority support if the people of the US were polled. MR. MACLEOD BALL asserted an Alaska court might have to interpret Massachusetts's case law in the event of a same sex marriage ending in divorce. However, courts have always been burdened with those types of decisions. Alaska still would not have to recognize the marriage. 9:01:23 AM MR. MACLEOD BALL took the position that SJR 10 was not necessary. The Federal Defense of Marriage Act is already in place. 9:02:59 AM SENATOR FRENCH asked Mr. Macleod Ball what is in the Federal Defense of Marriage Act that works against the idea of civil unions. MR. MACLEOD BALL said there was no short answer. The AkCLU's concern is the federal amendment would change the benefit of civil unions. 9:04:37 AM CHAIR SEEKINS closed public testimony. SENATOR HUGGINS moved SJR 10 from committee. Hearing no objections the motion carried.