HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE May 4, 1998 8:40 A.M. TAPE HFC 98 - 146, Side 1 TAPE HFC 98 - 146, Side 2 TAPE HFC 98 - 147, Side 1 TAPE HFC 98 - 147, Side 2 CALL TO ORDER Co-Chair Gene Therriault called the House Finance Committee meeting to order at 8:40 a.m. PRESENT Co-Chair Hanley Representative Kohring Co-Chair Therriault Representative Martin Representative Davis Representative Moses Representative Grussendorf Representative Mulder Representative Kelly Representatives Foster and Davies were absent from the meeting. ALSO PRESENT Representative Tom Brice; Guy Bell, Director, Division of Retirement and Benefits, Department of Administration; Bill Church, Retirement Systems Manager, Department of Administration; Michael Pauley, Staff, Senator Leman; Charles Northrip, Juneau; Pamela Northrip, Juneau; Marianne Mills, Vice President, League of Women Voters; Lauren Champagne, National Association of Social Workers; Fabienne Peter-Contesse, Juneau; Phillip Gray, Juneau; Kim Poole, Juneau; Mary Graham, Juneau; Darla Madden, Juneau; Beverly Haywood, Unitarian Universalist Association; Karen Wood, Juneau; Mildred Boesser, Juneau; Mark Boesser, Juneau; Angela Munoz, City and Borough of Juneau Human, Rights Commission; Lawrence Woodall, Juneau; Marsha Buck, Juneau; Jason Nelson, Douglas; Beth Kerttula, Juneau; Ann Northrip, Student, Juneau; Kirsten Bomengen, Juneau; Tom Gordy, Christian Coalition, Juneau; Sarah Boesser, Juneau; Maureen Longworth, Physician, Juneau; David Rogers, Juneau; Caren Robinson, Alaska Women's Lobby, Juneau; Carol Anderson, Juneau; Wilson Valentine, Minister, Episcopal Church, Juneau; Willie Anderson, Juneau; Linda Hemphill, Juneau; Marissa Williams, Douglas; Leanne Griffin, Juneau; Darien Wahl, Juneau; Lin Davis, Juneau. The following testified via the teleconference network: Tom Rachal, Anchorage; Elliott Dennis, Anchorage; Al Incontro, Anchorage; Patricia Mark, Anchorage; Nancy Kailing, President, Parents and Friends of Lesbian and Gays, Fairbanks; Janet Roberts, Fairbanks; Mari Galereave, Fairbanks; Patrick Marlow, Fairbanks; Howard Bess, Minister, Mat-su; Richard Collins, Fairbanks; Willa Frey, Minister, Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints, Fairbanks; Richard Kemnitz, Social Action Committee, Unitarian Universal Fellowship of Fairbanks, Fairbanks; Christine McGarvin, President, Social Action Committee, Unitarian Universal Fellowship of Fairbanks, Fairbanks; Patty Kearson, Fairbanks; Rowena Gross, Fairbanks; Elaine Williamson, Fairbanks; Marina Day, Fairbanks; Jennifer Rudinger, Executive Director, Alaska Civil Liberties, Union, Anchorage; Allison Mendel, Attorney, Anchorage; Frederick Hillman, Anchorage; Norman Schlittler, Co-Chair, Parents and Friends of Lesbian and Gays (PFLAG), Anchorage; Connie Faipeas, Anchorage; Mari Jamieson, Anchorage; Dan Carter, Anchorage. SUMMARY HB 323 "An Act relating to the calculation of credited service in the public employees' retirement system for noncertificated employees of school districts, regional educational attendance areas, and state boarding schools; and providing for an effective date." CSHB 323 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal impact note by the Department of Administration, 5/01/98. SB 235 "An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Certified Real Estate Appraisers." CSSB 235 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by the Department of Commerce and Economic Development. SJR 42 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to marriage. CSSJR 42 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal impact note by the Office of the Governor, 3/10/98. HOUSE BILL NO. 323 "An Act relating to the calculation of credited service in the public employees' retirement system for noncertificated employees of school districts, regional educational attendance areas, and state boarding schools; and providing for an effective date." REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE, SPONSOR, testified in support of SB 235. He explained that the legislation addresses an inequity that exists within state schools. Currently, certificated school district employees receive a full year retirement credit for each school year worked. The school year is generally 170 - 180 days. Noncertificated school employees receive day-per-day credit toward retirement. The legislation would allow noncertificated employees to receive a full year credit for each school year they work. Employee participation would be optional. Employees who opt-in would pay for the additional credit. There would be no additional cost to the employer. Representative Brice reviewed the legislation. Section 1 delineates the calculation for employee payments. Sections 2 and 3 allow employees to opt-in to the program. New employees have a three-month window of opportunity to opt in. Current employees have six months to opt-in. Employees that are currently inactive have three months to opt-in to the program. Co-Chair Therriault clarified that employees cannot buy back past year's service. Individual employees are given the option of participating. The option to participate is irrevocable. GUY BELL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT AND BENEFITS, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION provided information on HB 323. He clarified that employees will pay the full cost of the program. He explained that the surcharge is paid entirely by the employee who elects to go with the higher rate and the 12-month retirement credit. Co-Chair Therriault questioned if payments would be prorated or taken out at the end of the school year. Representative Brice stated that payments would be taken out monthly during their period of employment. Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 on behalf of Representative Brice (copy on file). Amendment 1 would delete "on or after the date that the administrator accepts it" on page 2, line 17 and page 3, line 4 and insert "for the school year in which the election is accepted by the administrator." There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2 on behalf of Representative Brice (copy on file). Amendment 2 would add the Alaska Vocational Technical Center. Representative Brice explained that the amendment was recommended by the Administration. He observed that the Kotzebue Vocational Center is operated by the school district. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Co-Chair Therriault referred to the fiscal note. The fiscal note would fund $116.5 thousand dollars for contractors to update the Division's computer system. BILL CHURCH, RETIREMENT SYSTEMS MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION provided information on the Department's fiscal note. The fiscal note is needed to update the present system. A separate code identifier must be developed for their old and new systems. Representative Kelly MOVED to report CSHB 323 (FIN) out of Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSHB 323 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal impact note by the Department of Administration, 5/01/98. SENATE BILL NO. 235 "An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Certified Real Estate Appraisers." MICHAEL PAULEY, LEGISLATIVE STAFF, SENATOR LEMAN testified in support of the legislation on behalf of the sponsor, Senator Leman. He explained that SB 235 extends the termination date of the Board of Certified Real Estate Appraisers to June 30, 2004. The Board's primary functions are reviewing and approving applications for initial certification of residential, general and training appraisers; approving courses for initial certification and continuing education; and directing investigations and resolutions of complaints against real estate appraisers. Representative Kelly MOVED to report CSSB 235 (FIN) out of Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSSB 235 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by the Department of Commerce and Economic Development. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 42 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to marriage. MICHAEL PAULEY, LEGISLATIVE STAFF, SENATOR LEMAN testified in support of the legislation on behalf of Senate Health and Social Services Committee, sponsor of SJR 42. He explained that the Senate Joint Resolution 42 would give Alaskan voters the opportunity to decide if same sex marriages should be recognized in the state of Alaska. Superior Court Judge Peter Michalski, on Feb. 27 discovered in the state Constitution's Right To Privacy, the right to choice a life partner. He went on to say that the state's "failure to provide public recognition" of a person's private choice, violates the state Constitution's right to privacy. He pointed out that this decision could result in Alaska's becoming the first and only political jurisdiction in the world to recognize homosexual marriage. The federal government recognizes marriage as a union that can exist only between one man and one woman. He observed that the federal law was supported by Alaska's congressional delegation and signed into law by President Clinton. He maintained that marriage is a culture institution with profound importance. He asserted that redefining the institution of marriage raises hundreds of cultural and legal questions. He maintained that the people of Alaska should decide a decision of this magnitude. TOM RACHAL, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference in opposition to SJR 42. He observed the benefits of a marriage contract. Only marriage assures social security, Medicare and veteran's benefits to spouses. Only marriage grants the right to make emergency medical decisions for a spouse. ELLIOTT DENNIS, PARENTS, FRIENDS AND FAMILIES OF LESBIANS AND GAYS, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference in opposition to SJR 42. He asserted that passage of the legislation would increase violent acts against gays and lesbians. He stressed that the Constitution should not be changed to legitimate discrimination. He spoke in support of equal and fair treatment. AL INCONTRO, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference in opposition to SJR 42. He noted that the Alaska Supreme Court is in the process of considering the issue. PATRICIA MARK, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference in