    [Senate Hearing 112-120]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 112-120

                     S. 598, THE RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT:

               ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF DOMA ON AMERICAN FAMILIES

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   ----------

                                 JULY 20, 2011

                                   ----------

                              Serial No. J-112-35

                                   ----------

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

     S. 598, THE RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT: ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF DOMA ON
                               AMERICAN FAMILIES

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    70-639                   WASHINGTON : 2011
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                      PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
    HERB KOHL, Wisconsin                 CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa
    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
    CHUCK SCHUMER, New York              JON KYL, Arizona
    DICK DURBIN, Illinois                JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
    AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             JOHN CORNYN, Texas
    AL FRANKEN, Minnesota                MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
    CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware       TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
    RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
                Bruce A. Cohen, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
            Kolan Davis, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                        STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

                                                                       Page

    Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of
      California.....................................................     3
    Franken, Hon. Al, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota,
      prepared statement.............................................   140
    Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa......    10
    Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah......     3
        prepared statement...........................................   161
    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator form the State of Vermont.     1
        prepared statement...........................................   188
    Schumer, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of New York...    44

                                   WITNESSES

    King, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Iowa...........................................................     6
    Lewis, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Georgia........................................................     4
    Minnery, Thomas, Senior Vice President for Public Policy, Focus
      on the Family, Colorado Springs, Colorado......................    14
    Murray, Susan M., Ferrisburgh, Vermont, statement................    17
    Nadler, Hon. Jerrold, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of New York....................................................     8
    Nimocks, Austin R., Senior Legal Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund,
      Washington, DC.................................................    35
    Solmonese, Joe, President, Human Rights Campaign, Washington, DC.    33
    Sorbo, Andrew, Berling Connecticut...............................    16
    Wallen, Ron, Indio, California...................................    12
    Whelan, Edward, President, Ethics and Public Policy Center,
      Washington, DC.................................................    37
    Wolfson, Evan, Founder and President, Freedom To Marry, New York,
      New York.......................................................    39

                             QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    Responses of Austin R. Nimocks to questions submitted by Senator
      Grassley.......................................................    47
    Responses of Evan Wolfson to questions submitted by Senator
      Klobuchar......................................................    53

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    American Civil Liberties Union, Laura W. Murphy, Director,
      Washington Legislative Office; Christopher E. Anders, Senior
      Legislative Counsel; and Ian S. Thompson, Legislative
      Representative, Washington, DC, July 20, 2011, joint letter....    54
    Amnesty International, Larry Cox, Executive Director, July 19,
      2011, letter and attachments...................................    58
    Andreas, Jen, Pastor, Lord of Life Lutheran Church, Ames, Iowa,
      July 23, 2011, letter..........................................    63
    Burrows, Marvin, Hayward, California, statement..................    64
    Carey, Rea, Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task
      Force Action Fund, statement...................................    71
    Chabot, Don and Jim Nimmo, Courage Campaign Members, Los Angeles,
      California, statement..........................................    75
    Cooper-Harris, Tracey L., statement..............................    76
    Chrisler, Jennifer, Executive Director, Family Equality Council,
      Boston, Massachusetts, July 19, 2011, letter...................    83
    Coleman, Jonathan Strickland, and Rick Kerby, Courage Campaign
      Members, letter................................................    98
    Cumiskey, Kathleen and Robin Garber, Courage Campaign Members,
      Los Angeles, California........................................    99
    Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease
      Control and Prevention, Washington, DC, Survey.................   100
    Docto, Wilfredo T., Co-Owner, Moose Meadow Lodge LLC; Waterbury,
      Vermont, July 15, 2011, letter and chart.......................   136
    Drinkwater, Bill and Ernest Reid, Cumberland, Rhode Island,
      letter.........................................................   139
    Gaddy, C. Welton, Reverend, President of Interfaith Alliance,
      Washington, DC, statement......................................   142
    GLAD, Boston, Massachusetts, GAO Report..........................   144
    Geckler, James, Providence, letter...............................   156
    Hallowell, Ted, statement........................................   157
    Huckaby, Jody M., Executive Director, PFLAG National, Washington,
      DC, statement..................................................   163
    Igoudin, A. Lane and Jonathan D. Clark, statement................   170
    Johnson-Young, Jill, Riverside California, statement.............   175
    Kalend, Mark W., Alameda County, California, statement...........   180
    Kazan, Steven, Kazan, McClain, Lyons, Greenwood & Harley, PLC,
      Oakland, California, statement.................................   183
    Kirchick, Jason, Stowe, Vermont, July 18, 2011, letter...........   186
    Koehl, Robert and Stylianos Manolakakis, Courage Campaign Members   187
    Lerner, Rabbi Devon, former Executive Director for the Religious
      Coalition for the Freedom To Marry in Massachusetts, statement.   190
    Lewis, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Georgia........................................................   192
    Leyland, Jane A., statement......................................   194
    Maatz, Lisa M., Director, Public Policy and Government Relations
      American Association of University Women, Washington, DC,
      statement......................................................   201
    Marrero, Christopher, Winooski, Vermont, July 18, 2011, letter...   204
    Minnery, Thomas, Senior Vice President for Public Policy, Focus
      on the Family, Colorado Springs, Colorado, statement...........   205
    Montgomery, Colleen, CPA, Burlington, Vermont, letter............   220
    Murray, Susan M., of Ferrisburgh, Vermont, statement.............   221
    Nadler, Hon. Jerrold, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of New York, statement.........................................   229
    Neilson, Victoria F., Legal Director, Immigration Equality,
      Washington, DC, statement......................................   231
    Nimocks, Austin R., Senior Legal Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund,
      Washington, DC, statement and attachment.......................   235
    Out & Equal Workplace Advocates, San Francisco, California,
      statement......................................................   267
    Poehler, Heather and Kath, letter................................   271
    Providence Journal, March 11, 2011, article......................   272
    Reed, Carol, letter..............................................   274
    Ripple, Rock E., Providence, Rhode Island, July 18, 2011, letter.   275
    Ruhe, David R., Reverend, Senior Minister, Plymouth
      Congregational United Church of Christ and Matthew J. Mardis-
      LeCroy, Minister of Spiritual Growth, Plymouth Congregational
      United Church of Christ, July 20, 2011, joint letter...........   277
    Shore, Sherri and Amy, joint letter..............................   279
    Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, (SPSSI),
      Washington, DC, statement......................................   284
    Solmonese, Joe, President, Human Rights Campaign, Washington, DC,
      statement......................................................   288
    Sorbo, Andrew, Berling Connecticut, statement....................   296
    Speck, Cathy, statement..........................................   301
    Tomaselli, Maria, Ludlow, Vermont, July 20, 2011, letter.........   308
    Vorro, Beth, and Beth Coderre, Courage Campaign Members, letter..   309
    Wallen, Ron, Indio, California, statement........................   310
    Walt, Jason A. Stuart, Essex Junction, Vermont, July 20, 2011,
      letter.........................................................   314
    Westergard, Mark S., South Burlington, Vermont, letter...........   314
    Whelan, Edward, President, Ethics and Public Policy Center,
      Washington, DC, statement......................................   315
    Wiley, Reverend Dennis W., Covenant Baptist United Church of
      Christ, Washington, DC, statement..............................   337
    Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, M.V. Lee Badgett,
      Professor, Research Director; Gary J. Gates, Williams
      Distinguished Scholar; Pizer, Jennifer C., Legal Director,
      Arnold D. Kassoy Senior Scholar of Law; Han H. Meyer, Senior
      Scholar of Public Policy; Nan D. Hunter, Professor, Legal
      Scholarship Director; joint statement..........................   340
    Wolfson, Evan, Founder and President, Freedom To Marry, New York,
      New York, statement............................................   352

                      ADDTIONAL SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Amnesty International, Larry Cox, Executive Director, additional
      attachments are being retained in the Committee files

     S. 598, THE RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT: ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF DOMA ON
                               AMERICAN FAMILIES

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 2011

                                   U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:50 a.m., in
    room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J.
    Leahy, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Leahy, Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin,
    Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Franken, Coons, Blumenthal, Grassley,
    and Hatch.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
                          THE STATE OF VERMONT

        Chairman Leahy. Thank you all for coming. I should note
    that Senator Grassley and I talked; he is going to be a few
    minutes late. Originally, this was scheduled to begin at 10
    o'clock, and his schedule was set accordingly. But we moved it
    up 15 minutes to accommodate the statements from our colleagues
    who are here.
        I want to welcome everyone to the first ever Congressional
    hearing examining a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act,
    DOMA. I called this hearing to assess the impact of DOMA on
    American families. I have heard from many Vermont families
    concerned about this important civil rights issue. Earlier this
    year, I was proud to join Senator Feinstein and others to
    introduce S. 598, The Respect for Marriage Act, a bill that
    would repeal DOMA, and restore the rights of all lawfully
    married couples. These American families deserve the same
    clarity, fairness, and security that other families in this
    great Nation enjoy.
        As Chairman of this Committee, I have made civil rights a
    focal point of our agenda. But outside of the hearing room, I
    have often spoken with those who think the issue of civil
    rights is merely one for the history books. This is not so.
    There is still work to be done. The march toward equality must
    continue until all individuals and all families are both
    protected and respected equally under our laws.
        In the 15 years since DOMA was enacted, five States,
    including my home State of Vermont, plus the District of
    Columbia, have provided the protections of marriage to
    committed same-sex couples. In just a few days, the State of
    New York will become the sixth State to recognize and protect
    same-sex marriage. But, unfortunately, the protections that
    these States provide to their married couples are overridden by
    the operation of DOMA. I am concerned that DOMA has served to
    create a tier of second-class families in States like Vermont.
    This runs counter to the values upon which America was founded
    and to the proud tradition we have in this country of moving
    toward a more inclusive society.
        Next month, Marcelle and I will celebrate our 49th wedding
    anniversary. Our marriage is so fundamental to our lives that
    it is difficult for me to imagine how it would feel to have the
    Government refuse to acknowledge it. But, sadly, the effect of
    DOMA goes well beyond the harm to a family's dignity. The
    commitment of marriage leads all of us to want to protect and
    provide for our families. As we will hear today, DOMA has
    caused significant economic harm to some American families.
    This law has made it more difficult for some families to stay
    together. It has made it more difficult for some family members
    to take care of one another during bad health. And DOMA has
    even made it more difficult for some Americans to protect their
    families after they die.
        I believe it is important that we encourage and sanction
    committed relationships. I also believe that we need to keep
    our Nation moving toward equality in our continuing efforts to
    form a more perfect union. I am proud to say that Vermont has
    led the Nation in this regard.
        In 2000, Vermont took a crucial step when it became the
    first State in the Nation to allow civil unions for same-sex
    couples. Nine years later, Vermont went further to help sustain
    the relationships that fulfill our lives by becoming the first
    State to adopt same-sex marriage through the legislative
    process. I have been inspired by the inclusive example set by
    Vermont.
        But I have also been moved by the words of Representative
    John Lewis, my dear friend from the other body. Like others, my
    position has evolved as States have acted to recognize same-sex
    marriage, and I applaud the President's decision to endorse the
    Respect for Marriage Act that Senator Feinstein and others and
    the rest of us have introduced. The President understands that
    this civil rights issue affects thousands of American families.
        I want to support the repeal of DOMA because I do not want
    Vermont spouses, like Raquel Ardin and Lynda DeForge, to
    experience the continuing hardship that results from DOMA's
    operation. They live in North Hartland, Vermont. They have been
    together in a committed relationship for over three decades.
    They both served the country they love in the Navy, and both
    worked for the Postal Service. They moved to Lynda's parents'
    home in Montpelier, where I was born, to care for her mother
    who was living with Alzheimer's disease. Sadly, Raquel's
    degenerative arthritis forced her into retirement, and now she
    needs regular and painful treatment. Lynda was denied family
    medical leave to care for Raquel, her spouse, because DOMA does
    not recognize her Vermont marriage, which is a lawful Vermont
    marriage. This is just one example of an American family's
    unfair treatment because of DOMA.
        Many other Vermont families have reached out to share their
    experiences. They include small business owners paying more in
    Federal taxes because they are not allowed to file as other
    married couples do. They are young couples that are taxed when
    their employer provides health insurance to their spouse. They
    are working parents with teenage children navigating student
    loan forms. They are retirees planning for end-of-life care.
    These are powerful stories, and their stories, all of them,
    will be part of the hearing record.
        The Respect for Marriage Act would allow all couples who
    are married under State law to be eligible for the same Federal
    protections afforded to every other lawfully married couple.
    Nothing in this bill would obligate any person, religious
    organization, State, or locality to perform a marriage between
    two persons of the same sex. Those prerogatives would remain.
    What would change, and must change, is the Federal Government's
    treatment of State-sanctioned marriage. The time has come for
    the Federal Government to recognize that these married couples
    deserve the same legal protections afforded to opposite-sex
    couples.
        I thank the witnesses who are going to be here today. I
    know that those who were able to travel to the hearing room
    represent a small fraction of Americans impacted by DOMA, but I
    am glad that the Committee is going to webcast this so they can
    hear it. I want to point out this powerful book put together by
    a Vermont photographer, Linda Holingdale, called ``Creating
    Civil Union: Opening Hearts and Minds'' this book shows some of
    the families impacted by DOMA. I will not include the book in
    the record, becuase it is already published, but I encourage
    all Senators who are interested to take a look.
        Senator Hatch, did you wish to say anything?

    STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
                                OF UTAH

        Senator Hatch. Mr. Chairman, I want to welcome all of our
    good colleagues here. I appreciate all three of them. I will
    put my statement in the record.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Hatch appears as a
    submissions for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein, you are the sponsor, chief sponsor of
    this bill. Would you like to say something?

      STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
                          STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. Very briefly, Mr.
    Chairman, let me thank you for your leadership because you have
    made this a historic day in holding the first hearing ever on
    this subject, so it is very special and very historic.
        DOMA was wrong in 1996, and it is wrong today. Twenty-seven
    of my colleagues and myself have introduced the Respect for
    Marriage Act. Our bill is simple. It strikes DOMA from Federal
    law. I would like to make just a few quick points.
        Family law has traditionally been the preserve of State
    law. It, therefore, varies from State to State. Marriage is the
    preserve of State law. Divorce is the preserve of State law.
    Adoption is the preserve of State law. And inheritance rights
    are the preserve of State law. The single exception is DOMA.
        Chief Justice Rehnquist once wrote that family law ``has
    been left to the States from time immemorial, and not without
    good reason.'' And he was right.
        My second point is that same-sex couples live their lives
    like all married couples. They share financial expenses. They
    raise children together. They care for each other in good times
    and in bad, in sickness and in health, until death they do
    part. But DOMA denies these couples the rights and benefits to
    file joint Federal income taxes, to claim certain deductions,
    to receive spousal benefits under Social Security, to take
    unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, to obtain
    the protections of the estate tax when a spouse passes and
    wants to leave his or her possessions to another.
        I would like to thank Ron Wallen from Indio, California, as
    well as the other witnesses today for coming before the
    Committee, and I also want to thank the 16 Californians who
    submitted statements for the record, which, Mr. Chairman, I
    would ask to enter into the record.
        Chairman Leahy. Without objection.
        [The statements appears as a submissions for the record.]
        Senator Feinstein. There are between 50,000 and 80,000
    married same-sex couples in this country and 18,000 in my State
    of California. Many Californians impacted by DOMA could not
    come here today to testify. Let me give you one example.
        Jill Johnson Young from Riverside could not fulfill one of
    her wife Linda's last wishes: that they be buried together at a
    veterans cemetery. This is not right.
        Dr. Kevin Mack was tragically killed this past Thursday on
    his way to San Francisco General Hospital. He leaves behind his
    husband and two children, who now, because of DOMA, essentially
    lose rights that would have gone to a heterosexual couple.
        For some reason, the Congress of the United States, when it
    passed DOMA in 1996, sought essentially to deny rights and
    benefits provided by the Federal Government to legally married
    same-sex couples. This must change. That is what this is all
    about. However long it takes, we will achieve it.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much.
        Our first witness is Congressman John Lewis, as we all
    know, a civil rights legend. I should also point out he is a
    close personal friend. He is often referred to as ``the
    conscience of the Congress.'' Today Congressman Lewis continues
    to be, as he has been throughout his life, a powerful advocate
    of matters of equality.
        Congressman Lewis, please go ahead, sir.

    STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN LEWIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
                          THE STATE OF GEORGIA

        Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Leahy and other members of the Senate, I thank you
    for inviting me to testify before this Committee today. It is
    an honor to be here.
        I am very happy to see the Judiciary Committee holding
    hearings to address the issue of marriage equality. But at the
    same time, Mr. Chairman, I must admit I find it unbelievable
    that in the year 2011 there is still a need to hold hearings
    and debate whether or not a human being should be able to marry
    the one they love.
        Now, I grew up in southern Alabama, outside of a little
    town called Troy. Throughout my entire childhood, I saw those
    signs that said ``white restroom,'' ``colored restroom,''
    ``white water fountain,'' ``colored water fountain,'' ``colored
    waiting,'' ``white waiting,'' ``white men,'' ``colored men,''
    ``white women,'' ``colored women.'' As a child, I tasted the
    bitter fruits of racism and discrimination, and I did not like
    it. And in 1996 when Congress passed the Defense of Marriage
    Act, the taste of that old bitter fruit filled my mouth once
    again.
        The Defense of Marriage Act is a stain on our democracy. We
    must do away with this unjust, discriminatory law once and for
    all. It reminds me of another dark time in our Nation's
    history, the many years when States passed laws banning blacks
    and whites from marrying. We look back on that time now with
    disbelief, and one day we will look back on this period with
    that same sense of disbelief.
        When people used to ask Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. about
    interracial marriage, he would say, ``Races do not fall in love
    and get married. Individuals fall in love and get married.''
        Marriage is a basic human right. No Government, Federal or
    State, should tell people they cannot be married. We should
    encourage people to love and not hate.
        Human rights, civil rights, these are issues of dignity.
    Every human being walking this Earth, man or woman, gay or
    straight, is entitled to the same rights. It is in keeping with
    the American promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of
    happiness. These words mean as much now as they did at the
    signing of the Declaration of Independence.
        That is why Congress must not only repeal the Defense of
    Marriage Act, but work to ensure full marriage equality for all
    citizens, together with the privileges and benefits marriage
    provides. All across this Nation, same-sex couples are denied
    the very rights you and I enjoy. They are denied hospital
    visitation rights and they are denied equal rights and benefits
    in health insurance and pensions simply because the person they
    love happens to be of the same sex.
        Even in States where they have achieved marriage equality,
    these unjust barriers remain, all because of the Defense of
    Marriage Act.
        Unfortunately, too many of us are comfortable sitting on
    the sidelines while the Federal Government and State
    governments trample on the rights of our gay brothers and
    sisters. As elected officials, we are called to lead. We are
    called to be a headlight, and not a taillight. So I applaud the
    work of Congressman Nadler and Senator Feinstein, and I applaud
    the Senate Judiciary Committee for holding this hearing.
        I urge this Committee, the Senate as a body, and the U.S.
    House of Representatives as a whole to pass the Respect for
    Marriage Act as soon as possible. Justice delayed is justice
    denied, and passing this bill is simply the right thing to do.
        More than just our constituents, these are our brothers and
    sisters. We cannot turn our backs on them. We must join hands
    and work together to create a more perfect union. In the final
    analysis, we are one people, one family, the American family,
    and we all live together in this one house, the American House.
        Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for inviting me to testify.
        Chairman Leahy. Well, thank you very much, Congressman
    Lewis.
        We have been joined by Senator Grassley, and we have a
    Congressman from his own State of Iowa, Congressman Steve King,
    who represents Iowa's 5th Congressional District. He is a
    member of the House Agriculture Committee, Small Business
    Committee, and the Judiciary Committee of the House, the other
    Judiciary Committee.
        Congressman King, thank you for being here. Please go
    ahead, sir.

    STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE KING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
                           THE STATE OF IOWA

        Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
    Senator Grassley also for inviting me to testify here. It is an
    honor and privilege to testify before the Senate Judiciary
    Committee, and I testify, of course, in opposition to S. 598
    and other efforts to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.
        The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 by overwhelming
    bipartisan majorities and was signed into law by President
    Clinton. This law defined marriage as, and I quote, ``a legal
    union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and
    the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex
    who is a husband or a wife.'' This law also clarified that
    States did not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed
    in other States.
        Traditional marriage is a sacred institution and serves as
    the cornerstone of our society. We cannot afford to de-value it
    with legislation like S. 598, and we must oppose any effort
    that would diminish the definition of marriage. All of human
    experience points to one committed relationship between a man
    and a woman as the core building block to society. It takes a
    man and a woman to have children, and children are necessary
    for the next generation, and we need to provide to them, pass
    through to them the values of our civilization in the family.
        The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this in 1888 when it
    stated, and I quote, ``Marriage is the foundation of the family
    and of society, without which there would be neither
    civilization nor progress.'' And in 1942, the Supreme Court
    said, ``Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very
    existence and survival of the race.''
        DOMA was passed in 1996 because Congress and President
    Clinton understood that civil society has an interest in
    maintaining and protecting the institution of heterosexual
    marriage because it has a deep and abiding interest in
    encouraging responsible procreation and child rearing. Now with
    today's proposed legislation, you are suggesting that the
    Government does not have the same interest to protect a
    marriage today as it did in 1996.
        The other side argues that you cannot choose who you love
    and that a union between two men or two women is equal to that
    of one man and one woman. But these are the same arguments that
    could be used to promote marriage between fathers and
    daughters, mothers and sons, or even polygamous relationships.
        In 1998, I helped draft Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act that
    States, ``Only a marriage between a male and a female is
    valid.'' In 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court issued a lawless
    decision in Varnum v. Brien. Seven Iowa Supreme Court Justices
    decided to legislate from the bench. They struck down Iowa's
    DOMA law, and to read their opinion brings one to the
    conclusion that these justices believe they have the authority
    to find the Constitution itself unconstitutional. They even
    went so far as to say that rights to same-sex marriage ``were
    at one time unimagined.'' When Iowans went to polls on November
    2, 2010, they sent a message to the Supreme Court of Iowa. They
    rejected the Varnum decision and historically ousted all three
    justices who were up for retention. That included Chief Justice
    Marsha Ternus. Never in the history of Iowa had the voters
    ousted a single Supreme Court justice let alone the three that
    were up for retention votes last November.
        In fact, every single time the American people have had the
    opportunity to vote on the definition of marriage, 31 out of 31
    times they have affirmed that marriage is and should remain the
    union of a husband and a wife, and 30 States currently have
    constitutional amendments to define marriage between one man
    and one woman, and Maine passed an initiative to overturn a
    same-sex marriage bill.
        Despite the clear will of the people, we have legislation
    like S. 598 before us today. We also have the President saying
    that DOMA is unconstitutional, despite no court ever reaching
    that conclusion. President Obama has also directed the Justice
    Department to stop defending the constitutionality of this law.
    It is not the role of the executive branch to determine what is
    or is not constitutional. It is the role of the executive
    branch to execute and uphold the laws that Congress passed.
        Now, I understand that yesterday President Obama announced
    that he would support the repeal of DOMA. It is his domain to
    take such a position. But contrary to that position, I think it
    is clear that the will of the American people to maintain,
    protect, and uphold the definition of marriage between one man
    and one woman is there. This is good for families, good for
    society, and good for Government.
        I would quickly add, Mr. Chairman, a couple of points about
    civil rights. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act says
    ``protection for race, color, religion, sex, national origin.''
    Those, except for the constitutional protection of religion,
    are immutable characteristics. Those characteristics that are
    immutable should be injected into the discussion, and a
    marriage license is offered because that is a permit to do that
    which is otherwise illegal. It is not a right to get married.
    That is why States regulate it by licensing. They want to
    encourage marriage.
        Thank you. I appreciate your attention and I yield back.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much, Congressman King.
        Congressman Nadler is the author of the Respect for
    Marriage Act and lead sponsor of the companion bill in the
    House. He is also the lead House sponsor of the Uniting
    American Families Act, which we have also talked about in this
    Committee.
        Congressman Nadler, thank you for coming across the divide
    and joining us here. Please go ahead, sir.

    STATEMENT OF HON. JERROLD NADLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                       FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

        Mr. Nadler. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    hearing and for your leadership on this issue. I also want to
    thank our colleague, the senior Senator from California,
    Senator Feinstein, for her leadership in introducing the
    Respect for Marriage Act in the Senate earlier this year along
    with the Chairman and with our outstanding junior Senator from
    New York, Senator Gillibrand.
        I am thrilled to be here today as the author and lead
    sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act, which now enjoys the
    support of 119 cosponsors in the House. Just yesterday,
    President Obama announced his support for the bill, and I
    applaud his leadership on the issue as well.
        When Congress passed DOMA in 1996, it was not yet possible
    for a gay or lesbian couple to marry anywhere in the world.
    Fifteen years later, much has changed. Six States and the
    District of Columbia now include gay and lesbian couples in
    their State marriage laws, and there are an estimated 80,000
    gay and lesbian couples married legally in this country.
        As a result, and as former stereotypes about lesbians, gay
    men, and their relationships have fallen away, public
    understanding and opinion on this issue has shifted
    dramatically. While 75 percent of the public opposed allowing
    gay and lesbian couples to marry when Congress enacted DOMA, a
    majority of Americans now support marriage equality. Once
    viewed as a fiercely partisan issue, most individuals under age
    45 who identify as Republican now support equal
    responsibilities and rights for gay and lesbian couples.
    Recently, in my home State, Republican and Democratic lawmakers
    joined forces and voted to include gay and lesbian New Yorkers
    in our State marriage laws, and they will start getting married
    legally in New York on Sunday.
        This shift in understanding and opinion now makes clear
    what should have been apparent in 1996: the refusal to
    recognize the legal marriages of a category of our citizens
    based on their sexual orientation is unjustifiable. Time and
    experience have eroded the legal and factual foundations used
    to support DOMA's passage, and meaningful Congressional
    examination of this law is long overdue.
        Some of Congress' reasons for DOMA have now been disavowed,
    most notably the claim that Congress can or should use the
    force of law to express moral disapproval of gay and lesbian
    Americans. It is no longer credible to claim that most
    Americans hold this view; and, of course, while once believed a
    legitimate reason for the law, it is now, since Lawrence v.
    Texas, reason enough to declare it invalid.
        DOMA's supporters still claim that the law should survive
    and argue primarily that DOMA serves a legitimate interest in
    protecting the welfare of children by promoting a so-called
    optimal family structure--one that consists of a married
    opposite-sex couple raising their biological children. But
    there is no credible support for the notion that children are
    better off with opposite-sex parents or that married gay and
    lesbian parents do not provide an equally loving, supportive,
    and wholesome environment. Any legitimate interest in children
    demands that the children of married lesbian and gay couples
    also receive the advantages that flow from equal Federal
    recognition of their parents' State marriages. No legitimate
    Federal interest in the welfare of children is ever advanced by
    withholding protection from some children based on a desire to
    express moral disapproval of their parents. And it defies
    common sense to claim that it is necessary to harm or exclude
    the children of married same-sex couples in order somehow to
    protect the children of opposite-sex couples.
        Nor is it accurate to claim that Congress' only interest in
    marriage is in its children. Congress routinely allocates
    Federal obligations and benefits based on marital status and
    often does so to promote the welfare and security of these
    adults. These interests are not possibly served by DOMA.
        While no legitimate Federal interest is served by this law,
    DOMA unquestionably causes harm, as we will hear from the
    married gay and lesbian couples who have joined us today. These
    couples pay taxes, serve their communities, struggle to balance
    work and family, raise children, and care for aging parents.
    They have undertaken the serious public and legal pledge to
    care for and support each other and their families that civil
    marriage entails. They deserve equal treatment from the Federal
    Government; in fact, the Constitution demands it and the
    Respect for Marriage Act would provide it.
        The Respect for Marriage Act honors the greatest traditions
    of this Nation. The bill does not define marriage but, instead,
    restores our practice of respecting all State-sanctioned
    marriages for purposes of Federal law while allowing each State
    to determine its own marriage laws.
        Unlike DOMA, the Respect for Marriage Act protects States'
    rights. Though each State now sets its own marriage law, DOMA
    currently prevents the Federal Government from treating all
    States' marriages equally. The Respect for Marriage Act would
    restore equal respect for the marriages of every State.
        The Respect for Marriage Act also honors America's highest
    traditions of religious freedom. Religious views on marriage
    unquestionably differ, with some religions opposing and others
    solemnizing marriages for lesbian and gay couples. The Respect
    for Marriage Act allows this diversity to flourish, leaving
    every religion free to marry the couples it chooses without
    Government interference.
        In authoring this bill, I worked closely with family law
    experts to ensure that the Federal Government once again works
    cooperatively with the States to support and stabilize American
    families. I am confident the bill strikes the right balance,
    and I look forward to working with all of you to ensure its
    passage.
        I again thank you for holding this hearing.
        Chairman Leahy. Well, thank you, Congressman Nadler. I know
    that the House has both debates and votes scheduled, so my
    intention would be, if there are no questions, to allow our
    three House members to go back to the other body, and then I
    would yield to Senator Grassley, who did not have a chance to
    make his opening statement because we changed the schedule. I
    would yield to him for that. But I thank all three of you for
    being here. I know, especially this week, how hectic a schedule
    it is on both sides. I appreciate you taking the time to come
    here. Thank you.
        Senator Grassley.

    STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
                                OF IOWA

        Senator Grassley. Mr. Chairman, thank you for respecting my
    lateness of arrival and this courtesy.
        The bill before us today is entitled ``The Respect for
    Marriage Act.'' George Orwell would have marveled at the name.
    A bill to restore marriage--would restore marriage as it has
    been known as between one man and one woman. That is the view
    of marriage that I support. This bill would undermine not
    restore marriage by repealing the Defense of Marriage Act.
        The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996, and just
    think of the vote by which it passed the U.S. Senate: 85-14. We
    do not often get votes of 85-14 in the U.S. Senate on
    controversial pieces of legislation.
        Unlike a bill in which one member of a party supports a
    partisan bill of the other party, which sometimes passed for
    bipartisanship around here, this was truly a bipartisan bill,
    as evidenced by the 85-14 vote. President Clinton signed it
    into law. Even President Obama ran for election on a platform
    of support for traditional marriage. Until yesterday, he was a
    supporter of DOMA as well.
        One of the witnesses before us today says that DOMA was
    passed for only one reason: ``to express disapproval of gay and
    lesbian people.'' I know this to be false. Senators at the
    time, such as Biden, Harkin, Kohl, or even you, Mr. Chairman,
    and Representatives at the time like Representatives Schumer
    and Durbin, as they were members of the House at that time, did
    not support DOMA to express disapproval of gay and lesbian
    people, and neither did I.
        Marriage is an institution that serves the same public
    purpose all over the world: to foster unions that can result in
    procreation. It creates incentives for husbands and wives to
    support each other and their children. It exists more to
    benefit children than adults, although many marriages do not
    involve children. Societies all over the world recognize the
    numerous reasons to extend special recognition to traditional
    marriage.
        I never thought that I would have to ever defend
    traditional marriage. It has been the foundation of societies
    for 6,000 years, not only here but around the world, and it is
    what civilizations have been built on.
        Support for traditional marriage cannot be viewed in a
    vacuum. Over the last 50 years, marriage has changed very
    dramatically. Perhaps the divorce laws, inheritance laws, and
    criminal laws of that time needed reform. Like many Members of
    Congress, I believe in federalism. I do not support the rights
    of the State--I do support the rights of States to make changes
    in marriage if they choose. But I also believe that a State
    that changes its definition of marriage should not be able to
    impose that change on sister States or the Federal Government.
        Section 2 of DOMA adds a statutory enhancement to State
    authority under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV,
    Section 1 of the Constitution to maintain their own definitions
    of marriage. In addition, same-sex couples are not the only
    couples who face the issues that we are going to hear about
    today from our witnesses. Unmarried heterosexual couples,
    siblings, and friends who live together all can face the same
    problem, some of which can be addressed through other means
    than this particular legislation, and legitimately so.
        I would like to note that one of our witnesses describes
    the serious threats that were made against ordinary citizens
    who exercised their First Amendment rights to petition the
    Government for redress of grievances when California judges
    forced that State to adopt same-sex marriage. The minority very
    much hoped to call a witness today at this hearing to testify
    in support of DOMA. I am sure she would have done an excellent
    job. She declined, however, citing as one reason the threats
    and intimidation that have been leveled against not only her
    but her family as a result of her public support of DOMA. She
    will continue to write on this subject but will no longer speak
    publicly. This chilling of the First Amendment rights is
    unacceptable.
        There are good people of good faith on both sides of this
    question. They should seek to persuade each other through logic
    and factual evidence. They should not resort to threats of
    violence or seek to silence their opponents. And I say the same
    thing for people that want to take bad action against people
    that are gay and lesbian.
        DOMA is a constitutional law, but it is subject to
    constitutional attack. As one of today's witnesses shows, the
    Department of Justice has not performed its constitutional
    duties to take care that laws be faithfully executed during the
    course of litigation involving DOMA. The Department recently
    argued in another case that the courts should rely on unpassed
    bills in deciding the legality of Government action. This is a
    ridiculous argument, one which courts have never accepted.
        The rule of law requires rulings based on actual laws, not
    on policy preferences. The Obama administration lost that
    argument in that other case called the Leal case, although,
    regrettably, four activist judges agreed that somehow they
    ought to make a decision on the fact that Congress might pass a
    law as opposed to what the law actually is. Neither the
    administration nor any judge should rely on an aunpassed bill,
    S. 598, arguing or deciding the constitutionality of DOMA. Nor
    should the administration or any judge accept the argument the
    Justice Department made in the Leal case that there is any
    legal significance to the mere introduction of a bill, even if
    it is strongly supported by the administration. Nor should the
    administration nor any judge be of the erroneous opinion that
    this Congress will pass S. 598.
        Thank you very much, Chairman.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you. Of course, I would note in the
    other case you are referring to, we do have treaty obligations,
    that any time we enter a treaty it does become the law of the
    land.
        Senator Grassley. Well, that is the Supremacy of the Law
    Clause that I take an oath to uphold, so I agree with you on
    that.
        Chairman Leahy. And as each one of us has had to at one
    time or another, when we have had a citizen from our State is
    being held by authorities in another country, we have argued
    they should have the right to have somebody from our embassy
    speak to them and advise them of their rights. Of course, in
    that case the argument was we want--if we ask other countries
    to do that for our citizens, they ought to have the same rights
    in ours.
        But, in any event, I would ask the staff if they would
    change the names on here, and we will call up the next panel.
    We will call up Ron Wallen, Thomas Minnery, Andrew Sorbo, and
    Susan Murray, and before we start, I will--we will hear the
    testimony from each of them, and then we will open it up to
    questions.
        I should also note in the audience we are pleased to have
    Senator Gillibrand. As a couple of the witnesses have already
    noted, she is a strong supporter of this legislation and has
    worked with us and worked very hard for its passage, so I am
    glad to have you here, Senator.
        The first witness we will hear from is Ron Wallen. He is a
    resident of Indio, California. He married Tom Carrollo, his
    partner of 55 years, in June of 2008.
        Mr. Wallen, please go ahead, sir. And, incidentally, I
    should note for all witnesses, your whole statement will be
    placed in the record, and once you have the transcript--you
    will get a copy of the transcript, and if you find that you
    should have added this line or that line, you will have a
    chance to do that. We want as complete a record as we can have.
        Please go ahead, Mr. Wallen.

               STATEMENT OF RON WALLEN, INDIO, CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Wallen. Thank you, Chairman Leahy and members of the
    Senate Judiciary Committee, for inviting me to testify at this
    important hearing today. I want to especially thank my Senator,
    Senator Feinstein, for introducing the Respect for Marriage
    Act. And I am honored and appreciate the opportunity to tell my
    story.
        My name is Ron Wallen. I am 77 years old, and I live in
    Indio, California.
        Four months ago, Tom Carrollo, my husband and partner of 58
    years, died of leukemia. Tom and I first met back in 1953 when
    Tom was 23 and I was 19. And from the first day, we enjoyed a
    sense of togetherness which never weakened in both good times
    and bad. Tom suffered a massive heart attack in 1978. On
    doctor's orders, we changed our lives, which also resulted in
    diminished income for us both. And for the next 33 years, our
    very ordinary life was happily spent together surrounded by
    friends and family until Tom's last illness.
        On June 24, 2008, we were among the lucky couples in
    California to stand before family and friends and legally marry
    the one person we loved above all others. It was a wonderful
    day, a day of pure joy. And as ingrained as our love for each
    other was, we were still surprised by the amount of emotion
    that came to us when the words ``I now pronounce married for
    life'' were spoken. Imagine, after 55 years together, the two
    of us were blubbering on our wedding day.
        But even on the day we vowed in sickness and in health, we
    were already facing the worst because Tom had been diagnosed
    with lymphoma, which later morphed into leukemia. Tom's illness
    was 4 years of pure hell, with more hospitalizations than I can
    count using both hands and feet. Not a month went by that I was
    not rushing him to the emergency room. But we were in it
    together. Tom did not have leukemia. We had leukemia. And as
    rotten as those 4 years were, they were made more bearable
    because we had each other for comfort and love and because we
    were married.
        Since Tom died on March 8, I miss him terribly. And beyond
    the emptiness caused by the loss of the man I have spent my
    entire adult life with, my life has been thrown into financial
    turmoil because of DOMA.
        Like a lot of retirees, we took a big financial hit in the
    stock market these past couple of years. But between Tom's
    Social Security benefit of $1,850, his small private pension of
    $300, and my Social Security check, which was $902, we had a
    combined steady monthly income of $3,050, which kept a roof
    over our heads. The rest of our living expenses were covered by
    the income from our diminished investments--not sumptuous, but
    enough.
        As you know, for married couples in this country, Social
    Security allows a widow or widower to either claim their own
    benefit or the benefit amount of their deceased spouse,
    whichever is higher. That Survivor's Benefit is often what
    allows the widow or widower to stay in their home at a very
    difficult time. But DOMA says that gay and lesbian married
    couples cannot get that same treatment. Therefore, my reliable
    income went from $3,050 down to $900 a month. The monthly
    mortgage on my home is $2,078 plus associated HOA and other
    costs. You do not have to be an accountant to see that from the
    day Tom passed, I have had to worry about how to pay that
    mortgage.
        That additional benefit would have done for me what it does
    for every other surviving spouse in America: ease the pain of
    loss, help during a very difficult transition, and allow time
    to make decisions and plan for my future alone. Yet I could not
    depend on this after 58 years with my spouse simply because of
    DOMA. This is unfair. This is unjust.
        Many widows and widowers downsize and make adjustments
    after the loss of their spouse. Downsizing is one thing, but
    panic sale of a home which is underwater is quite another.
    After a lifetime of being a productive citizen, I am facing
    financial chaos. Tom and I played by the rules as we pursued
    our own version of the American DREAM. We served our country;
    we paid our taxes; we volunteered; we maintained our home; we
    got married as soon as we were legally able to do so. And yet
    as I face a future without my spouse of 58 years, it is hard to
    accept that it is the Federal Government that is throwing me
    out of my own home.
        You can fix this problem by repealing DOMA. It is a
    discriminatory law against gay and lesbian couples who have
    assumed the responsibilities of marriage. All we ask is to be
    treated fairly, just like other loving and committed married
    couples. I beg you to repeal this law and allow all married
    couples the same protections.
        ``I'd like to add one more thought: Although I am happy to
    tell my personal sad story (of which there must be many
    thousands more,) it should not have been necessary. Basic
    application of the civil rights, privileges, and
    responsibilities which should be granted to all Americans,
    should, of and by themselves illustrate how wrong the Defense
    of Marriage Act is; how important it is to repeal it; and how
    it should never have been allowed to be passed in the first
    place. This should be obvious to all fair minded persons.
        Again, thank you for inviting me to testify today, and I
    will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wallen appears as a
    submissions for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much, Mr. Wallen.
        Our next witness is Thomas Minnery, senior vice president
    of Focus on the Family and executive director of its lobbying
    affiliate, Citizen Link. And Mr. Minnery reminded me that years
    and years and years and years ago, when we were both younger,
    he actually covered me for one of the newspapers in Vermont.
        Go ahead, Mr. Minnery. Is your microphone on? The little
    red light will go on.

     STATEMENT OF THOMAS MINNERY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC
        POLICY, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY, COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO

