From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 15:43:56 -0500

[I was able to deliver most of this statement even though time constraints
were imposed by the Chairman of the Committee, Larry Gabriel, Republican who
was heard to say several times, "We know how this vote is going to turn out."
 I departed from the text several times to reply to Hunt's comment that we
could offer no proof of discrimination by showing the study and reading the
author's conclusion from The Wage and Effects of Discrimination from
Industrial and Labor Relations Review from Cornell University.   Chairman
Larry Gabriel was surprised as everybody in the room how the vote turned out.
   When asked by Representative Jack Billion-D of Sioux Falls if Hunt could
provide any evidence such as a study or report that it would be an "economic
disaster" for the state if gays and lesbians married, Hunt said he had no
direct evidence and said it was just "common sense."  The vote on a "do-pass"
motion by Lola Schrieber and seconded by Gordon Pederson was 7 no's and 6
yes's.  The committee then voted 8 to 5 to table the bill.]

The House State Affairs Committee
Pierre, South Dakota
Statement of Barry Wick, 1/24/96

Here are five reasons the State of South Dakota must not pass House Bill
1143.  
Point 1: This bill, if adopted, could mean that couples who  are legally
married suddenly become unmarried when they cross into South Dakota.   They
could be denied accommodations, service in restaurants, and admission to
family attractions simply because their marriage is not recognized in this
state.   Time Magazine said late in 1995 that the gay travel industry is a
$17 billion dollar industry.  Does the legislature want to the tell the
travel industry in South Dakota it just turned down its share of $17 billion
dollars in potential business?  Ask yourself, would you travel anywhere if
your wife or husband could not stay with you in the same room or could be
denied hospitality?
Additionally, what the proponents are saying is they want the State of South
Dakota to circumvent the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.
 South Dakota has recognized marriages from other states since signing on to
the Constitution and since a court case,  Garcia vs. Garcia in 1910.  In
order to push a hateful agenda, the proponents of House Bill 1143 must get
South Dakota to change its marriage law.   They are asking South Dakota to
deny basic human rights and the rights of adults to make contracts acceptable
in all states as guaranteed by the Constitution’s full faith and credit
clause.  This could prove to be costly in the courts for a state that doesn’t
have money to waste.  
Point 2. Currently, gays and lesbians are prevented from marrying in any
state including South Dakota.
Representative Hunt is once-again trying to get the legislature to spend its
time to create a legal barrier against couples who might win their freedom to
marry in the future in some other state.   Marriage is an important personal
choice to made by the couple and not interfered with by the government.
The proponents acknowledge that there are "churches" that will marry same-sex
partners.  This means  there are religious and philosophical differences that
are protected by the Constitution.   The religious and civil freedoms of gays
and lesbians to marry would be violated if the state refused to grant these
civil benefits to all adults.  It is direct discrimination against citizens
to create roadblocks for those citizens to achieve civil protections or
benefits.
Point 3.  Proponants say they want to deny gays and lesbian marriage rights
because they don’t want same-sex partners to adopt children.  Adoption rights
have been granted by the State of New York.  Gays and lesbians are already
allowed to adopt elsewhere.  Is South Dakota, at the direction of Roger Hunt,
 preparing to take away the children from visiting gay and lesbian parents or
state residents who have legal custody of their natural and adopted children?
 Would you deny me the right to see my three children?
 	A recent study says that lesbian mothers provide good homes for children.
 There are thousands of gay parents who already have custody of their
children.  The courts have affirmed parental rights even in cases where a
parent is gay or lesbian.   By the way, health insurance benefits aren't
provided by an employer for the sake of children.   They are provided to a
worker and his dependents for which the worker must usually pay.  
Representative Hunts original argument was that South Dakota businesses would
be forced to give same-sex couples health insurance benefits.  The mountain
of evidence is overwhelming that employees in South Dakota are lucky to get
health insurance benefits from any employer considering the large number of
part-time employees now working for major companies that do not offer any
benefits.  It is better to insure people through the private sector than to
put those costs on government.  Over 400 companies, municipalities, and
non-profits now offer same-sex partners insurance benefits that the employees
pay for or receive as part of their benefits packages with companies. 
Representative Hunt has claimed South Dakota businesses would be forced to
insure same-gender partners.   There are many South Dakota businesses that do
not now provide insurance for any married persons.   South Dakota families
are lucky to get insurance as a benefit from their employers now.    If
Representative Hunt is really concerned about access to affordable health
insurance,  he should not scapegoat gay and lesbian citizens of South Dakota
who pay taxes, own homes, build families and contribute to our communities.
 Nor should he and the bill’s sponsors try to undermine couples who are
lawfully married.
Some have said the effect of marriage for gays and lesbians would have  the
effect of "watering down the incentives for traditional marriage."  Since
when could anybody stop loving relationships and the plans made by two people
in love.  The gay community can't stop them.  How can anybody say we can stop
loving heterosexual unions.  That’s giving us a power we don’t have.   Humans
have fallen in love with each other for eons.  No group can stop people from
loving each other.  We have William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet as an
example.  The Capulets and the Montegues, two warring families only lost
their loved ones.  By increasing  the volume of hate in this state,
Representative Hunt and his backers set the stage for discrimination,
potential violence or worse.  We hold them responsible for any violence in
this state against gays and lesbians as a result of this debate since they
began this debate in South Dakota.
Point 4.  The state does not approve of or deny heterosexual or homosexual
relationships.  It regulates the legal contract of marriage.   The state
should not be in the business of saying which two consenting adults can enter
into this contract.  Additionally,  the state  has nothing to do with "holy
matrimony," which is a religious element.  
If procreation were the only reason marriage were granted by the state then
the state must request proof of fertility from couples.  That would stop
people above the age of 50 or 60 from getting married and those infertile
couples from getting married.
Point 5.   Proponents of this legislation demonize gays and lesbians by
pointing to a killer disease as the reason homosexuals should be denied civil
rights.   The proponents have been factually challenged when telling South
Dakotans that 30 per cent of homosexuals in South Dakota are HIV positive.
 Taking the most conservative estimate, 3% of the population being gay, that
would mean there were 21,000 gay and lesbians in South Dakota...split the
21,000 equally, half women, half men of 700,000 people in South Dakota, and
that would mean that 3,000 + would be HIV positive in South Dakota.  It’s not
true.  Only 260 people have been diagnosed HIV positive in the state since
1985... of which 39 are women.  That’s using the South Dakota Department of
Health Statistics.  South Dakota is 2nd lowest in the nation for HIV
infection rates in this world-wide pandemic that primarily is spread by
hetereosexual contact.   We have gotten past placing the blame for AIDS on
the homosexual community.  We all have to fight it together.
Additionally, proponents have said other diseases are widespread in the gay
community.  Not in South Dakota, in fact  ALL OTHER Sexually Transmitted
Diseases (STD) ARE DOWN OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS IN SOUTH DAKOTA.  [Departing
from the text I told the committee that I had informed the State Health
Department that Focus on the Family and the South Dakota FAmily Policy
Council were misinforming South Dakotans about facts of AIDS.  I told the
committee that the State Health Department ;HIV/AIDS Coordinator Dave Morgan
wasn't to happy to hear it.]
Barry Wick
Executive Director
Free Americans Creating Equal Status of South Dakota, Inc.
13121 South Creekview Road
Rapid City, SD  57702-8503
605-343-5577
FAX  605-394-8962