opposition to SJR 42. She maintained that it is not government's place to tell adults that they can or cannot marry. NANCY KAILING, PRESIDENT, PARENTS AND FRIENDS OF LESBIAN AND GAYS, FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference in opposition to SJR 42. She expressed concern that passage of the legislation would increase hate crimes. She has received death threats and hateful messages in relation to her stance on homosexuals. JANET ROBERTS, FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference in opposition to SJR 42. She asserted that the court is doing its job to balance the will of the majority in a society with many traditions. MARI GALEREAVE, FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference in opposition to SJR 42. She stressed the importance of equal protection. She maintained that it is unconstitutional to deny equal protection to any group of people. She thought that SJR 42 would be declared unconstitutional. PATRICK MARLOW, FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference in opposition to SJR 42. He emphasized that passage of SJR 42 would increase hate crimes. He stressed that the issue should be considered after the court sets down its final ruling. HOWARD BESS, MINISTER, MAT-SU testified via teleconference in opposition to SJR 42. He expressed concerns regarding justice and equality. He pointed out that he is an evangelical Christian. He stressed that it is a legal not religious matter. CHARLES NORTHRIP, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SJR 42. He is a born again Christian, ordain Deacon and an elder. He compared attitudes on segregation and homosexuality. He noted the state of Alaska's strong protection of individual rights. He maintained that the courts can be right even when an apparent majority believe they are wrong. He observed that his son's homosexual marriage does not diminish his own. PAMELA NORTHRIP, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SJR 42. She recounted her experience in the church and as a schoolteacher. She pointed out that our society still laughs at "gay" jokes the way it once laughed at ethnic minorities, Natives and women. LAUREN CHAMPAGNE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS testified in opposition to SJR 42. She stressed that the Association believes in social and legal acceptance and recognition of gay and lesbian people. She maintained that the legislation would be dangerous and damaging to Alaskan children. Gay and lesbian youths are more vulnerable to depression, substance abuse and suicide. They are 2-3 times at greater risk for suicide than other youth. Gay and lesbian youths face a hostile environment and social isolation as they develop a sense of self. She noted that there is a study that shows that schools with gay and lesbian alliances have an increase of other students bringing issues of difference to the adults in the schools. MARIANNE MILLS, VICE PRESIDENT, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS testified in opposition to SJR 42. The League passed a resolution opposing SJR 42 at its April 17, 1998 convention in Kenai (copy on file). (Tape Change, HFC 98 - 146, Side 2) Co-Chair Therriault noted that there is a copy of the national Association of Social Workers Alaska Chapter's policy statement in members' files (copy on file). JENNIFER RUDINGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA CIVIL LIBERTIES, UNION, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference in opposition to SJR 42. Due to difficulties with the teleconference committee Ms. Rudinger gave her testimony later in the meeting. RICHARD COLLINS, FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference in opposition to SJR 42. He asserted that the passage of the legislation would result in an increase of crimes against gays and lesbians. WILLA FREY, MINISTER, JESUS CHRIST OF LATER DAY SAINTS, FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference in opposition to SJR 42. She asserted that the legislation would discriminate against a significant portion of the state's population. RICHARD KEMNITZ, SOCIAL ACTION COMMITTEE, UNITARIAN UNIVERSAL FELLOWSHIP OF FAIRBANKS, FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference in opposition to SJR 42. Their Assembly passed a resolution in 1984 and 1996 affirming ceremonies of union between people of the same sex. CHRISTINE MCGARVIN, PRESIDENT, UNITARIAN UNIVERSAL FELLOWSHIP OF FAIRBANKS, FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference in opposition to SJR 42. She stated that the Fellowship supports marriage between any two committed persons regardless of gender. PATTY KEARSON, FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference in opposition to SJR 42. She observed that as a social worker working with emotionally disturbed molested youth that she has never come across an occasion where a homosexual abused a child. Gay and lesbian teenagers comprise up to 30 percent of completed youth suicides. Twenty-eight percent of gay and lesbian youths dropout of school because of harassment at school. Gay and lesbian youths make up 25 percent of youths living on the street. She asserted that passage of