        Mr. Minnery. It is now. Thank you. And, Mr. Wallen, my
    heart goes out to you. My organization is very large. We do a
    lot of counseling for families to help them thrive in a
    difficult and complex society. We have resources for couples to
    build healthy marriages that reflect God's design and for
    parents to raise their children according to morals and values
    grounded in biblical principles. We have 13 international
    offices. Our radio programs are broadcast in 26 languages to
    more than 230 million people around the world each day, and,
    Mr. Wallen, we have resources that I believe can help you even
    in your situation, and if you would permit us, we would love to
    try and be helpful to you.
        Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, I believe I
    represent two groups of people who have not been invited here
    today to testify. The first group of people are those many
    voters who have unapologetically endorsed the traditional
    definition of marriage in State ballot initiatives or
    referenda. Typically, these votes pass with overwhelming
    majorities, an average of 67 percent majority in each of the 31
    States where voters have had a chance to register their
    opinions about it. Additionally, 15 more States have passed
    some sort of statute, bringing the total to 44 States that have
    decided in one form or another, usually by large, overwhelming
    majorities, that marriage is between one man and one woman.
        One of the bill's most serious impacts, the bill we are
    discussing today, has been largely ignored. It is the repeal of
    Section 2 of DOMA. That is the section that protects States
    from being forced to recognize out-of-State same-sex marriages.
        The bill's revocation of Section 2 is an attempt to
    undermine the public policies, laws, and Constitutions of the
    vast majority of States for whom traditional marriage is a
    settled issue. The only possible reason for doing so is to
    place the issue of marriage once again into the hands of judges
    and to take the issue of marriage out of the hands of people
    who have already spoken so clearly in so many States. Should
    DOMA be repealed, parents in those States which have registered
    their approval of traditional marriages will be faced with the
    problems of coping with marriages of which they overwhelmingly
    disapprove. We need look no further than Massachusetts, the
    first State to legalize same-sex marriage, to understand what I
    am talking about. It is this forced political correctness that
    brooks no diversity of opinion that is the problem here.
        National Public Radio featured an interview with a
    Massachusetts eighth-grade teacher, Deb Allen, who was
    exuberant about her new-found freedom to explicitly discuss
    homosexual behavior with kids after the law passed in
    Massachusetts. ``In my mind, I know that, OK, this is legal
    now,'' she said. ``If somebody wants to challenge me, I will
    say, `Give me a break. It is legal now.'' That is what she said
    to NPR. The NPR reporter went on to explain that the teacher
    now discusses ``gay sex'' with students ``thoroughly and
    explicitly with a chart''--in the eighth grade.
        I feel like I am also representing parents who have not
    been invited here to speak who have a sincerely held religious
    view that marriage is between one man and one woman, and they
    want to protect their young children against other views.
        Robb and Robin Wirthlin in 2006 had their 7-year-old son,
    Joey, come home and tell them about a book his teacher had read
    to the first grade class expounding on same-sex relationships.
    At first, they thought that he was mistaken. They requested
    that the school inform them about such presentations, and they
    were turned down.
        Another couple, David and Tonia Parker, had an even worse
    result. When they questioned the teaching of explicit same-sex
    issues to their young son, Mr. Parker found himself in jail.
    ``I am just trying to be a good dad,'' Parker said after his
    arraignment. The family acknowledged they were Christians
    attempting to follow their faith. ``We are not intolerant,''
    said his wife. ``We love all people. That is part of our
    faith.''
        But, see, the judge who ruled on their case, the case of
    the Parkers and the Wirthlins, has this to say: ``The sooner
    children are exposed to those topics of same-sex relationships,
    the better it is. It is difficult to change attitudes and
    stereotypes after they have developed.'' Excuse me? Attitudes
    and stereotypes? These are the sincerely held religious views
    of their parents, and the judge takes it upon himself to
    believe that these views, sincerely held, should be erased from
    the minds of the children.
        Mr. Chairman, that is my opening statement. I would be
    pleased to take questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Minnery appears as a
    submissions for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Minnery, and
    it is good to see you again.
        Our next witness is Andrew Sorbo, a resident of Berlin--how
    do you pronounce it in Connecticut?
        Mr. Sorbo. Berlin.
        Chairman Leahy. The same way we do in Vermont.
        [Laughter.]
        Chairman Leahy. We have a Berlin, Vermont, for those who
    are wondering. Andrew and his late spouse, Colin Atterbury,
    shared a life for nearly 30 years. They were joined in a civil
    union in Vermont in 2004. That is back when Vermont had civil
    unions before they had same-sex marriage. They were legally
    married in Connecticut in 2009.
        Please go ahead, sir.

             STATEMENT OF ANDREW SORBO, BERLIN, CONNECTICUT

        Mr. Sorbo. Thank you, Senator Leahy, Senator Feinstein, and
    Senator Blumenthal, for inviting me to testify before this
    Committee.
        My name is Andrew Sorbo. I am 64 years old and a resident
    of Berlin, Connecticut. I spent 35 years as a teacher and
    principal in the Catholic and public schools of Rhode Island
    and Connecticut before retiring in 2005. I am here today to
    talk about how I have been hurt by the Defense of Marriage Act
    after I lost my partner of nearly 30 years, the love of my life
    and my legal spouse, Dr. Colin Atterbury, a professor of
    medicine at Yale University and the chief of staff of the West
    Haven, Connecticut, Veterans Administration Medical Center.
        As a young man of 23, I had mistakenly married, separated,
    and divorced, and expected to spend the rest of my life alone
    and my nights in quiet desperation. But then to my everlasting
    surprise, on July 29, 1979, on a visit to New York City, I met
    Colin. From our first conversation, we knew that we had found
    our soul mates and our partners for life. Although we never
    expected it to happen in our lifetime, we had the opportunity
    to legalize our relationship with a civil and holy union in
    Vermont on the occasion of our 25th anniversary.
        A year later, I retired and shortly afterward Colin was
    diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. For over 3 years, he battled
    the cancer with stoicism and courage, and I nursed him with a
    strength I was not aware that I possessed. In January 2009, we
    were married by two minister friends in a subdued ceremony in
    the living room of our home in Cheshire, Connecticut. Colin
    died 4 months later, just shy of our 30th anniversary.
        Even though we had done everything we could to legalize our
    relationship and protect ourselves financially, DOMA hung over
    us like a dark and ominous cloud. The financial impact due to
    DOMA came swiftly after Colin's death. His Federal pension
    checks stopped, so our household income declined by 80 percent.
    DOMA did not allow Colin the same legal right which my other
    brother-in-law possessed when he retired--that is, the
    opportunity to accept a smaller monthly pension to allow his
    spouse, my sister, to inherit his pension and maintain her
    financial security in the event of his death. This year, I had
    to sell our house in Cheshire and downsize to a condominium.
    Leaving our home of 18 years is a moment I will never forget.
        Colin was also denied the right to include me in his
    medical insurance plan. When I retired as a teacher in 2005, I
    had no alternative except to pay for my insurance coverage in
    full at a much higher rate than as a spouse. Last year, my
    insurance payments consumed almost one-third of my $24,000
    teacher pension. In addition, DOMA forced my financial planner
    to create a retirement plan much less advantageous for me than
    if I had been Colin's female spouse.
        Another consequence of DOMA is that, unlike my mother when
    my stepfather died, I was unable to inherit my spouse's Social
    Security benefits.
        DOMA also interfered with our ability to file joint State
    income tax returns even though we were legally married in
    Connecticut. That process is prohibitively complex for same-sex
    spouses. Even after our civil union in 2004, Colin and I were
    not allowed to file joint Federal income tax returns, a
    situation that my sister and her husband never faced. After
    Colin died, I was forced to file a separate Federal return for
    him, and separating our finances at that point was exceedingly
    difficult.
        The damage that DOMA inflicts every day on the lives of
    decent Americans is not only financial but also psychological
    as well. The toll on our belief in the justice and fairness of
    our society is incalculable. Were Colin sitting by my side
    today, Colin would implore you to remove this insult to our
    dignity, to respect us as much as you do our heterosexual
    countrymen, and to rescind DOMA. Colin would ask that you
    restore the economic justice that DOMA denies us. He would
    remind you that we are your brothers and your sisters, your
    aunts and your uncles, your cousins and your friends, your work
    mates and your neighbors, your sons and your daughters, and,
    yes, even sometimes your moms and your dads. And then Colin,
    the doctor who was a philosopher, would stop to ruminate
    because he was a thoughtful man. He would lower his voice
    solemnly. He would look every one of you in the eye before
    saying, ``Everybody deserves equal treatment.''
        Thank you, Senators, for allowing me to testify today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Sorbo appears as a
    submissions for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much, Mr. Sorbo.
        Our last witness on this panel is Susan Murray. Ms. Murray
    lives with her wife, Karen, in Ferrisburgh, Vermont. She is a
    partner in the law firm of Langrock, Sperry & Wool in
    Burlington, Vermont. That is one of the leading law firms of
    our State. She specializes in family law, appeals, estate
    planning, and civil rights. She was co-counsel in Baker v.
    State of Vermont, which established civil unions in Vermont.
        Ms. Murray, please go ahead.

