HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE April 27, 1998 1:18 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Joe Green, Chairman Representative Con Bunde, Vice Chairman Representative Brian Porter Representative Norman Rokeberg Representative Jeannette James Representative Eric Croft Representative Ethan Berkowitz MEMBERS ABSENT All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR SENATE BILL NO. 313 "An Act relating to sponsor certification of initiative petitions; relating to sponsor identification during petition circulation; relating to the voidability of an initiated law; placing limitations on the compensation that may be paid to sponsors of initiative petitions; prohibiting payments to persons who sign or refrain from signing initiative petitions; and repealing procedures for filing a supplementary initiative petition." - MOVED SB 313 OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 344 "An Act relating to paternity establishment and child support; relating to the crimes of criminal nonsupport and aiding the nonpayment of child support; and amending Rule 37(b)(2)(D), Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED CSHB 344(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 42(FIN) Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to marriage. - HEARD AND HELD (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: SB 313 SHORT TITLE: PROCEDURES FOR INITIATIVES SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) SHARP Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 2/16/98 2526 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 2/16/98 2527 (S) JUD, FIN 3/13/98 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 3/13/98 (S) MINUTE(JUD) 3/18/98 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 3/18/98 (S) MINUTE(JUD) 3/19/98 2894 (S) JUD RPT 1DP 2NR 3/19/98 2894 (S) DP: TAYLOR NR: ELLIS, PARNELL 3/19/98 2894 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV) 3/19/98 2894 (S) FIN REFERRAL WAIVED 3/20/98 (S) RLS AT 11:55 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 3/20/98 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 3/23/98 2947 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/23/98 3/23/98 2951 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 3/23/98 2952 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 3/23/98 2952 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 313 3/23/98 2952 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E2 3/23/98 2952 (S) HALFORD NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION 3/24/98 2976 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP 3/24/98 2977 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 3/25/98 2733 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 3/25/98 2733 (H) JUDICIARY 4/20/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 4/20/98 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 4/23/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 4/23/98 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 4/27/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 344 SHORT TITLE: PATERNITY/CHILD SUPPORT/NONSUPPORT CRIMES SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/23/98 2114 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 1/23/98 2115 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE 1/23/98 2115 (H) INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (ADM) 1/23/98 2115 (H) 3 ZERO FNS (2-ADM, REV) 1/23/98 2115 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER 2/10/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 2/10/98 (H) MINUTE(HES) 2/17/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 2/17/98 (H) MINUTE(HES) 2/18/98 2348 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) NT 2DP 2DNP 2NR 2/18/98 2348 (H) DP: BUNDE, PORTER; DNP: VEZEY, KEMPLEN; 2/18/98 2348 (H) NR: GREEN, BRICE 2/18/98 2348 (H) INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (ADM) 1/23/98 2/18/98 2348 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM) 2/18/98 2348 (H) 3 ZERO FNS (REV, 2-ADM) 1/23/98 4/01/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 4/01/98 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 4/17/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 4/17/98 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 4/20/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 4/20/98 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 4/23/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 4/23/98 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 4/27/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: SJR 42 SHORT TITLE: CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RE MARRIAGE SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 3/02/98 2701 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 3/02/98 2701 (S) JUDICIARY, FINANCE 3/09/98 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 3/09/98 (S) MINUTE(JUD) 3/10/98 2807 (S) JUD RPT CS 4DP 1DNP SAME TITLE 3/10/98 2807 (S) DP: TAYLOR, PARNELL, MILLER, PEARCE 3/10/98 2807 (S) DNP: ELLIS 3/10/98 2807 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO SJR & CS (GOV) 3/24/98 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 3/31/98 (S) FIN AT 1:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532 3/31/98 (S) FIN AT 7:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532 4/01/98 (S) FIN AT 7:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 4/02/98 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 4/06/98 3158 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP 1DNP 1NR SAME TITLE 4/06/98 3158 (S) DP: SHARP, PHILLIPS, PARNELL, DONLEY, 4/06/98 3158 (S) TORGERSON; DNP: ADAMS; NR: PEARCE 4/06/98 3158 (S) PREVIOUS FN APPLIES (GOV) 4/08/98 (S) RLS AT 11:20 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 4/08/98 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 4/16/98 3294 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 1NR 4/16/98 4/16/98 3297 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 4/16/98 3298 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 4/16/98 3298 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y4 N16 4/16/98 3299 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING Y15 N5 4/16/98 3300 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSJR 42(FIN) 4/16/98 3300 (S) PASSED Y14 N6 4/16/98 3300 (S) ADAMS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION 4/17/98 3334 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING 4/17/98 3334 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y14 N6 4/17/98 3346 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 4/18/98 3071 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 4/18/98 3071 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE 4/27/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 WITNESS REGISTER MARILYN WILSON, Legislative Assistant to Senator Bert Sharp Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 516 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3004 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 313 on behalf of Senator Sharp. BARBARA MIKLOS, Director Child Support Enforcement Division Department of Revenue 550 West 7th, Suite 310 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone: (907) 269-6804 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 344. DAN BRANCH, Assistant Attorney General Human Services Section Civil Division Department of Law P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300 Telephone: (907) 465-3600 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 344. DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney Office of the Administrative Director Alaska Court System 820 West 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2005 Telephone: (907) 264-8265 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 344. JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norman Rokeberg Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 24 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-4968 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 344. SENATOR LOREN LEMAN Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 113 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-2095 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SJR 42. JACQUELINE HUTCHINS 3520 Sailboard Circle Anchorage, Alaska 99516 Telephone: (907) 345-2063 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SJR 42. GEORGE HANSEN 4860 Folker Street Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Telephone: (907) 563-7518 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SJR 42. SCOTT SMITH P.O. Box 2744 Valdez, Alaska 99686 Telephone: (907) 835-3030 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SJR 42. TAMARA WHEELER 1211 Redwood Court Anchorage, Alaska 99508 Telephone: (907) 278-3912 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42. AL INCONTRO 2235 Daybreak Court Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone: (907) 274-9226 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. NORMAN SCHLITTER 2521 Banbury Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99504 Telephone: (907) 333-0116 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. TOM RACHAL P.O. Box 90122 Anchorage, Alaska 99509 Telephone: (907) 333-1050 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. ELMER KANETA 6251 East 41st Street Anchorage, Alaska 99504 Telephone: (907) 333-1852 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. PATRICIA MARK, Law Clerk Alaska Civil Liberties Union 419 Barrow Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone: (Not provided) POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. ELLEN TWINAME 5306 Caribou Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99508 Telephone: (907) 338-5343 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. ALLISON MENDEL 8830 Banjo Circle Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Telephone: (907) 279-5001 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. MILDRED BOESSER 17585 Lena Loop Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 789-1445 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. JASON NELSON 909 First Street Douglas, Alaska 99824 Telephone: (907) 364-2865 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. SYLVIA DEAN 2225 Meadow Lane Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 789-3512 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42. MARSHA BUCK, Co-Chair Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays 8445 Kimberly Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 789-6167 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. STEVEN JACQUIER P.O. Box 90 Dillingham, Alaska 99576 Telephone: (907) 289-2118 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. ROBERTA GILLOTT P.O. Box 671 Dillingham, Alaska 99576 Telephone: (907) 842-1361 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. LORNA PLETNIKOFF P.O. Box 864 Dillingham, Alaska 99576 Telephone: (907) 842-5981 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. ANDREA PETITFILS P.O. Box 2122 Nome, Alaska 99762 Telephone: (907) 443-4635 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. TAYLOR BURNS, Representative Alaska Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers P.O. Box 305 Nome, Alaska 99762 Telephone: (907) 443-3912 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. THERESA MILLER 2921 Glacierwood Court Juneau, Alaska 99802 Telephone: (907) 790-4463 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42. ROSEZELLA MICHALSKY P.O. Box 210896 Auke Bay, Alaska 99821 Telephone: (907) 465-2889 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42. UTA THOMAS P.O. Box 2697 Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Telephone: (907) 262-1690 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42. HOLLY HALL P.O. Box 2186 Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Telephone: (907) 262-4280 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42. KEN KIRKLAND P.O. Box 1530 Valdez, Alaska 99686 Telephone: (907) 835-4798 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42. RHODA ESSARY P.O. Box 2178 Valdez, Alaska 99686 Telephone: (907) 835-5920 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42. AUDREY VAN WAGONER P.O. Box 1896 Cordova, Alaska 99574 Telephone: (907) 424-3774 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42. SUSAN PHILLIPS 1760 Evergreen Avenue Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 463-2695 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. PETER OTSEA 215 Gastineau Avenue Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 463-3009 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SJR 42. JEANIE WILLIAMSON 2454 Killamey Way Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Telephone: (907) 479-8242 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SJR 42. PATTY KEARON P.O. Box 72268 Fairbanks, Alaska 99707 Telephone: (907) 451-8132 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. MARI GALEREAVE P.O. Box 212 Ester, Alaska 99725 Telephone: (Not provided) POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. SARA BOESSER, Representative Committee for Equality 9365 View Drive Juneau, Alaska 99802 Telephone: (907) 789-9604 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. MARY GRAHAM 235 5th Street, Number 2 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 586-4938 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. TOM GORDY, State Director Christian Coalition of Alaska P.O. Box 34832 Juneau, Alaska 99803 Telephone: (907) 789-3953 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SJR 42. LIZ DODD 100 Parks Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 463-2601 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SJR 42. SUSAN CLARK, Representative Alaska State League of Women Voters 1109 "C" Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 586-6952 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. CAROL ANDERSON P.O. Box 22493 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Telephone: (Not provided) POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. BETH KERTTULA 10601 Horizon Drive Juneau, Alaska 99802 Telephone: (Not provided) POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. WILLIAM ESSARY P.O. Box 2178 Valdez, Alaska 99686 Telephone: (907) 835-5920 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. RAY HALLEY P.O. Box 1515 Valdez, Alaska 99686 Telephone: (907) 835-2131 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42. RAY MACY P.O. Box 614 Valdez, Alaska 99686 Telephone: (907) 835-2533 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42. BRUCE VAN BUSKIRK P.O. Box 614 Valdez, Alaska 99686 Telephone: (907) 835-2533 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42. DANIEL COLLISON, Chairperson Southeast Alaska Gay and Lesbian Alliance P.O. Box 21466 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Telephone: (907) 586-1107 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. DAVID ROGERS P.O. Box 33932 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Telephone: (907) 586-1107 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. CAREN ROBINSON, Representative Alaska Women's Lobby P.O. Box 33202 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Telephone: (907) 586-1107 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. DAVID JACKSON P.O. Box 32333 Juneau, Alaska 99803 Telephone: (Not provided) POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. SUZAN FITZGERALD 4484 Hillcrest Drive Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 780-6649 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. ANN NORTHRIP 2810 Fritz Cove Road Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 789-3554 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. WILLIE ANDERSON 8443 Kimberly Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 780-4190 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42. MORISSA L. WILLIAMS P.O. Box 240791 Douglas, Alaska 99824 Telephone: (Not provided) POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. NOMA STEWART P.O. Box 305 Nome, Alaska 99762 Telephone: (907) 443-3912 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. LYN CONLON, Psychiatrist P.O. Box 305 Nome, Alaska 99762 Telephone: (907) 443-3912 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. CAROL McDANIEL P.O. Box 2122 Nome, Alaska 99762 Telephone: (907) 443-4635 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. CAROLE WHERRY 1528 Stellar Drive Kenai, Alaska 99611 Telephone: (907) 283-7772 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42. BETH BARRY P.O. Box 3524 Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Telephone: (907) 262-9270 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42. PATRICK MARLOW P.O. Box 83683 Fairbanks, Alaska 99708 Telephone: (907) 458-0913 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. NANCY KAILING P.O. Box 84680 Fairbanks, Alaska 99708 Telephone: (907) 479-4944 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. RICHARD COLLINS P.O. Box 83683 Fairbanks, Alaska 99708 Telephone: (907) 458-0913 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. BILL BRODY P.O. Box 82533 Fairbanks, Alaska 99708 Telephone: (907) 479-4139 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. ROWENA GROSS 321 Miller Hill Road Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Telephone: (907) 479-6676 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. MARY BISHOP 1555 Guss's Grind Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Telephone: (907) 452-2577 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. STEPHEN KAILING P.O. Box 84680 Fairbanks, Alaska 99708 Telephone: (907) 479-4944 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. RICHARD KEMNITZ, Social Action Committee Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Fairbanks P.O. Box 84734 Fairbanks, Alaska 99708 Telephone: (907) 457-9009 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. MARINA DAY P.O. Box 11 Ester, Alaska 99725 Telephone: (907) 474-8829 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. JEFF WALTERS P.O. Box 82708 Fairbanks, Alaska 99708 Telephone: (907) 457-3876 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. JANA PEIRCE 820 Rifle Road Fairbanks, Alaska 99712 Telephone: (907) 488-8692 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. MICHAEL JONES P.O. Box 6185 Sitka, Alaska 99835 Telephone: (907) 747-8384 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. TED DEATS, Legislative Secretary to Representative Terry Martin Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 502 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3783 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on own behalf in support of SJR 42. BRAD SINYON P.O. Box 3020 Valdez, Alaska 99686 Telephone: (907) 835-4275 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42. NOEL HEATON 1900 West 32nd, Suite C Anchorage, Alaska 99517 Telephone: (907) 272-2225 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42. SUSAN GALEREAVE P.O. Box 212 Ester, Alaska 99725 Telephone: (907) 479-8811 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. CECELIA HUNTER 1819 Muskox Trail Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Telephone: (907) 479-2754 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. LISA SLAYTON P.O. Box 85315 Fairbanks, Alaska 99708 Telephone: (907) 457-2787 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. SHELDON THOMPSON 162 Allegheny Way Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Telephone: (907) 456-2424 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42. DENA IVEY P.O. Box 80164 Fairbanks, Alaska 99708 Telephone: (907) 456-2471 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. JEAN BATTIG 720 Chena Ridge Road Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Telephone: (907) 479-0001 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. GERALDINE SMITH P.O. Box 35223 Fort Wainwright, Alaska 99703 Telephone: (907) 455-7611 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. ELAINE SCHROEDER, Psychotherapist 1706 Willow Drive Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 586-6879 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. NANCY SIMPSON, Marriage and Family Therapist 2270 Fritz Cove Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 780-1564 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. AMY SKILBRED P.O. Box 23122 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Telephone: (907) 780-4649 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. SHELLEY OWENS 19137 Randall Road Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 789-2525 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. KATHRYN SCHUBECK P.O. Box 744 Dillingham, Alaska 99576 Telephone: (907) 842-2867 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. KAREN KONOPACKI 831 West 13th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone: (907) 278-5179 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. CONNIE FAIPEAS 2846 Redwood Place Anchorage, Alaska 99508 Telephone: (907) 276-4137 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. SHARON RUDOLPH 1839 Thunder Bird Place Anchorage, Alaska 99508 Telephone: (907) 563-8558 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. DAN CARTER P.O. Box 210072 Anchorage, Alaska 99521 Telephone: (907) 274-9226 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. ELLIOTT DENNIS 1010 Wroth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone: (907) 258-0133 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. FABIENNE PETER-CONTESSE 2870 Linda Avenue Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 789-1313 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. KAREN WOOD 9626 Stikine Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 790-2941 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. SUSAN HARGIS P.O. Box 22493 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Telephone: (907) 586-2410 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. MARY HICKS Box 22565 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Telephone: (907) 364-2842 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. AIMEE OLEJASZ 870 Linda Avenue Juneau, Alaska 99802 Telephone: (907) 789-1313 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. KEVIN SAMPSON P.O. Box 140481 Anchorage, Alaska 99514 Telephone: (907) 333-0416 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. LARRY WOODARD (Address not provided) Telephone: (Not provided) POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. GINA COLLINS (Address not provided) Telephone: (Not provided) POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. KIM POOLE, Pastor United Methodist Church P.O. Box 22848 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Telephone: (907) 364-2110 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. ELIZABETH ANDREWS P.O. Box 23122 Juneau, Alaska 99802 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. ANGELA MU OZ P.O. Box 22713 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Telephone: (907) 586-4034 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. MELISSA HOWELL 1050 Salmon Creek Lane, Apartment 3-001 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 586-9730 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. ALLEN SHULER (ph) Address not provided Juneau, Alaska Telephone: (Not provided) POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42. LINDA HEMPHILL 8937 Haffner Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 790-2852 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42. JEAN FINDLEY P.O. Box 22866 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Telephone: (907) 586-3259 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 98-71, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:18 p.m. [stated as 3:18 on tape]. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Green, Bunde, Porter, and James. Representatives Berkowitz, Croft and Rokeberg arrived at 1:20 p.m., 1:25 p.m., and 2:05 p.m., respectively. SB 313 - PROCEDURES FOR INITIATIVES CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the first item of business would be SB 313, "An Act relating to sponsor certification of initiative petitions; relating to sponsor identification during petition circulation; relating to the voidability of an initiated law; placing limitations on the compensation that may be paid to sponsors of initiative petitions; prohibiting payments to persons who sign or refrain from signing initiative petitions; and repealing procedures for filing a supplementary initiative petition," sponsored by Senator Sharp. Number 0050 MARILYN WILSON, Legislative Assistant to Senator Bert Sharp, Alaska State Legislature, read the following sponsor statement on behalf of Senator Sharp: "It is often assumed that persons obtaining signatures on a ballot initiative are volunteers who believe strongly in their cause. Unfortunately, that is more often not the case. Instead, it is more likely these solicitors are signature bounty hunters who are paid by the sponsor of the initiative. "In an effort to bring the initiative process back to a more grassroots effort, Senate Bill 313 requires visual identification of name and voter registration identification number of the petition circulators and also prohibits payment per signature by the sponsor. This bill also prohibits paying a person to sign a petition. "In addition, existing law grants a 30-day extension to a sponsor if they are unsuccessful in obtaining the required number of verified signatures within the allowed time frame. Senate Bill 313 will eliminate this 30-day extension. This way, if the required number of signatures are not successfully obtained, the initiative simply does not appear on the ballot. "The flurry of initiatives that we are currently experiencing has resulted in the verification of signatures, and thus qualifying for the ballot, coming as late as the middle of April, resulting in eliminating the possibility of the legislature being able to react by crafting a similar statute. The number of initiatives appear to be growing, and the results may well be the Californization of our entire legislative process." Number 0196 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE said he thinks it is an excellent bill. He made a motion to move SB 313 from committee with the accompanying fiscal notes. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection. There being none, SB 313 moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee. HB 344 - PATERNITY/CHILD SUPPORT/NONSUPPORT Number 0229 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the committee would address HB 344, "An Act relating to paternity establishment and child support; relating to the crimes of criminal nonsupport and aiding the nonpayment of child support; and amending Rule 37(b)(2)(D), Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective date," sponsored by the House Rules Committee by request of the Governor. Number 0330 BARBARA MIKLOS, Director, Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED), Department of Revenue, came before the committee to explain HB 344. She said the legislation was introduced in order to comply with federal welfare reform requirements. In 1996, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act and ended welfare as we know it. They realized at the time that if they were going to get people off welfare permanently, poor families needed assistance in achieving self-sufficiency. One of the ways that self-sufficiency has been achieved is through child support. She explained they made many changes in child support legislation, and then required the states to comply with those changes. Last year, SB 154 passed the legislature, which made a lot of the changes, but the complete package was not passed. Ms. Miklos informed the committee that HB 344 finishes the package. Some of the provisions weren't included because people realized we had more time to comply. She noted there has been technical amendments, and many of the requirements were changed with the technical amendments. The department has attempted to put only things in the bill that are required by welfare reform. She said, "There are a couple of things that we realize that we can take out afterwards and would be glad to talk to you about those things." Ms. Miklos stated that if the legislation is not passed this year, the federal government has said they would penalize the state of Alaska approximately $15 million by ending all federal funding for child support, and eventually ending the Tannif (ph) bock grant, which is about $63 million to the state of Alaska. She urged the committee to pass the legislation. Number 0404 MS. MIKLOS indicated she would review the highlights of the bill. The legislation requires that all employers report all new hires or rehires within 20 days to CSED. The legislation gives the courts the authority to revoke sport fishing and hunting licenses in some criminal cases and in contempt of court cases. She said the bill mandates that social security numbers be provided for child support purposes on applications for drivers licenses, and hunting and sport fishing licenses. It gives the child support liens from other states the same standing as Alaskan liens. The bill gives the courts the authority to hold a person in contempt for failing to honor an administrative child support subpoena. The rest of the changes are technical changes in definitions or changes to make things consistent. CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to a license revocation and said if that license is used in a person's livelihood, is there a legal problem with that? Number 0499 DAN BRANCH, Assistant Attorney General, Human Services Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, responded that he doesn't believe so. CHAIRMAN GREEN said if we assume the same lien that would be applied if a person has moved to Alaska from another state, does that, in any way, cause any problem with Alaska accepting other state's laws? He said sometimes there are conflicts with laws between states. MR. BRANCH indicated he doesn't believe there would be a problem. He said the lien would have to be valid in the law of the state in which it's issued. Every state has to meet the same federal mandates. Every state will be required to give every other state child support liens (indisc.) and credit. Mr. Branch pointed out that the way the legislation is drafted, the department would expect that the lien would be recorded in the same way that our child support liens are recorded. Basically, it would open a door, for example, for Montana to record one of its child support liens in Alaska. At that point, it would be treated as if it were a child support lien of Alaska. CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "And by so accepting, we wouldn't necessarily imply anything that we might not accept from say Montana. Maybe they have helmet law that's different, or some other law that has nothing to do with this. This acceptance would not create any kind of an implied (indisc.)." MR. BRANCH said he doesn't believe it would be any type of waiver of state sovereign powers. Number 0604 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked what the opportunity is for reciprocity using the Montana example. He asked how many other states might accept Alaska's liens. MR. BRANCH responded, "Every single one." He stated all the states are mandated by the same federal laws to have legal procedures that allow for Alaska's, and every other state's, child support liens to be treated as if they arose in their state. Mr. Branch stated they are all looking for the same penalties. CHAIRMAN GREEN said if Alaska was to lose $10 million, that would be a significant amount of money. He pointed out that perhaps there are some states where that wouldn't be such a big issue. He asked if the dollar amount is $10 million to each state that doesn't comply, or is it proportional to something else like population. MS. MIKLOS responded that it is all the federal money that goes into child support. A bigger state would have more money. She noted it is all the federal money that goes into public assistance block grants. Number 0735 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES said she has absolutely no problem making people who owe child support to pay their child support. Her objection to the legislation relates to several issues, but mostly it is a demand from the federal government for us to do this or they'll take away our money. She stated, "And I guess I'm as far to the right as you can get on that, Mr. Chairman, because it doesn't make any difference to me if it's child support or any of the other issues. I am up to here with the federal government telling me I must do it their way or they'll take back their money. And I say take the money and go home and we'll do it our way." She indicated she will be a "no vote" on the bill. Number 0808 REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ referred to the references in the bill to social security numbers and said the way he reads the bill is that even people who aren't subject to CSED's jurisdiction would have to provide a social security number. MS. MIKLOS responded in the affirmative and noted it would be on the applications. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said currently on an application for a fishing license the social security number is optional. He asked if he would be required to include his social security number if the legislation becomes law. MS. MIKLOS responded in the affirmative. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if even people who aren't subject to CSED's jurisdiction would have to include their social security numbers on a license application. MS. MIKLOS said, "Yes, according to the federal welfare reform legislation passed by Congress, ... and then those social security numbers are to be maintained. There is still privacy protections on those numbers and released as requested by Child Support Enforcement." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "When I go down to the store and buy my license, it's on a blank slate or essentially on a sheet that anyone can read through. And there is no provision, in most places, for protecting that kind of privacy information. I'm comfortable with people having, to some extent, knowing the details that are on my fishing license. But if I want to protect my social security number, you're telling me my choice is either no fishing license or what would happen?" Number 0905 MS. MIKLOS pointed out that the Department of Fish and Game has agreed that next year, if the bill were to become law, they would be willing to black out the two copies of the fishing license. The copy the person receives and the one the store receives wouldn't have a social security number on it. The only one that would have a social security number would be the copy that is sent to the Department of Fish and Game. Another option is that a person may apply directly to the Department of Fish and Game for a license. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that it seems to him that the federal government is being granted more authority than they need to have. He said you could require the people, who are subject to CSED jurisdiction, to include their social security number on their licenses, but he doesn't see how that would prevent somebody unless there is an immediate check when the license is issued. He said he doesn't see how it would require him to make payments or how it's related to his CSED payment. Representative Berkowitz said in a way, it's almost easier to come back retrospectively through CSED and see who has fishing licenses and pull them that way, rather than going the other way around. MS. MIKLOS said one of the requirements is that you must have some sort of sanction that requires withholding a sporting license. She said they have tried to make that the least onerous that they can by making it a court proceeding. In order to determine if someone had one, the way CSED would find that out is by social security number. She said CSED would ask the Department of Fish and Game if a person had a license. Number 1025 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated he understands the thrust of the argument and the maintaining of the privacy. While that notion is universally assessable, it frustrates him. He said it is his understanding that if he paid certain national organizations $35, he could obtain anyone's social security number within a day. He asked if that statement is accurate. MS. MIKLOS stated that she didn't know that. She informed the committee that CSED has found existing places where there are violations of the privacy act regarding social security numbers. They are supposed to be completely confidential according to federal legislation passed in 1990. Nothing in the bill changes that and they will be maintained as confidential. It is a federal crime if you don't keep social security numbers confidential, whether your a storekeeper or an employee of CSED. In that sense, there are many protections still built into the system. She noted she didn't know people could obtain social security numbers the way Representative Bunde discussed. Number 1108 CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Is it the concept of this ... reasoning that it's so much easier to -- or is it because of uniformity of the other states that you would use a (indisc.) social security number other than searching the fish and game records? I mean those licenses all have a number on them too." MS. MIKLOS said she believes it was Congress' intent to try to make finding people as easy as possible. She referred to Representative James' comment about federal mandates and said she thinks that a lot of people probably feel that same way. Ms. Miklos informed the committee that the idea of the legislation was to help collect child support, and in order to do that, they've also made some mandates. Social security numbers are much more of a consistent identifier than anything else we have. CHAIRMAN GREEN said he has found that people who get sport fishing and sport hunting licenses quite often, not always, have a tendency to be law abiding citizens. He said there would be a lot of people who would slip through the net because they're not fishers or hunters. MS. MIKLOS referred to implementing the welfare reform legislation and said there was a large net because there is other ways to find people. In terms of legislation passed last year, it included occupational licenses, drivers licenses and new-hire reporting. Hunting and fishing licenses is another way, but it's not the only way. She noted that in an article in the New York Times that the new-hire reporting has found 100,000 people, since it was implemented in most states, who have not been paying child support. Number 1290 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "I don't have the full text here but the briefing I have here seems to indicate that this is written in a conjunctive 'and,' and the applicants for licenses and individuals who are subject to court order and anyone who's died is really nothing to worry about. Those folks have to put their social security number down. And it seems to me that we can comply with the federal requirement with - instead of stating, 'Everyone who applies for a license has to provide a social number,' it's simply stating, 'everyone subject to a court order has to provide a social security number.'" MR. BRANCH said he disagrees. He stated he believes that in federal language an intent is to require that anyone who applies for any of these licenses provides a social security number, whether or not they have child support obligations. Mr. Branch said he isn't condoning that, but that is what he believes that Congress mandated, which is very clear. He said, "We have to have legal proceedings requiring that social security numbers of any applicant for a professional license, drivers license, occupation license, recreational licenses, marriage license, be recorded on the application. And any individual who has died be placed in the record relating to the death and be recording a death certificate." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that it's "and" and not "or." They're not drawing a distinction between the three classes of applicants and the three categories. He said because it's "and," his interpretation of what they're saying is, "If you're applying for a license and you're subject to a support decree, then you have to put you're social security down." MS. MIKLOS responded, "It says any applicant who applies for a recreational license." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "But then -- that's subparagraph 1, and subparagraph 2 it says, ';' at the end of subparagraph 1, so paragraph 2 '; and', not '; or'. And the way we interpretate our statutes here is if you have a laundry list, if it's laundry list and then an 'or', it's any of those individual items. But if it's the 'and', then they have to all come together." MR. BRANCH said he disagrees with that interpretation. He said the use of the gammer indicates that the social security numbers of the applicants, for any those licenses, and the social security numbers of any individuals subject to a domestic relations order, and anyone who's died, that their social security number be placed on the death certificate. Number 1625 CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated there are three proposed amendments. The first amendment is by Representative Croft. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE objected to the adoption of the Amendment 1, for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT explained he has spoke to the Administration about the protecting social security numbers. He said he had been worried that it would set up an ideological conflict. As it often happens, you're able to find a practical accommodation. He said, "What they said is, 'Our problem is it's one form and the social security number is on it. It has to be confidential by federal law.' And I found further support for that in a memo from Dan Branch, of the AG's (Attorney General) office, talking about which federal provisions require it to be confidential. So it is required to be confidential now, but it's difficult the way the bill is written for the department to do it. And if they have the authority to separate, keeping the same file but separate the other information from the social security number, then they can easily give that other information and keep the social security number confidential. I'm not sure what exactly in the bill prevents - or even current law, prevents them from doing it now, but if we can enable them to do that it might help some of the legitimate privacy concerns that some people have." Number 1720 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked how difficult this could be and what the fiscal impact would be. MS. MIKLOS stated the amendment is in conjunction with an amendment that was requested by the court system. She pointed out that last year in SB 154 there was actually language that said the social security number would go on the divorce or disillusion papers. At that time, people didn't take into account that those were public documents. Ms. Miklos said when they started looking into the whole social security number issue, it became clear that it would be onerous to the court system for them to have to make those papers confidential. She said the solution that was worked out was that they would develop this extra form, as described by Representative Croft, and then this amendment allows them to give CSED the information in that form. She stated to two amendments kind of go together. Number 1722 DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Office of the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, came before the committee. He explained that under the current provisions, they transmit the information to CSED that they need on the forms. Mr. Wooliver said the amendment is a technical amendment. It still allows the Alaska Court System to transmit the numbers, but since those numbers aren't on the forms any longer, other language is needed, which is included in the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE inquired about the fiscal impact. MR. WOOLIVER explained the fiscal impact was incurred in SB 154, as that is the bill that required the changing of forms. He stated they still have to collect and transmit social security numbers per federal law. The amendment would allow the changing of the form. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said Amendment 1 allows for that internal transfer with social security numbers. CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that the Alaska Court System and CSED will still have the social security numbers, but both groups will have them separate from any documents that the public would see. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE removed his objection to the adoption of Amendment 1. There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated there is a proposed Amendment 2, E.5. He then called for a brief at-ease. Number 1830 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved that the committee adopt Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to the divorce and disillusion documents and said you can separate the social security numbers, and thereby not cause the Alaska Court System so much of a problem in something that is a public document which, under federal law, would have to be kept confidential because it has a social security number on it. Number 1867 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE removed his objection to the adoption of Amendment 2. MR. WOOLIVER explained that amendment would allow the court system to segregate the social security numbers from the public document. CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to page 3, line 16, of Amendment 2, and said it talks about listing social security numbers for each child whose rights are addressed in the judgement. He asked if that would apply to people who may not be under CSED auspices. He said, "Does this create a problem for possible -- cousin Berkowitz, for example, who would not like his social security number automatically out in the public and he's not under CSED, but he may have been a child, 17-year-old or something, that's going to go into the service, or 18, something in that range. I'm stretching a point, I'm just trying to..." REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER stated it is existing law. CHAIRMAN GREEN said it is existing law that they would have their number listed as well. Number 1963 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that just because someone has a disillusion of marriage, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to need to be attended to by CSED. She said she would really object to having her name and social security number being reported to CSED, because she doesn't ever plan and maybe never ever would have the need for services of CSED. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was a further objection to the adoption of Amendment 2. There being none, Amendment 2 was adopted. CHAIRMAN GREEN stated there were two further amendments by Representative Rokeberg, who wasn't in attendance. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE offered Amendment 3, E.3, Lauterbach, 4/20/98, on behalf of Representative Rokeberg. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER objected for the purpose of discussion. Number 2060 JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norman Rokeberg, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee. She explained the amendment was offered by Representative Rokeberg to address a concern a constituent has. Under current statute, modification of child custody or visitation, the court may consider a parent's failure to pay child support. The amendment goes further by telling the courts that they may not modify the custody or visitation rights if the parent arrears have increased after the date of the final support order. She stated that it doesn't take visitation rights away, it just says that the court may not modify the custody or visitation rights if the parent's arrears have increased, unless the custodial parent agrees. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if that would be for any reason. He questioned what would happen if there are some other compelling reasons to modify the visitation right such as the parent that is in arrears is in jail. MS. SEITZ said the amendment does contain the language "best interest of the child" lanugage in the amendment, so that would be considered by the court. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, "May not modify custody or visitation rights if they've been arrears and it's been increased even in -- I guess we're assuming, in one direction, that it would go in a way that was -- this doesn't seem to put it - to limit it to only one direction. That is what if there were an order that cut off or limited the visitation rights of the nonpaying parent and the court wanted to do that, but this says I cannot - 'you're not paying as well as other conduct, I want to modify your visitation rights, but I find that it has increased.' It seems to me if that's the direction it's going, it would be phrased in the one direction, not sort of both. I can't help -- I can't hurt the parent in arrears under this provision. I know that was poorly stated but I was trying to get...." MS. SEITZ referred to the case where the noncustodial parent keeps threatening the custodial parent and said the noncustodial parent hasn't paid the child support but he/she keeps telling the custodial parent that they're not going to pay child support, they are going to go to court and get visitation rights modified or increased, or they are going to get the custody arrangement changed. She said the amendment is an attempt to suggest to the court that they "may not" unless they determine the modification is in the best interest of the child, until those arrears are taken care of. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, "The way I read it if the court said, 'We've had enough of your nonpayment, as well as other actions, including threats, we want to cutoff or drastically reduce your visitation rights,' I think this limits the court's discretion to do that. I think I understand the problem that Representative Rokeberg was trying to address, but I worry sort of the idea of unintended consequences -- that we could hamstring a court who finally said -- who wanted to discipline that in arrears party." Number 1963 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she supports the amendment. She said her experience with the public is that the visitation rights of the noncustodial parent is a plus for the child, not a negative. The amendment says the failure to grant the modification would be detrimental to the best interest of the child. That is an important part of this issue. The best interest of the child should demand the case and nothing else should interfere with that. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER indicated he tends to agree with Representative Croft's reading of the amendment. He asked if it would satisfy the sponsor's intent if new language said something like, "The court may restrict the custody or visitation rights of a parent with respect...." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, "Unless the other parent consents in writing to the modification -- so it may be that if it goes in the other parent's direction, you just have to get their, 'I like this - this modification.' So if we're going to restrict the visitation on the parent in arrears, maybe they have to go through that additional hoop of getting the custodial parent, in this case, to do it." He stated this is an area for discretion of the court. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE suggested the amendment read, "Visitation is not granted unless it's in the best interest of the child." It would allow the court the maximum freedom to decide, even if somebody is in arrears. It would be a matter in the best interest of the child. Number 2345 CHAIRMAN GREEN called for an at-ease. He called the meeting back to order and announced Amendment 3 was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG said he is satisfied with the way the amendment was presented unless somebody can tell him otherwise. He said, "It is his understanding of the nature of the amendment was that, because it cut both ways, in order to overcome harassment and the argument that I'm going to -- if the noncustodial parent was threatening the custodial parent, that they could indicate that no matter what you do, if you threaten to go back and get visitation rights or custody changed, it's not going to change anyway, whether you're in arrears or not. And also, it protects somebody who is in arrears from losing their custody or visitation rights the way I took it." CHAIRMAN GREEN said "may not" means "no," as opposed to "may" or "shall" where there is not a "not" behind it. He stated his concern is that if he is the custodial parent, this would prevent him from getting a change in the order because "deadbeat" isn't paying. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the amendment is offered on the behalf of a custodial parent to overcome, what she believes, is the threat of harassment. He said he is trying to use the law as protection for people, but he noted he doesn't want to do anything with unforseen consequences. TAPE 98-71 , SIDE B Number 0001 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said the section that is being modified, AS 25.21.010, adds new language in (b). He stated that (a) sets the general standard and (a) says, "an award of custody of a child, the visitation of a child, may be modified if the court determines that a change in circumstance requires a modification and the modification is in the best interest of the child." He said that puts it in permissive language, but it is basically the same as saying it cannot be modified unless you find these two things, a change in circumstance that is significant enough to modify it, and the best interest. Representative Croft said, "Given that the best interest is the touch-tone of both of these, I'm not sure what it adds. And I think it limits the way we were talking about. And I've been thinking more about this, 'unless the other parent consents.' In the classic two-parent divorce situation, that might be an effective back door way to cure it. Say, "Well if you're going to reduce their visitation because they've been in arrears - they haven't paid, then I'm okay with that and I'll sign as the other parent." He noted that there are other situations as custody could be given to someone else besides the other parent. The amendment says the other parent consents in writing. He said the custodian consents, whoever it is. Number 0075 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said her concern with the issue is that in the first part of the section, which is existing law, it seems to say in the first four lines that the court can consider whether or not the noncustodial parent is paying child support when they're determining what the visitation rights, et cetera, are. She said it seems to her that it shouldn't be automatic to deny a parent visitation rights for not paying child support because we don't know the circumstances of why they have not paid. She said it shouldn't be assumed that they're a deadbeat parent as there could be other reasons. Representative James stated, "The conflicting or confusing part of it is that unless the other parent consents in writing to the modification of the court, that seems to be out of place in this issue. But unless the failure to grant modification be detrimental to the best interest of the child, I think, makes a lot of sense." CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Well my problem, though, is if you've said you may not modify this order, even if the arrears change go up, they're further behind unless you get the parent to say yes or it's in the best interest of the child. How could that be in the best interest of the child if the arrearage gets bigger?" Number 0153 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that there may be circumstances beyond the control of the noncustodial parent who was paying the support that couldn't pay. He said one of the impacts with the way the amendment is drafted is it did cut both ways because it's after a final support order is (indisc.), therefore, the ground rules would be known. If there is a request for change of visitation custody, the fact that there was an arrearage wouldn't come into play. CHAIRMAN GREEN said if a father quits working, but still wants visitation, the court couldn't change that even if he doesn't pay anything. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said generally, when you take away the discretion of the court and allow another parent to give approval, generally, what happens is you subject that other parent to extraneous pressures which might not necessarily be in the best interest of protecting the process. When you require the other parent to consent to modification, you might be undermining the court's authority and the ability to do what's best for the child. Number 0217 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew the amendment as he still has some concerns with it. Representative Rokeberg then moved that Amendment 4, E.4, be adopted. CHAIRMAN GREEN objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that it came to his attention that there was a lack of communication, or there were some obstacles to communicating, between two different departments of our government. Because of a relatively recent change to our statute regarding vital statistics, the vital statistic about the act of marriage, the marriage certificate, itself, is sealed for 50 years. Apparently the application and registry is available at our vital statistics information service. You cannot get somebody else's marriage certificate. He stated, "It came to my attention was a situation where spousal support or alimony is being paid by the individual under a court order that indicated it would cease at the time that his ex-wife got remarried. Well this occurred in this fact pattern and the individual stopped paying the spousal support, but then after a month or so was being done by child support enforcement for failure to pay the support when, in fact, his formar spouse had gotten married. Then there on added interest to another month and it became a real Mexican hat dance has happened, when, in fact, this person is running around trying to get a copy of the marriage certificate -- perhaps didn't get the right information from vital statistics where he could have gotten a record of the registry apparently. But nevertheless, then asked the department to do it and they said they couldn't do it, didn't have authority, it's against the law from a statute." He stated that in the circumstance that he is aware of, the ex-husband went to the new husband after a period of two or three months and he was kind enough to give him a copy of the marriage certificate. He said the department was wasting time and money collecting money that wasn't due. There is one group not talking to another group. He said Amendment 4 takes care of that situation and will, hopefully, help out the department and the level of communication between the various departments to make sure they're meeting their responsibility. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he supports the amendment. Number 0384 CHAIRMAN GREEN withdrew his objection to the adoption of Amendment 4. He asked if there was further objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 4 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move HB 344, as amended, out of committee with the attached fiscal notes and with individual recommendations. Number 0398 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted his concern about the social security language and urged that the next committee narrow the language regarding social security numbers. He said he would like to see a more substantial amount of thought go into it. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Bunde, Berkowitz, Croft, Porter, Rokeberg and Green voted in favor of moving the bill. Representative James voted against moving the bill. CHAIRMAN GREEN announced CSHB 344(JUD) moved out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee. SJR 42 - CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RE MARRIAGE Number 0440 CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated the next order of business would be CSSJR 42(FIN), "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to marriage." [NOTE: This portion of the meeting was transcribed verbatim.] SENATOR LOREN LEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Senator Loren Leman. I represent District G, which is parts of Anchorage. And I would just in introduction on this resolution, I'm not really the sponsor of the resolution even though you've said that and some others have. I serve on the Senate HESS [Health, Education and Social Services Committee] which is the sponsor of the resolution. I'm here today speaking on behalf of that committee and it's Chairman, Senator Gary Wilken, who sends his regards. So with that as a, at least, technical correction I will begin. Mr. Chairman and committee members, Senate Joint Resolution 42 will give Alaska voters the opportunity to defend the existing definition of marriage in this state, and this definition is clarified by the legislature as recently as 1996 by a strong bipartisan vote in both the House and the Senate, and that was Senate Bill 308 -- we defend it by placing this definition, essentially the same definition, into our constitution. Why do we need to do that? On February 27, Superior Court Judge Peter Michalski discovered in the state's constitution, in his opinion, a right that the right to privacy gives a fundamental right to choose a life partner. He went on to say that the failure of the state to provide public recognition of this private choice violates the state's constitution unless the state can demonstrate a compelling state interest. And I'll just note here and digress maybe for some other thoughts that Representative Croft is here and I know he's taken me to task for my criticism of Judge Michalski's ruling - and while I disagree with him strongly about his ruling and his lack of judicial precedent in jurisdictions throughout the country on the same issue - and my disagreement with him should not be construed as being a personal attack on him or on Representative Croft or anybody else who may disagree with me. CHAIRMAN GREEN: I appreciate that, Senator. Thank you. SENATOR LEMAN: Judge Michalski's decision now sets in motion a chain of events that could result in Alaska becoming the first and only jurisdiction in the world to recognize homosexual unions as marriage. And I'll note that all 50 states of the United States agree on this issue and all have the same laws that we have; they define marriage as being a union between one man and one woman. And I'll further note that recorded history has, almost in all cases, held the same with some brief forays into polygamy that have occurred and there are some other examples in portions of the world, but essentially in the Western World, this definition, certainly in modern Western tradition, has always been the case. The federal government defines "marriage" as being a union that can exist only between one man and one woman. This was the Defensive Marriage Act passed in 1996 with President Clinton's signature. I note, and there again, a strong bipartisan support in the Congress for the definition. And in federal statutes and regulations, the term "marriage" and "spouse" referring to (indisc.) appears in more than 3,900 sections of law. And so -- you know you see the great impact that this could have if Alaska engages in redefining what marriage is, it would have an impact on federal law and also it could have an impact on the other states. Marriage is an institution with profound cultural importance. Redefining it, even if that is possible, raises hundreds of cultural and legal questions that we have just barely begun to explore. The effort by some to redefine marriage is indeed one of the great questions of our time. Decisions of this magnitude should be made by the people of Alaska, not by unelected judges. Passage of SJR 42 will ensure that the people have a voice in this process. And I commend it to you for passage from this committee and also to passage on the House floor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Senator. Are there any questions of the committee members. Yes, Representative Rokeberg. Number 0660 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG: Mr. Chairman, Senator Leman, do you know the latest status of the situation in Hawaii in terms of their legislature and supreme court hearing. SENATOR LEMAN: Perhaps others can speak to the legal part. My understanding is that Hawaii will have on its ballot this November, essentially the very same question that is being proposed by SJR 42. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Yes, Representative Berkowitz. Number 0688 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ: Thanks very much. Senator, it's kind of nice to see you cite President Clinton on matters of morality there. I have a question about the Brause Case [Brause/Dungan case] which as I understand it there was just a preliminary ruling essentially requiring that immediately the state make a compelling showing. Is that your understanding of the Brause Case? SENATOR LEMAN: That's my understanding of Judge Michalski's decision, that's correct. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ: Do you feel that there is an inability to make a compelling case? SENATOR LEMAN: I don't feel that there is an inability. I believe that the evidence, and tradition, and natural law, and a number of legal precedents, to me I mean if I were a judge, I would say that those show a compelling interest. However, the people who are in your profession advise me that that is a tough standard for government to reach to, you know, rather than the rational basis test, you know, the compelling and interest test. And that is one that, you know, in the Hawaii - the Hawaii courts, you know, struggled with that and you have to recognize that, you know, we have - in law we have us, the people who represent the people. And then you have the judges who, there may be a few of them, they may come to different conclusions and the only way that we can regain the voice of the people is to take this to the people. And in the case where the courts are clearly at odds with public sentiment, there are times when we have to do things like (indisc.--coughing) example of taking an issue and putting it back in control of the people where I believe it belongs. Number 0770 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ: The point about the courts clearly being at odds, it seems to me that we might be jumping the gun a little bit in this case since the courts haven't made a final determination. I wonder if you could respond to what the reason for your timing, or the HESS Committee's timing on this resolution rather than letting this case wind its way through the courts. SENATOR LEMAN: Well, let me speak, Mr. Chairman and Representative Berkowitz, from the Department of Law's own report. They issue a monthly report that perhaps all you have seen, and if you've looked at it, I was particularly intrigued by what they might write about this case, and they say the state has filed its petition for review, which we've encouraged them to do in our SCR 25, which is I believe winding its way through your body. It says, "In addition, the legislature is moving on a constitutional amendment. If that amendment passes the legislature and is approved by the electorate, it would bring this case to an end." The Department of Law is arguing the very case. It's defending the existing statutes of the state of Alaska. The reason for it is that I don't want this decision to take several years and to come to the same conclusion that Hawaii has is that you have to take it to the people. You can wait another two years, you can spend several hundred thousand dollars in legal fees or we can deal with it now and I believe this is the appropriate approach to take. CHAIRMAN GREEN: I think we have Bunde and then -- okay, Representative Rokeberg. Number 0917 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG: Mr. Chairman, Senator Leman, given your interest in this, have you had an opportunity or been made available to you, the brief to counsels in this particular case, particularly the attorney general's brief in the case? Because I think one of the judge's problems is that this very lack of precedent may have been bad lawyering. I'm wondering if that's the case -- I mean the case is so ludicrous on its face. And my study of this particular area of law, there is substantial amount of case law on this. I mean even here in the state of Alaska. So I mean have you had an opportunity to look at the briefs, particularly by the attorney general? SENATOR LEMAN: I have read the ruling, I have read the briefs by the attorney general which I believe Assistant Attorney General John Gaguine, who may be here - I don't know, it would certainly be good if he could be here. I believe it's a good brief and legal scholars tell me that Judge Michalski's ruling is particularly weak, it's devoid of judicial precedent and they are surprised with that ruling. That's what others tell me. I'm not going to sit before you today and claim that I'm a constitutional scholar. I have studied constitutional law, but I'm not going to make that assertion to you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Any other questions of the sponsor? REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG: Mr. Chairman, the reason for my question I had not had a chance to read the brief and I was happy to get that analogy (indisc.). CHAIRMAN GREEN: Representative Croft. Number 0928 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT: I just wanted to remind (indisc.) that this is discussion and not summing up ... CHAIRMAN GREEN: Absolutely. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT: Following up on Representative Berkowitz's point, so even if Judge Michalski tomorrow ruled, as I understand why he did, but the compelling interest was met. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What? REPRESENTATIVE CROFT: Judge Michalski moved that the compelling interest test was met and that there was no right under the Alaska Constitution. Should we still have this on the ballot? SENATOR LEMAN: Mr. Chairman, Representative Croft, this issue likely wouldn't have been before the legislature if Judge Michalski hadn't made his ruling on February 27th. It wasn't that I or anybody else, or Senator Wilken, members of the Senate, were looking for an issue to devote a lot of time to and another issue to put on the ballot, but because the issue is before us and because he hasn't ruled, and looking at some of the rulings in the Hawaii case and what could be - at least the likelihood in his case to rule that way and be tied up in perhaps a substantial amount of time before the Alaska Supreme Court and missing this cycle for putting it on the ballot, then the timing I believe is correct to put this on the ballot this year rather than wait two years. You know, you well know that the next time that this could be put on the ballot would be two years from now. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT: So even if ... CHAIRMAN GREEN: Representative Croft, we're getting very close now to a debate rather than discussion. It's a supposition that what would have and it didn't. It was a decision and now we're trying to do something about that. So if it's a question, I'll allow it. If it's a debate, I'm going to (indisc.). REPRESENTATIVE CROFT: I didn't understand the response, it was just a question. If -- this should be on the ballot even if Judge Michalski ruled tomorrow that there was -- I'm worried about the timing of it and, later, what it's actually doing. But why we are in the middle of a decision making this amendment, I'm just trying to get your view about whether this should be on the ballot regardless of the court's decision. If they went one way or the other, this is the time to put it on? I'm worried about changing our constitution unnecessarily. Number 1043 SENATOR LEMAN: Mr. Chairman, Representative Croft, I, too, don't relish the thought of changing our constitution for reasons that are not substantial. I believe this issue is one of the most substantial issues that we will debate in this legislature. It's one of profound significance and, you know, we recognize that this issue will not go away if Judge Michalski rules -- whichever way he rules, there will be an appeal and that will take time and money. I believe that the appropriate step for us to take is to clearly state and defend the institution of marriage in our constitution and I'd say the answer to your question is "yes." Is this the right time? Yes. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT: I'd just like to thank you for your opening comments (indisc.). SENATOR LEMAN: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Representative Berkowitz. Number 1090 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ: And I'm similarly trying to get a grip on the issue. You said it was a substantial issue, which is why you felt the need for a constitutional amendment. I was wondering if you could enumerate the reasons why it's substantial. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG: The question is out of order ... CHAIRMAN GREEN: That sounds like a little bit more of a debate than a request of why he's doing it. He's got a joint resolution before us, his motives ... REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ: No, I'm not asking his motives. I'm not asking his motives. I'm trying to understand -- Senator Leman, if I understood correctly, said that this is an issue that - a substantial issue and I want to understand, from a policy perspective, what issues are the components of the determination it's a substantial issue. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright. Number 1134 SENATOR LEMAN: Mr. Chairman, Representative Berkowitz, there isn't another institution that so affects our culture as the institution of marriage and our families. This whole thing defines who we are as people and it sets up the framework for the structure of the family and the protection of children and of unions and everything that we are. That's why I believe the issue of the definition of marriage is so substantial. I can't think of another issue that we have before us that is any more important than that. I mean if somebody knows of one, please identify it. I don't know. I mean I find it intriguing when I've received two or three messages -- perhaps you will hear some testimony today from people who say, "You know, get off of this issue and get on to something more important." I ask them, "Like what?" What could be more important than the very fundamental definition of who we are. And Senator Halford made a very brief comment on the floor and he said, "Let's recognize this. All we are doing in this resolution is defending the status quo when it comes to marriage." It isn't a radical departure from it, it's a defense of what we have always had as a state, always had as a territory and always had as a country. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Any other questions of the sponsor? Yes, Representative Porter. Number 1211 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: Not really a question, just a statement. For the record, that was not a request to provide what the state's compelling interest might be in this legislation. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Senator. We have a significant number of people wishing to testify. We have two that have planes to catch, so I'll take them first and then we'll, I guess, go back and forth. We have about 50 on teleconference and some 35 here in the audience. So, Jacqueline Hutchins. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG: Are you going to limit the time? CHAIRMAN GREEN: Yes, because of this over 85 people wanting to testify, I'm going to limit the testimony to two minutes. It's a rather simple yes or no type thing and maybe a reason. You don't have give whether yes or no, but just .... Number 1262 JACQUELINE HUTCHINS: Do you want my name? CHAIRMAN GREEN: Yes, please. MS. HUTCHINS: Thank you, my name is Jacqueline Hutchins. I'm from Anchorage and I'm actually down for something else today, but I was hoping this would be up, also. I think it's important to note that as I have read a number of the letters to the editor of the Anchorage Daily News that this issue has tried to be cast as an economic fairness issue when it is very clearly a moral issue. If this is really about what kind of benefits I'm being given by my employer, then I believe the proper place to be addressing that is to my employer and not to the state legislature. If it's a matter of what kind of insurance am I receiving, then I should be addressing that to my insurer and, again, not to my state legislature. I believe that because, as Senator Leman said, and I've never heard of him before this issue, I don't know anything about him, but because as he said, it has such far reaching consequences to our society, that it is an issue that is too large to be decided by one judge or even by some 50 odd legislators. I think it's... CHAIRMAN GREEN: We're not all odd. MS. HUTCHINS: Okay, that it's an issue that really does need to go to the people, that the people need to, as a voice, say this is what we do want for our society or what we don't want for our society, because it does have far reaching consequences for our society and we need, as a society, to be able to decide what it is we want. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, very much. MS. HUTCHINS: Am I under two? CHAIRMAN GREEN: Yes, you did very well, thank you. And George Hansen. Number 1362 GEORGE HANSEN: My name is George Hansen. I'm from Anchorage. I have come to testify in favor of putting this measure on the ballot. As I look at the constitution, when the constitution of the state of Alaska was put together it was an attempt to outline how we, the citizens of Alaska, would be governed and how we would govern ourselves. And I think it -- that all the judge has said to us is, "Well you failed to look at this one matter. And because you didn't look at it, we can't rule on it one way or the other. And so we have to rule on a neutral manner." This measure simply says to us, "Okay, now let's go back and reconsider that, let's let the citizens of the state of Alaska decide how they want to be governed in this particular phase of life." And I think it's a little bit brazen of us to consider not putting it on the ballot if we're going to try to run this as a republic or a democracy or whatever. For the legislature or for the judiciary to say, "No, you the citizens aren't going to get to vote on this, you had your chance to speak on it one time and that's it," I think that's going too far. So I would hope that we would put this on the ballot and let the citizens make the decision, whichever way it goes. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, very much George. We will go to Valdez, you have a Ken Kirkland. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Hi, this is Valdez. Ken has stepped out for a bite to eat. Could we move him to later? CHAIRMAN GREEN: Yes. Is William Essary there? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, the only person we have left to testify right now is Scott Smith. Could you take him? CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright, he wasn't on. We'll take him, Scott. Number 1482 SCOTT SMITH: Yes, I'd like to address this. I think it's a shame that we have to spend the time to ... address this because of one judge trying to set law by a decision. I think we need to look at the standard of marriage as we have known it all of our life and all of recorded history as a nation. That needs to be said by all Alaskans. Let's move on with this ballot and let's set out the outline of marriage of one man and one woman in the state constitution and end this debate and let it be said. I would move that we pull this out of committee and put it on the ballot. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much. We'll pick up a few from Anchorage. They are going off line for about two hours. So Tamara Wheeler and Bob Wheeler. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Tamara is right here getting set and Bob Wheeler did have to leave. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay. Number 1544 TAMARA WHEELER: My name is Tamara Wheeler and I am here to testify in favor of SJR 42. I proudly support this because I do believe it has a far reaching eeffect. I don't believe that it discriminates against homosexuals as some critics have claimed. Currently, homosexuals are free to live however they want. The state does not prohibit their behaviors or their relationships. And I feel (indisc.) that the people of Alaska is to approve of their lifestyle and to allow it to be promoted. I personally cannot give my approval of a homosexual lifestyle. And current polls show that there are many people who feel the same way I do. So I think it's imperative that this issue does come before the voters. So I urge you to vote for this resolution and give us a chance to vote right here in our state in November. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you much, Tamara. Mike Cray. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mike Cray had to leave. Al Incontro would be our next person. Number 1611 AL INCONTRO: Yes, my name is Al Incontro and this is my second time to testify against SJR 42. And I've been with my partner, Dan, for over 29 years now. We both consider ourselves real good and helpful citizens and neighbors. And we try to do everything just like everybody else here. We're no different than most people. Another thing I want to say, we think of ourselves as Christians and church going people. And just please vote against SJR 42. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Al, thank you very much for your testimony. Norman Schlitter. Number 1663 NORMAN SCHLITTER: Yes, Norman Schlitter. I urge you to vote no against SJR 42. I'm the father of a 39-year-old gay son which we feel proud of and love dearly. Same-sex marriage or marriage between one man and one woman are not an issue to be addressed by a constitutional amendment. Who a person loves and wants to marry is a personal matter. Now that union is recognized as a legal matter - not a legislative matter. Who a person wants to be a beneficiary of an insurance policy, a tax exemption, having a say about federal care and life supports, are really personal matters also. These are legal matters, not legislative. Marriage is a legal matter, it should be handled by the court system, not the legislature. (Indisc.) vote to change the constitution now, you, our future elected officials, will probably be looking in the future of ways to reverse this decision. But I urge you to vote no against SJR 42. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thanks Norman. Tom Rachal. Number 1730 TOM RACHAL: Yes, my name is Tom Rachal. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. RACHAL: That's okay, sir. Laws concerning marriage are changed often in American history. (Indisc.) was defined as the union of two people of the same race and same religion, and said wives were the property of their husbands. Until recently, many state governments denied interracial marriages - interracial couples the right to marry. Marriage laws must change as society recognizes the need for fairness to all. Today, the choice of a marriage partner should belong to each man or woman, and not the state. In America, religious and civil marriages are separate institutions. The state should not dictate which marriage any religion performs or recognizes, just as religion should not dictate who gets a civil marriage license from the state. Same-sex marriage is about the freedom to have a civil marriage license issued by the state. Rights that married people take for granted are denied to gay and lesbian people. If one partner in a married couple is seriously ill or incapacitated, the other partner is permitted to make decisions regarding their care. The basic right of guardianship is denied to gay and lesbian couples because their committed relationships are not recognized under the law. If one partner is incapacitated, the other partner is not given the right to make basic health care decisions. The issue of same-sex marriage is a privacy and equal rights issue, nothing more nor nothing less. In a representative democracy such as ours the rights of the minority must be protected by the majority. Therefore, I urge you to not interfere with the inherent equal right for all Alaskan citizens by voting no on SJR 42. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Mr. Rachal. Elmer Kaneta Number 1855 ELMER KANETA: A couple deeply in love wants to marry, a symbol of remarkable desire, but an impossible one, no matter how committed that couple is to a future together, if the individuals are two women or two men. Gay people are ruled by the same things of personal, economic, practical reasons for marriage as other people. Marriage has social and emotional significance. The opportunity for support of public declarations of laws and commitments. And, it is the sole source of enforcement (indisc.) economic protection that can be essential in times of crisis. Only marriage ensures social security, Medicare, and veteran benefits for a spouse. Only marriage automatically grants the right to make emergency medical decisions for a spouse and access to hospital emergency and intensive care units. Only marriage assures the right to choose the final resting place for a deceased spouse, (indisc.) recent (indisc.) and inherit automatically in the absence of a will. Child custody frequently is denied for gay parents simply because they are not married. Only marriage brings responsibilities and protection such as with divorce and child support requirements. There are hundreds of legal rights and responsibilities with civil marriage affords. I don't want religious marriage; I don't want gay marriage. The term "gay marriage" implies that same-sex couples are asking for special rights or provisions that married couples do not have. I want civil marriage. I want equal rights to civil marriage just like you have. After all, I am no less committed to my life mate than you are to yours. I urge you not to interfere with the inherent equal rights for all Alaskans by voting no on SJR 42. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Mr. Kaneta. Particia Mack. Number 2004 PATRICIA MARK, LAW CLERK, ALASKA CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (AKCLU): Good afternoon, my name is Patricia Mark, I'm a law clerk for Alaska Civil Liberties Union. The AKCLU .... REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG: I can't hear her. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Can you move a little closer to the microphone, please. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG: And start over. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Is your name Patri... MS. MARK: Yes, Patricia Mark. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Mark, thank you. MS. MARK: Okay, can you hear me now? CHAIRMAN GREEN: Yes. MS. MARK: Okay, my name is Patricia Mark. I am a law clerk at the Alaska Civil Liberties Union. The AKCLU is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to preserving and defending the principle of individual liberties guaranteed in the U.S. Bill of Rights, in our (indisc.) Alaska State Constitution. I have come here today on behalf of over 800 current members of the AKCLU urging you not to pass SJR 42 out of this committee. Putting this amendment on the ballot for a vote is a bad idea. First of all, SJR 42 is premature because of the Brause case has not even been decided by the courts yet. Despite a unanimous (indisc.) we pass the measure urging the state to file a (indisc.) the Brause case, so why not let the process take its course before investing money to put SJR 42 on the ballot. Furthermore, the proposed amendment is a bad idea for Alaskans because it takes the most sensitive, personal, private decisions an individual makes that concerns their lives (indisc.) publicly declare for (indisc.) to a majority vote. A recent public opinion poll by (Indisc.) and Associates asked the question, "Would you support or oppose a constitutional amendment to prohibit same- sex marriage in Alaska." (Indisc.) 51 percent oppose such an amendment and only 39 supported it. Also a recent Alaska ABC poll indicated that 52 percent of Alaskans favored same-sex marriage. Now we can argue about the accuracy of polls, (indisc.) the majority will need, but all of this is beside the point. The point is that the role of government needs to carefully balance the rights of the majority with the rights of the minority. CHAIRMAN GREEN: You need to wrap up, Patricia. MS. MARK: That's pretty much all I wanted to say, thank you very much. Please don't pass this (indisc.). CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG: Mr. Chairman, I was looking for the fiscal note. Isn't an constitutional amendment $3,000 or is it $30,00?. CHAIRMAN GREEN: $3,000. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG: Just for everybody's information, it's $3,000. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Yes. We have Ellen Twiname. Number 2187 ELLEN TWINAME: Hello, my name is Ellen Twiname. I would just like to address some of the arguments against gay marriage. I urge you all to vote no on SJR 42. One of the main arguments is marriage is an institution between one man and one woman, and that's the most often heard argument, one even codified in U.S. federal law. Yet it is equally the weakest. It says two marriages should be defined by the marriageable. Isn't that kind like of allowing a banker to decide whose going to own money stored in his vault? It seems that if the straight community cannot show compelling reasons to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied, and such simple and nebulous declarations are hardly a compelling reason. They are really more like an expression of prejudice than any kind of real argument. The concept of not denying people their rights unless (indisc.) is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights. Like that argument I hear a lot, is that marriage is for procreation. The proponents of that are really hard pressed to explain why, if that's the case, that infertile couples are allowed to marry. I, for one, would love to be there when a proponent of such an argument is to explain to his post menopausal mother or impotent father that he thinks not procreate, they must now surrender their wedding rings. Again, such an argument fails to persuade, based on marriages, (indisc.) marriages, but it does allow routinely for (indisc.). The third argument I hear is that same-sex couples (indisc.) to raise children. That's an interesting one in light of who society does allow to get married and bring children into their marriage. Murderers can bring (indisc.) of all sorts, even child molesters (indisc.). If children are truly the priority here, why is this allowed? The fact is that many gay couples raise children adopted and seems to (indisc.) heterosexual marriages. (Indisc.). In conclusion, I would say vote no on SJR 42. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Yes, just a moment. Number 2383 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG: Mr. Chairman, I regretfully have to leave the committee hearing at this time in order to take up my duties as chairman of the House Labor and Commerce Committee. I just wanted people down there in T.V. land to know I was not running off for some unexcused reason. CHAIRMAN GREEN: We will hope to see you later. Number 2420 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Yes. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES: I have a brief time that I have to go back and meet with some people and I will be back in about ten minutes. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright, Representative James. Allison Mendel. Number 2440 ALLISON MENDEL: I'm here. CHAIRMAN JAMES: Your testimony. MS. MENDEL: I am here to urge you to vote no on SJR 42. First of all, putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot on this issue is premature at this time as the committee has previously heard ... TAPE 98-72, SIDE A Number 0001 MS. MENDEL CONTINUED: ... for being so backed up at the supreme court, there is no possibility that there could be a final word on the court on this issue in less than a year. And I think more like two or three years. If you've been following the event in Hawaii -- it's been years since Hawaii and there's still no final (indisc.) although there could be one at any time. So, jumping the gun to put this on the ballot and ask the populous to deny civil rights to a certain portion of the population before there is even a court decision on the issue, I think would be (indisc.). Secondly, despite the denials (indisc.), Senator Leman made a very good case for viewing this as a civil rights issue if he says it's at the foundation of our social and cultural organization, something with which I would agree. Denying the foundation of our social and cultural organization to a small portion of the population is not a constitutionally good idea. It is very important - it is very important that people have this right and, therefore, it is important to people who are denied this right. I agree with previous testimony that I have yet to hear a[n] articulated reasons why this is a bad idea other than that we're not used to it. I understand that we're not used to it and that's one reason I think that this whole issue is prematurely brought. We only began discussing this publicly in the state of Alaska on February 27th when the court's decision was handed down. That's hardly enough time to decide whether we want to make radical changes in our social organization. I have a great deal more to say but my time up. I do have a great deal of legal expertise on this question and I'd be happy to answer questions if anybody wants to ask. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Allison. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ: Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Yes, Representative Berkowitz. Number 0158 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ: Ms. Mendel, just sort of very quickly, what are the more salient legal principles involved here? Just very quickly. MS. MENDEL: Well, in Judge Michalski's opinion, he rested his opinion on the privacy clause in the Alaska Constitution which has previously been interpreted by our state Supreme Court very broadly. Alaska's citizens have greater privacy interests than citizens of many other states. Examples are the marijuana home use decision and the long hair at school decision. On all kinds of issues, we have greater rights than many people do in other states, and in that sense, his decision is in no way radical. Our state has been built on the proposition that our citizens want the maximum right and the minimum interference by government. He also said that if he were forced to decide, he would also find it to be gender discrimination, but he didn't get that far. He then said that it'd have to go to trial and the state had to come forward with a compelling state interest. And yet I think the committee is aware the state has never had to articulate what its compelling interests are and has intimated that it can't show a compelling interest which as you know the state of Hawaii couldn't show. I think it's inherent in the whole process the state be required to come forward with its compelling interest and let us all consider it in a major and considerate fashion instead of jumping to a popular vote on the issue. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Follow-up question. Number 0287 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ: There's also an issue raised about the -- this proposed resolution being reflective of our culture and I was wondering if you knew of any other instances or many other instances where constitutional amendments retrospectively reflect culture. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Allison, I would suggest that you answer the question as to other areas and not go off on opinion again. MS. MENDEL: I'll certainly endeavor to do that. There are many situations in which the court took the first step toward expanding what the populace understands as inherent civil rights. One example is school desegregation. The (indisc.) statutes is another example in which the Supreme Court in (indisc.) v. Virginia said that you can't prohibit interracial marriages. The rights of slaves and slavery itself is another example. Kleppe v. Ferguson, the courts said you can't segregate the railroad. All of these things are examples of practices which were both legal and publicly supported by the majority at the time the court decisions were made. So this is quite similar to that situation. We have something that is publicly unpopular and the courts say, "Well unpopular or not, this is an inherent right guaranteed to by the constitution." I know of very few instances where the public has come back and said, "Well then we'll just narrow the constitutional protection and eliminate this possibility." That is more or less what's at issue in Hawaii is going to be on the November ballot. That is what was done in Colorado with amendment II. It went to the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court said, "You can't do that." Number 0431 CHAIRMAN GREEN: Bridge, I understand that you're supposed to go off at 3:00 o'clock and rejoin us at 5:00 [p.m.]. Is that correct? There are still some people to testify. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, Anchorage has another commitment for this room at 3:00 o'clock. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, we'll rejoin you at 5:00 [p.m.] then. Thank you. That will bring us back to Juneau for a few folks then. Okay, Laura Champagne. Mildred Boesser, okay. Number 0518 MILDRED BOESSER, REPRESENTATIVE, COMMITTEE FOR EQUALITY: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thanks for listening. I have a great long testimony here which I realize I can't use all of, so I'll just take a part of it. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Try and keep it to two minutes if we can. MS. BOESSER: My name is Mildred Boesser, I'm 73 years old, the mother of four and grandmother of four, all raised and being raised in Alaska. I'm a homemaker and a clergy wife. My husband and I came to Alaska as missionaries in 1959. This year we celebrate our fiftieth year of marriage and he would be here today to testify with me except he's out of town. So most certainly I am not here to shoot down the institution of marriage. I want to enlarge the concept, and I think that's possible. So I oppose SJR 42. However you feel about gay and lesbian persons, is not really the issue here, and of course, it colors and distorts the issue. This resolution is about changing the constitution to say it's alright to discriminate. Certain rights and privileges are given to people who marry and if you're not married, you don't get those rights and privileges. But the catch 22 is that some people can't get married and, therefore, the rights and privileges are not given to them. And so the thing that really worries me about putting something like this on the ballot is that it opens up the door to so much discussion that is not going to be easy for any of us. I think any time a government condones the marginalization of a group of its citizens, the door is open to unbelievable hatred and violence, which are sure to follow. And I think this is what will happen if we bring this to a public debate and it frightens me. I don't think Alaska will be any exception to that. So I ask you, please don't pass this. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT: Mr. Chairman, could I just ask Mildred if you would give us a copy of that, so we could put it in the file. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Jennifer Mannix. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Jennifer will come back later at 5:00 [p.m.]. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright, Jason Nelson. Number 0671 JASON NELSON: My name is Jason Nelson and I just kind of wanted to share a story with you today. It's about a family, specifically about a mother and a son - by the names Bobby and Mary Griffith. When Bobby was growing up, he always knew that he was different than the other kids. And Mary sort of knew this too, but she had no way to deal with the fact that Bobby was different than the other kids. So when Bobby was 16, he told his older brother that he was gay. His brother passed this on to his parents. His parents confronted Bobby and it was a very traumatic moment for the family. Mary was told all her life by the majority of people around her that homosexuality was evil. She was very active in her church and they told her this as well. Bobby finally moved away from home and when he would come back to visit, Mary always sensed that Bobby was very isolated, very lonely. He had no one to talk to. And when he was 16, I just want to say a few passages he wrote in his diary real quick. He said, "I can't let anyone find out that I'm not straight. It would be so humiliating. My friends would hate me, I just know it. They might even want to beat me up. And my family, I've overheard them lots of times talking about gay people. They said they hate gays and even God hates gays, too." Two months after his twentieth birthday, Bobby Griffith did a back dive off a freeway overpass into the path of a semi-truck and trailer. He died instantly. It took this traumatic moment in Mary Griffith's life to realize that the majority of people around her who told her that homosexuality was wrong were in fact wrong, and she searched for different answers on her own. And she has now become a very national - a national spokesperson for PFFLG (ph), which is Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. I'm telling this story for two reasons. One is that I want you to realize what gay teenagers go through. You might not be able to identify with Bobby Griffith, I can. Thirty percent of the teenagers now days who kill themselves are gay, lesbian, or bisexual. With issues like this around, people who might not normally be so vocal about their opposition to homosexuality will be more vocal. These kids will hear it and they won't feel too good about themselves. The second reason I'm telling you this is although you may not be able to identify with Bobby Griffith, maybe you can identify with Mary Griffith. Some of you may have children, even grandchildren that you would do anything to protect - that you want (indisc.) to be discriminated against, no matter how they were different. You certainly wouldn't want them to take their own lives in a tragic way that Bobby Griffith did. I urge you to vote no to SJR 42. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, one brief question. You quoted a statistic that 30 percent of the teenagers are now either bisexual or ... MR. NELSON: Thirty percent of teenagers -- according to Paul Gibson in a report to the secretary's task force on gay and - or on youth suicide, this was done in - was it 1992? It was a report the Bush Administration and it is published. And his conclusion was that 30 percent of all teen suicides are committed by gays, lesbians, or bisexuals. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Oh, I'm sorry, okay. Thank you. Sylvia Dean. Number 0867 SYLVIA DEAN: I'm Sylvia Dean, teacher and a mother of four. And I'm concerned also for the time, so my comments will be brief. Again, I feel like you're dealing with a lot of important issues here and listening to the comments on the bill before us, was concerned what implications would happen with the problems of redefining marriage. And I feel like the question of time has come up because obviously this is going to be a very contested issue and to wait two or three years to deal with it is going to increase the concerns of the lady I follow - that there not be that animosity within our state, that we can deal with it quickly, clearly and the people's vote will carry. So I would appreciate you dealing with this quickly in passing it through. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much, Sylvia. Marsha Buck. Number 0924 MARSHA BUCK, CO-CHAIR, PARENTS, FAMILIES AND FRIENDS OF LESBIANS AND GAYS: My name is Marsha Buck and I'm here to ask you to oppose SJR 42. I am the current Co-Chair of PFFLAG-Juneau. As you just heard, PFFLAG stands for Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, and I'm involved in PFFLAG because I have a bisexual daughter who is married in the eyes of our family and in the eyes of the church that married her this past summer to a woman. I am opposed to SJR 42 for many, many reasons, but I'll only mention one of them here today. I want to be honest with you that I'm frightened about what could happen to young people like my daughter if this resolution is put to a vote of the people. I know that many people don't and probably many of you don't agree with same- sex marriage, and that's really okay with me because differences of opinion aren't a problem for us in our democracy, and they certainly aren't a problem for us in Alaska. But putting a divisive issue like this on the ballot so that people who are not as well informed as you are or who are as even-handed as you are, as even tempered and know as much as you do about discrimination issues, about separation of church and state, and about using discourse to solve problems instead of violence could put us in the position that both Oregon and Colorado have been in recently when there were ballot measure there on the same-sex marriage issue. And there - there was violence against gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, and their friends and families. There was harassment, threatening injury and even some killed in Oregon, which frightens me since that is where my daughter now lives. This - all this doesn't need to happen here in Alaska. This issue doesn't need to come before the voters right now. There is no hurry that makes this a crucial issue for this legislature, or for you personally, to have to deal with right at this time. This is a time to be patient and see what happens in the courts. And if doesn't go the way that you think it's appropriate, then there is time to offer good alternatives that are well thought through, appropriate. Our daughters and sons and perhaps your grandchildren or nieces and nephews, in the future, don't need to be sacrificed now by hasty decisions and a hasty vote that would happen if you proceed with this resolution. You're reasonable people. You can say no for now so that you can save pain and suffering now and deal with this issue calmly and clearly when the courts are finished and the time is right. So please don't send SJR 42 out of this committee. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you Marsha. We can pick up some other teleconference now. Michael Jones in Sitka. Sitka, are you on? Dillingham, are you on? Steve Jacquier. Okay Steve. Number 1102 STEVEN JACQUIER: Yes, thank you. My name is Steven Jacquier and I currently reside in Manokotak. This is the second time that I have taken a personal leave day from work and flown into Dillingham to testify against this reprehensible legislation. Solid research has established that a substantial percentage of (indisc.) teens are killing themselves in large part because they fear that their lives will be miserable if they turn out to be a lesbian or gay. They fear rejection and marginalization to the point that they would rather die than face it. The debate over this bill contributes directly to fostering the climate of fear, intolerance, and marginalization which leads to suicide. SJR 42 is cruel and destructive. If you pass this bill now, the debate over SJR 42 between now and the November election would probably follow the usual pattern of demonizing gay and lesbian people. It will probably lead to witch hunting of people from their jobs, severe hazings of some youth who (indisc.), and beatings and deaths resulting from gay bashing. Do you really want the pain and blood of those abused by a calloused majority in part on your hands? Three people were gay bashed to death in the hours following Pat Buchanan's anti-gay speech at the Republican Convention by drunken bigots who listened to him. Let's not set up Alaska for this sort of prejudicial violence, so reminiscent of Nazi Germany. Moreover, how long is it reasonable to expect that people who are being marginalized, singled out and unjustly persecuted will continue turning the other cheek to the oppression? I urge legislators to awaken with regarding the genuine urgency and passion of ordinary people who are sick and tired of having pain, expense, and violence inflicted upon them by the irrational prejudices of the ignorant and by the cruel vindictiveness of the wrath called religious rights. What means are going to become necessary for all citizens to actually hold the equal civil rights, which are constitutionally due each of us in a secular nation where church and state are separate and all citizens are constitutionally equal under the law. Please say no to this heinous legislation now before this destructive debate becomes violent and bloody. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Steve. Is Roberta Gillott there? Number 1233 ROBERTA GILLOTT: Hi, this is Roberta Gillott and I live here in Dillingham. And I feel a responsibility to testify against this constitutional amendment proposition because I am a new mother. And I am here because of concerns for the state of Alaska and for my daughter's future. I believe that even considering making a part of the state constitution to discriminate against one group of people is morally wrong and a bad service to the public by our legislators. I think that we should and you should be thinking to evolve to increase human rights, not seeking to discriminate against one group of people. I think especially that is true in the state of Alaska that is so diverse in belief, origin, and lifestyles. So I urge you not to allow this - this bill to pass out of your committee. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Roberta. Is Lorna Pletnikoff there? Number 1295 LORNA PLETNIKOFF: Yes I am. I believe that our state constitution does not need to be amended relating to the definition of marriage. SJR 42 seems to confuse the religious definition of "holy matrimony" with a civil definition of "marriage." Whereas, a religion can define marriage any way they wish, the state has no business defining marriage to the detriment of some citizens. Civil marriage offers legal and economic protections to spouses in a way no other contractual arrangement in our American culture can. Please uphold the civil rights of all our citizens. Vote no on SJR 42. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much. That leads us to Craig, is Jennifer Taylor in Craig on line? Nome, are you on line? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, hello. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Nome, is Andrea Petitfiles. Number 1354 ANDREA PETITFILS: Andrea Petitfils. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay. MS. PETITFILS: Hi, I have a few words concerning SJR 42 other than the fact that I'm adamantly opposed to it. I cannot understand why this -- that seems to me to be clearly a civil rights issue is even being discussed here. This issue, as far as I'm concerned, needs to go the Supreme Court where it belongs. And I would urge you to let it die here today and let it go through the proper channels - the court system where it belongs. The whole issue, as far as I can see, has been organized by Senator Leman in his own personal agenda to crush the civil rights of a minority. And I just can't say enough that I think it belongs in the court system, it's a waste of your time and my tax dollars. This issue has nothing to do with any senator's personal belief or religious issues; it's a civil rights issue. If not, we need to change some pledges of allegiance and they should probably read, "...one nation under Senator Leman with liberty and justice for self." The constitution I thought was for all men and we had all the same rights. We can't change the rights for some because we may not agree with them. Putting it to public vote, I just don't see where that isn't discrimination. As long as I can remember, we have a check-and- balance system. Since when do we vote on the civil rights of a minority? I just urge you to recognize this as a blatant example of a minority being unfairly discriminated against. This issue has nothing to do with God or religion. It's a civil rights issue and belongs in the court system. The most important issue that I think you should remember is that by allowing this to pass, you will let the majority vote on the rights of the minority, and surely you can all see that it's simply unfair. Let it die here today and go to our court system, which is supposed to be fair and equal for all. One other thing, Senator Leman might be informed that Denmark and Sweden do allow same-sex marriages - just for his information. Thank you, I really appreciate it. CHAIRMAN GREEN: We have a question for you, Andrea. Number 1465 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT: Andrea, more of a statement. Senator Leman and I disagree on this issue and a lot of others, but I've found here, and we have rules that do that, that it doesn't make our point very well to insult the other members or the sponsor. I mean I think we do better to stick to the issue that we've got, rather than sticking to Senator Leman. I didn't like him attacking, as I saw it, Judge Michalski, but I don't think we do ourselves any good attacking him personally. Number 1502 MS. PETITFILS: I'm very sorry. I did not intend to do that. I personally feel attacked myself with this proposal going. I mean, you know, I'm a lesbian, I don't feel like it should be left up to the majority to vote on whether or not I have civil rights. And I am very sorry, I did not mean to offend anyone. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Andrea. Taylor Burns. Number 1514 TAYLOR BURNS: Yes, for the record, I'm Taylor Burns, I'm a licensed clinical social worker in the state of Alaska. I'm here to represent the Alaska State Chapter of Social Workers, which is also a part of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW). I would like to read to you a part of the Alaska policy on lesbian, gay, and bisexual issues. "The National Association of Social Workers asserts that discrimination and prejudice against any group is damaging to the social, emotional and economic well-being of the affected group and of society as a whole. It is the position of NASW that same gender sexual orientation should be afforded the same respect and rights as opposite gender orientation. NASW recognizes that homosexuality and homosexual cultures have existed throughout history. Homosexuals have been subject to long-standing social condemnation and discrimination. Toward the elimination of prejudice, NASW recommends legal and political action to seek repeal of and actively campaign against any laws allowing discriminatory practices against lesbian, gay and bisexual people. This bill is directly opposed to the kind of legislation that NASW members would support. As a group, both statewide and nationally, NASW as an organization will not support nor tolerate this kind of legislation ..." CHAIRMAN GREEN: You need to wrap up, Tyler. MR. BURNS: I'd like to say that the Alaska state chapter has over 500 members and I've been given permission to speak for the chapter. We have 500 members against SJR 42. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you. Back here we have Jacqueline Hutchins. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT: She was the first speaker, wasn't she? CHAIRMAN GREEN: Oh yes, right, I'm sorry. Theresa Miller. Number 1609 THERESA MILLER: Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Theresa Miller and I'm a home- school mother here in Juneau, I have two boys. And I thank you for this opportunity to speak on this important issue. I come before you to urge all of you to support SJR 42. The potential change in the definition of marriage is a change of such magnitude having far reaching consequences that every Alaskan should have the opportunity to vote their opinion. I feel it is unfair that the decision made by Judge Michalski should stand. He is only one man, with one opinion. While he has been able to decide his opinion and exercise his authority, neither you, nor I or ... all other Alaskans have had the privilege of being included in this change. And I believe this is contrary to the democratic process. All Alaskans should be able to vote on this important issue and I ask you to please support SJR 42 and give all Alaskans this chance. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Theresa. Any questions? Rosezella Michalsky. Number 1669 ROSEZELLA MICHALSKY: Thank you. I'm here to request that you give the people of the state of Alaska the right to vote on an issue that is seen differently by Judge Michalski and by some of you. Some of us believe in giving the same tough love to those who choose sex with someone of the same sex as you would to an alcoholic. Would you tell an alcoholic that his drinking is okay? And think that by accepting his behavior you were showing kindness to him. No, you tell an alcoholic that what he's doing is wrong, but that you love him. Real love is tough enough to risk rejection, an almost certain rejection temporarily to try to give wholeness to one with difficult temptations. Because we practice tough love, those of us who won't agree to the charade of same-sex marriages love those who choose same-sex sex more than those who oppose it. But this debate is more than about the illusion of kindness in allowing same-sex marriages. It is about putting the matter before the public. The legislature is supposed to represent the people, but will be seen by the people as dictators and tyrants if they do not want the people to have a voice in such an important matter. If you do not vote for this, then you are voting against the right of the people to be heard because you don't like what they will say. Even though I say this, I do expect better of you and expect you act honorably and vote for SJR 42. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much. We have one other, Ted Deatz is he here or is he going to be back at 5:00 [p.m.]? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He'll be back. CHAIRMAN GREEN: For both the people in the audience and those on Gavel to Gavel there are several members missing. It's not because they do not have a very, very deep interest in the subject, it's they have other commitments and they will return when those are completed. So we will go then to Kenai. Are you on Kenai? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN GREEN: The first one I have is Thomas Uta. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Uta Thomas, yes Mr. Chairman. Number 1781 UTA THOMAS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. My name if Uta Thomas. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Oh, I'm sorry. MS. THOMAS: My name is Uta Thomas. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, please give us your testimony, Uta. MS. THOMAS: I'm in strong support of SJR 42 because marriage between a man and a woman has been ordained of God since the beginning of time which includes Adam and Eve. At no time at any dispensation has God proclaimed that it is alright of same sex. And I feel that there is no separation between our civil rights or, as you call it, religious rights because we claim "in God we trust" and "one nation under God." If we really do, we do not break his laws or commandments. If we make a law that same-sex [marriages] is possible, we say that wrong is right and bad is good. The traditional family which constitutes of a father and a mother is the backbone of our society, our state and our nation, and also culture. Again, I state my support of SJR 42, and it should be placed before the voters at the next general election because I feel that we, as a people of this state, have the right to express our opinion. I do not judge people who are homosexual or whatever lifestyle they may choose, but I feel that the traditional family, a father and mother, should stay and stand out because our nation will benefit from it. Thank you CHAIRMAN GREEN: Uta, thank you very much. I'm sorry I had those names reversed. Holly Hall. Number 1850 HOLLY HALL: My name is Holly Hall and I'm standing up and speaking (indisc.) SJR 42. (Indisc.) I believe every one of us in our heart knows right from wrong. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Can you stand a little bit closer to the microphone, please. MS. HALL: Can you hear me? CHAIRMAN GREEN: Yes, very good. MS. HALL: Alright, I believe every one of us in our hearts knows right from wrong and all of us wants what's right. Traditional marriage has been one of the most sacred covenants since the beginning of time. Our Heavenly Father did not put two men on the earth (indisc.) to procreate. Nor did he put two women on the earth to procreate. If he did, none of us would be here. Our Heavenly Father put a man and a woman on this earth so lives could be born to all of us. The covenant between a man and a woman, a sacred covenant called traditional marriage, is one of the most important. Our family structure of a father and a mother is a very important factor in children's lives. A mother and father both teach children important things. The father teaches discipline, strength, and tenderness. A mother teaches kindness, nurturing, and patience. They are our role models. A man and a woman compliment each in a traditional marriage. We are different, as it should be, and we are equal. A husband helps his wife with the heavy chores using his physical strength, while a wife lends her husband emotional strength when things are tough in his life. We cannot sit by and let the (indisc.) and we know it in the depths of our hearts and souls and let others decide what is right for us. I support SJR 42, traditional marriage. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Valdez, are you on Valdez? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN GREEN: We have a Ken Kirkland. Number 1933 KEN KIRKLAND: Yes, I just -- I live in Valdez, I've been here 20 years. And I just want you to know I'm solidly in support of the SJR 42. I believe in marriage between one man and one woman. It is a natural, and most of all, it is a sacred institution. Of course by implication, I believe the opposite or a homosexual marriage to be unnatural, immoral, indecent and ungodly. I view the current push for homosexual marriage as an assault against the traditional family, especially the Christian family. By far and away, the majority that I know have the same conviction on something as basic as this. Marriage cannot be any more redefined than a person's gender. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much, Ken. Rhonda Essary. Number 1988 RHODA ESSARY: I just wanted to say that I am in support of... CHAIRMAN GREEN: Excuse me, is it Rhonda or Rhoda? MS. ESSARY: Rhoda. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Rhoda, thank you. MS. ESSARY: As I have stated, I am in support of SJR 42. It is a shame that America is falling further and further into the condition that it is. It grips my soul and my heart that the possibility of a legally recognized "homosexual marriage" would even be considered in this nation. It is an abomination to God who by the way is supposed to be the foundation for his country, and it is a great shame in the society of mankind. The reason America grew and prospered so greatly when it was founded was because God was most important and most honored and most feared. As America continues to operate and rule without the fear of God in (indisc.), he is lost. We'll most assuredly lose the favor of God and fall into irreversible destruction. Please do something to keep Alaska right. I support SJR 42. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much, Rhoda. In Cordova we have Audrey Van Wagoner. Cordova, are you on? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, we have one to testify right now. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Is that Audrey? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. Number 2047 AUDREY VAN WAGONER: Thank you for hearing me. I just want to say that I'm in support of the SJR bill 42. I'm in favor of traditional marriage and I'm not in favor of same-sex marriages. And I appreciate you giving me the time to express that. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Audrey, thank you very much. MS. VAN WAGONER: You bet. CHAIRMAN GREEN: That brings us back to Juneau. Susan Phillips. Number 2067 SUSAN PHILLIPS: Hi, good afternoon. My name is Susan Phillips and thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for allowing me to testify today. I'm a heterosexual and I want to tell you that for a couple reasons. One is that I've been hearing other people testify about people choosing the homosexual lifestyle, so in that vain, I guess you could say that I chose the heterosexual lifestyle. I don't feel that I chose to be a heterosexual, I just one day started chasing boys around the playground and not girls. I don't think gay men and lesbians choose to be homosexual any more than I chose to be heterosexual. I think people are the way they are. I also wanted to let you know that it's not just homosexuals who are against SJR 42. There are heterosexuals who are also opposed to it. I don't believe it is right to deny the opportunity to marry to certain people just because they have same-sex partners. And our constitution says that all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights, opportunities and protection under the law. I recently had the pleasure of seeing an exhibit here in Juneau. It was called, "Love Makes a Family," and it was on display at several locations around town for - a few months ago. The exhibit featured photographs and text depicting families with gay and/or lesbian members. Sometimes it was a lesbian couple and their children, sometimes gay couples and their children, and sometimes people my parents age who had adult children who are gay or lesbian. And when I thought about my testimony today, I thought about the title of that exhibit, "Love Makes a Family." Why deny the right of adults who love one another to marry and have families? The times they say they are changing. It used to be that family meant mom, dad, and the kids all living together. Now we have divorces, remarriages, blended families, stepparents, stepchildren, adoptions, and single-parent families. I think that everyone in this room agrees on the importance of families. And I think the question is, should we expand the definition of families or should we contract it to a narrow definition of the nuclear family. I also want to say that I'm shocked at the number of constitutional amendments before this legislature right now. I got a BASIS printout this morning and it seems like there are 40 or 50. I wish that this legislature had more respect for our constitution than to propose amending it so often. As other people have said, I think this joint resolution is premature in light of the court decision on this not being final. In summary, I would just like to say I caught part of the Senate floor debate on this joint resolution a couple of weeks ago. I didn't catch much of it... CHAIRMAN GREEN: That's it, you need to wrap up. MS. PHILLIPS: I will -- some hateful things were said on the Senate floor, not by a lot of people, but when I saw that I thought this is a preview of coming attractions. If this goes to a public vote, more hateful things are going to be said. And I urge you to vote no on Senate Joint Resolution 42. And I'm done. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you. Kim Poole. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She'll be back at 5:00 [p.m.]. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, looks like - I can't read it, Peter Otsea. Number 2199 PETER OTSEA: Hi, I'm Peter Otsea. I am married. I have a wife and two children, and I would like to read to you a personal story. Through my children I have met gay and lesbian parents and we have become friends through our children. They're loving and caring parents and I hold them in high regard. I believe that if they choose to get married they have as much right to that as I do. I don't believe these parents are a threat to our social fabric, but rather they enhance it. That's all I want say, thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Peter. Thank you for brevity. Nancy Simpson. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She'll be back. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay. In Fairbanks - are you on Fairbanks? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN GREEN: John Coghill. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He left. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, S. Thompson. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He left. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Jeanie Williamson. Number 2246 JEANIE WILLIAMSON: I'm here. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright. MS. WILLIAMSON: Okay, I've heard plenty of rhetoric these past few months about the superiority of male-female relationships that somehow society will fall apart if we recognize that love between two adults of the same sex is (indisc.). Whether recognized or not, gay or lesbian couples still love each other as deeply and remarkably as straight couples do. We fall in love, create families based on mutual consideration, respect, and (indisc.) unity. Some of us have children. As any family, we want the best for our loved ones, we hope to provide for them in sickness and health, to protect them and (indisc.) them. We have jobs, pay taxes, work and volunteer in our churches and communities. We get involved in our children's education. Our families face the same societal pressures as any, only we experience the extra burden of homophobia and the denial of the economic and legal securities married couples take for granted. While the special rights bestowed on those who are allowed to married are too numerous for me to articulate, our denial of them adds extra emotional and financial stress to our household. I fail to see how our burden strengthens heterosexual marriages. I also fail to understand how legislating this or any discrimination against some Alaskan families benefits the state in any way. Non-traditional Alaskan families and their children deserve the same special rights and protections every other family in this state is entitled to. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much. Is Patty Kearon there? Number 2316 PATTY KEARON: Yes I am. I oppose SJR 42 because of the testimonies that I've heard of those who support this bill. They are calling gays and lesbians child molesters, involved in incest and bestiality. And these are lies based on misinformation and fear. There are many outstanding citizens in this great state of ours who happen to be gay or lesbian. They are school teachers, counselors, social workers, police officers, et cetera. And I happen to be lesbian and I am also a highly respected youth counselor working with severely emotionally disturbed youth. If you support this bill, you're going to be sending a message to the families that I work with and all Alaskans that I am a bad, immoral youth counselor, and this is just not true. As a youth counselor, I have read many case files on children who have been molested, and I've never come across a case file that said there is a child that was molested by a homosexual. Every one of the molestation cases that I have seen have reported them being molested by a heterosexual male, either the mother's boyfriend, the stepfather or the child's natural father. And what about the gay and lesbian teenagers? (Indisc.) as said earlier, gay youth (indisc.) 30 percent of (indisc.) youth suicide. Twenty-eight percent of gay and lesbian youth drop out of school because of the harassment in school. And gay and lesbian youth make up 25 percent of youth living on the street because of the wrath that they get at home. By supporting this bill you're only going to increase the statistics because you'll be sending a message that gay and lesbian youth are bad people and do not deserve the same civil rights as everyone else. These kids don't need condemnation. What they need is support. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Patty, we need to wrap up. MS. KEARON: Okay, I just have one more line. These kids do not need condemnation, what they need is support. Please oppose this bill. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you. Mari Galereave. Number 2383 MARI GALEREAVE: Yes, I'm Mari Galereave. Recently, Representative Ramona Barnes said that she refuses to make second class citizens out of a group of her constituents. She was speaking of subsistence. Yet I say that if you vote for SJR 42, you are making second class citizens out of a group of constituents. In this case, gay men and lesbians. Now listen to Senator Robin Taylor, "Under no circumstances will I hold office and violate the equal protection rights of our constitution." Now that's interesting, then why did he vote in favor of SJR 42? Senator Taylor is not one to violate equal protection to solve the subsistence issue, but he is willing to violate equal protection to deny same-sex marriage. If we give special privileges to a minority group such as Natives in compensation for the land that we stole, I have no a problem with that. But notice that SJR 42 gives special privileges to a majority group and it asks the majority group to ratify these privileges in the constitution. This is outrageous. Equal protection is intended to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. SJR 42 undermines equal protections and opens the way for any majority group to give (indisc.) special rights. SJR 42, when compared to the rest of the constitution, is unconstitutional. The place to stop the erosion of equal protection is here in the House Judiciary. I urged you to vote no on SJR 42. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Mari. Back home we have Elizabeth Andrews. TAPE 98-72, SIDE B Number 0001 CHAIRMAN GREEN: ...I guess not. How about Amy Skilbred? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She had to go pick up her kids. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Sara Boesser. Number 0011 SARA BOESSER: I'm Sara Boesser with the Committee for Equality and I, too, am against this bill because I believe there is no need to interfere with the constitution while this issue is still in the courts, especially for implied religious reasons. You know it's really awful sitting through hearings on this issue and to the question as to why not send it to the people, I say that these hearings prove that this ballot campaign would just declare open season on lesbian and gay families, and our straight families, too - all our relatives. For example, at a Senate Finance hearing recently, a pastor declared the Bible says that homosexuals should be stoned to death. How would you feel if a back-woods minister was saying legislators should be stoned to death? I think you would take that as a warning that you weren't safe, and I don't feel safe with this going to the ballot. I personally am a lesbian and I realized I was when I was 16. This kind of talk scares me. I'm also a minister's daughter and I know the Bible can be used pro and con on just about any issue. But I'm born and raised, and baptized, and confirmed Christian, and I disagree that this is what you should do with religious differences. I think they should stay in the courts and I don't think they should go to the public. I think sending this to the ballot is premature and is an unnecessary tear in the social fabric. Speaking of social fabric, I just want to say your vote no can prevent pain within families. We've heard some of that earlier. But speaking for myself, I have two nieces, they're young, who would hear so many untrue and hateful things about me and people like me if this goes to the ballot. Why should they have to endure this grief? And more at risk of permanent damages, are those young people my nieces age who are just now in junior high and high school, like I was, first realizing that they are lesbian or gay. Think of the pressures this ballot measure will place on them, what intense fear they're going to feel, what horrible things they're going to hear, what despair they'll suffer listening to this bombardment of rejection at their vulnerable ages. It's going to be imprinted for life, I promise you. It's going to do damage. These youth and their families will suffer more than you can imagine. Talk to any of us who are gay and lesbian, we'll tell you stories forever. This bill should die in committee. The constitutional debate should stay in the courts and the religious debate should stay in the churches where churches are free to differ. But we only have one constitution. I really want you to protect it, I want you to protect me, I want you to protect all my family members. So please vote no on this bill. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you. Angela Mu$oz. You think she'll be back? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Genia Collins. Aimee Glejasz. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She's not here. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Elaine Schroeder. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She had to pick her kids up. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Fabienne Peter-Contesse. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Be back at 5:00 [p.m.]. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Shelly Owens. Mary Graham. Number 0135 MARY GRAHAM: I'm here. My name is Mary Graham and I live in Juneau. Thank you, Representative Green and members of the House Judiciary Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I'm here to speak against the passage of SJR 42. I think we should let the Supreme Court issue a ruling on this matter before we even consider voting for a constitutional amendment. Amending Alaska's Constitution is a very serious matter. After listening to the debate on this issue in the Senate, I still find no logical reason for amending Alaska's Constitution to allow discrimination against a portion of Alaskan citizens. I don't see how my choice of a life partner can affect anyone else's marriage. It is not like love is a nonrenewable resource or there are a limited amount of marriage licenses for the state to issue. Most of the reasons I've heard for supporting this amendment are based on personal religious convictions in an attempt to keep the status quo. Well, it is time for Alaska to move beyond the status quo. There are many couples who are granted marriage licenses now whose marriages I personally don't approve of or agree with, but that doesn't give me the right to say they shouldn't be granted a civil marriage license. If this measure goes to the ballot, there will be months of divisive debate filled with hate, lies, and stereotypes. We don't need that to happen in Alaska. Please let SJR 42 be put to rest. I have one slight addendum because Senator Leman has said this a number of times that there is no country in the Western world that has same-sex marriage. And in January 1998, the Netherlands created registration of partnerships, which gives same-sex partners all the same civil legal rights, benefits and responsibilities as married heterosexual couples, including child custody and adoptions. And so it's not unheard of and I agree with someone else earlier who said if this gets passed now, somewhere down the road the legislature will have to turn around and change it anyways. And I thought I was a pretty strong person, but it gets harder and harder to hear these hearings and not have it personally affect me. I thought living in Alaska I really didn't have to be afraid, but that is not so true any more. And it makes it harder for me to be an out - lesbian, which I am, who does a good job and has friends and family who supports me. So thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Mary, thank you. Tom Gordy. Number 0235 TOM GORDY, STATE DIRECTOR, CHRISTIAN COALITION OF ALASKA: Thanks Chairman Green. It's a pleasure to be with you today. My name is Tom Gordy, I am the state director of the Christian Coalition of Alaska. I am one of those Baptist preachers that was mentioned about awhile ago, but I will not preach to you today because this is an issue that if you remember - getting this thing back in context of what we're dealing with here - is the court said that the state had no right to tell a person who they can and cannot marry. And when you look at that, that means basically all of our statutes regarding marriage are null and void. We also have laws against bigamy, polygamy and incestuous marriages. Now to say that -- to take away the definition of one man and one woman as being constituted as a legal marriage, we are offering up the opportunity for these other types of things to creep in as well as same-sex marriage. Now are we, as a state, prepared to have a father marry his daughter? Are we, as a state, prepared to have a mother marry her son? By this decision this is exactly what the courts have opened up as a possibility in our state. And, again, our -- this -- if these -- if the definition of marriage in Alaska changes, it will be against the -- it will go against every state law that is in our country. It will also go against our own federal law which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. And many other states have passed similar other actions in their own states regarding this. And so with that said and I've heard a lot about the divisiveness in the debate, I think the debate has been going on a very long time on this issue. I mean you watch T.V., in any of the sitcoms there is at least one gay or lesbian in the program. And if this is a very popular theme, then it is time to bring this out for public debate. In fact, public debate was held last week in Anchorage - or maybe two weeks ago - between a gay man and a person who represents the Christian Coalition. Had a very cordial debate in a gay bar, a very cordial debate. And this is the time for us to come to terms with what are we going to do? What are we going to allow? Let's get the debate going, let's talk, let's exchange the ideas and do it in a way that is cordial. And there may be people who are not going to do it on both sides, but a person like me and I know many of the people in here, we will all be cordial to one another because I understand that this debate is about ideas and not hatred towards people. And as a Baptist minister and as a leader of the Christian Coalition, that will be my very strong message to the people of this state during the debate that this is a debate on ideas and not a tearing down of people. And we will get that message out and -- but this is time for the debate because it is here and it is now. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Representative Croft. Number 0368 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT: Tom, have you read the decision? MR. GORDY: Yes, I have. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT: Because it surprised me to hear you say it invalidated a lot of state laws. It doesn't yet, correct? MR. GORDY: Well, no it doesn't yet, but I'm saying it's opening up the possibilities. Using the right to privacy clause in our constitution, he is saying that the state doesn't have a compelling interest telling a person who they can and cannot marry. Now eventually -- I mean that does not legalize same-sex marriage, but it could possibly open the door for -- even with the same-sex marriage putting that aside, eventually -- this is a very slippery slope that we are approaching and we've got to find out do we want to go down that slippery slope or not. And so these things -- those are opportunities that are out there that - that may come up and it is something to definitely think about. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Tom. Melissa Howell. Karen Wood. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She is going to be back at 5:00 [p.m.] too. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Liz Dodd. Number 0420 LIZ DODD: Thank you, Chairman Green. My name is Liz Dodd. I think I'll testify on my own behalf today as the Alaska Civil Liberties Union law clerk did testify earlier on behalf of the affiliate, but I am the president of the board of directors of the Alaska affiliate of the ACLU as well. A couple of things have been said that I just wanted to clarify a little bit. One has to do with the Hawaii case. I believe that what's on the ballot in Hawaii is an advisory vote as opposed to a constitutional amendment. Hawaii so loved our constitution, I believe they patterned a lot of theirs after ours. And they apparently love it a little more than we love ours. They haven't tried to amend it to deal with this situation that they're coping with down there. They did have the compelling state interest hearing down there and couldn't show a compelling state interest of course. So that's what's happening there. Also, there are other lawsuits pending around the country on this very issue. The one I know of is in Vermont. If anyone is interested, I could get more information on that. Also, the idea that this is just totally off the map in terms of - that these rights should be granted and that Alaska will just be this abhorrent state if the court decision does hold in Alaska. I don't know if members know that a couple of days ago in Canada the highest court there ruled that the Canadian Tax Service can no longer discriminate against same-sex couples. So they get to file jointly now. So I think this change is coming. Where will Alaska fall in this historic change is, I guess, the question before you all today. State sponsors of SJR 42 have argued that the people rather than the court should determine such important social questions as who should be granted a marriage license. "Why should one unelected judge or five unelected judges be allowed to decide such an important issue?" Senator Leman asked here just today. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Need to wrap up. MS. DODD: Okay. Well, the answer is that because judges are not elected, they constitute the branch of government least susceptible to political pressure. As such, the courts interpret our constitution's explicit mandates solely on the basis of those mandates aside from any political controversy that may arise from a ruling that protects an unpopular group. That is why in our nation's history the courts often have led the people and their elected leaders out of the dark realm of prejudice and fear. This is the wisdom in both our state and federal constitutions. CHAIRMAN GREEN: You need to wrap up, Liz. MS. DODD: That if adhered to, the constitution's instructions eventually illuminate the path of liberty for all people. Representative Green, respectfully -- you know it's hard because Senator Leman came in and gave a very long presentation representing his side of the issue. And I may be the self-anointed spokesperson for our side, but nevertheless, I think our side should get a chance to present something longer than a 3-minute statement given that the sponsor was given a good 15 - 20 minutes to lay out his side of it. It's very hard to make all points we want to make in 3 minutes so... CHAIRMAN GREEN: Just a moment. With so many testifiers we have to do it that way. That is the custom to allow the sponsor of the statement to make statements and ask questions from the group and then we take testimony, and because so many are there if we gave everyone, then there would be people waiting until midnight and beyond that would not have a chance to testify. And that's the problem. MS. DODD: I appreciate that sir, I guess I'm just asking for one exception just so that one person can flush out some of the points that he raised... CHAIRMAN GREEN: We've heard several of those. Thank you, Representative ... Number 0592 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ: Mr. Chairman, I was hoping you might be able to give her a couple of more minutes. I've Ms. Dodd testify on other matters and generally what she has had to say is fairly illuminating. CHAIRMAN GREEN: If there would be someone of the same who is opposed to it that wants to give their time, I'll allow that. MS. DODD: I will let other folks talk, sir. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you. MS. DODD: And I want to thank you for having this full hearing because I think this is an issue that is of fundamental importance to the people of this state. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Oh I agree. Representative Croft. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT: Will you copy the statements you were going to make for us and also any information you have about that Vermont case, I'd be interested in. MS. DODD: Alright, I can get that for all of you and I'll give you a copy of my (indisc.) notes. CHAIRMAN GREEN: And if you would want to stay until the end, I'll hear you then. That's a long ... MS. DODD: Yes, I plan to be here until the cows go home or whatever the saying is. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Lawrence Woodall. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He had to go back to work. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, Susan Fry. Susan Margis. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She'll be back. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Susan Clark. Number 0646 SUSAN CLARK, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA STATE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS: My name is Susan Clark and I'm here representing the Alaska State League of Women Voters. We met in convention last week in Kenai and unanimously passed a resolution that urges you to oppose SJR 42. And actually if it could be left in committee that would be preferable so that it doesn't get out too much. The League of Women Voters of Alaska considers the constitution of the state of Alaska a model document. It is one of the most recent documents and it is being used as a model throughout the United States. Constitutions in a democracy exist in part to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Article I, Section 3, of our constitution states, "no person is to be denied enjoyment of any civil or political right because of race, color, creed, sex or national origin." The legislature shall implement this section in total. The league's national commitment to diversity embraces all citizens regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, disability and sexual orientation. And the league opposes a breach in anyone's right to privacy based on membership in any one of these groups. Restricted marriage has been found unconstitutional by our superior court under Alaska's privacy law. The League of Women Voters of Alaska opposes any legislative or other attempts to send to the voters amendments to our constitution that would restrict, defeat or make exceptions to rights and liberties in place in the Alaskan Constitution. The League of Women Voters of Alaska support equality opportunity for all citizens. It rejects amendments that would make some groups of Alaskan citizens less equal than others or that would deny whole groups of citizens the same rights and responsibilities enjoyed by other citizens. The League of Women Voters opposes SJR 42 and any law or ballot measure, of which there are several currently, that is intended to undercut or overturn court decisions which maintain a basic privacy rights of Alaskan citizens. The State League of Women Voters is made up of various local leagues. It is a nonpartisan organization. We have Republicans, we have Democrats. I, myself, (indisc.) have been married for 31 years, I have two heterosexual daughters. We feel very strongly that the right of privacy in our constitution is a model one. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much. Yes. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ: Do you have a copy of the resolution? MS. CLARK: I do. CHAIRMAN GREEN: A copy for the record. Carol Anderson. Number 0790 CAROL ANDERSON: My name is Carol Anderson. I have live in Juneau all my life. I am opposed to SJR 42. It is a piece of unnecessary and troubling legislation because it would prohibit same-sex marriage. Marriage is both a civil and religious institution. What we are talking about now is the civil institution of marriage and the rights and responsibilities that go with that civil right. It is a civil right. It is a civil right that people of different races were denied less than 30 years ago in some states, until the courts determined that that was unlawful discrimination. It is up to each religious denomination to decide if they will marry same- sex couples or not. I'm not disputing each religions right to define their values. What I am disputing is the imposition of a certain set of religious beliefs on civil matters. The United States is not a theocracy. Europeans first came to this continent to escape religious persecutions. Separation of church and state is one of our basic tenants. We are not even a Christian nation. We are a nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, Buddhists, and other sects too numerous to mention. Traditionally, people look toward their religion for moral guidance and leaderships. Many churches in the United States do not ordain women or let people of color hold all offices in their churches. Although our constitution and its amendments prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex and race, the state does not interfere in the practices of the churches. In the same way, if same-sex marriage were allowed, churches would not be required to perform or sanction those relationships. I don't believe religious arguments are pertinent to this discussion. Discrimination against gays and lesbians creates economic, social, and emotional hardship for all of us. A measure of this hardship is the suicide rate of gay lesbian youth that you've heard about earlier that's two or three times the rate of their straight counterparts. If gay youth could dream of forming unions that were sanctioned, celebrated and out in the public eye, then maybe they would feel less isolated and devalued, and would be less likely to end their lives. Same-sex marriage does not pose a threat to traditional marriage. If anything, it would expand and support the concept. Allow us to marry and many of us will provide strong role models of committed and positive partnerships that both straights and gays can emulate. I urge you to let SJR 42 die in committee and not to cordially deny me my rights. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you. Beth Kerttula. Number 0913 BETH KERTTULA: Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Beth Kerttula. I've been an attorney for 16 years. I'm here representing myself today. To decide this on religious or moral grounds would be not only a distinct mistake, but also a violation of our separation of church and state. As I know the committee has heard today, we've got a lot of varying opinions on just where those lines fall. As an attorney, and as Representative Berkowitz previously mentioned, it worries me to see the legislature reaching so far down into a case of a preliminary ruling, one which has a long ways to go to really even get flushed out and we have a very brief opinion on a very important topic. And I would encourage you to wait for the courts to take its course - the case rather, so that we can get the knowledge of the courts behind it. I just want to briefly mention something that Judge Michalski wrote in the case because I think it really focuses the issue and that is, the issue really isn't same-sex marriage. Judge Michalski recognizes that same-sex marriage isn't accepted or rooted in the traditions and collective consciousness of our people. But that rather the question that is there, is whether or not the freedom to choose one's own life partner is so rooted in our traditions. And that's the question he answered yes, that it is. That's the fundamental right - the right to choose your partner. In talking about the right to privacy, I think that each of us values that right. As Alaskans we do indeed have a broader right to privacy right in our constitution, and doing anything against that erodes all of our rights to privacy. I know that I wanted to choose my own life partner. I think that many here today are speaking from the heart about that same choice. And I would encourage you to allow the courts to take their time on this issue, give their decision about what our constitutional rights really say. In closing, I just want to quickly mention that I do not believe that this case, in any way, would allow fathers to marry daughters. If such were, in some way, the holding it would be very easy for the state to show the interest that it has in prohibiting such actions. Thank you very much. I appreciate the committee's time. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Beth. Mary Hicks. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mary will be back. Moving to Sitka, are you on Sitka? Sitka are you there? Craig - Craig are you there? Valdez. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Valdez is here. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright, we have a William Essary. Number 1078 WILLIAM ESSARY: I'm here. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Go ahead William. MR. ESSARY: My name is William Essary and I'm in support of SJR 42. This nation is a nation that was suppose to be founded on the word of God. The constitution was founded on Godly principles. It's suppose to be one nation under God. We were founded on the Bible. The Bible certainly states homosexuality is a violent sin against our Good Lord and his word. How can we pass a law and make something legal that is so obviously wrong and unnatural? Common sense tells us that the idea of marriage existing between anything other than one man and woman is ridiculous and blatantly simple. Marriage is God's institution and I would be afraid of a change (indisc.) marriage to the Holy Place the title of marriage. Man has no authority to change what God established once and for all. And nature has been telling us itself that everything was to be male and female. And that's all I have. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, William. Ray Halley or Hailey. Number 1143 RAY HALLEY: It's Ray Halley, (indisc.). Good afternoon, Chairman and committee. My name is Ray Halley, I'm a 23-year Alaskan resident. I'd like to come down in support of SJR 42. The current situation, as I see it, is expanding of the definition of marriage to include homosexual unions is nothing more than an assault to weaken the traditional view of marriage and ultimately the definition of the family. The question of discrimination that seems to be coming up I think is a little bit over (indisc.). There is really no discrimination taking place. Homosexuals have the same rights as anyone else to live wherever they want, to have the relationships they want, the behavior they want and the partnerships they want. This issue is about the definition of marriage. And I'm coming down in support of that marriage being between one man and one woman. And I call it discrimination in situations where one judge can cause the definition of marriage from statehood to this date to be changed. And I would urge your support in moving this bill out of here today and support SJR 42. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much. Is Ray Macy there? Number 1225 RAY MACY: Yes, I'm here. I'd like to go on record as supporting SJR 42. I believe that we need to maintain the tradition of marriage and we need to place it on the ballot. I think we owe it to the people of the state of Alaska to decide on this matter and I support it. Same-sex marriage is an attack on a Christian marriage and a God-based Christian in eyes of the states. I think if we don't stand for something, we're fall for anything. It's an abomination under God. And I stand on the word of God in support of this. I think that the state has a right to vote, every individual has the right to vote whether or not they want to accept this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Ray. Now as I understand it Bruce Van Buskirk is the last one. Is that right? MR. MACY: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, Bruce go ahead. Number 1266 BRUCE VAN BUSKIRK: Thank you, Chairman and committee. I would like to go on the record supporting SJR 42. Issues discussed are interesting, but I believe there's too many other biblical-based issues essential in our fabric of morality, in not only Valdez Alaska, the whole of Alaska. If we do not support SJR 42, we will issue a key that will unlock many, many doors that will cause an active landslide against our collective society. We have enough problems resulting from homosexuality that I feel we have connected criminal activity. If we don't stand against same-sex marriage, we will (indisc.) so many issues and relations that we won't be able to stop, not even to the extent of the military or other parts of our government. It is simply an abomination that we won't stand for. Thank you very much. Number 1318 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ: Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Yes. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ: I just wanted to correct something that the last speaker said. There is, to my knowledge, no connection between a person's sexual orientation and the propensity to commit crimes. MR. VAN BUSKIRK: Certainly -- yeah, I'm going to address that. I'm a witness to that. I just spent some time in relation to the house of correction and I've seen many, many, many situations that were criminal activities as the result of sexual immorality. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Darla Madden. Daniel Collison. Number 1359 DANIEL COLLISON, CHAIRPERSON, SOUTHEAST ALASKA GAY AND LESBIAN ALLIANCE: Yes. First of all thank you Representative Green and members of the committee for the opportunity to take testimony. My name is Daniel Collison. I'm the chairperson of the Southeast Alaska Gay and Lesbian Alliance. And one of the things that confuses me in this debate about same-sex marriage is the position put forward by advocates of the legislation that somehow same-sex marriages will undermine the institution of marriage in our society. It's somewhat confusing because gays and lesbians have been marrying as long as I know and living together in unions as long as I know. These are private ceremonies that are done on their own or in affiliated churches, but they lack the, I guess the sanction of the state. But in -- I guess in recognizing a test for discrimination the court typically looks at similarly situated couples and in this case are looking at two men who might be living together in a union and a man and a woman who might be living together in a union, and they evaluate whether or not benefits come to one couple as opposed to the other couple. And clearly, gays and lesbians are on the outside of, I guess, accruement of benefits in the area of marriages. For instance, I have two friends, two women who live in Anchorage, and one of the women is an artist and her partner, who she's been married to for about five years, is an employee of the federal government. The partner, Lorie, who's a member or employee of the federal government gets health care benefits, but she cannot extend those benefits to her partner, who is an artist. And so her partner goes without health care at this point in time. One of the other arguments that the advocates for this bill say is that we should leave this to the voters to decide and I guess we're suppose to assume that the ultimate test of our democracy is a popular vote of the people. But I guess it's my opinion that this has never been the case. The majority are never meant to abridge the rights of the minority. I think as an example of that, in the mid-60s, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that it was wrong to make interracial marriages illegal. And many of the Southern states had laws which made those marriages illegal. Can any of us in this room believe that or doubt that if that issue had been put before the voters in any one of those states that the voters would have decided against interracial marriages? And that's a classic example of how the majority cannot abridge the rights of the minority. CHAIRMAN GREEN: You need to wrap up, Daniel. MR. COLLISON: Sure. And I would just encourage all of you to vote no on this issue and to let the SJR 42 die in the committee. Thanks. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much. David Rogers. There he is. Number 1541 DAVID ROGERS: Thanks. Mr. Chairman, my name is David Rogers and I'm here on my own nickel today. I would like to thank you for taking the time to listen to all of us. I'll get to the bottom line, Mr. Chairman, I really don't like this bill, I just don't. And the main bottom line reason is that it promotes discrimination. No matter how you package it, this amendment would sanctify in our constitution discrimination against fellow Alaskans in a big way by preventing some of us human beings from exercising a fundamental right, by making some of us human beings second class, permanent second class citizens. And no historical precedent, no legal theory, no religious doctrine, no constitutional amendment can change that basic fact. And for me, that is unacceptable, especially in a nation and a state dedicated to the proposition that all human beings are created equal. In my book, Mr. Chairman, you're either equal or you're not. Thank you. And one aside by the way, I'm a married man. I'm happily married man. I'm a proudly married man, and for the life of me I do not understand how allowing same-sex marriage will affect my marriage or yours for that matter. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Is that what Caren told you to say? MR. ROGERS: (Indisc.), thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Yes, you are. How are you, Caren? Number 1641 CAREN ROBINSON, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA WOMEN'S LOBBY: Fine, and again, I too thank you for having this hearing and really taking the time to listen to all the citizens across the state and the ones of you who had the opportunity to sit and hear the testimony. As David said, you know, we are definitely a couple who had cherished our time together. And, of course, we took 20 years to make the decision to get married and have been one year and eight months I just figured out, as of today, and feel very proud that we have that. And I think it was kind of a joke at our wedding, but about a day before we went to get married, I went down to pay my car insurance. And I told the woman I said, "By the way, you know, next week we're getting married." and she said, "Well, by the way, you get a 10 percent discount." And so I think when we are talking about what some of the benefits are, sometimes you don't even know what they are. They just happen to pop up and then you find out when you get married. Anyway, for the record, I am Caren Robinson and I'm here today on behalf of the Alaska Women's Lobby. The facts are clear here, the resolution sets the tone for Alaskans to believe that it's okay to discriminate. That no matter how you look at it, as heterosexual people we are saying that it's okay for us to get married and share the benefits from marriage, but it's not okay for our gay and lesbian friends. The facts are clear. We get it, they don't get it. Yet they are just like the rest of us. They eat, they breath, they have mothers, they have fathers, they have sisters, they have brothers. They have jobs. They pay bills. They have homes. They pay property tax. They do raise children. They laugh, they cry, and just like us they fall in love and they deserve the right to have the same benefits as we do. I believe it is time to give our gay and lesbian sisters the same rights, the same freedoms and the same choices that the rest of us as human beings take for granted and would fight to death to preserve. The facts are clear. The proposal supports discrimination and you can't change that fact by trying to change the constitution. I think the debate is good. I think it's great that we're starting talking about it. I mean I've started talking to my own family and I was so pleased when I talked to my mother this weekend and she said, "Well, by the way you know right here Austin, Texas, the Baptist Church has just decided they're going to allow same-sex marriages." Again, let the churches make the decisions on whether or not they want to have that religiously done in their churches, but as a state, let's allow the same rights and let them have the same benefits that the rest of us get. Thank you, I appreciate your time. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Caren. Jean Findley. Later? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She had to go to work. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, Theresa Miller. Later. David Jackson. Number 1830 DAVID JACKSON: Hello and thank you for this opportunity to speak before you. My name is David Jackson and earlier today I took the opportunity to pass - a resolution passed by the united students of the University of Alaska Southeast, around to each of you or to your respective offices. As a student senator at the University of Alaska Southeast, it is my duty as stated in our constitution as a smaller student government, to protect the rights of all students regardless of race, gender, age, social background, ethnic background, or sexual preference or lifestyle. When a group of students approached us and asked us to speak before the legislature against Senate Joint Resolution 42 our body was somewhat - didn't know what to say. We backed off. We all wanted to put it in a committee. We didn't want to bring it up. We didn't want to talk about it. We thought maybe we'd have a poll. The point of the matter is it's something that people don't want to talk about. It's a spotlighting bill. It's something that is so personal that a lot of people don't feel comfortable expressing it straight out in saying I believe in this, I don't believe in this. And I believe we believe that it is not appropriate for the legislature to be bringing this before the people, that it is skipping the due process of the three checks and balances that our government is founded on. When writing this resolution, there were several ideas that we wanted to include in it that we left out in favor of basing it completely on what all of our beliefs were and that was the equal rights and equal protections of all students and of all persons of Alaska. We believe that this resolution will create ambiguity in the state legislature, or excuse me in the state constitution by stating that people are equal, except for a certain group. That undermines the privacy clause and that it tells people who they can and cannot love. This goes against the fundamental principles of our constitution because it does not protect a single citizen. That's what a constitution if for is to protect the people from the government should the government become oppressive. You're never going to find a situation where if somebody goes to court and says, "The government made me marry this person, and I need to appeal this." This isn't something that somebody is going say, "I have a constitutional right not to do this," because then they wouldn't get married to begin with. At this point I'll step down as a student senator because there is a number of personal things that I've observed for this. CHAIRMAN GREEN: We're just about out of time. MR. JACKSON: Oh, if I'm just about out of time then that's about what I have to say. CHAIRMAN GREEN: You mentioned that you had, as I understood, essentially a unanimity of a group. How big a group was that? MR. JACKSON: The united students, we're a body of nine student council representatives who represent the entire University of Alaska Southeast, student population. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Now you're not suggesting that the entire student body, but the nine representatives were unanimous on this resolution. MR. JACKSON: I'm suggesting that I'm in the same position as you that I don't represent everybody who comes before me, I represent who I was elected by and so do my constituents. CHAIRMAN GREEN: No, my question was that you indicated, I thought, in your resolution that you had other points that you were going to make but that you confined it to those that everyone agreed to. MR. JACKSON: Oh yes, we confined it to the points that all members of our student council agreed to. And we struck things that addressed specifically the issue of homosexuality and we believe that this is not a lawful resolution because it undermines the constitution, and that was one thing that we could agree on that it undermines the constitution of this state. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you. Susan Fitzgerald. Number 2170 SUZAN FITZGERALD: Good afternoon, my name is Susan Fitzgerald and I'm the newest senator-elect at UAS. I've just come to tell you guys that I'm against SJR 42 for the sole reason that all people are created equally, and if this bill gets passed all people aren't created equally. As a lot of people have said here today that there is a lot of pros and cons, you know, what's going to happen if it does get passed; what's going to happen if it doesn't. I just basically want to keep it short, keep it simple. Don't pass it, let it die here. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Susan. Ann Northrip. Number 2190 ANN NORTHRIP: Hello, my name is Ann Northrip and I came here today -- and I wasn't planning to testify, but after listening to some of the other testimonies of people, I couldn't sit and listen anymore. I am a student in the Juneau school district. I have been all my life. I've lived in Juneau all my life. I'm 16 years old and I now attend Juneau Douglas High School. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Do you play basketball there? MS. NORTHRIP: No. I'm part of the drama department. I have many friends at the high school, some of whom include lesbians and gays. And for those of them who came forward, they came to me because I am one of the people who is more open to this idea, and it took them a long time to talk to me, even me who they knew would accept them. It was such a frightening thing to have someone else know that about them for fear of discrimination and exile from the school. There are gay bashings at the school sometimes. They are not very prominent. They do have them. Things in the hallways -- you can walk through our school hallway and hear, "Oh that was so gay." It's a term - faggot or dike. Being a student there, I don't like hearing these things. They are discriminatory no matter who you are talking about. SJR 42 does discriminate not only against the citizens who can vote, but against students and against anyone else in this state. And would like it not to be passed through. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much. Number 2341 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ: I just want to thank her for her courage in saying out loud words of ... CHAIRMAN GREEN: Sixteen years old, that's great. Thank you. Rosezella Michalsky, later. Willie Anderson. Don't tell us you're a 16-year old student. Number 2359 WILLIE ANDERSON: A few years young, just a few. Thank you, Representative Green, for the opportunity to testify. I'm here as an individual citizen to testify against SJR 42. I have a unique experience from those who have testified so far because I have lived through an oppressive society. For all my high school years I was prohibited from going to school with Caucasians in my southern community. I lived under an oppressive society and I lived there and I grew and I prospered. It was hard. It was difficult. I have experienced the issue of the water fountain issue where blacks don't drink here. I have been sent to the back door to get a sandwich that I was paying for. I know what it is to be oppressed. SJR 42 is an oppressive piece of legislation. SJR .... TAPE 98-73, SIDE A Number 0000 MR. ANDERSON: .... mentioned earlier. What if we had had a referendum on integration in the South? Do you think that resolution would pass in South Carolina, in Georgia, in Tennessee? Do you think if we had the issue of the Loving v. Virginia case for interracial marriage for it to be allowed, and that issue was put to the people of the South and asked to vote on it, do you think that issue would have passed? And so what would we have? We would have the people - the majority of the people saying, "No, you are a second class citizen." And I know what that is because I've lived it. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Willie. Morissa Williams. Number 0100 MORISSA L. WILLIAMS: Chairman Green, thank you for letting us testify. My name is Morissa Lou Williams. I'm 40-years-old and the descendant, as most Americans are, of immigrants. I'm Jewish and most of my family perished in Nazi-occupied Europe. And I'm not very good at speaking in public. CHAIRMAN GREEN: You're doing wonderfully well. MS. WILLIAMS: I owe my existence to the courage of Americans who loved justice, compassion and mercy, which I believe are the greatest gifts that God has given us, much more than they feared the challenge of human differences. I thus feel that I've received a mandate, not only from my religious tradition, but from the tradition of the United States of America, to stop short at the gates of persecution and bigotry. For some reason there is a pretense and I think it's actually a lie, although I don't like to assume bad faith, that there is something wrong or unusual about a man loving a man, or a woman loving a woman. I doubt it very much that there is a single person in this world who has never been attracted to someone of their own gender. It is an entirely natural thing that one child of God should find another child of God worthy of love. I have studied religion and theology for quite a long time. I received a BA [bachelor of arts degree] in biblical studies from Wellesley College in 1978, which is a rather conservative school, and I'm rather a conservative person. I've studied Old Testament and New Testament theology not only in the comfort of the academic classroom, but also in the more rigorous classrooms of such places as Belfast, Northern Ireland, and other places where racial, economic and religious historical conflicts are slowly being resolved. In America, integration refers to black and white. In Belfast, it refers to Catholic and Protestant. Elsewhere, it might refer to gay or straight, Hindu or Moslem, Moslem or Christian, Moslem or Jew, rich or poor, or God knows what. I would not wish to see any bond injured between two people who are the loved children of God, who have chosen to love one another, who have the courage and the commitment to marry one another, to show respect for one another, to care for one another, to create families with one another. In Nazi Germany, the church itself was scorned and defiled, along with gays, Jews, and anyone who threatened the paranoia of the Reich. This kind of bill is immoral. It's contrary to our constitution. It's a sad reminder of times when love was considered dangerous. Love is not dangerous. It is, most of all, I believe, as a woman of faith, an insult to the God who loves us all. We do not need to suffer the paranoia of people who are afraid of love. When our leaders have lapses in judgment, we can guide them back through our own faith. Let us do so, preserving both constitution and hope. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Morissa, thank you very much. Back to Anchorage we have -- are you back on Anchorage or are you still off? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I don't believe Anchorage will be on until 5:00 [p.m.] Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay. Nome are you on? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Nome is on line. We have three people here to testify. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Our first one is Carol McDaniel. Is that right? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Carol is out of the room, you can take the next one on the list which is (indisc.). CHAIRMAN GREEN: Is what? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Carol has stepped out of the room. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Noma Stewart. Number 0381 NOMA STEWART: Yes, and I just want to say you need to kill SJR 42. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Well that's very succinct, Noma. Thank you very much. How about Lyn Conlon? Number 0391 LYN CONLON, PSYCHIATRIST: Hello, members of the committee. (Indisc.) psychiatrist and have practiced in the community. I (indisc.) my personal belief systems to be of real service to those who are in need. It's not an easy task to be nonjudgmental and accepting of all who seek my services. But if we truly represent what is good in the human spirit and the goodness in each and every individual, we allow every person their own moral compass within the limits of humane conduct. Each individual has a right to decide for themselves, and themselves only, how they will live their lives. Alaska is the last bastion of personal freedom. I must confess I'm shocked and amazed that one group's individual, religious, scientific or political beliefs will be the setting of the sails for the great ship of the state of Alaska, the direction it shall go. Alaska, the last frontier of individual freedom? Or a state who is in denial of their own sexual insecurities? I'm opposed to SJR 42, and please excuse the blatant psychiatric generalizations, but you folks (indisc.) to protect too much. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you. Did Carol come back? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She is. Number 0476 CAROL McDANIEL: Yes sir. I'm Dr. Carol McDaniel and this is short and sweet. To tamper with the separation or balance of powers, just in order to make it legal to deny the civil rights of a minority who happen to be Alaskan citizens, is sinister practice. I want to go on record as opposing SJR 42. Please allow SJR 42 to die in your committee and allow this civil rights issue to continue in the court system, where it belongs. I'm just curious, what rights will the majority be denied if homosexuals are eventually allowed to marry? CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much. Down in Kenai we have (indisc.). I have on the list here, Elmer Overpeck. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Overpeck had to leave. The only participants we have left are Ms. Wherry and Ms. Barry. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright, Ms. Wherry, are you ready? Number 0551 CAROLE WHERRY: Yes I am. Thank you for allowing me to speak on this important issue. My name is Carole Wherry and my husband Gary and I have lived in Alaska for 15 years and have just celebrated our 35th wedding anniversary. We have two children and five grandchildren. I fully support SJR 42 and the constitutional amendment introduced by Senator Loren Leman, to write the traditional definition of marriage into the state constitution. The sacred bond between man and woman has been since time began, for the sake of bringing forth new life, which a same-sex marriage cannot give. Society has a stake in this issue because it is through procreation that new members will arise and ensure its perpetuation. Laws regulating the contract of marriage enable the creation of a stable institution, where a loving mother and father bring up a healthy, contributing individual. Alaska, putting this stamp of approval upon homosexual activity, does not encourage moral greatness. It simply moves us further away from the laws of nature and nature's God. I feel it's important that we, the people, have a chance to vote on this issue. Please give us this chance. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Carole. Beth Barry. Number 0678 BETH BARRY: Yes, thank you. I'm Beth Barry from Soldotna. I am the here in favor of SJR 42 today. Marriage as defined in four different dictionaries written between 1828 and 1990, including Black's Law Dictionary, states specifically that marriage is a legal union between one man and one woman. Choosing a life partner may be a right; however, legal marriage requires a state license, so therefore, it's not a right but a privilege. Unfortunately, we have to defend the obvious, and I'm grateful for the pursuit of this amendment to our constitution for the sake of clarity, if nothing else. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Beth. In Valdez - are you on Valdez? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I believe Valdez is off line, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Until 5:00 [p.m.]? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's my understanding. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay. What about Fairbanks? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I think they are on. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, Fairbanks are you on? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Fairbanks is on line. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, is Mark Schubauer there? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He had to leave. The next person we have on the list is Patrick Marlow. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright. Number 0732 PATRICK MARLOW: Hi, my name is Patrick Marlow and I live here in Fairbanks. On behalf of the 15 or 20 people who are speaking after waiting to testify, I'll keep my comments short. I want to thank the committee for taking our testimony. I am opposed to SJR 42 for many reasons, and I'll only enumerate one of them today. I urge you to oppose this very divisive bill simply because you can. As you all know, the courts have not yet ruled on this issue, but (indisc.) is the state must show a compelling interest not to allow same-gender marriage. By voting against SJR 42, you are in no way voting to allow same-gender marriage; you are merely allowing the courts the opportunity to make this whole thing quietly go away. By voting for SJR 42, you are simply fanning the flames of a highly emotionally charged issue, and encouraging hate speech unnecessarily. I ask you, therefore, to vote against SJR 42 and let the courts decide. Then, should the courts rule against the current majority, the issue can be revisited in a future legislative session. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Patrick. Is Nancy Kailing there? Number 0809 NANCY KAILING: I am. I'm Nancy Kailing, a proud mother of a lesbian daughter; retired elementary school teacher with 17 years of service in the Fairbanks Northstar Borough School District; UAF [University of Alaska Fairbanks] graduate in student and community psychology; president of PFFLAG Fairbanks, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays; deacon in the Presbyterian Church; 21-year resident of Alaska, married for almost 36 years. I am definitely opposed to SJR 42. PFFLAG National with 70,000 household membership, many other state and local organizations and many individual U.S. citizens have signed a marriage resolution as follows: "Because marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choice, resolved: The state should not interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities and commitment of civil marriage." PFFLAG Fairbanks has over 50 households as members and many other fair-minded individuals as friends. We support this marriage resolution and are against SJR 42. Thanks for listening. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Nancy. Richard Collins. Number 0894 RICHARD COLLINS: Good afternoon, my name is Richard Collins (indisc.) from Fairbanks, Alaska. I want to testify against SJR 42. I understand the hardship and heartfelt difficulty many people have in accepting Alaskans who happen to be gay or lesbian. I understand that this may be a majority of people in today's Alaska. However, lesbian and gay Alaskans do form lifelong, loving and committed families. I count myself lucky enough to have found such a relationship and have celebrated it with my family and friends in a religious wedding ceremony. Finding a man was not what my family would have wanted me, but they've accepted it as part of who I am, and what makes sense for me in my life. Changing the state constitution essentially criminalizes gay and lesbian Alaskans in perpetuity. I respectfully ask you to oppose this measure. And for those of you with gay and lesbian family members and friends, to recognize their humanity of the dignity of their life partnership. For those of you who do not, to (indisc.) prejudice and discrimination. I wish you all the best in the reminder of this busy legislative session and thank you for your attention. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Richard. Bill Brody. Number 0960 BILL BRODY: My name is Bill Brody. I am the father of a lesbian daughter. I am appalled by this move to prohibit same-sex marriage. The state has no business regulating this very personal contract between two people. There is no compelling interest by the state in this matter. The proposal is divisive and attempts to codify religious practice in violation of separation of church and state. I urge you to vote against this discriminatory measure. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Bill, thank you very much. Is Dr. Jean Battig there? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She had to leave, she'll be back later though. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, Rowena Gross. Number 0999 ROWENA GROSS: Yes. I'm Rowena Gross and I'm here to strongly urge you to vote against SJR 42. I think this country was born on the concept of religious freedom, and it's the responsibility of leaders to protect the rights of minorities, not give the majority the opportunity to take those rights away. I'm also a heterosexual single woman, and when I choose to marry, chances are it will be a male, but I want that to be my choice. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Rowena. Ruth Ewig. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Indisc.). Mary Bishop up next. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright Number 1042 MARY BISHOP: Hello, my name is Mary Bishop. I just attended the recent state Republican convention here in Fairbanks this past Thursday, Friday and Saturday, as an elected alternate delegate from my district. And I attended virtually every event. Friday morning breakfast at 8:00 [a.m.], a table of eight Lathrop High School students being introduced. Three of these students asked questions of the gubernatorial candidates. One question related to the same-sex marriage resolution. Our Republican candidates answered so negatively, with such rancor and malice, I was ready to crawl under the table. And while this rancor was being spouted from the podium, I glanced at a table to one side of me. Some men were rising out of their seats, pushing their fists to the ceiling, figuratively shouting, 'Go for it (indisc.).' One thing is for certain, the Republican party lost virtually every student at that table. Of course, all this made the front page of the local paper, for two weeks it was news worthy. We're just lucky that the photographer who was there didn't get a picture of those men raising their fists, shades of the Ku Klux Klan. You, Republicans will loose the young adult youth of today over this issue if this kind of rhetoric continues. Surely each of you have homosexual members of your family. Remember this, they are our sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces, aunts and uncles. Sometimes they're our mothers and fathers. They are our friends and neighbors. Republicans, remember imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, the greatest form of compliment. Gays, like Richard who just testified, want to marry are complimenting my marriage - my marriage of almost 40 years with Richard, complimenting our cultural and social values. We wish to demonstrate to others that a committed, monogamous lifestyle is the way to go. Please support them in this endeavor. Vote no. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Stephen Kailing. Number 1170 STEPHEN KAILING: Stephen Kailing here. I'm against SJR 42. Because this issue is so important to my family, I've attended all the previous Senate hearings and listened while representatives advocated putting discriminatory language against my own daughter, into the Alaska constitution. What are their reasons that they've given? The first one that comes out is that gay and lesbian people are of no more value than dogs or cats, or even goats. I've heard this in debate on our own Senate floor. I've heard from many people throughout this state, "This is the way God intended that it should be." In other words, my daughter's relationship is evil; their relationships are great. And, "We've got to maintain the status quo." I heard this from Rick Halford. Is it right to maintain the status quo when the status quo is wrong? How do you think I feel when I hear this ignorant, hateful rhetoric about my own daughter? I feel hurt. I feel insulted. And I feel very, very angry. And here is what I'm going to do about it. I'm going to keep on attending these hearings. I'm going to keep writing letters to the editor. I'm going to (indisc.) fight people like those in the Republican majority until the day I die. I won't rest until my daughter has the same rights and privileges as everybody else. I might even live long enough so that I can drive around Fairbanks without seeing mean, ugly messages against my daughter on huge Bible Baptist church billboards. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much. Carolyn Peck. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She had to leave. We're down to Richard Kemnitz. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright. Richard. Number 1277 RICHARD KEMNITZ, SOCIAL ACTION COMMITTEE, UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST FELLOWSHIP OF FAIRBANKS: Thank you. My name is Richard Kemnitz and I'm representing the Social Action Committee of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Fairbanks. We are urging you today to vote no on SJR 42. In 1984 and again in 1996, resolutions were approved at the general assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association, relating to ceremonies of union between members of the same sex. I would like to share with you that 1996 resolution and this is how it states: "Because Unitarian Universalists affirm the inherent worth and dignity of every person, and because marriage is held in honor among the bludgeons of life, and whereas the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) has adopted numerous resolutions over the last 26 years supporting equal rights for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and trans-gender persons, including support for ceremonies of union between members of the same sex, and whereas the UUA board of trustees, and the Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association have ordered their support for the right to marry for same-sex couples, therefore, be it resolved that the general assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association adopts the position in support of legal recognition for marriage between members of the same sex. Be it further resolved that the general assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association urges its member congregations to take an affirmative position in support of the value of marriage between any two committed persons, whether the same or opposite sexes, and to make these positions known in their own communities." The Political Action Committee of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Fairbanks, in accordance with our Unitarian principles and these resolutions support same-sex marriages. Our fellowship has performed a number of ceremonies union between same-sex couples and we will continue to offer gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans-gender persons a spiritual home. We urge our legislators to vote no on SJR 42. Thank you CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much, Richard. Is Doug Duffett there? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, actually we're down to Marina Day, (indisc.) had to leave. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright, Marina. Number 1408 MARINA DAY: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, fellow Alaskans, concerning SJR 42 - first and foremost I ask why should the basic constitutional privacy rights for all Alaskans be gutted in reaction to an ongoing court case? (Indisc.) from the word "homosexual" (indisc.), people react emotionally. It is important that the emotional (indisc.) surrounding this bill be cleared. The real question is, can people's basic right to choose a life partner mandated? Consider Section 25, it reads, "The legislature may have additional requirements related to marriage to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States and this constitution." Every (indisc.) to be voter in this state should (indisc.) this bill. Ask yourself, "What does HJR really say?" Once this minority group is stripped of its constitutional right to (indisc.) they choose. Who is next? I quote Martin (Indisc.), Protestant Pastor, who has some experience with what happens when basic rights erode. He spent eight years in a Nazi concentration camp. "In Germany they first came for the communists and I did not speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak up because I wasn't a Jew. They came for the trade union and I did not speak up because I wasn't a trade union. Then they came for the Catholics. I did not speak up because I'm a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was allowed to speak up." Secondly, recent history has established that it is wrong to put minority rights up to public vote. I quote (Indisc.) German born, U.S. political philosopher. She speaks about the fascist (indisc.) who became an instrument of great evil. The trouble with -- oh, excuse me, (indisc.) was precisely that so many were like him and that the many neither perverted nor (indisc.) that they were and still are (indisc) and (indisc.) normal from the viewpoint of our legal institutions and of our loyal standards of judgement, this formality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together. (Indisc.) people, I ask you to look through the smokescreen and realize the true ramifications of this bill. Destroy SJR 42 in committee. It limits your basic rights, and the basic rights of all your friends and neighbors. Protect our Alaskan constitution, and let the courts decide on this issue. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Excuse me, Marina. Could you give me your last nameplease? MS. DAY: Day. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Gay? MS. DAY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN GREEN: G-a-y? MS. DAY: D-a-y. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, no I didn't mean that, I'm very sorry. MS. DAY: No offense taken. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you. Now you weren't on the list and so when the bridge mentioned they were down there -- how many are left up there? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: At this point we have - let's see one, two, three, four, five. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, now Gray is not there - Ryan Gray is not there? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Jeff Walters is not there? Number 1550 JEFF WALTERS: Yes I am. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, Jeff. MR. WALTERS: Okay, thank you for hearing our testimony today and I, too, wish to testify against Senate Joint Resolution 42. This resolution seeks to legislate discrimination and is an attack on the privacy rights of all Alaskans. It also affects me personally. I am a gay man and I'm in a long-term, committed and loving relationship. My family and the family of my life partner are both wonder and effective. We spend holidays with them, we talk on the phone often and we share great times when we can visit. Two summers ago my life partner and I flew his mother and niece up to Alaska for a visit and we had a wonderful time. When my mother died of cancer three years ago, my 75-year-old father insisted that my partner sit in the front of the church with my sister, my two brothers and their families. To imply that my relationship with my partner is not as honorable and loving as other relationships is a personal insult not only to me, but also to our families. I have not been willing to publicly testify before because of my job, but I think it is important to state that I am a science and math teacher at West Valley High School here in Fairbanks. In the past, I've not been willing to come out and be open about my relationship because of fear, and I do not want to live in fear. I treat my students with respect for who they are, but I don't believe that SJR 42 affords me, or many of my friends, a similar respect. I am deeply troubled by the message that this resolution is sending out, and should this pass, I see a dangerous and divisive seven months ahead. I feel I have no choice but to seek my conscience and follow my heart if this division continues. I urge you to defeat the resolution. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Jeff, thank you for your candor and your testimony. Is Teresa Glendinning - Glendinning there? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Actually, let's see here. Theresa, she had to leave and Jana Peirce is next. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright, Jana. Number 1646 JANA PEIRCE: Yes, thank you. I am heterosexual and happily married, and I'm also an active member of a local church. I oppose SJR 42 because it legalizes discrimination, and it does so in our state constitution. Our constitution should uphold equal rights and the privacy of Alaskan citizens, as it now does so. I don't believe it should be used as a weapon to limit the rights of some, even if they are people whom we perceive as different from ourselves. I know that many of you believe our constitution should not be a document of prohibition or of preferences for some. I urge you to vote against this punitive bill. As an aside, I know that (indisc.) what this bill has cited religious reasons why it is okay to limit the rights of gays and lesbians. For that reason, let me just point out that although it is easy to cite isolated phrases from the Old Testament to justify discrimination, it is hard to ignore the overwhelming message of the New Testament, on which Christian churches are based. When it said that our culture is based on any common religious values, I believe it is the New Testament teachings on love and acceptance of others, especially of oppressed minorities and people who have traditionally been ostracized or discriminated against that our culture is at least as much based on, if not more so, than any Old Testament prohibitions. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Jana thank you very much. Now I have - bridge I have three more people there in Fairbanks. Is that right? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Now we have four. We had somebody come back. Five actually - we had two come back. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, I'm going to come back then so that we can have other sites. Is Sitka or Craig on line? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, Sitka is on line. CHAIRMAN GREEN: We have a Michael Jones. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Go ahead, Michael. Number 1740 MICHAEL JONES: Okay, my name is Michael Jones and I do live in Sitka, and I am here representing myself. Many of the arguments that have been made in support of SJR 42 have been made on the basis of religion and in the name of God. I am also a Christian who opposes SJR 42. There are compelling religious arguments which could support this amendment. There are also arguments with religious origin and overtone which (indisc.) of this proposed amendment. Whether we like it or not, the United States of America was founded largely in the quest for religious freedom, and for that reason we have a formalized and deliberate separation between matters of the state and issues of the church. The Bible teaches of the dangers of riches and responsibility to distribute the wealth equally among all people, yet our society of classes praises and supports capitalistic foundations. Christianity teaches us to turn the other cheek, and yet we have good laws that protect a victim acting out in self-defense. Catholicism, which I have practiced, does not have room for divorce, yet the rate of failed marriages is alarming high, and our state and our nation tolerated it legally. The Bible refers to the evils of taxes, and places tax collectors among the lowest members of a society, and yet we all understand the role of paid taxes in our state and national budgets. To use religious arguments in this legal, governmental forum is not appropriate, no matter how strong and valid our individual religious beliefs and convictions. Quite simply, my opposition to SJR 42 comes down to matters of civil liberty. Within Section 1, Article XIV of the Constitution of the U.S., it is written, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." These words are reflected in Section 1, Article I of the Alaska Constitution. In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court supported the (indisc.) declaring that marriage is one of the basic civil liberties of man, and presumably a woman, and that the freedom to marry is essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness. To quote attorney, Thomas Doddard (ph), from a New York Times editorial, "Those who argue that same-sex marriage would be anti- family overlook the obvious. Marriage creates families and promotes social stability. In an increasingly loveless world, those who wish to commit themselves to a relationship founded upon devotion should be encouraged and not thorned." Recognizing that there are important and significant differences between a civil marriage and a religious marriage, I urge you to oppose SJR 42. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Michael. Craig are you with us? Jennifer Taylor in Craig? Alright, back to Juneau. We have Ted Deats. Number 1887 TED DEATS, LEGISLATIVE SECRETARY TO REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN, ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE: Good afternoon, my name is Ted Deats. I live in Juneau and I've been here about 20 years. I'm asking you to support SJR 42 out of this committee and also on the floor when it makes it there. It amazes me that the special interests behind this homosexual marriage idea want our state of Alaska to be the first state and first country in the world to change the definition of marriage. And they want our representatives to deny us the right to vote on it by a ballot of the people. I know that these people are my fellow Alaskans, and some of them may be my friends. Some of them buy halibut and crab from us in the summer. Nevertheless, I believe they've made the wrong moral choice to pursue a homosexual lifestyle. I'll still remain friends with them, but I don't want this social experiment to take place in Alaska without a vote of the people. I believe that these folks want the same privileges that come from a legal marriage, such as insurance benefits. But even more, they want society to say that their moral choice is okay, by being promoted and elevated to public, legal marriage. I ask you not to ignore our democratic rights by allowing this extreme change to take place in Alaska without a vote from the whole citizenry. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Ted, very much. Now have we got any of these people back yet? Lauren Champagne? Oh, not back yet. Okay, Mildred ... UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She testified. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Oh, she did, I'm sorry, yes. Jennifer Mannix? Jason Nelson - oh he testified, I'm sorry. Kim Poole - she'll be here any minute, okay. Nancy Simpson? Okay, we'll go to teleconference land then. In Valdez, is Brad Sinyon there? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Brad is here. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, we have Brad and Dee Sinyon. Number 1986 BRAD SINYON: My name is Brad Sinyon. I support this bill, SJR 42. I do not want our people now, and our future people, to think that it's okay to be gay. I don't think any sound-minded person wants their relative to be a same-sex marriage statistic. I believe only some of these people that got caught in this predicament are only thinking only of themselves, and not thinking of the future generations that may come. I don't think its -- should go against God's plan for his creatures to be with same sex. All earth's creatures naturally knows to not to do -- to go with same sex, but to (indisc.) of people. I don't think God wanted people to be married under his eyes. I support being married to a man and woman. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Brad. Is Dee Sinyon there? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We don't have anyone left here. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright, so you're signing off? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Pretty quick. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright. Anchorage we have Dan Carter. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Jeff Carter isn't here any longer. We just have Noel. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Noel Heaton. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN GREEN: That's the only one left? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, he's the only who came back so far. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Noel. Number 2083 NOEL HEATON: Good afternoon, I'm an Anchorage artist and I'm in favor of resolution 42. A straight forward vote of the public is called for here, drawn-out expensive trials or not. The opponents of 42, who already legally have equal rights, are acting as a minority. They would like to remove the rights of the majority. And that is a right to preserve and uphold the sacred sanctioned - a sacred and sanctioned union of man and woman by God. The civil licenses, founded in morals just as other laws are, should be defiled just as other laws are, and should not be defiled or homogenized to break down boundaries that are necessary for a healthy society. I don't want my marriage to be legally aligned with behavior that is not only -- that I find repulsive, but encroaches upon my pursuit of religion and moral aspirations of a free American. I'm not debating the right to free preference of human sexual behavior as a private institution. I'm merely seeking clarification of the boundary between traditional marriage versus institutionalizing of a public state of depravity. May God help us if the public decides. Vote yes on 42. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Noel, thank you very much. We'll give a few more minutes for the Anchorage -- Juneau people to come back. Are you all back? Alright, Rosezella Michalsky? Theresa Miller? Jean Findley? Darla Madden? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Indisc.) they're waiting? CHAIRMAN GREEN: Well let's get rid of these teleconferences then we'll -- Susan Galereave in Fairbanks? Fairbanks are you on? Number 2155 SUSAN GALEREAVE: Hello, my name is Susan Galerave and I'm here today to testify against SJR 42. I'm opposed to this constitutional amendment because it singles out a minority group as not being worthy of the benefits to which the majority is entitled. I believe that if passed and when challenged by the court, SJR 42 will be found to be unconstitutional just as was the (indisc.) legislation of two years ago. It violates the right to privacy and our equal protection under the law that applies to all citizens. I'm a member of that minority. I consider myself married to my partner, who is a woman. We are living out the essence of what marriage is, even though the law does not recognize that. We are committed to cherish and support each other for the rest of our lives. We support each other financially and emotionally, which enables us to be productive, contributing citizens of this town and state. Whether or not you are comfortable with my lesbian union, it is what makes sense for me. I was raised to be heterosexual and used to be married to a man. While my former husband and I were friends, we felt loving toward each other, it was not an emotionally satisfying union for me. It was a union that looked good in the eyes of society and in the eyes of my parents, but ultimately did not support my yearning for a companion with whom I could establish a nurturing, loving home. I have that and will not give it up for anything. The institution of marriage, up until now, has been defined by society and by the law, as between a man and a woman. It is time for that to change. It is time for the laws and people's attitudes to honor and reflect the reality that has existed since people came to be. Homosexuality has always been the true expression of a minority, and always will be. This legislation proposes to write discrimination into our constitution. It reminds me of the time when African-Americans were considered three-fifths of a human being. Can't we skip that step? Haven't we learned from the civil rights movement? Discrimination is harmful to everyone. Broaden your view. See what is true for a large number of Alaskans. Human beings are rich and complex, not limited to what we have been able to imagine and tolerate up until now. I urge you to vote no on SJR 42. Let's maintain what we know is right, the conscience of the people, as expressed in the constitution. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Susan. Cecelia Hunter? Number 2254 CECELIA HUNTER: My name is Cecelia Hunter. I have lived in Alaska for 50-some years. I've (indisc.) state, and I am thoroughly opposed to SJR 42. I know far too many friends who are lesbians and gays, and who have loving, committed relationships, and they deserve to have the protection -- the legal protection afforded by marriage as much as any of the majority population does. I also am a member of the Friends meeting here in Fairbanks. Quakers are consistently opposed to discrimination of all kinds. They have led the fight against discrimination against people of different races, and they are leading in the fight to recognize the validity of lesbian and gay and bisexual and trans-sexual human beings. The Pacific yearly meeting of the Society of Friends, which includes the whole Pacific Coast, all the way from California through Alaska, has gone on record as - as being in favor of same-sex marriages, and many of our meetings have carried out ceremonies of commitment among their members who are gays and lesbians. The Seattle (indisc.) university friends being in Seattle (indisc.) is a sponsor of the American (Indisc.) Service and they also sponsor of the (Indisc.) Coalition in Seattle which has been - been organized to protect gay, lesbian and bisexual children in school from being discriminated against and being ridiculed and so on. It is a very -- it's a set up (indisc.) our network there to protect students. The (Indisc.) Conference is the annual national meeting of the American - of the Friends meeting, and it recognizes a little bit of (indisc.) of gay and lesbian members that I have personally participated, as an elder, in ceremonies of commitment for lesbian friends of mine who were married by ministers of various faiths. I think that the attempt to say that this is depravity, that this simply -- I can't quite conceive of people who are so ignorant or people who have failed to -- to become acquainted with the people in their communities who are lesbians and gays enough to know that they are perfectly honorable citizens, that they the same ambitions. They're willing to have the same responsibilities and the same sense of commitment in their relationships as any man and woman entering those relationships. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Cecelia, we need to wrap up MS. HUNTER: Okay, I'll wrap it up and I'll just say I'm opposed to SJR 42 for all those reasons. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much. Lisa Slayton? Do we have a Lisa Slayton. Number 2387 LISA SLAYTON: Yes, good afternoon. I'm Lisa Slayton, I'm a well- respected educator in the Fairbanks school system, a community volunteer, a spiritual person who believes in God. I'm the girl next door, and I'm a lesbian. (Indisc.) to testify against SJR 42. My voice was not heard by the majority of the Senate; I pray that that's not the case in the House. In assembling an agenda (indisc.) against this discriminatory amendment that I find it hard to prioritize them in order to speak on them for just three minutes. (Indisc.) of a personal account of what it's like growing up lesbian in a fearful, hateful, homophobic atmosphere, an atmosphere that unfortunately continues to exist for most of our gay and lesbian youth, (indisc.) gay measure such as SJR 42. I've heard a lot of talk about sexual orientation being a choice and, therefore, cannot be afforded civil rights. I'm 35 years old, I've been a lesbian for 35 years. I did not choose a lifestyle when I was born. I did not choose to be made to feel alone and afraid in high school for far more serious reasons than the usual teenage hangups. I did not choose to be kicked out of my home when my family finally did find out about my sexual orientation. I did not choose to be physically attacked by her mother and sister and then sent to a psychiatrist for being perceived abnormal. And now as an adult, I do not choose to be constantly afraid of losing my job. I do not choose to .... TAPE 98-73, SIDE B Number 0001 MS. SLAYTON: ....(indisc.) as my true self in this world. And I do not choose to find myself in a position where a majority of people may possibly have the right to decide who I can legally marry and build my life with. Gays and lesbians do not choose to be feared, hated, treated with disrespect, denied civil rights. They're not asking for special rights. We're asking for the same rights as everyone else because we are everyone else. We are people. They're your teachers, your doctors, personal (indisc.), social workers, police, lawyers, and check out clerk at Fred's. And make no mistake we are your uncles. We are your aunts, your cousins, sisters, brothers, children and your grandchildren. I promise you that you have gays and lesbians in your own family. When you vote on this amendment, take into consideration just who you are affecting. Please keep in mind that voting no on SJR 42 hurts no one, voting yes hurts many. Do not continue this cycle of fear and hate. Please oppose SJR 42. Thank you for listening. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you. Does that complete the list in Fairbanks? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, Mr. Chairman, we have three more people to testify. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, who are they? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We have Dena Ivey, S. Thompson and Geraldine Smith. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, we don't have them on the list, but if they could come up one at a time and give their name. Number 0069 SHELDON THOMPSON: Hello, my name is Sheldon Thompson. I was here from 12:45 [p.m.] to 2:15 [p.m.], sorry I had to leave then I came back just recently. I just came to say that I am for SJR 42. I was born and raised in Juneau, I just recently moved here. I realize it's my right as an American to testify. Of course, I have not been as active as I should have been, but I feel like it's my responsibility, as an Alaskan, to come in today. About 20 years ago or so Billy Crystal on T.V. on (indisc.) exposed himself as being a homosexual and it kind of shocked us and our friends. We really didn't think that much of it because it was just T.V. and it really wouldn't affect us. But today I've had to take off quite a time off of work and come down here. And I didn't really realize in the 20 years how much it will and has been affecting me. And I'm not for homosexual, bisexual or transvestite marriages. And I know that everybody in this room, everybody in that room there - I see you guys on T.V., in the state and the whole world were created by a union between a man and a woman. I believe that's the way it should be. I think that to eliminate any more wasting of time, and especially my own, I'd like to see you have this constitutional amendment put on the ballot. Let Alaskans decide for themselves by a majority vote. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Sheldon, thank you very much. Who is next? Number 0120 DENA IVEY: My name is Dena Ivey and I'm here to testify against SJR 42. I was born and raised here in Fairbanks, graduated from Lathrop High School in 1989, and joined the Air Force in 1992. I served our country proudly and honorably for four years, then returned to Fairbanks to pursue a higher education. I'm also a Native activist, and I'm also here to speak in defense of my fellow Alaska Natives and non-Native homosexuals who desire be a part of this same fundamental rights of all other Alaskan citizens. For me, as with all other homosexuals, being gay was not a choice I made. And in his (indisc.) wisdom God made that choice for me when I was born in the same manner that he decided I would be female with brown hair and brown eyes. The only choice I made with regard to my sexual orientation was to accept and celebrate it as the only lifestyle that would make me truly happy. Unfortunately, in Alaska this happiness is conditional. For four years, I lived with unbelievable paranoia and fear while in the military. I can't walk down the street holding hands with my significant other without fear of being physically or verbally assaulted for such public displays of affection; affection which I see among heterosexuals every day. I'm denied the opportunity to share the rights and responsibilities of marriage, a basic human right which the heterosexual members of my family currently enjoy. Whose responsibility it is to question and (indisc.) the decisions of God? There are those who would say that it would be (indisc.) for me to live a lifestyle that was not mine to begin with. Since when has God condoned living dishonestly - living a lie? Jesus said love thy neighbor as thyself. Jesus did not say love thy neighbor as thyself, but only if he is heterosexual. For Jesus, love is unconditional. Jesus was (indisc.) compassion in love, not of hate and fear. Hate and fear is (indisc.) of his adversary. I think Jesus would be appalled to witness the amount of hate and fear which has arisen against human beings such as myself, hate and fear which is invoked in his name no less. This hate and fear rooted in ignorance, the premise of legislation such as SJR 42. It is interesting to find in this great state where individual freedom is emphasized and regulation is resistant that such regulation should be imposed upon people like myself. People whose only desire is to be productive members of society to work and raise healthy families and reap the benefits of Alaska. It is disheartening to note that Alaska is willing to accept our contributions, but not willing to acknowledge us as legitimate human beings. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much, Dena and we have one more. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Actually, Mr. Chairman, we have two more people. Jean Battig had a chance to come back (indisc.). Number 0264 JEAN BATTIG: Hi, this is Dr. Battig speaking. Who is left with us as far as legislators? CHAIRMAN GREEN: Right now we have just two in here. There will be three more coming back, maybe five more coming back. I know three are in committee meetings, and two are in a caucus. DR. BATTIG: And who have we got with us? CHAIRMAN GREEN: We have Porter and Green. DR. BATTIG: Oh terrific. Well thank you very much. I didn't know that was funny. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Well, it's pathetic actually. It's sad that you feel that way. DR. BATTIG: That I feel which way? CHAIRMAN GREEN: That it's just a shame that there is just the two of us. DR. BATTIG: Well, actually I didn't mean ... CHAIRMAN GREEN: Who else -- who is there? DR. BATTIG: Just wanted to know who was with us. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Who is speaking? DR. BATTIG: This is Dr. Battig. I was here earlier from 1:00 [p.m.] to 3:00 [p.m.]. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Oh, I see. Okay. DR. BATTIG: And I had to leave to conduct some business. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright, go ahead doctor. DR. BATTIG: I wanted to thank you all, at least the two of you that are left, for sitting through thise long arduous proceeding. I can appreciate that it's not an easy (indisc.). This morning when Senator Leman was talking, one of your representatives - they asked him if he could come up with a compelling interest in the courtroom against what the judge had decided. And in my thinking about working it out he had responded, he seemed a very weak response. To me, there's nothing more to fall back on than the rhetoric about keeping the status quo. It's always - always the way we've done it, we've done it this way for a 100 years. Well, heck we might not have been doing it right for a 100 years. I think that his wanting to take this to a public vote is -- the reason he's doing it is because he doesn't have a compelling interest. Now the interest that people have, especially for SJR 42, is mainly moral and religious in flavor. And I think aside from somebody's personal feelings and their moral convictions, they have no right to decide what the constitutional rights of a minority will be. This doesn't come down to who is right or wrong - whether homosexuality is right or wrong, it comes down to who's going to determine the rights of a minority individual. And to me, it's wrong to allow a majority to decide what a minority is allowed to do. Thank you, please vote no on SJR 42. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Dr. Battig. The last person is ... UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Geraldine Smith. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Geraldine, go ahead. Number 0338 GERALDINE SMITH: Okay, I'm here with (indisc.) ... CHAIRMAN GREEN: Can you speak up a little closer to the microphone? MS. SMITH: Okay. CHAIRMAN GREEN: There, that's good. MS. SMITH: Okay, got ya. Okay, I have friends that are homosexual. I didn't even know it (indisc.) time at the time, and I found them to be delightful people - most of them, and compassionate as most other people I can think of. And just to see what they have to go through and how they have to live their life and the pain which, you know, just with me sitting here today having to listen to this just really offends me. And I would like to hope that this legislature would take a lot of that into consideration. And hopefully, if you ever do have any homosexuals in your household or amongst your relatives, that you will treat them with compassion, also. Thank you and please vote no. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Geraldine. I think -- are there any teleconference sites that still have some people that have not spoken? Okay, we're back to Juneau and thank you very much for this abbreviated list. Elaine Schroeder. Number 0416 ELAINE SCHROEDER, PSYCHOTHERAPIST: Yes, my name is Elaine Schroeder and I'm a psychotherapist in private practice in Juneau, Alaska. And during my over 20 years in clinical practice, and in teaching at the University of Washington, I have worked with hundreds and hundreds of heterosexual and homosexual families; one of my clinical specialties is family and marital therapy. As a matter of fact, during my doctoral program with the University of Washington, I was peripheral in working on some research concerning the impact of gay parents or gay parents compared to heterosexual parents on the development of children. And also when I was there, I worked with some specialists in human sexuality in the psychology department, who were working with people at John Hopkins [University] to uncover the basis of sexual orientation, not just why people are homosexual, but why people are heterosexual. And the empirical results from this research on sexual orientation seem to agree on at least two things. First, that behavioral scientists are not sure exactly what determines sexual orientation, either heterosexual orientation or homosexual orientation. In other words, a person can't simply choose a sexual orientation. One may choose to be celibate as in the case of a Catholic priest, or choose to be sexually active, but a gay man or a lesbian cannot choose to be heterosexual in orientation any more than a heterosexual can choose the reverse. My clinical experience here in Juneau and in Seattle also seems to confirm the research on gay parenting that children who are raised by single or couple gay or lesbian parents develop normally, shall we say, or as well, they're as well emotionally adjusted as children coming out of single or couple heterosexual families. The reason I feel that this amendment would be harmful to the emotional well-being of many people, and by many people, not just the gay or lesbian couple, but also their children and extended family, is because if an individual -- if a couple is forbidden by law to sanctify their marriage, forbidden to legalize their marriage, it makes for a less stable family environment. And so, if gay or lesbians are allowed to marry, that will be to the benefit of many, many people in the wider society. It won't mean that more or less gay homosexual people choose to pair-bond, but it will mean that the bonds that do occur will have more stability, and the children that come from those unions will be healthier. So I ask you to vote no to this amendment. Number 0576 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Doctor, I thought I heard you say that your data did not establish and you do not know what caused sexual orientation. DR. SCHROEDER: Right. It's the nature/nurture debate. Is it family background? Is it genetic? REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: Right, but then you said ... DR. SCHROEDER: Is it neurological? REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: ... but then you said that you can't choose one or the other. DR. SCHROEDER: A person who has a sexual orientation that is heterosexual cannot willy-nilly, at the age of 15 or 25 or 50, choose to be homosexual or vice versa. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: If the data doesn't establish whether it's predestined or a choice, then how can you say ... DR. SCHROEDER: Oh no, the data wasn't about choice, the data was why some people identify in one particular sexual orientation or another. It wasn't about whether or not people can make choices. It was whether -- why people are straight - heterosexual, or gay - lesbian, homosexual. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: Did your study exclude choice for that causation? DR. SCHROEDER: It wasn't my study, but it was a study done at John Hopkins, looking at the origin of sexual orientation. And that's a good question. Though it's not my area of research, I would conclude from the research I've read that most specialists in the field - most any one I've read - say that it isn't a matter of choice; one is or one isn't. Number 0649 CHAIRMAN GREEN: It can be either, it can be either a physiological thing that creates this, or it can be an early development. What I'm getting at is that sometime back there was this brain scan that showed the lobes. And then they said, "Well that was only on 50 people, it really wasn't conclusive." From your study or from the studies that you've read, is it primarily a result of genetics or is it a mix between some cases genetics, some cases because of the early childhood development? DR. SCHROEDER: The jury is out on that, and some people believe that it - people become heterosexual for example, because they're including heterosexuality as well as homosexuality. And John Money (ph) is one of the primary researchers at John Hopkins. And there may be a different track for different people. In other words, just like people develop cancer. Some people may develop cancer because they're genetically predisposed; some people may develop cancer because of environmental toxins. Some people may be heterosexual because of family environment or homosexual because of family environment. So there may even be different reasons for different people, rather than a blanket cause of sexual orientation. CHAIRMAN GREEN: I have one other question. I think you said, in answer to Representative Porter's question, that you wouldn't indiscriminately change at 15 or 25 or something like this, this is an early on sight. DR. SCHROEDER: No, no. Everyone -- that there may be different - different experiences for different people. So that indeed, there may be individuals who were - had a primary sexual orientation or at least they felt that. It's very complex because I've worked with -- I mean I've been a therapist for decades, so I've worked with everything under the sun. And every one I know has a somewhat different story, and ... a different life path. So it may be that an individual felt they were primarily heterosexual until -- an example was a client I had in Seattle, who was a 50-year-old widow and who had been in a monogamous, heterosexual marriage her whole life and had many, many children. And after widowhood, she fell in love with Betty - and I'm changing the name of course - but she fell in love with Betty. And I remember working with her because she was totally distraught. She came from a religious background that did not approve of this event in her life, but it was real to her - very, very real. And so she came in questioning herself. She said, "I'm in love with Betty. Does that mean I'm gay?" So that was one person's experience. And so it's very, very complex and it can be very different for different people. So what we all try to do, like we like to put everything in little boxes - gay, straight, bi - but the world doesn't work that way. And it doesn't work that way cross-culturally either. I've lived in Asia for six years, so I got to see a different - a different tilt on sexual orientation there. CHAIRMAN GREEN: One last question. The reason that I'm asking these kinds of questions is I'm concerned that by adopting this as an alternate lifestyle, are we promoting that there would be some time in the development of our children, a tendency to not really understand which way? Are they -- for example, if it's a male, he doesn't feel that he can compete in the male world, he's just not really sure yet because of the very difficult prepuberty and early puberty development, you're really in kind of a la la land for awhile. And that, as an acceptable alternate lifestyle, would we have a tendency to maybe move more people into this realm or does it make any difference? DR. SCHROEDER: This is my hunch, clinically, that it would not even be a thought for a teenager to know - to have any connection between the legality of gay marriage and their own sexual quest. But I do feel if we look at the bigger issue of discrimination against gays and homosexuals, I do feel that if there is less discrimination fewer homosexual teenagers will be depressed or commit suicide. That I know for a fact that the more discrimination, the more psychological distress. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much, Doctor. DR. SCHROEDER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Nancy Simpson NANCY SIMPSON, MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPIST: Hello, my name is Nancy Simpson. I'm a marriage and family therapist in Juneau. I've had a practice here for about 12 years, and today I'd like to just talk mainly about systems and what I know about them. I mainly work with systems around families and couples, and in a system we know that cooperation, and acceptance, open communication, things like that are very important to make the system work. That's what family therapy is based on now, is having that cooperation, and that openness, and acceptance and respect. We also know, through research, that there are other systems that we live in every day. We live in a community that's a system, a society that's a system and we live in a state that's a system. These same things apply to other systems beside families. Acceptance, cooperation, open communication, respect, all of these are integral to healthy relationships, and this is also true of systems. And as Alaskans, I believe that all our goal -- we could say that everyone's goal is to have a healthy state and to have healthy communities. And long term if we ... advocate polarization, if we advocate discrimination, if we give -- if we dredge up hatred by just bringing this more to the forefront, it downplays all of the things around respect, acceptance, open communication. And like I said, that's what makes systems work, and so I'm here today to just state that and to ask you to please vote no on this bill. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Doctor. Amy Skilbred. Number 0938 AMY SKILBRED: Hi, my name is Amy Skilbred and thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I'm here to urge you to vote against SJR 42. I've been listening to the testimony and have thought about it for quite some time, and there seems to be no economic reasons, no social reasons, no civic reasons and no safety reasons that have been put forward to justify this resolution. In short, there seems to be no particularly overwhelming governmental interest in passing this resolution. On my way here the first time earlier today, I was dropping off my son at preschool and a parent asked me why I was so dressed up and I said I was coming to testify. And they said what are you testifying on? And I said on the marriage bill. And after a little discussion they said, "Well where are we going to draw the line on government interfering on our private lives?" And I believe that this is where Alaskans must draw the line. Some people have suggested that without this amendment to the constitution my marriage will be diminished. Since our marriage, my husband and I have lived in Juneau. We have two children that we're raising here. And it's hard for me to see how the standards of the Alaska Constitution, that they've set forward for protecting privacy rights, has had or will have any affect on our marriage. Alaskans have lived with the privacy clause of the Alaska Constitution for several years now, and I don't believe any of our marriages have the been worse off pr suffered because of the constitution as it's written. My son's preschool has a favorite song and it's called "Heron (ph) Bay" and it means pulling together, and the refrain for this song is, "We are all pulling together." At a time when Alaskans need to be pulling together to focus on some very difficult issues that are facing us including education, health care and subsistence, we should not move forward a resolution that's purpose is to split Alaskans against each other based on religious reasons. This committee must be prudent and provide the leadership and put this resolution aside so we can all pull together and focus on these other issues together. Let the courts rule rather than having a bitter or divisive ballot issue go forward on this. This is a representative democracy and just as I've sat here I've heard a lot of people state how the majority shouldn't vote on the rights of the minority, and others have said we should let everyone vote and decide how we're going to move forward. But we are a representative democracy and the reason that we are, in part, is to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. I believe we should not have a popular vote on the civil rights of a minority of our population and I urge you all to vote against this bill. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much. Shelly Owens. Number 1148 SHELLEY OWENS: Chairman Green, Representative James and Porter, I thank you for the opportunity to give a little testimony today, I know it's been a long day and I appreciate that you've put in extra time for us. I submitted a letter on March 20, in which I laid out some thoughts and I don't think that there is anything that I can add today to what I wrote and what has been said. And I just urge you to vote against the resolution. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much. We'll go to Dillingham. We have but one person there. Which one is that of the four that are listed? Dillingham? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, Dillingham's here. CHAIRMAN GREEN: I understand one person there to testify. Number 1188 KATHRYN SCHUBECK: Yes, my name is Kathryn Schubeck and I live in Dillingham, Alaska. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, go ahead Kathryn. MS. SCHUBECK: Please do not contribute to the efforts of some to polarize the Alaskan electorate with SJR 42. It will hurt so many people if this bill is allowed to be used by those who demonize gays and lesbians. SJR 42 is hurtful. Please oppose it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much, Kathryn. We have some more people in Anchorage now. Karen Konopacki, I'm sure I messed that one up. Number 1229 KAREN KONOPACKI: My name is Karen Konopacki. I wish I could testify from a legal standpoint, but the only expertise I have is from my art, so hopefully you folks down in Juneau will let me (indisc.). Why should you vote no on Senate Joint Resolution 42? Because you really don't know me, you really don't know me, and until you spend some time getting to know me, you're really not able to judge who I am or what I'm entitled to. So maybe if you just look for a moment - maybe if you walk in my shoes for a moment, you'll get to know me a little. You might stop pretending I'm not here, might stop trying to make me go away because I'm not going away. So who am I? I grew up as the oldest girl in a family of five children, raised and treated no differently than my siblings as my parents will (indisc.). Growing up with 12 years of Catholic education, (indisc.) and encouraged that some day I would marry a man and raise a family. But that day never came, it just wasn't me. So you see it really can happen to anyone, it may even happen in your family. But who am I? I'm many things. I'm the gal next door, your neighbor, the one who shovels your sidewalk, tips the newspaper carrier, buys your daughter's Girl Scout cookies. I'm the one who has a good job, pays her bills and gives to charity. If you need help, I'm the one who will stop and give you a hand. I'm really no more special than anyone else. So really, I'm not asking for anything more special than anyone else, just to be treated fairly and with respect because I am sincere and my love is sincere. And just because my love is for a woman doesn't mean I should go away, nor does it mean I'm less of a person. So if you really knew me, if you really open your heart to get to know people like me, you'd understand that voting no is the only thing to do because it's the fair thing to do. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Karen, thank you very much. Cynthia Dodge. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She had to leave. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, Connie Faipeas. CONNIE FAIPEAS: My name is Connie Faipeas. We live in a country based on separation of church and state, and freedom from religious persecution. Now a group of people want to base state law on Biblical passage. In some countries where religious fundamentalists run the government, women can be stoned to death for not covering their heads. Do you want to hand our government over to religious fundamentalists? Do you want one group to control the lives of others? Don't let this start here. If a person's guiding principles are determined by the Bible and the Bible tells them that loving someone of the same sex is wrong, then that applies only to them, not anyone else. It would be wrong for them to love someone of the same sex. But what do their personal guiding beliefs have to do with anyone else? If I were allowed to serve in the military, I would defend to the death their right to their religious beliefs, but not their right to force others to live by their beliefs. Please don't allow this divisive issue to tear our state apart. This measure is bad law, you know that. The state of Alaska can not sanctify a relationship. This is done by the religious institution of your choice. The state of Alaska's job is to apply licensing standard impartially. This license will allow me to make medical decisions for my partner if she's hurt, allow us to file taxes jointly and share retirement accounts and other such things. I find it impossible to believe that God is concerned with hospital consent forms and the IRS tax codes. This law, or any other law, cannot make me stop loving my partner. That already exists, it is real, our relationship and our love for each other will not go away because some people want it to. Please vote no. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Connie, thank you very much. Sharon Rudolph. Number 1460 SHARON RUDOLPH: Yeah, hi. I'm speaking as a resident of the United States, the state of Alaska and the city of Anchorage. I am an outstanding citizen and meaningful contributor to the community of Anchorage. Most of my colleagues that are heterosexual might be quite surprised that I am not. So you see they have determined that I am a quality human-being (indisc.) morality without addressing sexuality. Most people don't dwell on a colleague's sexuality. My family of origin knows how much I have been able to contribute on a (indisc.)society, despite the fact that I've experienced a constant bombardment for 25 long years about how unproductive I am because I am not heterosexual. Give me a break, it's really not about that. While the bombardment is (indisc.) by (indisc.) entitled to opinion and his lifestyle. It is time to get beyond (indisc.). It is not right for the majority or someone with particular religious convictions to force their viewpoint on me or anyone else. It's not someone's responsibility to judge equality or happiness, or productiveness of my life. Let our God speak just that. Please vote no on SJR 42. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Sharon, thank you. Dan Carter. Number 1537 DAN CARTER: My name is Dan Carter and I'm a long-time resident of Anchorage, moving here 22 years ago with an (indisc.) job. I'm a Christian, I serve on the board of my church and also serve with my church treasurer. I'm concerned about my community and fate. I serve on several boards and community organizations. I work hard and pay my taxes and I'm also gay. To some of you (indisc.) colleagues that last statement negates all the others. Ask yourself why. My partner and I moved to Alaska 22 years ago, and on March 21st of this year we celebrated our 29th anniversary together. We keep hearing that things like marriage will somehow destroy marriage. I continue to ask this question to anyone and everyone, so now I ask this committee, "How does my 29-year relationship with my partner specifically affect your relationship with your spouse?" It seems like a simple question to me but so far no one has given me a direct answer. They talk about cultural (indisc.), and traditional marriages and family values ad nauseam, but when it comes to the value of my family these same people are ready to keep (indisc.) on my partner and I even though they don't even know us. For those of you who favor putting this measure on the ballot, stop and think what the campaign will be like. Even the testimonies during the Senate hearings should have given you a taste for things to come. (Indisc.) do they bring Alaskans together, or is the true intention of SJR 42 is to create a divisive campaign in order to garner a few more votes in the November election. If you have any doubt of the rhetoric you will unleash by putting this on the ballot, since we remember the comment made by Senate Jerry Ward during the Senate debate preparing us to go to hell. And if that's not enough, read page B2 of the Sunday edition of the Anchorage Daily News. In a debate between the Republican candidates for governor, Senator Robin Taylor said, "None of us are going to denigrate marriage to that level." And Wayne Anthony Ross refers to his relationship of 30 years with his wife by saying, "To have some judge tell me and tell you that a homosexual relationship rises to the same standard as I have with this woman is outrageous." I don't personally know Wayne Anthony Ross or his wife. They may have a great marriage or they may have a terrible marriage. However, Wayne Anthony Ross also doesn't know my partner and I. For him to diminish our 29-year relationship in order to bolster his election chances is nothing more than gay-dubbing and gay-bashing. The problem with those of you that support this statement is that the state (indisc.) doesn't care what kind of relationship Wayne Anthony Ross or Robin Taylor or Jerry Ward have with their spouses. Marriage licenses are granted every day for people who, in some cases, probably don't have any feeling for each other at all. Why is that considered good for the state while denying that same right to an entire group of people based on outdated serious hype and outright bigotry. Thank you, I would appreciate your vote against SJR 42. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Dan, thank you very much. And that brings us to Elliott Dennis. Number 1740 ELLIOTT DENNIS: My name is Elliott Dennis. Thank you for letting me testify here. I am the father of two daughters; one of whom is gay and the other who is straight. And this bill, if it is ... passed will end up causing my daughters to be created unequally. That's inherently wrong. My daughters are both fine citizens and no two siblings should be treated differently. I'm also a long time Alaskan. I've lived in this state since I was nine years old. I've always been proud of the fact that the Alaska Constitution guarantees us the right, a greater right than the United States Constitution guarantees the citizens of the United States. And I believe that it is terrible public policy for any rights to be removed from citizens of this state. And I do not believe that the legislature should be leading the charge to limit the rights of the citizens. I also believe that this is a very basic civil rights issue. If you look back in the 1960s and the civil rights movement, there were lots and lots of prejudices, well established were (indisc.) society against black people at that time. There has been a movement -- well there was laws passed, people died, marches were held, and we now live in a society which not free of discrimination - certainly recognizes that discrimination based upon color is inappropriate. We are in another civil rights movement - the gay/lesbian civil rights movement. These folks are coming out of the woodwork. They are our neighbors; they are our friends; they are our family and there is no reason for the straight members of our society to be discriminating against these people who are good decent people. They pay their taxes; they work; they take care of their yards; they're our neighbors. And too frequently, we suffer from homophobia because we don't know these people. I speak from the heart. I had to deal with my homophobia. We live in a society where it's random, but after you know people that -- it's very hard to dislike them because -- or to treat a homosexual person any different than a heterosexual person. They are people and we should not be amending our constitution to legalize discrimination against one group in our society by a majority vote. Thank you, please vote no against this. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Elliott. That brings us back to Juneau and Fabienne - no, Fabienne Peter-Contesse. Number 1951 FABIENNE PETER-CONTESSE: Not bad. I'm Fabienne Peter-Contesse. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, excuse me. MS. PETER-CONTESSE: Thanks for staying all day, I know it's been a long day and there is more to come. I'm not going to take up too much time because most of the arguments that people have brought forth against SJR 42 I agree with. The biggest argument that I have against it is I'm afraid for myself, I'm afraid for my partner, I am afraid for our house, I'm afraid for my friends and family here in Juneau. I'm afraid for people in this state that I don't even know. Putting this constitutional amendment -- passing this constitution amendment and putting it to the vote of the people will tear this state apart. We've seen it in Oregon. The violence and hatred that was generated when Proposition 9 came before the vote of the people. It will happen here, and I don't want to see that happen to our state. I don't want to see that happen to me. I don't want it to happen to your friends and family because you have gays and lesbians in your friends and family and co-workers, they're there. So I urge you to vote no. Do the right thing, let the courts decide, that's what they're there for. And thanks again. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Fabienne, what was Proposition 9? Was that similar to this? Was it a constitutional change or ...? MS. PETER-CONTESSE: Proposition 9, and I don't know the whole details of it, but it was a law passing - a law stating that you could discriminate against gays and lesbians ... CHAIRMAN GREEN: In the workplace or ....? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It was a constitutional amendment declaring homosexuality as abnormal and perverse in Oregon 1992. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It was legal to discriminate on any basis. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Did that pass? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It did not. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you. Karen Woods. Number 2122 KAREN WOOD: Hi, my name is Karen Wood. Thanks for allowing me to testify today. During this legislative session, I've listened with great frustration and sadness to the attempts to pass SJR 42, the bill banning same-sex marriages in the state of Alaska. During these last few months, I've also been wondering how many of Juneau's citizens recall what happened in the state of Oregon during the 1992 election year. Does ballot measure 9 ring any bells? If not, ballot measure 9 was a bill to amend the Oregon State Constitution declaring homosexuality abnormal and perverse. I vividly recall that year. I remember watching and hearing about heated debates between those who oppose special rights for one group of people and those who felt that ballot measure 9 was an oppressive, discriminatory and hateful piece of legislation. I remember hearing about the 100 percent rise in hate crimes during and after the campaign, not only against gay and lesbian people but against people of color, religious minorities and women. I remember the story of the Catholic church that was vandalized. Large swastikas spray painted throughout the interior and around the exterior of the building. Beautiful stained glass windows smashed and the words, "No spics (ph), Jews or gays. We hate Catholics and gays, yes on 9, no on special right, kill Catholics and gays and ironically yes on family values," covering the walls of that holy sanctuary. I recall crying when I heard the news about the two roommates, and African-American lesbian and a young gay man who were burned to death when their apartment was fire bombed by racist skinheads who supported ballot measure 9. I also remember the story of the young gay man who was beaten to death by a group of teenagers after leaving a night club. These were only a few of the acts of intimidation and terrorization that occurred in Oregon during 1992. Imagine this kind of violence taking place in our state and even in our own community. It seems so unlikely, so horrifying. I can assure you that if SJR 42 goes to the ballot this fall, we will see similar incidences of violence and hate crimes take place in Alaska. Each city and state in our nation that has experienced this sort of discriminatory legislation has seen violence increase. Not only will gay and lesbian Alaskans be at risk of being victimized by hate crimes, all minority groups will be at risk. Putting this kind of bigotry and hatred on the ballot only gives permission for those with the most anger and hatred toward any oppressed group to act out that anger and hatred in the form of violence. When some of our elected leaders propose legislation that simply feels bigotry, how can we expect anything positive to result from it? I encourage all of Juneau's citizens to think about what this might mean for our community and our state as a whole. Do we want to see this divisive bill on the ballot? I encourage all members of the House of Representatives to think about this when it's time to vote on SJR 42. Additionally, I encourage all Juneau residents to consider the impact that this could have on each of you, and each of your friends and family members should this bill be passed. We must remember the famous works of Emma Goldwin who said, "The most violent element in society is ignorance." Finally, for those of you who truly believe that allowing same-sex partners to marry is a special right, please consider this: When you haven't had the right to be there in the first place, how can opening the door be a special right? Let us be a model for the rest of the country and show how we Alaskans can work to unite our state and its citizens rather than divide it. Please vote no on SJR 42. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Karen. Sandy Hargis. Number 2436 SUSAN HARGIS: I am Susan Hargis ... CHAIRMAN GREEN: Susie? MS. HARGIS: Susan. And again, I'd like to say thanks for staying here all day. I know this is quite a tedious process, but I appreciate it. I'm opposed to SJR 42. I urge you to let this bill die in committee. I'm an Alaskan resident and I oppose this bill for several reasons. First, I believe the bill is unnecessary. It's currently before the courts in Alaska and I believe that that's the proper ... TAPE 98-74, SIDE A Number 0001 MS. HARGIS: ... to cross country, everybody has talked about that already. And I could tell you that here in Juneau, I've had the opportunity to staff the phone line for the Southeast Alaska gay and lesbian lines for a couple of years now. We do receive a significant number of hate calls and threats. They're really scary. I tell you when I listen to one, I don't want to answer the phone line for another month because I'm so shaken up. I don't consider myself a victim; I consider myself a proud, wonderful member of society. But those kinds of things shake me up - when I hear somebody say he wants to go take a blow torch and a pair of pliers and go out and find some fags. That's not fun to listen to and that's scary, and that's Alaska. That isn't Oregon and it's not other states, that's right here. And so I could tell you that that is a possibility here and anyway -- and one other thing that I want to relay about that, is that this winter we had a gay youth from the high school who was chased up and down the streets by some other kids from the high school, all the time screaming and keeping this kid from getting out and getting away from them. And I can imagine how terrifying that experience was for that kid, and I just wanted to pass that along. The third and most important reason that I oppose the bill is that I believe that passage of the bill is the wrong thing to do. I believe that you, as legislators, bear the responsibility to support the rights of all Alaskans. And I don't think that you have to agree with same-sex marriage or even support homosexuality to do that. I think that that's not part of the issue, but that what it is, is as legislators, to support the rights of Alaskans to make their own choices. I don't believe it's an issue for a popularity vote. Putting the bill on the ballot and even possible passage by a general vote will not make families go away. We are American families, we absolutely are. What it will do is continue to foster the misconception that somehow gays and lesbians are responsible for the decline of American society, rather than recognizing and giving all stable, long-term relationship the dignity that they deserve, this bill seeks to pretend that those relationships don't exist, or if we legislate it then they won't. Somehow is just doesn't resonant as true to me that individuals in long-term relationships will threaten traditional marriages. I -- one point that I just want to make is that I hear fear as the reason to deny same-sex marriages, and I think society is changing. And I think every one of us is afraid. You know, all of us are afraid. Society is changing, we don't know where it's going to go. But the question is, "Do we pass laws out of that fear?", or do we say, "Okay, let's wait and see where it goes and proceed down the path of changing society together?" So that's kind of the baseline. I urge you to exercise your individual freedom as legislators to vote your conscience on this bill. It's absolutely not what either political party is about. Let Alaskans live their lives and let this bill die. Thanks. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Susan, thank you. Mary Hicks. MARY HICKS: This is a long day. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Well it's an issue that needs some debate. Number 0230 MS. HICKS: My name is Mary Hicks, for the record. I've been a professor and a mother. I am the daughter - fourth daughter of a Presbyterian minister, and I'm also the proud partner of an attorney that you counsel with daily. And I'm just here to tell you that I think it's an abomination, not only because I'm a logic professor and a writing professor, but because I am this marvelous woman's partner for five years now, it's a great union, and it would be a great marriage if I were allowed and if she were allowed. And I find it so ridiculous that she confronts you daily without even the law for her to join in with. She is entitled to marriage just as you are entitled to her answers that you beseech daily. I wish she could have been with me in the hospital when I went in for my heart screen, it was very frightening, just as frightening as this is. But she wasn't allowed in because I merely said, "Yes, she's family, she's my partner." Well they didn't hear, "...my partner," but when she reached down and kissed me as they were racing me to my operation, I heard the doctor and nurse in the hallway say, "Pardon me, I didn't understand, please wait for her right here." And they said to me later that they apologized for not allowing her in the presurgical room, but they just didn't realize who she was to me. And I don't think you realize who she is to me either. I was asked when I came into this room to wear this on my lapel, but I'd like to stand here and ask you to wear it on yours. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Mary. Aimee ... AIMEE OLEJASZ: I think that's me. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, thank you. Yes, well it's -- I may not have it. How is spelled? MS. OLEJASZ: Olejasz, it's O-l-e-j-a-s-z. CHAIRMAN GREEN: That's the way it's spelled, okay, Olejasz, okay thank you. MS. OLEJASZ: You can thank my father for that one. I'm here to express my concern for SJR 42. I feel that this bill is unconstitutional. The arguments for this range ... CHAIRMAN GREEN: Take your time. Number 0410 MS. OLEJASZ: The arguments range from the destruction of marriage to confusion of our youth to religion. As I see it, allowing gays and lesbians their constitutional right to choose a partner and to make a life-long commitment to each other will only enhance the family. Sorry, I'm allergic to that. I thought it was water. Marriage between two adult people who love and care about each other will only set an example for others to follow. This bond can be between a man and a woman, a man and another man, or between two women. Unfortunately, in today's society a lot of couples do not consider marriage as a life-long commitment. I personally know of several marriages which were given God's blessing through a church, that have ended too quickly or are filled with violence and abuse. It is sad for me to look at these marriages knowing that society approves of this union only because it is between a man and a woman. The decay of marriage is already happening and it will continue to occur with or without gay and lesbian marriages. However, I know that my commitment to my partner of eight years and counting, will help turn the tides in creating a staple, concrete build up of the reconstruction of marriage. Some of my heterosexual friends have looked toward our relationship with my partner as a role model, making the statement, "Your relationship is the most normal I've ever seen in any marriage," or "God, I wish my husband and I communicated as well as you two." As for confusing our youth, well our youth can be pretty intuitive. Gay and lesbian youth know that there is something different about them because it is inside, it is within them, it is not a choice. They may not know what or be able to find it in words right away, but eventually they will realize who they are. At this point, they will either try to hide it or they will follow their heart. Unfortunately, the church will refer to them as sinners and evil. I know this because it has happened to me. Those gays and lesbians who are devout Catholics and Christians may either abandoned their faith in order to survive - which I feel is a shame being a Catholic - or they may commit suicide because they can't deal with it. It's no wonder that the suicide rate is highest among gays and lesbian teenagers. The churches need to reach out and love thy neighbor, thy sisters and thy brothers, not push us away. We are not going to go away. Please do not support SJR 42. It is unconstitutional. Thank you for your time, I know it is valuable. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much, Aimee. We have one more person in Anchorage, Kevin Sampson. Number 0685 KEVIN SAMPSON: My name is Kevin Sampson and I am against SJR 42. I've come to you here today as an Alaskan, born and raised, as a veteran with eight years of honorable military service, as a taxpayer and property owner in Anchorage, a voter and a gay man with AIDS. (Indisc.) my feelings because of what society would think, but I came out as a gay man in 1981. I was determined to live my life honestly and freely, come what may, as I perserved my own personal happiness. What came after many years was a love for a man who loved me back equally. My life included candelight dinners, eating out, dancing at the country bar, hiking, camping and roller-blading together and some of the happiest Christmases of my life, perhaps not much different from your own. After sometime, (indisc.) fighting illness, requiring (indisc.) treatment over a lengthy period each night. My life partner was an I.V. [intravenous] nurse. Each night for those weeks, I would come home from work early, we would begin an I.V., cook dinner, we would watch a video together, and then would do the dishes, unhook the I.V., we would go out two-stepping. We both found it quite romantic under the circumstances. Eventually, the tables turned and I became his nurse. He was hooked up to I.V.s for eight hours at a time, merely for sustenance as his body failed him. In the end, I had to carry him to his car and the bathroom. He died December 12, 1993. Some day his ashes will be mixed with mine and scattered in the mountains of Alaska. I'm left with some wonderful memories and the certainty that we loved each other for better or worse, in sickness and in health, until death did us part. And in the age of the AIDS the state should do all it can to encourage monogamous relationships, even though heterosexual statistics relating to marriage and fidelity are hardly encouraging. It is hypocritical to condemn homosexual promiscuity and then deny them one legally recognized relationship. The constitution promises me freedom from the (indisc.) [The following sentence was indiscernible]. The fact that I'm not a Christian does not mean that I am not a good citizen, nor I am not entitled to benefits afforded to all Americans. Nor is the fact that you may be a Christian entitle you to forego your sworn oath to protect and defend the constitution for all citizens. Traditionally, we have made gay people suffer by taking away their housing, taking away their jobs, taking away their children, taking away their dignity and sometimes taking away their life. Today's legislation aims to take their right and freedom as well. Those who vote for this legislation are on the wrong side of history. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Kevin, thank you for that very poignant testimony. Larry Woodard back here in Juneau. Number 0860 LARRY WOODARD: I'd like to thank you for the fair and just treatment in the course of this legislative investigation of SJR 42. 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 Michalski ruled that SB 308 was unconstitutional and asked the state to provide a compelling interest for the law. Now if Senator Loren Leman is correct that gay marriages will inevitably devastate our society then there much be hundreds of proven compelling reasons for denying gay and lesbians the right to marry. Just give one of these reasons to the judge and it's all over. Then the state will have fulfilled the legal requirement for the statute to become law. If the state cannot come up with a valid compelling interest, then there is no reason to be messing with our constitution. The Senate Republicans sure thought they had some good reasons during their floor debate, but apparently they were afraid to submit their reasons to the constitutionality test by the Alaska 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 was on next fall's 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. And kind of off of my text for tonight, I know that earlier there seemed to be a lot of concern about whether homosexuality was a choice or not, and I can assure you it is not a choice, but even if it was a choice, it should be my choice, not your dictation as to how I should live. And I hope that you will protect the freedoms that's guaranteed to Alaskans in the constitution, and allow us to have our own choices in our lives rather than have the legislature dictate how we should live and what is legal in our lives that does not affect other persons of society. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Larry. Gina Collins. Number 1020 GINA COLLINS: Very quickly, thank you very much for your patience today. It's been a very long day. I just wanted to say I'm opposed to SJR 42, and I really believe the courts should go ahead and figure it all out. If after they decide and you want to bring it back up to the people, then that's the proper course and that's the check and balances of our democracy. And again, thanks for your time. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much, Gina. Kim Poole. Number 1056 KIM POOLE, PASTOR, UNITED METHODIST CHURCH: Again, thank you for staying with us for such a long day. My name is Kim Poole and I'm a United Methodist pastor, I am a minister in charge of one of the congregations here in town. I have every reason probably to speak in favor of this. I'm from Texas, born and raised with rednecks, grew up ten miles away from the final assembling point of the nuclear warheads in (indisc.), but I was also brought up that it is wrong to discriminate against people. The church that I serve is not a blocked mind. The denomination I'm ordained in is not a blocked mind on this issue. But we are of one mind on the point that we should not discriminate against any group of people. I truly think from the way I was brought up that discrimination is based on fear. Growing up near Pantex (ph) I remember the blackouts when we had to dim all our lights because we were afraid during the Cuban missile crises. I was taught to fear Castro; I was taught to fear the Cubans. I knew how to duck under my desk to protect myself from nuclear holocaust, as if we thought that would help. When that situation was resolved, I was taught to fear a new people - the communists. As a pastor and minister, I've watched the Berlin Wall come down; I've watched the formation of the commonwealth of independence states. We lost that group of people that I was taught as a child and as a teenager to fear and to hate. And from the pulpits across the United States, we didn't have anyone to rail against any longer because we're not afraid of the communists, they have fallen. As soon as that demise began to occur, the people needed a new group of people to fear, and the group that was chosen was the group that is homosexual, (indisc.-- coughing) gender. It was almost as if they were next on the list. My question is if this is allowed to go to popular vote, and the people vote it in, because the state is not of one mind either, and I think you'll find that we are really very varied in this state about what we believe on this. Let's say it passes, what's the next group that we're going to fear? Will we go back and fear another ethnic group? I really would like to see the day come when we live in a world without fear, when we don't pass laws because we're afraid we might get something from someone, this is not catching. I don't care where you think the orientation comes from, you don't get it from touching one another, you don't get it necessarily from being around people. I long for a fear-free world. I think passing this will just keep perpetuating the theory that as long as we have someone to be afraid of and as long as we can regulate someone, we'll always be one up. We should be one equal, rather than one up. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much, Kim. Elizabeth Andrews. Number 1233 ELIZABETH ANDREWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members, I appreciate this opportunity to be here. I am opposed to SJR 42, and I urge you to also oppose it. I don't think we have any business messing around with the privacy of people's lives, and especially about a serious decision that people might want to make regarding marriage, and it's an individual decision and a private one. And I urge you to vote no on that. I'm a resident of Juneau, registered to vote. And I think you've heard some tremendous testimony here today, so I won't repeat it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much. Angela Mu oz. ANGELA MU OZ: Thank you for having us here. My name is Angela Mu oz. When I was very young my mom told me, "You are a girl. Some people think we're weak and incapable, but don't be afraid to believe strongly enough in yourself and your abilities, you will have the opportunity to succeed." A little later my dad told me, "You are Mexican-American. Some people think you are dumb and lazy, but don't take it to heart. You could take pride in who you are and work hard. Your uniqueness will be recognized and valued." I am also a lesbian and I don't need to be told that some people think I'm incestuous and inhuman. SJR 42 will officially authorize these ignorant beliefs and legalize discrimination against society's present target - gays and lesbians. Even if you think that's what we deserve, you should still be concerned about this proposed constitutional amendment. It is setting precedence and opening the door for future legislation based on fear and short- sidedness. Will marriage be denied senior citizens, differently able persons, carriers of congenital disease, sterile couples or even Mexican-American women next? With this document you are saying that some have more civil rights than others, then there are no civil rights and that is the bottom line. It cannot be veiled by scare tactics ... and so called moral rhetoric. What is it that I have to do to show you that I can and have contributed to this community, that I am no less human than you? SJR 42 says there is nothing I can do. What do you say? Please vote no on SJR 42. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Angela, thank you. I had made a statement earlier to Susan that we would give you some additional time, that you said -- Susan Clark. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Liz Dodd. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I think there may still be a couple of people who signed up earlier. Is that right? CHAIRMAN GREEN: Oh. MELISSA HOWELL: I was on the list, but I ... CHAIRMAN GREEN: Left and came back, okay what is your name? MS. HOWELL: Melissa Howell. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Howell, H-o-w... MS. HOWELL: e-l-l. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay. Number 1403 MS. HOWELL: Okay, well I was here when the proposed amendment was first talked about today and I heard the gentleman say that the purpose was to defend the institution of marriage and protect the status quo. And it just really struck me because when I think about the status quo I think about a society that used to burn women at the stake and the society that condoned slavery and a society that not too many years ago had separate water fountains for people and I just think that ... it's not a very good reason to ... propose an amendment because it's what the status quo wants because so frequently we look back at the status quo and it's not just, and it's not fair, and it's not equitable. And I feel really passionately about this issue because I am a lesbian and I grew up with a father that was a minister and I was a model child, and I went to college and I found out that I was gay. And so my father has never let me bring a partner home and it's all in the name of religion. And now I've come to Alaska and I've lived here for several years and I found a church where I'm accepted because I'm a person and because God loves me. And I feel like I deserve to be treated equally and I think all people deserve to be treated equally and that's why I'm proud to live in this country and in this state. I had hoped that Alaska would be different. I don't think that allowing gay people to have a long-term monogamous relationship is going to threaten heterosexual marriage in any way. And I just strongly urge you not to allow this amendment to go to popular vote. I guess that's all, thanks. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you. Is there anyone else who has signed up that has not testified. We've kind of shortened the list and there may have been a missed name. Okay, Susan. Number 1540 LIZ DODD: Thank you for allowing me a few closing remarks, but I'll warn you Johnny Cochran I'm not. I've never have been to law school or anything like that. You know I -- and I do have a couple of things that I think are important from the civil liberties standpoint to say, but, you know, I always have to talk on civil liberties issues when I testify and I rarely get a chance to talk from my personal perspective and if you indulge me for just a moment, I'd like to just say a couple of things about my own life. I got married when I was 19 years old. I was born and raised here in Juneau, went to Juneau-Douglas High. And when I was 19, I had this young man who was my - kind of like my best friend and - well, candidly he was my drinking buddy. And we spent some time together, moved into a trailer together out there at Sprucewood and one day decided we were kind of broke and we needed to have a party, and what would be a good way to do that. Well, we were kind of thinking we might get married, but let's do it, let's get married and we can have a party and everybody will bring beer over to our house because it'll be a wedding and, you know, that always means a party. And so we were both working for the state at the time and we took our lunch hours off and came up here to this very building where we had made an appointment with -- it was either Judge Shult or Judge Stewart, and he married us on our lunch hours, and we went back to work, and that night we had a party. Mission accomplished. And it was funny because as soon as we became man and wife, just as someone - Caren, I think pointed out in her testimony, all of sudden we got all these benefits. He got his GI benefit - his GI bill benefits were increased. You know, all of a sudden we found that we got deals from local merchants. I mean there were all these things and we just kind of -- I mean we didn't take the whole thing very seriously. But nevertheless, the state took it seriously and it turned out to be a pretty good deal for us. Unfortunately, the marriage did not last very long as anyone could have anticipated - a year or two, I can't remember. But many years have gone by and a lot of changes have happened in my growing up as have happened in all of our growing up. And about seven years ago, I entered into a relationship with another woman. This is a serious relationship. We knew each other for a long time before we decided to -- well not a real long time, but a reasonable length of time. There was no alcohol involved. We found that we had common intellectual interests, that we had common interest in loving to watch basketball on television. We had many interests and it made complete sense for us to join up, and as well as physical attraction. And we bought a house together and we've been living there here in Juneau for, you know, like about six years now I think we've owned the house. And my mother and everyone in my family realizes this is the best relationship I have ever been in. Everybody thinks it's a perfect match, I think it's a perfect match. It's fairly free of turbulence and a serious relationship. I fully expect us to sit in our little lawn chairs together until we are very old, I hope. And this relationship gets no recognition from society. There is no benefit to us. In fact, in certain - many circumstances we have to hide it. Not only that but, you know, I'm not working right now because I got this chronic volunteeritis problem. And I write a check every month for $230.00 for my health benefits when my partner works in a job where all of her similarly situation coworkers, who are married to men, get that benefit provided. And so it's just -- you know, just to explain to you from a subjective standpoint just how kind of silly this all is, when you live on this side of it, inside of it. So that's my personal tale. Chairman Green, I really -- and particularly you Representative Porter, because the two of you have sat here all day and listened to person after person. I thank you as well, Representative James and Representative Bunde. Because as I was trying to say earlier under my time limit, this really is a central issue to the lives of Alaskans as I think the legislature will deal with, and not for the reason that Senator Leman said because he said because marriage -- what did he say, he said, "Marriage defines who we are as a people." That's what Senator Leman said this morning. Well, I think the constitution and the laws of our state define who we are as a people. And the reason it's so important to have this full hearing is because this proposed constitutional amendment is a true litmus test of who we are as a people, and who we are as Alaskans. Are we going to enter into a new era where our constitution - where the words in our constitution say, "Article I is no longer talking about inherent rights that everyone has." We're going to ... make a limited section in Article I and say that some people don't have rights, some people don't have an equal - a right to equal protection under our laws, the laws that pertain to marital rights. Are we going to enter into a new era where our constitution protects only the rights of those who conform to certain moral or religious beliefs or whose lives fit neatly into some particular mold that we call or that we might think of today as normal? I think there could be nothing more un-Alaskan than that. You know -- I mean I understand the idea of same-sex marriage today, as we sit here, is it's a hard pill to swallow, I mean -- and it's a big deal if this passes -- if this is upheld in the courts, defeated here in the legislature and eventually many years down the road upheld by the courts, it's going to be a little bit of a shakeup in our society. Although I think knowing that that court process is going to be long and protracted, but it'll be less of shakeup than it'll be today because, boy, things are changing fast. Look at all the people, 75 people came out today, many of whom are gay people who didn't dare poke their heads up for fear of getting them shot off as recently as five or ten years ago. So, I mean things are changing and by the time this makes its way through the courts, this will be a very different world. I really believe that. And -- but as far as this hard pill to swallow goes, I mean I really believe -- because I believe this is the way history works and that it has to be because what we're talking about is very basic in justice and fairness to a group of people who will eventually rise, as all people do, to try and be treated fairly. That's such a wonderful human impulse. And our constitution, both federal and the state, predicts it in people. It predicts that people will rise and that those rights that are in there, that didn't apply to slaves -- Thomas Jefferson was a slave holder as we all know, those later found life -- those words found life when slaves were freed. And that's what we're talking about here, is growing into that - those statements that are brilliant, I really think brilliant, founding documents. So I will not impose on your good graces any longer here. I just want to predict that one day we'll all open up our local newspapers and there will be the wedding announcements and Judy will be engaged to Helen. Some people will look at that and just be disgusted and irate. Most people will look at that and they -- well, that's a little strange, but eventually no one will look at that and think that Judy and Helen are not within their rights, as Alaskans, or within their rights as Americans, to decide who they want to spend the rest of their lives with. So the choice is plain, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, you can go backward now and forward later, or we can simply go forward now. Thanks again for taking time to hear these long closing remarks and for listening to all of us today. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Susan, for a nice summary. Well that -- there is no one else to testify. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'd like to. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright, and who are you? Number 1989 ALLEN SHULER (ph): My name is Allen Shuler. I live here in Juneau and I appreciate the comments about this being an important part of society, and the laws and constitutions making up this society. That's why I urge your passage of Senate Bill - or SJR 42 because I believe the people of Alaska should have a vote on this important issue, because it is very important. And it concerns me that a single judge or a handful of judges could completely rewrite what has always been held throughout all generations, through all societies that marriage is between one man and one woman. And, you know, if such a drastic change should happen in our society, it should be the voice of the people, not in a handful of judges. Many opponents to SJR express how this bill would limit marriage. And I believe the correct perspective is that SJR would clarify the commonly held boundaries and prevent it from being broadened to include homosexual unions. It does not add the additional restrictions to marriage. Opponents say that SJR invades privacy laws. If privacy was a real concern of the homosexual community, they would not be seeking a public marriage license. In reality SJR 42 does not invade privacy laws for personal choice. People are still obligated or still free to live whomever they wish. SJR 42 only clarifies that the state is not obligated to classify homosexual unions as a marriage. Similarly, the expression of marriage is not a judicial responsibility, or the expansion of marriage is not a judicial responsibility. Laws are established by the legislature and interpreted by the judicial system. It's not their responsibility in the judicial system to expand laws beyond their original intent. When this happens, the legislature has the responsibility and obligation to bring the judicial system back in line by clarifying what they intended the law to say. Hence, SJR 42 is appropriate. SJR 42 has nothing to do with civil rights. A person's race or gender is intrinsic. In contrast, homosexual activity is a choice. Even if a person believes they were born as a homosexual, that does not obligate the state to expand marriage laws. For example, it is commonly accepted that some people are more prone to alcoholism than others. However, this intrinsic condition has not obligated the state to loosen drunk driving laws. Similarly, the presence of homosexual activity in our society does not obligate the state to loosen marriage laws. I strongly urge quick passage of SJR 42 so that the legal definition of marriage may be clarified. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Allen. Is that the -- whoop, one more, two more, okay. Number 2108 LINDA HEMPHILL: Hi, thank you very much for letting me state my opinion. I'm Linda Hemphill. CHAIRMAN GREEN: You're what? MS. HEMPHILL: Linda Hemphill. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright. MS. HEMPHILL: I support SJR 42, the definition of marriage amendment and urge you to fully support it. I believe that we all came about because of the union of one man and one woman. And in a society, if we don't have any unions and don't have any offsprings, we don't have any society, and I believe that's a foundational block in our society. And I think once we start chipping away at that, the whole foundation begins to crumble and then our society, as a whole, is going to start to crumble. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much, Linda. And there was one more I understand. Yes. Number 2147 JEAN FINDLEY: Hi. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Hello. MS. FINDLEY: My name is Jean Findley and I live in Juneau. I was on the list, but... CHAIRMAN GREEN: Jean - J-e-a-n. MS. FINDLEY: Yes, F-i-n-d-l-e-y. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, thank you. MS. FINDLEY: And I oppose SJR 42, and I feel like a political football and my civil rights, I feel like they're being made a farce of and if it -- you know, it seems like a political thing and not really a -- it seems like legislators aren't doing what they should be doing this year, you know. And if it becomes -- if it gets on the ballot, it'll become a media campaign and it seems like with a media campaign and he with the most money will win and they'll prey on people who are paranoid about people different from them, and that would make a farce of everybody's civil rights. And I just urge you to drop it in this committee right now because you can find it in your hearts to do what you're responsible to do, and I hope you can do that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Jean, thank you. Is there anyone else? Seeing nobody else, that closes the testimony. We have heard a significant amount of good debate on this issue. I'm going to not try and do anything now. I think it's time for the committee to probably individually, certainly tonight, and maybe collectively sometime in the future, but to think about what we've heard. I do appreciate, especially I appreciate what was said here just recently that not too many years ago people would not have come out and said openly, what they have said. And for that, I'm really appreciative, I admire your courage. I don't know if I were in the same situation I would have that kind of courage, but I do appreciate your coming. Representative Bunde. Number 2220 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE: Mr. Chairman, and with apologies to those on camera and here, I did have another bill that I fought rather unsuccessfully for along time, and that's where I was. The testimony, the bit that I did hear on both sides of the issue, was very interesting, intellectually very challenging for me. And so I apologize for not being here, but it wasn't because I wasn't interested in hearing the testimony. And I certainly appreciate your opportunity for me to weigh these issues because people have given me a lot to think about. CHAIRMAN GREEN: Representative James. Number 2246 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to apologize for those people who sat through this long, long time as I bumped up and back and so forth. But I had lots of other things that I had to do today and I tried to get in here as much as I could and I'm sorry if I missed your testimony. I want you to know that I didn't do it because I didn't want to hear what you had to say. I think everything that everyone said was - come from the heart and needed to be said, and I appreciate that you sat through all of the day to make your statements. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN GREEN: With that, we're adjourned. [6:50 p.m.]