SJR 42 would increase these statistics because it would reinforce misinformation and fear. ROWENA GROSS, FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference in opposition to SJR 42. She stressed that the legislation should protect the rights of minorities. ELAINE WILLIAMSON, FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference in opposition to SJR 42. She observed that hate crimes and violence have increased in other states that have instituted gay and lesbian legislation. She urged the Committee to allow the court to settle the issue. MARINA DAY, FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference in opposition to SJR 42. She questioned if gays and lesbians that marry would be put in prison if the legislation passes. She noted that the constitutional amendment would allow the legislature to enact additional requirements related to marriage. JENNIFER RUDINGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA CIVIL LIBERTIES, UNION, ANCHORAGE continued her testified via teleconference in opposition to SJR 42. She asserted that the legislation subjects a right of personal choice to majority vote. She maintained that allowing personal autonomy and individual liberty would not hurt or disadvantage the right of the majority. She stated that there is no public interest for the legislature to protect. She maintained that morality is being legislated. She observed that founding father, James Madison wrote, "matters are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." She observed that the United States Supreme Court declared in 1967, that interracial marriages could not be lawfully banned under the Equal Protection Clause. ALLISON MENDEL, ATTORNEY, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference in opposition to SJR 42. She observed that the legal process in the Brown versus state case is not over. She stressed that the final decision will not be issued in less than two years. She thought that the federal law defining marriage would be challenged in court and struck down. She emphasized that the state of Alaska does not allow the federal government to decide its laws on other issues. There is an implication that constitutional litigation is not appropriate. Constitutional litigation is a mainstay of the system of separation of powers. The issue has yet to be reviewed by the Alaska Supreme Court. She expressed her surprise at the implication "that the state can't hold its own in this litigation and that if it goes to decision that the state won't have a fair opportunity to present its position on compelling state interest. If there is nothing really important about banning same sex marriages, I would think the state would be able to state its case in court and expect a fair outcome." She maintained that in proposing a ban on same sex marriage the legislature is essentially treating one class of citizens as convicted felons or as a class of individuals that present a public danger that has yet to be explained. She stressed the adverse affects on families of gays and lesbians. FABIENNE PETER-CONTESSE, JUNEAU testified against SJR 42. She questioned if homosexuals are any less deserving of rights than heterosexuals are. PHILLIP GRAY, JUNEAU testified in support of SJR 42. He did not think that a judge should be allowed to decide the issue. He estimated that 70 percent of Alaskans support a definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. He maintained that the legislation is in the best financial interest of the state of Alaska. He noted that the state of Alaska and businesses would not have to pay insurance and retirement benefits to homosexual and lesbian partners. He felt that homosexuals did not need the right of insurance or retirement benefits for their partners because "a national study has found that homosexuals have a considerably higher income level than most Americans". KIM POOLE, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SJR 42. She has been an ordained minister for 20 years. During those 20 years she has conducted numerous weddings. Most of the weddings have been traditional church weddings and some have been as unconventional as a horseback wedding in the Texas Panhandle and a ceremony on top of one of the Juneau glaciers. "Some of these couples have endured the trials and tribulations that come with a committed relationship and some have not. The ones that have endured have several qualities in their pre-marriage and post marriage lives. Qualities such as the ability to communicate with each other their needs and their dreams, the desire to make things work rather than to walk away, and the commitment that only the bond of love brings between two people. Those are qualities that cannot be legislated." "There are many of my friends sitting behind me today who would like to have their long term relationships of love recognized by the church and the state. Some have been together longer than the 20 years I have been ordained. I would love to be able to conduct their ceremonies of marriage and commitment." "It has been said that recognizing same-sex marriage will lead next to recognizing a marriage relationship between a father and a mother, or