           STATEMENT OF SUSAN M. MURRAY, FERRISBURGH, VERMONT

        Ms. Murray. Thank you, Chairman Leahy, my fellow Vermonter,
    and thank you, Senator Grassley, and the other members of the
    Committee, for allowing me to testify here today.
        I am the oldest of seven children. I came from a good
    Catholic family, and I had a great childhood. My mom and dad
    were completely devoted to us kids. But they were also devoted
    to each other. They were happily married for 51 years before my
    dad died 6 years ago. Sorry. So that was my model of a
    successful marriage. That is what I wanted for myself.
        When I realized as a young adult that I was gay, I did not
    think that I would ever have the opportunity to have that same
    kind of a life that my parents had. And then I met Karen
    Hibbard, and I consider myself blessed to have found the person
    that I wanted to be with for the rest of my life.
        We have been together for more than 25 years now, and as
    soon as the State of Vermont--as soon as the Vermont
    Legislature said we could, we got married. We promised to
    continue to love one another and to be with each other through
    thick and thin for the rest of our lives.
        By now, our lives are completely intertwined, both
    financially and otherwise. But we still cannot file join
    Federal tax returns, and that means we have to pay more in
    taxes.
        There was a time a few years ago when I was very sick and I
    was in the hospital for 4 days. Karen stayed with me every day
    and every night until I got better. Luckily, I had health
    insurance through Karen's work, so that helped pay the medical
    bills. But unlike other married coworkers that she works with,
    Karen has to pay tax on the value of that health insurance
    coverage for me. That value is about $6,200 a year.
        Now, Senators, when we met, Karen had blond hair and I had
    black hair, and now we both have gray hair. And as we get
    older, we are starting to worry about the financial
    difficulties that we may face because the Social Security laws
    do not provide us the full benefits that other couples have.
        All of these things, large and small, add up over time, and
    it is like waves hitting the sand on a beach, over and over.
    They have the effect of eroding our financial security. It is
    trying to erode things that we have worked so hard to build up
    over time.
        As Senator Leahy pointed out, I am a lawyer by profession.
    I do a lot of family law work and a lot of estate planning
    work, and in that role I have seen firsthand the ways in which
    the lack of Federal protections hurt same-sex families and the
    children they are raising. So I would like to give you just two
    examples here today.
        I once represented a woman named Carey. She was a blue-
    collar worker. She worked in a big-box store. She and her
    partner, Erin, really struggled to support themselves and
    Erin's two children that Erin had from a prior marriage. At one
    point Carey went to her employer and tried to get health
    insurance for Erin and for Erin's two children, and the company
    said no. They specifically told her that the Federal Government
    did not require them to insure their employees' same-sex
    partners or spouses or those spouses' children. So they were
    not going to offer it. So for this family, the lack of health
    insurance really was very scary. They were essentially one
    illness away from financial ruin.
        And the last case I will tell you about is a tragedy. My
    client, Cheryl, and her partner, Jane, were new parents of an
    8-month-old boy. They were totally in love with that little
    baby. They had so many hopes and dreams together for raising
    that child. They had agreed that Cheryl was going to stay home
    and be a full-time stay-at-home-mom to take care of the baby
    and that Jane would go to work to earn money for the family.
    Now, she had a very modest job and made a modest income, but
    they had a little house, and they were making ends meet.
        And then one morning on her way to work, Jane was killed in
    a car accident, and instantly all of that family's income was
    gone. Cheryl did not even get the basic parent Social Security
    benefits that Jane had paid for through her Social Security
    taxes. That basic Federal safety net was not there for Cheryl
    and their little baby.
        For me as a lawyer, it was heart-breaking to deal with
    that, to see that little baby and to try to help Cheryl deal
    with her grief and with this financial devastation. She ended
    up losing the house. We could not save it for her.
        These are just two examples of the harms that same-sex
    couples have faced, and will face, if DOMA is allowed to remain
    the law of the land. I really hope you will get rid of this
    unfair law.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Murray appears as a
    submissions for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much. We will go to our
    questions.
        As a member of the Vermont Bar and a member of the legal
    community, I have been very familiar with your advocacy, Ms.
    Murray, in the fight for equality. But this is the first time I
    have heard your personal story and what you said about your
    parents and how their marriage was an example to you. And I can
    certainly relate to that and my own parents.
        But you also were in Vermont when we had first civil unions
    the legislature passed. That was a major debate in our State.
    Then subsequently, a few years later, when the Vermont
    Legislature, the elected members debated and passed the same-
    sex marriage, which actually was far less of a--it did not
    bring about an awful lot of controversy from the right to the
    left in our State. But why was it important to you to get
    married rather than just have a civil union?
        Ms. Murray. That is a great question, Senator. You know,
    civil unions was created out of whole cloth by the State of
    Vermont. Now other States have borrowed that phrase, but it was
    brand-new back then, and is different. And people did not know
    what it was. When we had a civil union ceremony, we had a big
    party, and some of the people we invited did not know what we
    were inviting them to. They did not understand it.
        But marriage is universal. Everybody understands it--
    everybody in this country and everybody in the world. Everybody
    knows what the marriage vows are, that you take someone for
    better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in
    health, until death do you part. Everybody knows that. And the
    childhood that I had and the model that I had from my parents
    caused me to believe in marriage. I believe in its power to
    bind people and its importance to society. And I wanted to
    declare that publicly. We both wanted to declare that publicly
    for our friends, and our family, so that they would be there to
    support us and so that they understood that we were part of
    that world.
        Chairman Leahy. Let me ask you, we will have a number of
    witnesses, we already have had and will have more, who oppose
    the Respect for Marriage Act. Some say they want to fight
    poverty by keeping American families intact. They talk about
    the problems of single-parent households. Now, States have long
    determined issues of marriage. It is rare the Federal courts
    and the Supreme Court stepped in. They did, of course, 40 years
    in Loving v. Virginia, when it unanimously struck down the
    miscegenation laws. But I think we can say that our Federal
    Government has had an interest in protecting children. We can
    agree that marriage provides more stable and financially secure
    homes and families for children.
        When practicing family law, do you see any way that DOMA is
    operating to keep families more intact and protected or the
    other way around?
        Ms. Murray. It is just the opposite of protection, Senator.
    Let me give you an example.
        Karen and I have friends who live in New York, outside of
    Albany, a gay male couple. They have adopted three special-
    needs kids, including one who got AIDS because his mother was
    an intravenous drug user. They have had so many difficulties
    raising these children, really trying times, but they have done
    a fabulous job raising these kids. DOMA undermines their
    ability to take care of these children and to provide these
    children with the care and support that they need. To the
    extent they cannot file joint tax returns and that increases
    their tax burden, that is money that these parents cannot use
    to buy books for those kids, they cannot spend it on tutors,
    they cannot spend it on summer camps. They cannot even put
    money away for the kids' college educations.
        I think we can all agree in this room that children are
    this country's most precious resource. They are our future. And
    the kids of same-sex couples deserve exactly the same
    protections and benefits and that sense of security that every
    other child in this country deserves, and they are not getting
    it with DOMA.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
        Mr. Minnery, earlier this year at the Conservative
    Political Action Conference in D.C., you made this statement. I
    believe I am quoting you correctly. ``We believe we fight
    poverty every day in the most effective way that poverty can be
    fought in this country, and that is, by keeping families
    intact.'' And your report, ``The Value of Marriage for Fighting
    Poverty,'' attributes child poverty in large part to the
    prevalence of single-parent households in our Nation. You
    suggest marriage would lift a significant number of those
    adults and children out of poverty.
        I think we all agree that marriage provides more stable and
    financially secure homes and families for children, but does
    that come through if we are denying some parents rights and
    benefits that would make their families healthy and more
    secure?
        Mr. Minnery. Well, thank you for the question, Mr.
    Chairman. We all, we the people, care about marriage, care
    about what it is because it is the nurturing environment for
    children. And a mountain of social science data has concluded
    overwhelmingly that the best environment for raising those
    children, if possible, is an intact home headed by a married
    father and mother. In fact, I put in my prepared statement a
    footnote----
        Chairman Leahy. But my specific question, though, if you do
    have parents legally married, if they are same sex, and there
    are children, are those children benefited by saying that in
    that family they will not have the same financial benefits that
    another family, married parents of opposite sex would have? Are
    those children not put at a disadvantage by denying those same
    benefits to them? And I am talking about now a legal marriage
    under the State laws of the State they live in.
        Mr. Minnery. Without question, those children are certainly
    better off than had they no parents. But same-sex marriage----
        Chairman Leahy. Wait a minute. I do not understand that.
    They would be better off if they had no parents?
        Mr. Minnery. No. They are certainly better than if they had
    no home headed by parents. But same-sex marriage says a whole
    lot more than that, Senator.
        Chairman Leahy. I know, but I am trying to go specifically
    to the financial. Are they not disadvantaged by not having the
    same financial benefits that an opposite-sex family would have?
        Mr. Minnery. Well, as I say, I do not know the details of
    which families you are speaking of. Certainly those families
    are better off--the children are better off with parents in the
    home. But I am saying----
        Chairman Leahy. But I am talking about just on--yes or no.
    And this is not a trick question. I am just asking. Please. If
    you have parents legally married under the laws of the State,
    one of set of parents are entitled to certain financial
    benefits for their children, the other set of parents are
    denied those same financial benefits for their children, are
    not those children--at least in that aspect of finances, are
    not those children of the second family, are they not at a
    deficiency? Yes or No.
        Mr. Minnery. It would be yes, as you asked the question
    narrowly, Senator.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you. And I was asking narrowly. I
    used to have a career where I had to ask questions all the
    time.
        [Laughter.]
        Chairman Leahy. Senator Grassley.
        Senator Grassley. Mr. Minnery, the testimony we have heard
    appears to me to turn on the operation of Section 3 of DOMA,
    which defines marriage for the purpose of Federal law. DOMA
    also contains Section 2, which, as you mentioned, preserves
    federalism by allowing each State to define marriage for itself
    without imposing its definition on other States. The bill
    before us would repeal Section 2 of DOMA as well as Section 3.
        Does Section 2 of DOMA have anything to do with the loss of
    benefits that the witnesses have discussed?
        Mr. Minnery. DOMA was in place well before the couples at
    the table were married, so their situation, Senator, has not
    changed with DOMA. It is the same. And that is why I question
    the advice that Mr. Wallen spoke about when he talked about
    legal advice given to him about how to him. It seems as though
    the legal advice he was talking about assumed that DOMA would
    be repealed, but it seems to me that the legal advice of a
    competent adviser ought to understand the situation that
    exists. Nothing has changed since DOMA passed for these
    couples.
        Senator Grassley. OK. Since Section 2 of DOMA has nothing
    to do with anybody's benefit, what would be the effect of
    repealing Section 2? And what justification do proponents of
    repealing DOMA offer for repealing Section 2?
        Mr. Minnery. Well, Section 2 is that section of DOMA which
    excuses States from being required to recognize same-sex
    marriages performed in other States. These are the States that
    have overwhelmingly determined what marriage is for the
    citizens of that State. Overwhelmingly they have voted for
    that. And if DOMA were to be repealed, presumably same-sex
    marriages performed elsewhere would have to be recognized in
    those States, those many States that have determined that
    marriage is what it has always been in their States. And with
    that comes a very forced political correctness which can get
    downright nasty.
        In my prepared comments, I speak about a case in Washington
    State in which voters had gone to the polls to try and repeal a
    civil unions measure. They had put that on the ballot by the
    initiative process. Many of the names of those petition signers
    were released, and the threats and the intimidation against
    them were horrendous, and those threats and intimidation found
    their way into a brief filed in Federal court on behalf of
    those parents. Most of those comments against the petition
    signers I cannot report here. They are too vile.
        Senator Grassley. Can I go on to another question, please?
        Mr. Minnery. Please.
        Senator Grassley. Mr. Minnery, we hear testimony today that
    the social science research shows that the well-being of
    children raised in same-sex marriages is the same as children
    who are raised in traditional marriage. Is that your
    understanding of the research? Is there anything questionable
    about the studies that show that children are just as healthy
    and well adjusted when raised by same-sex parents?
        Mr. Minnery. Yes, and my written statement goes into that
    in some detail, Senator. I appreciate the question. As I
    started to say before, an overwhelming mountain of evidence
    shows that children do best when they have a mom and a dad, and
    the studies that have analyzed same-sex households are very
    recent. The conclusions tend to be ambiguous, these sample
    sizes tend to be small, and they tend to be what social
    scientists call snowball samples--that is to say, they are not
    random samples for inclusion in the study. They are people who
    have been recruited to be in the studies by, for example,
    answering ads in the same-sex publications, bookstores, places
    where same-sex couples frequent. That is the way most of them
    have been included in studies, and that is not as legitimate as
    a scientifically random sample. And those samples are much
    better in those studies which are longitudinal and which show
    that a mother and father provide the best environment for those
    children.
        Senator Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Minnery.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
        I yield to Senator Feinstein. I have to step out for about
    4 or 5 minutes. I am going to give her the gavel during that
    time. Then Senator Whitehouse will be recognized after that
    unless another member on the Republican side comes.
        Senator Grassley. I am going to step out for a minute two,
    but I will be right back.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you. Senator Feinstein.
        Senator Feinstein. [presiding.] Thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman. I just want to establish some things for the record.
        In 1997, in a case called Boggs v. Boggs, the Supreme Court
    said, and I quote, ``[t]he whole subject of the domestic
    relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the
    laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States.''
        Nothing in this bill would obligate any State, religious,
    organization, or locality to perform a marriage between two
    people of the same sex, nor would anything in this bill require
    a State to recognize a same-sex marriage from another State.
        DOMA has never been necessary to preserve States' rights
    because a State does not have to recognize a marriage that
    violates its public policy. So I think that is pretty clear.
        I think one of the big discrepancies here in is in the area
    of health coverage. Many Americans get health coverage through
    their employers, and they use those plans to cover families,
    including spouses. These plans are usually free from tax, so if
    a business pays $2,000 in health premiums for an employee and a
    spouse, the employee does not have to pay income tax on that
    benefit. DOMA removes this tax protection for same-sex couples.
    Under DOMA the employee will have to pay taxes on premiums paid
    to his or her spouse's health coverage. Plus the employee has
    to pay any employee contribution after taxes rather than before
    taxes, like any other married couple. This is how DOMA
    discriminates. So that means that same-sex couples are subject
    to thousands of dollars in additional taxes because of DOMA.
        Susan, you are an attorney. Would you like to comment on
    that?
        Ms. Murray. Senator, you are absolutely right. I
    experienced that in my own life, and I have seen it with many
    of my friends and with some of my clients, to the extent people
    can actually get health insurance benefits. Some of them cannot
    because the companies think that the Federal Government allows
    them to discriminate and, therefore, they are able to do that.
    So if they can get access to health insurance, they still have
    to pay more money for it.
        Senator Feinstein. In the area of gift tax, estate tax,
    divorce--and let me talk about the gift tax for a moment. You
    know, many Americans are generous with their spouses. They give
    them a piece of jewelry, an expensive electronic item, they buy
    a vacation for a spouse. Under Federal law these gifts are not
    taxed for married couples except for same-sex couples because
    of DOMA.
        I have a constituent from Piedmont, California, by the name
    of Max Kalend. He recently suffered from this aspect. When his
    husband, Phillip, passed away from an aggressive form of
    cancer, Phillip's estate was taxed to the tune of $2 million
    because of DOMA.
        Could you comment on this issue of the gift and inheritance
    tax?
        Ms. Murray. I would be happy to, Senator. I see this all
    the time in my practice. I can tell you the story of a young
    couple named Jessica and Eileen who came to see me recently.
    Jessica was lucky enough to have inherited some money, a
    significant amount of money, from her parents, but her wife,
    Eileen, had no money at all, and they had two goals:
        One was to provide some financial protections for Eileen,
    to give her some assets, to protect her in the event Jessica
    passed away, and to prepare for all the ups and downs of life
    as they moved forward and got older. And the other was to try
    to minimize their Federal estate tax, just like any other
    married couple that comes into my office.
        If they were a married couple that was recognized by the
    Federal Government, that would have been a very easy,
    straightforward estate plan for me to draft. But because of
    DOMA, I cannot just simply have Jessica transfer assets into
    Eileen's name because anything over, right now, $13,000 a year
    triggers gift tax.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Obviously I am trying to
    build a record here. Let me speak about veterans' benefits.
    ``Don't ask, don't tell'' has been repealed, so gay servicemen
    will soon be able to put their lives on the line in service to
    our country in the military. And they receive a number of
    benefits on account of their service to our Nation.
        For example, if a veteran dies in service, the surviving
    spouse will receive death benefits. If a veteran dies from a
    disability related to his service, the surviving spouse can
    receive benefits. A veteran's spouse can also be buried with
    their deceased spouse at a military cemetery.
        Under DOMA the spouses of gay servicemembers would be
    excluded from these benefits even though those service members
    performed exactly the same service to our country and put their
    lives on the line for the United States.
        My question is for any witness that would care to answer.
    Can you please comment, to the extent that you know, on the
    likely impact of DOMA on gay service members and their spouses?
        Ms. Murray. Senator, I can tell you briefly from a non-gay
    case that I just had, I do divorce work, and I just represented
    a woman who is divorcing her husband who is active in the
    military, and she is entitled to 55 percent of his pension. He
    is about ready to retire after 20 years in the military. She is
    divorcing him, and she is getting 55 percent of his military
    pension. Any same-sex couple is not going to have access to
    that same pension benefit. It is just not available to them.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, and I thank all of
    you for being here today. It is very important and I am very
    grateful.
        Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you
    for your leadership on this issue. I will gladly yield to----
        Senator Durbin. No. You go ahead.
        Senator Whitehouse. OK. This discussion that we are having
    is so often a clash between ideology and just human stories
    that what I would like to do is to take my time and echo the
    testimony of Ron and Andrew and Susan with some stories from
    Rhode Island.
        David and Rock wrote to me from Providence. ``We now both
    have active and busy careers, a teenager thinking about
    college, and the financial challenges of college tuition and
    shrinking retirement assets. We are involved in the community
    and in our church. We have the concerns of most families. In
    fact, if we were a heterosexual couple, ours would be the story
    of a conservative American family: the importance of education,
    the importance of faith, delaying marriage until financially
    stable, marriage followed by a shared household, followed by
    child rearing.''
        ``And then there is DOMA. We carry our marriage documents,
    adoption documents, and medical care proxy documents when we
    travel. I am ineligible for inclusion in military family
    benefits. We are not eligible to file joint income tax. We are
    ineligible for spousal Social Security benefits in the event of
    the death of one of us. It is time to end this discriminatory
    policy.''
        Carol and Anne write: ``We have been together since 1987
    and have had 20 foster children. For 30 years, I have worked at
    the same company and paid taxes and been a model citizen. For
    23 years, Anne has taken care of children in need. At one high
    school we were known as `the ladies,' and educators heaved a
    sigh of relief when they knew a tough child had us as their
    foster parents. With kindness and patience and compassion, our
    efforts have made great changes in 20 young lives. We are doing
    our best to make this a better world. Please pass the Respect
    for Marriage Act and reverse DOMA. We want to be able to tell
    our foster children, `We are married 100 percent.' ''
        Bill and Ernie write: ``We live in Cumberland, Rhode
    Island, and we have been a couple for over 20 years. We live
    quietly and go about our business without bothering anyone. I
    was born 59 years ago and Ernie was born 55 years ago. We have
    been citizens of the United States all our lives, but since the
    passage of DOMA, our Government has seen fit to take rights
    away from us. Why is this? We have not hurt anyone. Ernie's and
    my union will not cause harm to anyone. It makes no sense to
    set us outside the protections of Federal law to make us less
    than full citizens of the United States. Please ask your
    colleagues in the Senate to support the return of our civil
    rights. It is the only civil thing to do.''
        And, finally, from a story in the Providence Journal about
    Pat Baker and Deborah Tevyaw, Pat has been in public service
    for a long time. She is a 51-year-old correctional officer. It
    says here, ``She was never a gay rights activist, but after
    doctors diagnosed her with incurable lung cancer in December,
    she got an added jolt. The Federal Defense of Marriage Act
    precludes Tevyaw from collecting the Social Security benefits
    Baker earned for a surviving spouse.''
        The story continues: ``The discovery stunned Baker, leading
    her to embark on what may well be her first and last act of
    bravery in the name of marriage equality.''
        The story concludes: ``They are not entitled to the full
    scope of protections with regard to end-of-life issues,
    disposition of remains, who is considered next of kin, who gets
    to make decisions on medical care, organ donations, and more.
    Noting that the couple has spent thousands of extra dollars
    trying to put in place such protections, Loewy said, `I hope it
    is a reminder to the legislators that this is not abstract.
    This is a really tragic illustration of how these vulnerable
    situations are made so much more difficult because these same-
    sex couples are not treated like everybody else.' ''
        I could not improve on those comments from Rhode Island
    couples, and I thank everyone for their attention and look
    forward to working particularly with Senator Feinstein on
    passage of her bill. Again, I want to recognize her leadership,
    and I want to recognize the leadership of our chairman. There
    have been many occasions when this hearing room has been made
    the fulcrum of progress for this country as a result of his
    leadership. This is another such occasion, and I want to
    recognize him for that.
        Chairman Leahy. [presiding.] Thank you very much, Senator
    Whitehouse, and I think we have all been fortunate with the
    leadership you have shown, and Senator Feinstein and others
    have shown here.
        Senator Franken, you are next. Please go ahead, sir.
        Senator Feinstein. It is early bird.
        Senator Franken. Because I would grudgingly yield to
    Senator Durbin.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
    especially thank the witnesses who have shared their personal
    stories with us. What you are doing here is very important not
    just for the millions of Americans directly affected by the so-
    called Defense of Marriage Act but for our entire nation.
        DOMA is an injustice. It is an immoral and discriminatory
    law. Our nation was founded on the premise that all people are
    created equal and that all persons should receive equal
    treatment under the law.
        Our society may be different than it was then, but these
    principles remain the same. That is why I am an original
    cosponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act, and that is why I
    think the day we repeal DOMA will be a great day in this
    nation, akin to the ratification of the 19th Amendment and the
    passage of the Civil Rights Act. And I think that Congressman
    Lewis's presence here spoke to that in a very powerful way.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter the rest of my opening
    statement into the record.
        Chairman Leahy. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Franken appears as a
    submissions for the record.]
        Senator Franken. Mr. Minnery, on page 8 of your written
    testimony, you write: ``children living with their own married
    biological or adoptive mothers and fathers were generally
    healthier and happier, had better access to health care, less
    likely to suffer mild or severe emotional problems, did better
    in school, were protected from physical, emotional, and sexual
    abuse and almost never live in poverty, compared with children
    in any other family form.''
        You cite a Department of Health and Human Services study
    that I have right here from December 2010 to support this
    conclusion.
        I checked the study out.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Franken. And I would like to enter it into the
    record, if I may.
        Chairman Leahy. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The study appears as a submissions for the record.]
        Senator Franken. And actually does not say what you said it
    says. It says that nuclear families, not opposite-sex married
    families, are associated with those positive outcomes.
        Isn't it true, Mr. Minnery, that a married same-sex couple
    that has had or adopted kids would fall under the definition of
    a nuclear family in the study that you cite?
        Mr. Minnery. I would think that the study, when it cites
    nuclear families, would mean a family headed by a husband and
    wife.
        Senator Franken. It does not.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Franken. The study defines a nuclear family as
    ``one or more children living with two parents who are married
    to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to
    all the children in the family.'' And I frankly do not really
    know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you are
    reading studies these ways.
        Ms. Murray, I recently read about a Minnesota same-sex
    couple with two daughters. The working partner and their
    daughters could get health insurance through that partner's
    employer, but they could not afford to cover the non-working
    partner, who is named Shannon, because every contribution they
    or their employer made to Shannon's coverage would be fully
    taxable under Federal law.
        Now, Shannon and her partner cannot get married in
    Minnesota, but even if they could, DOMA would mean that their
    situation would remain the same. According to one estimate,
    because of DOMA, same-sex couples pay $1,069 more annually for
    health coverage than opposite-sex employees. As Senator
    Feinstein mentioned, you have had to go through this.
        Can you tell us how same-sex couples end up paying or
    coping with these disparities?
        Ms. Murray. Senator, a lot of them simply do not get health
    insurance, and they end up in the emergency room. My partner is
    a physician assistant and works in an emergency room in
    Burlington, Vermont, and she sees these couples coming in when
    they cannot afford insurance. So our system is paying, at least
    on an emergent basis, for these folks' health care, and
    anything that their kids are not getting, if their kids are not
    covered, they are not getting regular checkups nor are the
    partners. That is a huge problem that we have on a long-term
    basis in terms of health care.
        Senator Franken. Thank you very much, and thank you to all
    the witnesses, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much.
        Using our usual early bird rule, Senator----
        Senator Franken. Well, almost all of them.
        Chairman Leahy. Senator Coons is next. Senator Coons.
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Leahy. Thank you to you
    and to Senator Feinstein for your long and determined work on
    repealing DOMA. And thank you to the members of our panel today
    who have shared with us searing personal stories of their
    experiences as veterans, teachers, and attorneys. They
    represent, I know, thousands of our constituents, our
    colleagues, our classmates, our friends who have gone through
    similar suffering, loss, and mistreatment through DOMA.
        The purpose of today's hearing is to look at Senate bill
    598 and to consider the impact DOMA has had on legally married
    couples who have been denied access to all sorts of different
    Federal programs, benefits, rights, and privileges. And as Ms.
    Murray mentioned, they are like waves on a beach that just
    drive away the possibility of equality, even to those legally
    recognized couples.
        To me, this hearing is fundamentally about equality and
    whether or not we as a Nation think it is OK to deny some
    American citizens the same rights and privileges afforded to
    other citizens. Do we really think it is OK for our Federal
    Government to say we simply do not like who you love? And my
    question here is how we can have an answer that is anything
    other than emphatically no. Equality for all is supposed to me,
    in my view, equality for all, and I do not see what business it
    is of our Federal Government to reach into Americans' hearts
    and judge them for whom they love, particularly when their
    States have empowered them to marry.
        I am tired of it being the law of this land that it is OK
    for the Government to discriminate against Americans solely
    based on their gender, identity, or sexual orientation. I am
    tired of seeing kids grow up in a country where their
    Government tells them discrimination is OK, and I think it is
    no wonder that we continue to see kids being bullied in school
    and see so many LGBT children take their own lives because they
    have given up hope, because in my view this law simply
    encourages discrimination.
        I think we have bigger problems in this country than going
    out of our way to continue to discriminate against and deny
    rights to Americans. And we have heard today some of these
    witnesses have, I think, movingly testified about how same-sex
    marriage is at real harm from DOMA. In my view, others have
    testified here and elsewhere about how somehow same-sex
    marriage threatens or hurts heterosexual marriage, and I do not
    know about my colleagues, but my wedding ring and my marriage
    did not magically dissolve or disappear just because New York
    passed a same-sex marriage bill last month. In my view, S. 598
    is about restoring rights. It is not about taking them away. It
    is about righting these wrongs and moving on.
        I am a person of faith. My family and I worship regularly,
    and I am raising children in what might be considered a
    traditional marriage. But I do not think that my faith, which
    informs my politics, empowers me to have a monopoly on the
    interpretation of the will of God. And in my view, it is
    expressly not appropriate for the Federal Government to
    discriminate against couples based on who they love.
        So, in my view, the Defense of Marriage Act is just wrong.
    It is wrong and needs to be repealed. And I am grateful to the
    Chairman and to the witnesses before us for having laid out in
    clear, compelling ways how DOMA has harmed them directly.
        I would be grateful if I could take a moment to ask some of
    the witnesses about the symbolic harm that DOMA has also
    imposed on you because you have spoken in compelling ways about
    financial loss, loss of a home, loss of survivor's benefits,
    loss of health benefits, loss of respect. But I would be
    interested in hearing, if I could, further about the symbolic
    power of DOMA in your lives to any of the three witnesses--Ron,
    Andrew, or Susan--who testified to your financial loss.
        ``Senator Coons, although I cannot say there there have
    been any instances of crowds chasing me down the streets with
    brickbats, nor psychologically taunting me personally, I can
    definitely say the DOMA affects all gay and lesbian couples
    (indeed all gays and lesbians) in the following way: We are
    constantly hearing about children being harassed because they
    are or are presumed gay--sometimes to the tragic point of
    suicide; we know that gays and lesbians are treated with scorn
    in many ways and in many situations; we know that children of
    gay parents have difficulty explaining to their friends about
    the ``differentness'' of their family; we know that gay and
    lesbian parents often have difficulty enrolling their children
    in schools, or that once enrolled, have difficulty as parents
    at meetings in those schools--the list is endless. How in the
    world can we expect to spread the message of love, of civil
    acceptance of differences, of showing how discrimination is
    wrong, of creating a society in which harmony is paramount in
    our relationships with each other, when our very own government
    singles out gay and lesbian couples as something ``different''
    and not worthy of the same rights as their heterosexual
    brothers and sisters? I submit that DOMA's evils go way beyond
    the problems of we individuals who have personally sustained
    difficulties.''
        Mr. Sorbo. Senator, I am glad to be able to respond to
    that. I was a teacher and principal, as I told you, for 35
    years. Every day of my career, I led my students in the Pledge
    of Allegiance, and that Pledge of Allegiance ends ``with
    liberty and justice for all.'' For 35 years, every day, when it
    came to those words, I stood in front of my students with a
    blank face, but inside I knew it was not true. I knew as a
    history teacher that it had not been true for blacks, it had
    not been true for women, it had not been true for mixed-race
    couples. And I knew that it was not true then for same-gender
    couples. And I had to stand before them and say that.
        I also had every day of my career, until the very end when
    I finally got the courage to admit who I was, to always use the
    pronoun ``I'' to my students when they would ask me questions
    that probed into my personal life. ``I was going on vacation.''
    ``I did this.'' I could not say ``we'' because the next
    question was: ``Well, who is the other person? '' And I knew
    that would lead to lots of problems.
        So it is a good question, Senator, because the financial
    aspect of this is only one aspect of the harm that DOMA does
    and the discrimination against gay people. It is an insult to
    our dignity and, as I said in my testimony, our sense of
    equality. I grew up in a normal household. My father died when
    I was a year old, but ``normal'' in that my mother, my sister,
    and I had a loving home. And my mother brought me up to be as
    ethical as possible. I knew from her example the difference
    between right and wrong, that it was wrong to discriminate
    against the black people who lived in the housing project that
    I lived in in Providence, Rhode Island. And I believed as a
    person who studied history and loved history from the time I
    was a child that this country that is supposed to be the
    shining beacon on the hill, according to the people who settled
    the Massachusetts Bay Colony, this country was formed on ideals
    of equality and justice. And we have had to struggle to fight
    every generation to extend that idea of freedom and justice to
    more and more groups. And my group, my community, is the latest
    to have to fight for that.
        I am appalled and I am baffled at how representatives of
    our country in the Senate and the House cannot see the
    historical perspective on this, that some of our own
    representatives and Senators who are there to protect the
    minority are allowing us to become the victims of the majority,
    which to me is unconstitutional. And I am sorry to say that I
    cannot understand how they do not see that they are the
    philosophical descendants of those who defended slavery, who
    defended laws against mixed-race couples, and who defended the
    laws that allowed the separate but equal status that
    Representative Lewis so eloquently spoke of in his testimony.
        Thank you.
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Sorbo, and sometimes it takes
    a history teacher to help us see our way clearly to the future.
    I, too, found Congressman Lewis' testimony very moving, and
    yours equally so.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much.
        Our next witness is Senator Blumenthal--our next witness?
    Our next one to question----
        Senator Blumenthal. I hope not a witness, Mr. Chairman.
        [Laughter.]
        Chairman Leahy. No, no.
        Senator Blumenthal. I would yield to Senator Durbin, if--I
    would be delighted to yield, not grudgingly.
        [Laughter.]
        Chairman Leahy. Senator Durbin, did you wish to--then
    Senator Blumenthal, of course, a valued member of this
    Committee, former Attorney General of the State of Connecticut.
    Senator Blumenthal, please go ahead.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for
    your leadership and Senator Feinstein's and other members of
    the Committee who have joined in this cause, and thank you to
    all of the witnesses who are here today particularly to Mr.
    Sorbo from the town of Berlin, Connecticut. It is a small town,
    but there are those of us who love it.
        I want to say at the very outset my thanks to all of you
    for giving a face and a voice to some abstract and seemingly
    complicated principles of constitutional law and basic liberty
    and rights. You have given a face and a voice in terms of the
    practical consequences of the Respect for Marriage Act, and I
    regard this hearing as a really historic day for our Nation.
    Nations, like people, are judged by their capacity for growth,
    and I think today marks another step in the growth of our
    Nation and the progression toward recognizing some principles
    that go to the very core of what makes our Nation the greatest
    in the history of the world. So I thank all of you for being
    here today.
        You know, for me, some of these questions are much narrower
    than the constitutional issues that are being debated in the
    courts because what really matters here is the respect for
    Connecticut's law. And, Mr. Sorbo, you were married under
    Connecticut law. Respect for Connecticut law means that the
    Federal Government should recognize that law and give it the
    kind of sanctity that the Founders of this Nation meant for the
    laws of our States to have.
        States do have the prerogative to establish the rules that
    surround marriage, just as they do inheritance and divorce. And
    so for the Federal Government to discriminate against some
    marriages in the way that it does is also disrespect for
    Connecticut's law as well as Connecticut's people and
    Connecticut's marriages.
        So in order to illustrate some of the practical
    consequences here, I think you mentioned the effect on your
    ability to Colin's IRA. I wonder if you could expand a little
    bit about how you were unable--and most people do not think of
    IRAs as being a function of Federal law--how you were unable to
    access it as fully as you would have been otherwise if DOMA had
    not existed.
        Mr. Sorbo. Senator, after Colin died, I went to our bank to
    speak to a financial adviser about how to transfer all of the
    assets, which we had done everything we could to protect in
    terms of putting it in both of our names. Yale University
    required Colin to have that IRA in his name so that when he
    passed away--and we tried to transfer that over because I had
    the right of survivorship. We spent hours and hours and hours
    on the phone, and it would have been almost a comic program if
    it had been recorded because my financial adviser and I sat
    there talking to one person after another, and each one of them
    at Yale had a different opinion about what needed to be done,
    and disagreeing and so on. And it took us many, many hours,
    many days to finally get it transferred over.
        The ultimate result was that I guess they went to one of
    their lawyers--I am not sure--but whoever they went to finally
    decided that they could not recognize our marriage because of
    Federal law, because of DOMA. And so, therefore, we had to
    transfer that IRA into an inherited IRA.
        Now, the difference--I am not an expert on this, but my
    understanding was that because my marriage was not recognized,
    it had to go over as an inherited IRA, which then I had to
    begin withdrawing on the December after the year following
    Colin's death. Now, if I had been a woman, that would not have
    been the case. I could have deferred withdrawing that until, I
    think it is, 70\1/2\. By law you have to begin withdrawing a
    minimum amount. That may not seem like a lot, but that 7 extra
    years would have allowed me to buildup that asset before I
    began to withdraw from it. And that is what my financial
    adviser would have liked to have done, because at my age--I am
    still fairly healthy. I go to the gym. I try to take care of
    myself as much as I can. And so I am not facing large health
    bills which I might be facing in the future. And, of course,
    inflation is eating up my income. Every retired person knows
    that inflation is the big gorilla in the closet for us.
        So that denied me the ability to do what I could have done
    and what my sister could do, to buildup that asset until she
    was 70\1/2\.
        Senator Blumenthal. And I think that as you have testified,
    just to complete your story, the practical consequences
    extended also to the Family and Medical Leave Act, retirement
    and survivor benefits under Social Security, and a variety of
    very practical, sizable consequences to you because of DOMA,
    which would not have otherwise existed, even though under
    Connecticut law you were lawfully married.
        Mr. Sorbo. That is correct.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Feinstein [presiding.] Senator Durbin.
        Senator Durbin. Is there anyone I can yield to? I guess
    not.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and
    thanks to the witnesses who are here today.
        There are events in the life of a Senator that are
    memorable, and one of those that comes to my mind was attending
    the bill-signing ceremony where President Obama signed the law
    which repealed ``Don't ask, don't tell.'' It was a day of great
    celebration and relief. The rabbi who gave the invocation that
    day--I remember his words--said, ``When you look into the eyes
    of another person, if you do not see the face of God, at least
    see the face of another human being.'' And I thought to myself
    that that really is what this conversation is all about:
    recognizing our own frailties and weaknesses and strengths, but
    seeing in the face of every person another human being.
        The woman who gave the invocation that day was someone I
    had never met and still have not met but have admired and told
    her story many times--retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Margarethe
    Cammermeyer. This was a woman who served as a combat nurse
    during Vietnam, risking her life for our men and women in
    uniform, and progressing through the ranks to the status of
    colonel, and then answering honestly one day on a questionnaire
    that she was lesbian, and for that she was discharged from the
    service. There was never any suggestion that she had ever done
    anything wrong or ever failed in her duty to her country, but
    she was the victim of outright discrimination.
        Senator Grassley was kind enough to mention my name in his
    opening statement--I thank him--and mentioned the fact that I
    voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. That is true. And others
    did as well. I will not use that as an explanation or excuse.
    But I recall when a former Congressman from Illinois named
    Abraham Lincoln was challenged because he changed his position
    on an issue, and his explanation was very simple. He said, ``I
    would rather be right some of the time than wrong all of the
    time.''
        That is why I am an original cosponsor of the Respect for
    Marriage Act that Senator Feinstein has introduced. I believe
    that this is eminently fair and gives to those who are in a
    loving relationship an opportunity to receive benefits which
    they deserve.
        Mr. Minnery, I have read your testimony. I was not here
    when you presented it. But if we are truly interested in the
    welfare of children--and we are--it seems to me that denying
    basic financial resources to a loving couple who have adopted a
    child is not the way to help that child. In fact, I think we
    can find that in many instances families that struggle
    financially have a tougher time raising children--not all the
    time, but many times. It just makes a lot more sense for us to
    change the law when it comes to Federal benefits, so that a
    same-sex relationship that is recognized in a State is also
    recognized by our Federal Government across the United States
    of America.
        I would just close by saying that I know that this is an
    issue which has evolved in America. The feelings of most
    Americans, the majority today, about same-sex marriage have
    changed, and I think they have changed for the better. This
    bill would not mandate any religion to change its beliefs. This
    bill would not mandate any State to change its laws. What it
    does is say that as a Nation our Federal Government is going to
    recognize the rights of same-sex couples to the basic benefits
    which they are entitled to. This could have been a hearing
    under my Subcommittee for the Constitution, Civil Rights and
    Human Rights, but Chairman Leahy asked if he could make it a
    full Committee hearing. I am glad he has so that more of my
    colleagues could come here and speak and be on the record in
    support of the Respect for Marriage Act.
        Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Durbin.
        Let me thank the witnesses. We have a vote at 12 o'clock.
    There is another panel coming up, so I am going to move on. I
    hope that is agreeable. But let me thank everyone. I have been
    in a lot of these. This was very good testimony, and I think
    all of us will remember it. So thank you all very much, and we
    will move on to the next panel.
        Senator Coons. [presiding.] I would like to thank the
    Chairman for asking me to lead the deliberations of this
    Committee for the second panel. First I would like to begin by
    asking the members of the second panel to please rise, raise
    your right hand after me, if you would, as I administer the
    oath. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to
    give to the Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and
    nothing but the truth, so help you God?
        Mr. Solmonese. I do.
        Mr. Nimocks. I do.
        Mr. Whelan. I do.
        Mr. Wolfson. I do.
        Senator Coons. Thank you. Please be seated, and let the
    record reflect the witnesses have taken the oath of this
    Committee.
        First we will welcome Joe Solmonese, president of the Human
    Rights Campaign. With more than a million members and
    supporters, the Human Rights Campaign is our Nation's largest
    advocacy organization for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
    transgendered civil rights. Prior to joining HRC, Joe was chief
    executive officer of Emily's List. A native of Attleboro,
    Massachusetts, Joe lives in Washington, D.C., and is a graduate
    of Boston University.
        Mr. Solmonese, please proceed, but let me first remind all
    witnesses, if I could, to please limit your opening remarks to
    5 minutes. Your full statements will be placed in the record in
    their entirety. And as Senator Feinstein just recognized, there
    is a noon vote which may well require us to do a little
    juggling to manage, but thank you.
        Mr. Solmonese, please proceed.

