Public Hearing on Bill 185:!AN ACT TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 16, TITLE 19, GUAM CODE ANNOTATED;

RELATIVE TO DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS.!Legislature Public Hearing Room, Hagatna, Guam!

July 28, 2009, 5pm!!Public testimony as submitted by Tim Rohr, Agat.!!Dear Senators,!!Before I proceed with my comments on the bill itself, I must address my concern that this meeting may be being held in violation of the law with the effect that any action taken at this meeting could in fact be null and void plus putting at risk any legislator at this meeting of being guilty of a misdemeanor.!!Allow me to explain.!!Title 5, Chapter 8, 8108 (Open Government Law) states:!!A special meeting may be called at any time by a public agency, by delivering personally, or by mail, written notice to each member of a public agency. Notice shall also be given to each newspaper of general circulation and broadcasting station which airs a regular local news program within Guam. Such notice must be delivered personally or by mail at least five (5) working days..." The law goes on to state that: The...notice shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted.!!Senators, I believe we have a problem.!!Section 8107(b) which defines a special meeting as:!"a meeting not previously scheduled by statute, regulation or resolution".!Since this public hearing is not scheduled by any of the above. I must assume then that this meeting is a "special meeting".!!First, it appears we have an issue with proper notification to the members of the "public agency". As you know, the Legislature is a public agency and the Legislators are its members.!!Each member is to receive a written notice noting the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted 5 working days before the meeting.!!On July 20 at 6:31pm, exactly 2 hours and 1 minute after the introduction of Bill 185, a memorandum indicating a public hearing for Bill 185 as well as several other bills, left the office of the Committee chair via email and was sent to each member of the Legislature.!

However, "the business to be transacted" as required by Sec 8108 was incorrect. The memorandum noted Bill 185, but described it as the same sex civil union bill and not the new domestic partnership bill.!!Thus, because "the business to be transacted was incorrectly stated", the July 20 notice is null and void.!!I received a copy of the memorandum the morning of July 21, a holiday.!!On Wednesday, July 22, I contacted Senator Aguon's office and pointed out the error as well as the fact that Bill 185 had not been posted on the legislature website.!!Later that afternoon, a corrected memorandum was sent out and the bill was posted on the website.!!However, at that point, Wednesday afternoon, the full 5 days required by law could not be honored.!!!Next, we must note that the law requires that for a "special meeting" a written notice is also to be given to each newspaper of general circulation.!!After the corrected memorandum was sent out on Wednesday, I checked with the PDN to see if they had received the original memorandum.!!They had not. The PDN confirmed that Wednesdays corrected memorandum was all they had received.!!I also confirmed with Senator Aguons office that the notice regarding the public hearing had only been given to the Marianas Variety where it appeared on page 15, July 21.!!5 GCA, Ch 8, 8115 regarding penalties for violating the Open Government Law states:!!Each member of a public agency who attends a meeting of a public agency where action is taken in violation of any provision of this Chapter, with knowledge of the fact that the meeting is in violation thereof, is guilty of a misdemeanor.!!On July 22, I sent an email to Senator Aguons office warning him of a possible misdemeanor.!!I also spoke to him personally on Ray Gibsons show, Friday morning, July 24 and advised him of a possible violation of the law.!!As you can see by our presence here today, my advisements have gone unheeded and the legislature is in violation of its own law.!

!5 GCA, Ch 8, 8114. (Action Voided) states:!!Any action taken at a meeting in violation of any Section of this Chapter shall be void and of no effect, provided that this nullification of actions taken at such meetings shall not apply to any commitment, otherwise legal, affecting the public debt of the entity concerned.!!Thus any testimony on Bill 185 at the public hearing on July 28 is in fact void and of no effect.!!In arguing in defense of the incredibly short time between the introduction of Bill 185 and its scheduling for a public hearing, Senator Cruz is quoted in a July 25 PDN article and re-quoted today as saying:!!"It is not as if this is new. It has been out in the public domain for weeks. It just doesn't have the right number because I didn't realize I couldn't number it Bill 138."!!However, two days later in a Pacific News Center Television Interview, Senator Cruz in referring to Bill 185 vs 138, says:!!"I think the gay community is right when they say that I sold them out. It's completely different."!!And in todays Marianas Variety, Cruz is quoted as saying again: Its (Bill 185)completely different.!!To add to the confusion, Senator Aguon, in a letter to Senator Calvo today, denying the Senators request to postpone the hearing, said that it (Bill 185) is quite similar to the substituted version of the legislation identified as Substituted Bill No. 138.!!Actually the current Bill 185 is not quite similar to the so called Substituted Bill No. 138. It is exactly the same. The only problem is that there never was a Substituted Bill No. 138 because in fact there could not be.!!A substitute bill cannot be entertained until the original bill is heard. Plus, Senator Cruz could not substitute a bill for No. 138. According to the Legislatures own rule No. 5.04 a substitute bill can only be submitted by the author of the original bill, the chairman of the oversight committee or the Committee on Rules. Mr. Cruz is none of those.!!What we had was a proposed substitute, that incredibly, Senator Aguon was actually willing to hear at a previous hearing, until it was pointed out that the proposed substitute could not be a substitute for the reasons already pointed out but also because by the inclusion of heterosexual couples differed substantially and was not in fact germane to the original bill. This is why it had to be given a new number and introduced separately.!!