a brother and sister. We are not talking about incestuous relationships. There is no love in incest. We are talking about two consenting adults who desire to spend the rest of their lives together, something we should value for the stability of society". Ms. Poole expressed concern that the legislation would increase violence against homosexuals. "Since last Monday's testimony before the House Judiciary committee I have started receiving anonymous phone calls, untraceable by caller-K). I have been called a "fag lover" and even a "queer". At 2:00 in the morning they are rather disturbing calls. I do not have the option, professionally of "turning off my telephone to avoid the calls." Representative Kelly emphasized that threats can come from both sides. He stated that he had received threats from individuals in opposition to legislation that he introduced regarding domestic partnerships. MARY GRAHAM, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SJR 42. She read an essay by Roger Winters, "Freedom to Marry and the Pursuit of Happiness." "Marriage is the paramount adult relationship in our world. It is considered so fundamental and intimate it has primacy over citizenship. For example, in most states, you cannot be compelled to testify against your spouse. Thus, the relationship between mates is more important than the relationship of a citizen to government or society. Hardly anyone argues that people must be married. Few today support compelled or arranged marriages. Marriage is nevertheless encouraged by every means of persuasion society has. It is easy to enter legal marriage. Marriage has no substantial qualifications. There is no test of competence as partner or parent, no requirement that there be sex, no penalty for failing to have children, no proof that love be present. Marrying persons must be of opposite sexes, able to complete the applications, take required blood tests, competent to make a contract, and not too closely related by blood. Criminals, prisoners, child molesters, serial batterers, the infertile, and asexual are able to get legally married. Even gay and lesbian people are allowed to marry legally ... provided they marry the opposite sex. Marriage is the ticket of admission to true adulthood. There are many responsibilities and protections of law in marriage. To be free to choose to marry gives you material access too much that is important in life, especially at life's most difficult moments: the crisis of divorce, illness, or death. Resistance to legal same-sex marriage is at root an effort, conscious or not, to keep lesbians and gay men a fringe, less-than-grownup class, not allowed to be full partners in adult society. One simply cannot be an adult without freedom to marry (legally). Another key example: same-sex couples do not get to choose their next of kin. Their kinship is determined solely by blood, whether relatives are supportive and loving or hostile and punitive. That many same-sex couples are involved in long-term relationships indicates people are able to be really married, though considered legal strangers. That many churches hold ceremonies and since friends and neighbors attend these "weddings" shows same-sex "marriages" today often are socially and religiously affirmed and supported. Many same-sex couples wear traditional signs of marriage, such as rings on the wedding ring finger, and have the same surnames (by hyphen or by law). Freedom to marry is a huge part of the pursuit of happiness. It is wrong to deprive people of this fundamental American value based solely on their sex." Ms. Graham stated that a decision regarding civil rights should not be left to a vote by the majority of people in Alaska. DARLA MADDEN, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SJR 42. She stressed that she is not a political activist. She emphasized that SJR would divide the people of the state of Alaska. BEVERLY HAYWOOD, UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST ASSOCIATION testified in opposition to SJR 42. She observed that society has treated gays as second class citizens. KAREN WOOD, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SJR 42. She observed ballot initiative number 9 was a measure to amend the Oregon State Constitution, declaring homosexuality abnormal and perverse. She recalled heated debates and hate crimes that occurred at that time in Oregon. Hate crimes against gays, lesbians, people of color, religious minorities and women doubled during the period before and after the election. She expressed concern that gays, lesbians and other Alaskan minorities would be put at risk if SJR 42 is passed. FREDERICK HILLMAN, PHYSICIAN, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference in opposition to SJR 42. He maintained that SJR 42 is an attempt to control the lives of private citizens in how they form personal relationships. NORMAN SCHLITTLER, CO-CHAIR, PARENTS AND FRIENDS OF LESBIAN AND GAYS (PFLAG), ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference in opposition to SJR 42. He stressed that marriage is a personal matter and how marriage is recognized is a legal not legislative matter. CONNIE FAIPEAS, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference in opposition to SJR 42. She asked how her relationship would "destroy the free world." MARI JAMIESON, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference in opposition to SJR 42. She maintained that the fear that same sex marriage would erode the fabric of family values is unfounded. MILDRED BOESSER, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SJR 42. She noted that she and husband celebrated their 50th year of marriage. She is a mother and grandmother who came to Alaska with her husband as missionaries for the Episcopal Church. She stressed that "whatever you feel about gay and lesbian persons is not the issue here. The issue is about changing the Constitution to make sure that some of our citizens are forever denied equal treatment. It's about writing into our Constitution that it's all right to discriminate. MARK BOESSER, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SJR 42. He observed that the Episcopal has expressed the opinion that homosexual persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws with all other citizens and has called upon our society to see that such protection is provided in actuality. He maintained that the legislation would plainly deny equal rights and equal protection to a number of the citizens of this State. Mr. Boesser referred to the section giving the legislature permission to enact additional requirements related to marriage. "Where, I ask you, might this start or end? Any number of persons in this room could come up with a downright frightening array of possible restrictions on marriage - or divorce, for that matter - including ones with "who-knows-what" price tags attached to them." ANGELA MUNOZ, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU HUMAN, RIGHTS COMMISSION testified in opposition to SJR 42. She noted that the Commission believes that SJR 42 invades an individual's right to privacy and targets the gay and lesbian population. She expressed concern that the costly and lengthy litigation will follow. She stressed that the rise in hate crimes against gays and lesbians has been documented in other states. LAWRENCE WOODALL, JUNEAU, left written testimony that was read by Jason Nelson, Juneau. "Thank you for the fair and just treatment in the course of this legislative investigation of SJR42. I realize that this legislature has already wasted much time and expense pushing this issue in the wrong direction. This issue arose a few months ago when Judge Peter Michaelski ruled that SB308 was unconstitutional and asked the state to provide a compelling interest for the law. Now if Sen. Loren Leman is correct that gay marriages will inevitably devastate our society, than there must be hundreds of proven compelling reasons for denying gay couples the right to marry. Just give one of those reasons to the judge and its all over. The state will have fulfilled the legal requirement for the statue to become law. If the state cannot come up with a valid compelling interest, then there is no reason to mess with our constitution. The Senate Republicans sure thought they had some good reasons during their floor debate. Apparently they were afraid to submit their reasons to a "constitutionality test" by the Alaskan courts. They would rather leave the decision to the voters who can be influenced by their homophobic rhetoric. Ironically this ballot amendment will most likely also be declared unconstitutional and thrown out by the courts. Marriage is a civil right that cannot be determined by popular vote. It is a fundamental right to family and fulfillment that must be available to all members of our society equally. How would you feel if your marriage were on next falls ballot? Please let the courts complete their work on this issue and do not allow constitutional amendments without reason. I urge you to allow this resolution to remain in committee." JASON NELSON, DOUGLAS testified in opposition to SJR 42. He referred to the "Report of the Secretary's Task Force on Youth Suicide", U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1992 (copy on file). He reiterated that suicide is the leading cause of death among gays and lesbian teenagers. He read from the report: "When you have been told that you are sick, bad, and wrong for being who you are, you begin to believe it. Gay youth have frequently internalized a negative image of themselves. Those who hide their identity are surrounded by homophobic attitudes and remarks, often by unknowing family members and peers, that have a profound impact on them." He recounted personal experiences as a gay teenager. He maintained that homosexuality is not a choice. MARSHA BUCK, CO-CHAIR, PARENTS, FAMILIES AND FRIENDS OF LESBIANS AND GAYS, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SJR 42. She stressed that Alaskans "don't need to support same sex marriage to be able to see discrimination when it stares us in the face." She added that "Alaskans don't need to support same sex marriage to be able to understand that we all will be hurt by the divisiveness and hateful rhetoric that will occur in our great state if S JR 42 ends up as a ballot measure." BETH