     STATEMENT OF JOE SOLMONESE, PRESIDENT, HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN,
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Mr. Solmonese. Thank you, Senator Coons and members of the
    Committee. On behalf of the Human Rights Campaign and our more
    than 1 million members and supporters nationwide, I want to
    thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony in today's
    historic hearing. And I also want to thank Senator Feinstein
    for her leadership on this legislation and on behalf of
    lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in California
    and all across the country.
        Every week I have the opportunity to travel this country
    and to speak with members of my community, with their families,
    with their friends, with their religious leaders, and with
    their employers about the distinct difficulties that they face
    in the form of discrimination. Now, today I have the privilege
    of bringing their stories and their concerns before this
    Committee.
        Gay and lesbian couples work hard. They work hard to
    provide for their families, they work hard to provide quality
    health care, they work hard to plan for retirement and to save
    for college--just like their family and friends, just like
    their neighbors and coworkers. But they do so in a country that
    still refuses to recognize them as equal. And for those who are
    lucky enough to live in States that do permit them to marry,
    they still face a Federal Government that treats their
    marriages as if they do not exist.
        So on behalf of the tens of thousands of married same-sex
    couples in this country, including myself and my husband, I
    urge Congress to pass the Respect for Marriage Act and to end
    the Federal Government's disrespect for and discrimination
    against lawfully married same-sex couples.
        DOMA harms thousands of families as they try to manage the
    day-to-day issues of their lives. Families like Rachel Black
    and Lea Matthews from the Bronx, who are here today with their
    beautiful daughter, Nora. Rachel and Lea met in college in
    Mississippi and have been together for 13 years. With marriage
    now a reality for gay and lesbian couples in New York, Rachel
    and Lea are thrilled and excited to at long last tie the knot.
    But for gay and lesbian couples like them, the joy of finally
    being able to marry is tempered by the fact that DOMA remains
    in the way of true equality. Rachel and Lea worry every day
    about the important protections that they will be denied, like
    unpaid leave from work for one to care for the other if she
    gets sick, or the ability to continue health coverage for their
    family if one of them gets laid off.
        DOMA means that the many protections the Federal Government
    provides for the health and security of American families
    remain out of reach for same-sex couples and their children. It
    keeps, for instance, gay and lesbian Americans from sponsoring
    their spouses for immigration to the United States, forcing
    binational couples to choose between love and country. It
    deprives surviving same-sex spouses of crucial Social Security
    benefits earned by their loved ones through years of hard work.
    Senator Feinstein asked about the impact of DOMA on ``Don't
    Ask, Don't Tell.'' It even bars the spouse of a gay or lesbian
    service member or veteran from being buried with him or her in
    a veterans' cemetery.
        As you have heard today, particularly from those who have
    felt firsthand the hardship imposed by DOMA, the impact of this
    discriminatory law is real, and it is unconscionable. It is
    long past time for the Federal Government to end its
    discrimination against lawfully married same-sex couples.
    Congress must repeal this law enacted solely to treat gays and
    lesbians unequally, and so I urge you to pass the Respect for
    Marriage Act and to ensure that all American families have the
    full respect and protection of their Federal Government.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Solmonese appears as a
    submissions for the record.]
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Solmonese.
        We now turn to Mr. Nimocks. Mr. Austin Nimocks is senior
    legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. Mr. Nimocks'
    practice focuses on the definition of marriage, parental
    rights, voters' rights, and religious liberty. ADF is closely
    involved in defending DOMA against legal challenges, and Mr.
    Nimocks earned both his bachelor's and J.D. from Baylor
    University in Waco, Texas.
        Mr. Nimocks, please proceed.