However, in referring to Mr. Cruzs statement "I think the gay community is right when they say that I sold them out, I want to say shame on the gay community for excoriating Senator Cruz. Senator Cruz has done more for the image and acceptance of the gay community by simply excelling in all aspects of his many faceted career, which is more than what any piece of legislation could ever do.!!With Bill 185, Senator Cruz, has attempted to achieve what was said to be the ends of the original legislation which was equal rights of gay couples to married couples. The fact that the gay community is unhappy with Senator Cruz for producing Bill 185 is evidence that equal rights was not the true goal of the original legislation.!!I wont speculate here on what the true goal was or is. But its a question that needs to be asked since by passing Bill 185 into law the gay community has already indicated by their displeasure with Mr. Cruz that they will not stop here.!!But let us look at the bill itself.!!16103 Domestic partnerships void; when.!A domestic partnership shall be void between the following persons.!!And it goes on to list the relationships otherwise known as consanguinity.!!Because of the problems associated with reproduction between blood lines that are too close, society determines who you can marry and not marry. Such a law assumes that reproduction is the ends of marriage.!!However, this really only applies to heterosexual couples and not homosexual couples. To leave this in the bill is discriminatory against homosexuals who may wish to form a domestic partnership with a close relative. There is no biological reason for them not to.!!This section will need to be amended to avoid discrimination against same-sex couples.!!16105 Application for license for persons who wish to enter into a domestic partnership!!There is the question of just when in fact the partnership is actually formed and legally recognized. Subsection (a) deals primarily with the recordation of personal information.!!Line 27 of page 2 states: The agent shall issue a domestic partnership license to any person applying for such license!!There are a couple of issues:!!Does the issuance of a license to a person (singular) in fact form a domestic partnership? With who? Is the license granted to a person or a couple?!The application and granting of a license in this bill basically mirrors the essential process in 19GCA Chapter 3, the rules regarding the Contract of Marriage. However,

the granting of a marriage license does not in fact make the couple married. The license is essentially permission from the government to get married or to form the corporate bond, which is later done by an act of solemnization and the issuance of a Marriage Certificate, not a license. From what I can tell, the person (singular) will walk away with a piece of paper, $30 poorer, and nothing more.!!As an analogy, I, as an individual, may get a license to do business, but only by myself. The minute I attempt to include another individual in that business, the law requires me to form a partnership or a corporation. By-Laws and Articles of Incorporation need to be filed. The license to do business is a separate issue.!!Bill 185 requires no such formal creation of the partnership. Applicants would be left with a license but no partnership.!!16108 Domestic Partnership performed in foreign jurisdictions - presents us a bit of a conundrum. It states:!!A civil union or marriage of two persons that was validly performed in any foreign jurisdiction shall be recognized as a domestic partnership in Guam regardless of whether the relationship bears the name domestic partnership.!!From what I can tell, as of July 1, 2010, validly married couples moving to Guam will not be recognized as a married couple on Guam but only as domestic partners. Would they then have to get re-married in Guam to be considered legally married here?!!16109 Application of Domestic Partnership!The bills author admirably noted in a July 10 PDN article that the new version of Bill 138 which is now Bill 185 doesn't amend the Contract of Marriage as stipulated in Guam law, and Consequently, the sanctity of marriage remains in place!!This is hard to square with the provisions in 16109 which states:!!Notwithstanding any provision of law, every reference in the Guam Code Annotated to "marriage," or any aspect there of, shall apply equally to "domestic partnerships," including:(1) Every reference to "married" shall apply equally to the status of partners in a domestic partnership; and (2) Every reference to "husband," "wife," or "spouse" shall apply equally to a partner in a domestic partnership; and (3) Every reference to marital status, including without limitation provisions pertaining to parties and procedures for annulment, divorce, separation, or dissolution, shall apply equally and as necessary to domestic partnerships and to partners in a domestic