KERTTULA, ATTORNEY, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SJR 42. She stressed that all Alaskans benefit from the constitutional right to privacy. She stressed that discrimination costs and questioned "why bother to have courts if you don't allow them to do their jobs." She noted that the resolution would cut many Alaskans off from the benefits of social security, health care and veteran's rights. She observed that the state of Alaska would end up paying more. She maintained that the legislation would increase public safety costs. She urged that the Committee not pass an amendment that institutionalizes discrimination. ANN NORTHRIP, STUDENT, JUNEAU testified against the SJR 42. She stressed that she was taught Constitution protected the rights of minorities and that people came to America for religious freedom. She stressed that discrimination, regardless of what it is aimed at, is not funny. KIRSTEN BOMENGEN, ATTORNEY, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SJR 42. She expressed concern with the disregard and disrespect that is being shown for the state's judiciary. She maintained that the legislation would short-circuit the court's review and observed that the court process would take another year or two. She related experiences in Bosnia y Herzigovina. She stressed that in Yugoslavia, leaders played to religious and ethnic differences that lead to hostility, death and economic ruin. She pointed out that George Wallace was admired by many as he blocked attempts to end segregation in Georgia's schools. She observed that good leadership does not crate a platform for feeding divisiveness. TOM GORDY, MINISTER, CHRISTIAN COALITION, JUNEAU testified in support of SJR 42. He questioned if the state has the right to define what it wants to recognize publicly as marriage. He observed that according to Judge Michalski's decision it is a private choice. Judge Michalski stated that "Government intrusion into the choice of a life partner encroaches on the intimate personal decisions of the individual. The Constitution does not allow unless the state can show a compelling interest "necessitating the abridgement of the constitutionally protected right." Mr. Gordy maintained that Judge Michalski's decision implicates that marriage would be allowed between person's whose relationship is closer than first cousins. He concluded that the decision could lead to incestuous and bigamous marriages. He observed that Alaska would be the first state to recognize same sex marriage. He stressed that SJR 42 allows the people of Alaska to decide if they want to define "marriage". DAN CARTER, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference in opposition to SJR 42. He stressed that the ballot campaign would be divisive. He estimated that civil rights and voting rights for blacks would have failed if they were decided at the ballot box. He noted that bigamy, incest and marriage of children are illegal because the state has a compelling state interest to make them illegal. He questioned the compelling state interest in preventing two consenting adults from marrying. SARAH BOESSER, JUNEAU testified against SJR 42. She observed that the court decision states that: "The Marriage Code now specifically prohibits same-sex marriage, bigamy and marrying anyone closer than one's first cousin." The decision only deals with same-sex marriage. She disagreed that the decision would affect the legality of incest of bigamy. She stressed that it is too early to consider mending the Constitution's basic privacy rights. Ms. Boesser maintained that the ballot campaign would declare open season on her and her families. For example, at a Senate Finance Committee hearing a pastor declared that the Bible says homosexuals should be stoned to death. She stressed that the real issue is that the bill is premature because the lower court decision has a long way to go to be resolved at the state and federal court appeals. MAUREEN LONGWORTH, PHYSICIAN, JUNEAU testified against SJR 42. She stressed that the legislation would discriminate against a group of people. She asserted that it is a proven and medical fact that the gay lifestyle is normal. It occurs spontaneously in approximately 15 percent of the population regardless of gender, background, religion or ethnicity. It exists in most species. The human species is the only one that honors long term committed relationships with a contract that brings with it legal and financial benefits. Marriage offers benefits that help a couple to provide for one another. She maintained that to pass legislation that violates these rights for Alaskans would be legalized discrimination and would violate the Constitution. She observed that gays and lesbians who are now the only minority group in the United States without equal rights. DAVID ROGERS, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SJR 42. He maintained that SJR 42 promotes discrimination. He asserted the legislation would make some persons permanent second class citizens. He stressed that there is no historical precedent, legal theory, religious doctrine or constitutional amendment can change that fact. CAREN ROBINSON, ALASKA WOMEN'S