    STATEMENT OF AUSTIN R. NIMOCKS, SENIOR LEGAL COUNSEL, ALLIANCE
                     DEFENSE FUND, WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Mr. Nimocks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Grassley, and members of the Committee, for the privilege and
    invitation of testifying here today.
        Mr. Chairman, as debates rage these days regarding budget
    deficits, debt ceilings, and jobs, I am pleased that this body
    is taking some time to discuss mothers and fathers--arguably,
    the two most important jobs in our society.
        This legislation also gives us the opportunity to look at
    an important query that is oftentimes overlooked: Why is
    Government in the marriage business?
        Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, Congress enacted Federal
    DOMA in 1996 by an 84-percent margin. Enacting it, it stated as
    appears as a submissions for the record. ``[a]t bottom, civil
    society has an interest in maintaining and protecting the
    institution of heterosexual marriage because it has a deep and
    abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation and
    child rearing. Simply put, Government has an interest in
    marriage because it has an interest in children.'' This truth
    remains today, and Americans agree.
        As evidenced by likely the most extensive national research
    survey ever conducted on Americans' attitudes about marriage,
    completed in May of this year, we know that 62 percent of
    Americans agree that ``marriage should be defined only as a
    union between one man and one woman.''
        Mr. Chairman, marriage is not just a mere law or creature
    of statute but a social institution that has universally
    crossed all political, religious, sociological, geographical,
    and historical lines. As put by the famous philosopher,
    Bertrand Russell, a self-described atheist, ``But for children
    there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex.
    It is through children alone that sexual relations become of
    importance to society and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a
    legal institution.''
        Accordingly, marriage between one man and one woman is a
    longstanding, worldwide idea that is a building block of
    society. Marriage does not proscribe conduct or prevent
    individuals from living how they want to live. And individuals
    marry, Mr. Chairman, as they always have, for a wide variety of
    personal reasons. But today's discussion should not be about
    the private reasons why individuals marry, but about the policy
    of our country as a whole and the Government's unique interest
    in this public institution.
        Because the Government's interest in marriage is different
    from the reasons why individuals choose to marry, entrance to
    marriage has never been conditioned upon a couple's actual
    ability and desire to find happiness together, their level of
    financial entanglement, or their actual personal dedication to
    each other. Rather, marriage laws stem from the fact that
    children are the product of the sexual relationships between
    men and women and that both fathers and mothers are viewed to
    be necessary for children.
        Thus, throughout history, diverse cultures and faiths have
    recognized marriage between one man and one woman as the best
    way to promote healthy families and societies. The studies and
    science you have heard about over a long period of time
    demonstrate that the ideal family structure for a child is a
    family headed by opposite-sex biological parents in a low-
    conflict marriage.
        But some, Mr. Chairman, are asking you to ignore the unique
    and demonstrable differences between men and women in
    parenthood: no mothers, no fathers, just generic parents. But,
    Mr. Chairman, there are no generic people. We are composed of
    two complementary but different halves of humanity. As our
    Supreme Court has stated, ``The truth is that is that the two
    sexes are not fungible. Inherent `differences' between men and
    women, we have come to appreciate, remain cause for
    celebration.''
        This body should also disavow any notion that repealing
    Federal DOMA is a constitutional mandate. Mr. Chairman, in
    1967, the Supreme Court decided the case Loving v. Virginia. In
    that case, the Supreme Court struck down a race-based marriage
    law that prohibited whites from marrying anyone of color. In so
    ruling, the Supreme Court talked about marriage as
    ``fundamental to our very existence and survival,'' discussing
    the timeless and procreative aspects of marriage.
        Just 5 years later, the Supreme Court, in 1972,
    substantively upheld a decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court
    that marriage laws like Federal DOMA are not unconstitutional
    and rejected a claim for same-sex marriage. Mr. Chairman, not
    one single Justice of the United States Supreme Court found the
    constitutional claims against marriage worthy of the court's
    review.
        Marriage between a man and a woman naturally builds
    families and gives hope that the next generations will carry
    that family into the future. And while some may argue, Mr.
    Chairman, that times have changed, they cannot credibly argue
    that humanity as a gendered species has changed. Men and women
    still compose the two great halves of humanity. Men and women
    are still wonderfully and uniquely different, and men and women
    still play important and necessary roles in the family.
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, because of the fundamental
    truth that children are the product of sexual relationships
    between men and women and that men and women each bring
    something important to the table of parenting, this Government
    maintains a compelling interest in protecting and preserving
    the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one
    woman.
        Thank you for the time and privilege, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Nimocks appears as a
    submissions for the record.]
        Senator Coons. Next we will hear from Ed Whelan. Mr. Whelan
    is president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Mr. Whelan
    is a regular contributor to National Review Online. Mr. Whelan
    has served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the Office
    of Legal Counsel as well as General Counsel previously to this
    Committee. Mr. Whelan earned both his undergraduate and law
    degrees from Harvard University.
        Mr. Whelan, please proceed.