partnership.!Im not sure how to even comment on this. But lets look at the word sanctity. I assume Mr. Cruz is using the word in a religious sense. But that would be a very narrow use of the word. The word sanctity as with the word sacred means set apart. Thus we get words like sanctuary or sacrosanct.!!16109 completely ignores the sanctity of marriage in the sense that it is an institution that is set apart which is the true meaning of sanctity, and usurps, appropriates, and leaches every aspect of marital status to domestic partnerships.!!I suppose that proponents of the bill would ask Why do you care? How does this affect you personally? How does this hurt marriage? So what if we get to call each other husband and wife and spouse. What does that matter to you? Were not taking away your right to do the same thing.!!Folks, words mean things. Suppose we could apply the title of senator or governor to just anyone, or attorney or doctor. Suppose just anyone could just put M.D., or Ph.D after his or her name. It would be pretty confusing world, but even more so, such an arbitrary use of titles and designations would devalue the true meaning of those titles and designations.!!The fact is that marriage as a social institution has been naturally selected through millennia of societal evolution, indeed, a real demonstration of survival of the fittest to be the most effective and economic societal unit capable of producing, educating, and socializing the next generation, the quality and quantity of which will determine our generations level of care when we can no longer care for ourselves.!!This brings us to Section 16107. Rights and Obligations which reads:!!Partners to a domestic partnership lawfully entered into pursuant to this Chapter shall have all the same rights, benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether derived from statutes, administrative rules, court decisions, the common law, or any other source of civil law, as granted to spouses in 19 GCA Chapter 3. And the a few exceptions are noted.!!This is the heart of the legislation. Aside from once again demonstrating the parasitic nature of the bill, the claim to the same protections and incentives granted by law to marriage is questionable.!!The government is not in the business of distributing protections and incentives arbitrarily. It expects something in return. Government granted protections and incentives to any legal entity be it a marriage or a business are dependent on the relationship of that entity to the larger community and its expected contribution to the public good.!!

This is why in the case of marriage a public solemn commitment in front of a public official and witnesses is required. This is also why a business of any type must be formed publicly and is then held publicly accountable.!!However, Bill 185 would grant domestic partnerships all the same protections and incentives without the public commitment that are given to a similarly united couple that must make that public commitment.!!Incidentally, though the author of the bill has continued to publicly differentiate domestic partnerships with marriages by referring to the absence of a ceremony, the only actual difference is 30 seconds.!!A marriage requires solemnization NOT A WEDDING. The solemnization is the public commitment and is what formalizes the union and creates the relation between this new legal entity called a married couple and the larger community. In return for that commitment, NOT the commitment of the 2 people to each other, BUT the commitment between those two people and the community, the government agrees to protect and incentivize that relationship.!!Back to my business analogy, it would be like me, if I was selling widgets at the flea market on Saturdays, demanding all the same protections and incentives granted to a Coretech or a Continental Airlines.!!As a small business owner I cannot expect the same protections and incentives as a larger business because my contribution and commitment is at a different level.!!I am not saying that gay couples are not capable of making the same commitment and contribution, because, according to this legislation, it is no longer about gay couples, but about any couple.!!What I am saying is that if a couple wants the same protections and incentives as another societal institution then it should be required to make the same commitment.!!In the end we are left with 2 things:!!Either get back to the real business which the gay community has already let us know is not the business of equal rights but equal recognition. Go for a full gay marriage bill. Anything else would be separate but equal which has already been proven to be unconstitutional.!!Or:!!Come up with legislation that gives the proponents everything they want in terms of incentives, protection, and legal recognition, but dont touch 19 GCA. Dont just add a chapter and leach off marriage. Create your own brand new institution, new terminology,

new set of rights and responsibilities. But leave marriage alone. Anything less than that would be simply parasitical and hardly worth the dignity which this group claims to seek.!!In closing, Senator Aguon, in the aforementioned letter to Senator Calvo, suggested that he might continue this hearing at a later date. If he does so, may I politely remind that Senator that he can not adjourn this meeting, but must only recess it.!!!!!Timothy J. Rohr!Resident of Agat!