LOBBY, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SJR 42. She maintained that the legislation implies that it is okay to discrimination. CAROL ANDERSON, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SJR 42. She observed that the ballot resolution does not question if same-sex marriages should be permitted. It asks if same-sex marriage should be prohibited. She maintained that SJR 42 is more of an opinion poll. She pointed out that there are no Alaskan or federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. She observed that the Committee hearing was televised and emphasized that their testimony could put gays and lesbians at risk. WILSON VALENTINE, MINISTER, EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SAINT BRENDAN'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH, JUNEAU testified against SJR 42. (Tape Change, HFC 98 - 147, Side 2) Mr. Valentine observed that clergy performs the majority of marriages. He stressed that the passage of SJR 42 will put clergy in a bad position. He agreed that the legislation would discriminate. He urged members to stand against discrimination. He compared the length of time that SJR 42 has been debated to the length of debate on a subsistence amendment. WILLIE ANDERSON, JUNEAU testified against SJR 42. He stated that as an African-American he has experienced discrimination. He noted that at one time African-Americans could not marry white Americans. Slavery was once legal in America. Native and non-whites were once held in separate classes. He maintained that the legislation would legalize discrimination. LINDA HEMPHILL, JUNEAU stated that she supports SJR 42. She observed that if there were no unions of men and women that there would be no offspring. She asserted that when the foundational block of society is chipped away the foundation begins to crumble and the end result is no society. MARISSA WILLIAMS, DOUGLAS testified in opposition to SJR 42. She stressed that the measure is contrary to the Constitution, faith and ideals. LEANNE GRIFFIN, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SJR 42. She stated that SJR 42 is contrary to what she was taught about equal protection under the law. DARIEN WAHL, JUNEAU spoke in support of SJR 42. She maintained that it is an issue of moral perversity. She asserted that same-sex marriages would undermine the foundation of our society. LIN DAVIS, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SJR 42. She stressed that the amendment would violate privacy rights and equal protection. Mr. Pauley responded to arguments against SJR 42. He summarized arguments by previous testifiers. He observed that testifiers compared SJR 42 to the previous ban on interracial marriage. He observed that the former Joint Chief of Staff, Colin Powell stated "skin color is a benign nonbehavior characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavior characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument." He observed that testifiers stated that SJR 42 would constitute discrimination against a class of people. He observed that the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from Lynn Wardle, who is a professor of family law. He pointed out that the law divides human relationships into three categories. The first class is prohibited relationships such as incest. The second category is tolerated relationships such as two heterosexuals cohabiting together. The third category is preferred relationships. Marriage is a preferred relationship. He observed that there is a desire to move homosexual relationships from the tolerated category to the preferred category. Mr. Pauley maintained that SJR 42 is not premature. He observed that the Hawaii Supreme Court could issue a decision legalizing same-sex marriage before Hawaiian voters have a chance to vote on a constitutional amendment. He recalled testimony by the Department of Law that SJR 42 would bring an expensive lawsuit to an end. He stressed that the court decision could be settled before the year 2000. Mr. Pauley maintained that SJR 42 does not exasperate the divisiveness of the issue. He acknowledged that the Hawaiian court could not find a compelling state interest. He observed that courts require evidence. He stressed that it is impossible to document the harms of an institution that has never existed. Co-Chair Therriault questioned the necessity of lines 9 - 11: "The legislature may enact additional requirements related to marriage to the extend permitted by the Constitution of the United States and this constitution." Mr. Pauley stated that the court's decision could threaten the ability to restrict marriage to two persons. He observed that the ban on interracial marriage has already been declared unconstitutional under the federal Constitution. Co-Chair Therriault noted that the legislation carries a standard $3.0 thousand dollar fiscal note. Representative Kelly MOVED to report CSSJR 42 (FIN) out of Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSSJR 42 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal impact note by the Office of the Governor, 3/10/98. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:28 p.m. House Finance Committee 18 5/04/98 a.m.