    STATEMENT OF EDWARD WHELAN, PRESIDENT, ETHICS AND PUBLIC POLICY
                        CENTER, WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Mr. Whelan. Thank you, Senator Coons. My thanks also to
    Senator Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley for inviting me to
    testify before this Committee in opposition to S. 598, which is
    misleadingly titled the ``Respect for Marriage Act.''
        Far from respecting marriage, this bill would empty the
    term of any core content. It would redefine marriage for
    purposes of Federal law to include anything that any State, now
    or in the future, recognizes as a marriage.
        The effect and the evident purpose of the bill is to have
    the Federal Government validate so-called same-sex marriage by
    requiring that it treat as marriage for purposes of Federal law
    any such union recognized as a marriage under State law. The
    bill would require taxpayers in the States that maintain
    traditional marriage laws to subsidize the provision of Federal
    benefits to same-sex unions entered into in other States.
        Further, the principles invoked by advocates of same-sex
    marriage in their ongoing attack on traditional marriage
    clearly threaten to pave the way for polygamous and other
    polyamorous unions, one of the current projects of the left.
    Under the bill, any polyamorous union recognized as a marriage
    under State law would have to be recognized by the Federal
    Government as a marriage for purposes of Federal law. Thus, the
    foreseeable effect of the bill would be to have the Federal
    Government validate any State's adoption of polyamory and to
    require taxpayers throughout the country to subsidize
    polygamous and other polyamorous unions.
        S. 598 would also repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. That
    proposed repeal is wholly unwarranted. DOMA was approved by
    overwhelmingly majorities in both Houses of Congress and was
    signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. DOMA does two
    things. First, it reaffirms the longstanding understanding of
    what the term ``marriage'' means in provisions of Federal law--
    the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.
    Second, in a genuine protection of values of federalism, it
    safeguards the prerogative of each State to choose not to treat
    as a marriage a same-sex union entered in another State. It
    thus operates to help ensure that one State does not
    effectively impose same-sex marriage on another State or on the
    entire Nation. At the same time, it leaves the citizens of
    every State free to decide whether or not their State should
    redefine its marriage laws.
        It is a profound confusion to believe that values of
    federalism somehow require the Federal Government to defer to,
    or incorporate, the marriage laws of the various States in
    determining what ``marriage'' means in provisions of Federal
    law.
        Now, it is worth noting that of the eight current members
    of this Committee who voted on DOMA in 1996, seven voted for
    DOMA. Those seven include Chairman Leahy and Senator Kohl, as
    well as Senators Schumer and Durbin, who voted for DOMA as
    House members. Among the many other prominent Democratic
    Senators who voted for DOMA in 1996 were Vice President Joseph
    Biden, Harry Reid, Patty Murray, Barbara Mikulski, and too many
    others to name in the short time I have.
        Now, I am not claiming that Senators cannot change their
    mind, but this list of supporters of DOMA suffices to refute
    the empty revisionist claim that DOMA somehow embodies an
    irrational bigotry against same-sex couples.
        DOMA's reservation of spousal benefits to the union of
    husband and wife reflects the longstanding judgment that that
    relationship with its inherent link to procreation and child
    rearing is especially deserving of support. People are
    obviously free to dispute that judgment, but no one who voted
    for DOMA can plausibly claim to be surprised by how it has
    operated. And while it is natural that everyone would hope for
    more Federal benefits for themselves, no one can plausibly
    claim that DOMA somehow disrupted his or her own financial
    planning. DOMA was enacted 8 years before the Massachusetts
    Supreme Court first imposed same-sex marriage in this country,
    so there was never a time when anyone in a same-sex union had
    any reasonable basis for believing that that union would
    entitle him or her to Federal spousal benefits.
        Moreover, it is wrong to assert, as some do, that the
    definition of marriage has always been purely a matter left to
    the States. Our predecessors understood what too many Americans
    today have forgotten or never learned or find it convenient to
    obscure, namely, that the marriage practices that a society
    endorses have real-world consequences that extend far beyond
    the individuals seeking to marry and that shape or deform the
    broader culture. That understanding underlay the 19th-century
    effort to combat polygamy, which was recognized to be
    incompatible with democracy. That is why Congress, in its
    separate enabling acts for the admission to statehood of
    Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Utah, conditioned their
    admission on their including anti-polygamy provisions in their
    State constitutions. That history makes it all the more jarring
    that supporters of this bill would require that Federal law
    treat as a marriage--and require Federal taxpayers to
    subsidize--any polygamous marriage recognized by any State.
        I detail in my testimony how the Obama administration has
    wrongly declined to defend DOMA. I will simply close with the
    observation that this bill is ill-conceived legislation that
    should proceed no further. Legislators who genuinely want to
    respect marriage should defend traditional marriage, not
    undermine it.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Whelan appears as a
    submissions for the record.]
        Senator Coons. Finally, we welcome Mr. Evan Wolfson. Mr.
    Wolfson is founder and executive director of Freedom to Marry,
    the national campaign to end marriage discrimination. Mr.
    Wolfson was co-counsel in the historic Hawaii marriage case
    that launched the ongoing global movement for freedom to marry
    and has participated in many other landmark HIV/AIDS cases and
    gay rights cases. Mr. Wolfson earned his B.A. from Yale
    University in 1978, after which he served as a Peace Corps
    volunteer in a village in Togo, West Africa. He graduated from
    Harvard Law School and has appeared before the United States
    Supreme Court in the case of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, and
    in 2000 was named one of ``the 100 most influential lawyers in
    America'' by the National Law Journal. In 2004, Mr. Wolfson was
    named one of ``the 100 most influential people in the world''
    by Time Magazine. He is the author of ``Why Marriage Matters:
    America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry,'' which was
    published in 2004.
        Mr. Wolfson, please proceed.

     STATEMENT OF EVAN WOLFSON, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, FREEDOM TO
                       MARRY, NEW YORK, NEW YORK

        Mr. Wolfson. Thank you, Senator Coons, Members of the
    Committee. As the Senator said, I am Evan Wolfson, founder and
    president of Freedom to Marry, the national campaign to end
    discrimination in marriage, and I am also author, as noted, of
    ``Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's
    Right to Marry.'' I am very pleased to be here with you today
    to testify in support of the Respect for Marriage Act, which
    would return the Federal Government to its traditional and
    appropriate role of respecting marriages performed in the
    States. I want to thank Chairman Leahy for holding this
    hearing, and chief sponsor Senator Feinstein, and my Senator,
    Senator Gillibrand, for their leadership in introducing this
    important legislation in the Senate.
        Fifteen years ago this summer, I was in a courtroom in
    Hawaii along with my non-gay co-counsel, Dan Foley,
    representing three loving and committed couples who had been
    denied marriage licenses despite being together, some of the
    couples, for decades. In the clear, cool light of the
    courtroom, we presented evidence, called and cross-examined
    witnesses, and made logical and legal arguments, as did the
    State's attorneys. At the end of that trial--the first ever on
    marriage in the world--the court concluded, based on that
    record we compiled, that there is no good reason for the
    Government to deny the freedom to marry to committed couples
    simply because of their sex or sexual orientation.
        By contrast, Congress compiled no such record and did not
    wait to consider evidence or serious analysis before rushing
    that same year to add a new layer of marriage discrimination
    against couples already barred from marrying.
        DOMA imposes a gay exception to the way the Federal
    Government historically and currently treats all other married
    couples. DOMA stigmatizes by dividing married couples at the
    State level into first-class marriages and second-class
    marriages for those the Federal Government does not like. But
    in America, we do not have second-class citizens, and we should
    not have second-class marriages either.
        Much has changed since DOMA's enactment in 1996. Then,
    same-sex couples could not marry anywhere in the world. Today,
    five States and our Nation's capital have now ended the denial
    of marriage licenses, joining 12 countries on four continents
    where gay people share in the freedom to marry.
        Tens of thousands of same-sex couples are legally married
    in the United States, as you have heard, many raising children.
    And as of this coming Sunday, when New York State ends its
    restriction, the number of Americans living in a State where
    gay couples share in the freedom to marry will more than double
    to over 35 million.
        In 1996, opponents could conjure up groundless but scary
    hypotheticals about the impact of the freedom to marry on
    children, on society, on marriage itself. Those claims were
    hollow, but today there is a mountain of evidence, and it all
    points in the direction of fairness. For that reason, literally
    every leading public health and child welfare association in
    the country, including most recently the American Medical
    Association, have all concluded, based on science, evidence,
    and clinical as well as personal experience, that the children
    being raised by same-sex couples are healthy and fit, and that
    these kids and their families would benefit from inclusion in
    marriage without taking anything away from anyone else.
        Today, thanks to the lived experience with the reality of
    the freedom to marry, even the Republican sponsor of DOMA,
    former Congressman Bob Barr, believes it should be repealed,
    stating that, ``DOMA is neither meeting the principles of
    federalism it was supposed to, nor is its impact limited to
    Federal law.''
        The Democratic President who in 1996 signed DOMA into law,
    Bill Clinton, has also called for its repeal, as has President
    Obama, who has endorsed this restorative legislation.
        Congressman Barr's and President Clinton's journey away
    from DOMA to the freedom to marry and respect for marriage
    mirrors the changed minds and open hearts of the American
    people. In a 1996 Gallup poll, only 27 percent of the American
    people favored the freedom to marry, but today, according to
    Gallup and five other recent surveys, support has doubled to 53
    percent, a clear national majority for marriage, with younger
    Americans across the board overwhelmingly in support. Sixty-
    three percent of Catholics are for the freedom to marry, and
    opposition is falling amongst all parts of the public with
    accelerating momentum and bipartisan voices, as reflected in
    last month's historic vote in New York.
        This Sunday many will watch on television as joyous couples
    declare their love and have their commitments celebrated by
    family and friends and confirmed by the State. Yet as they join
    in marriage, these couples will become the latest Americans to
    experience firsthand the sting of discrimination by the Federal
    Government.
        They will endure the intangible yet very real pain of once
    again being branded a second-class citizen and will suffer the
    tangible harm of being excluded from the safety net of
    protections and responsibilities that other married couples
    cherish.
        Mr. Chairman, it is time for Congress to end this
    discrimination. Congress can remove this sting, eliminate this
    pain, end this harm by enacting the Respect for Marriage Act.
    Fairness demands it, and the time has come.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wolfson appears as a
    submissions for the record.]
        Senator Coons. Thank you very much to all of our witnesses
    on this second panel, and I appreciate your following the
    testimony from the first panel, which spoke sort of personally
    and in moving ways about the very real harm suffered by LGBT
    couples through the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and I
    look forward to hearing your response to questions. But I will
    first, if I might, defer to Senator Klobuchar, who was not able
    to ask questions of the first panel and now joins us for
    questions of the second panel. Senator.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Senator Coons. I
    was over at a Transportation hearing, so I want to thank all of
    you for being here.
        I was really struck, after hearing the first panel, by just
    the legal entanglements, all of the issues that have arisen in
    the last few years, whether it is someone trying to be at a
    partner's bedside when they are dying or whether it is some of
    the other issues that the witnesses raised and stories that
    they told. And it made me think about what you were just
    speaking about, Mr. Wolfson, that it has been 15 years since
    DOMA was enacted, and the legal and social landscape has
    changed since then. And I guess I would ask everyone: In your
    opinion, how has the issue of same-sex marriage transformed
    over the years? What effect has the passage of time had on the
    debate? If you could just answer briefly, Mr. Solmonese.
        Mr. Solmonese. Thank you, Senator. I think first and
    foremost, perhaps the most powerful contributors to changing
    American public opinions on the question of same-sex marriage
    or the circumstances of our relationships generally were
    perhaps best displayed in the previous panel: hard-working,
    committed, loving Americans having the opportunity to tell the
    stories of their lives, and more to the point, to really talk
    about the inequities and the injustice that we face in the
    absence of marriage equality. And I think that all across this
    country, the more opportunities that we have had to tell those
    stories, to help people understand the circumstances of our
    lives, and in particular, when I reflect on Ron's story in the
    previous panel, the genuine inequity and despair that we face
    in the absence of marriage equality, I think that most
    Americans--and most Americans to my way of thinking are fair-
    minded and optimistic--cannot help but be moved by these
    stories and cannot help but be moved in the direction of
    understanding the need for full marriage equality. Or in the
    case of the debate today, we should not lose sight of what this
    conversation is about today, the real need to ensure that in
    those States where same-sex couples enjoy the right to marriage
    equality, that they be afforded those Federal benefits,
    particularly things like Social Security survivor benefits.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Solmonese.
        Just quickly, Mr. Nimocks, any response on the question
    about the changes over the last 15 years?
        Mr. Nimocks. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator
    Klobuchar. I do not believe that there have been substantial
    changes in the opinions of Americans across this country about
    marriage as time has passed. We know that the first vote in
    this country occurred in Hawaii in 1998, the last one in Iowa
    in 2010. And what is clear in all those votes in all the 32
    jurisdictions where Americans have voted upon the question of
    marriage is they have been unanimous that marriage should be
    the union of one man and one woman. And as I alluded to in the
    poll where 62 percent of Americans agree that marriage should
    be defined as the union of one man and one woman, that is the
    exact language that is going to be on the ballot in 2012 in
    your home State of Minnesota, and Minnesotans are going to vote
    on that. And I believe Minnesotans will become the 33rd
    jurisdiction to affirm that.
        The question before the Committee, with respect, is the
    question of marriage, whether it should be the union of one man
    and one woman, whether mothers and fathers are necessary, and I
    think Americans over a large period of time have been very
    consistent on that.
        Thank you.
        Senator Klobuchar. Mr. Whelan, if you could just keep it
    down to 30 seconds, I have another question to ask Mr.
    Solmonese.
        Mr. Whelan. Well, I will try to be quick, but yours is a
    very interesting question, and I hope I can give a somewhat
    more extensive response than that.
        My perception is, based on the polls, at least, that there
    has been a decline among young people in support for marriage.
    I think that decline reflects a broader collapse in our
    marriage culture, a collapse that I will emphasize is largely
    the responsibility of what heterosexuals have done to marriage
    in recent decades. And I think what we have is a situation
    where a lot of folks simply do not understand what marriage is.
    They do not understand the systemic importance of marriage in
    serving the interests of millions and millions of children who
    deserve to be raised in the best possible environment. And I
    think increasingly some folks do not understand that when you
    decouple marriage from the core interest in procreation and
    child rearing, you create a mission confusion that inevitably
    disserves the interests of millions and millions of children
    yet unborn.
        Senator Klobuchar. OK. And maybe, Mr. Wolfson, we can get
    your answer in writing, because I had a quick question here at
    the end, before my time runs out, of Mr. Solmonese, and that
    is, whether the Respect for Marriage Act has any impact on the
    ability of religious organizations or churches to freely
    express their views.
        Mr. Solmonese. Thank you, Senator. As I mentioned before,
    what we are here to discuss today and what is at the heart of
    this legislation really is how the Federal Government treats
    lawfully married people in States where marriage equality is
    the law of the land. It does not require individuals or
    religious organizations to do anything, and as you know, the
    First Amendment protects the rights of churches and religious
    organizations to determine who they will or will not marry and
    which----
        Senator Klobuchar. I think that is an important point for
    some people----
        Mr. Solmonese. Yes, it is.
        Senator Klobuchar.--that they--because freedom of religion
    is so important to many people in my State and across the
    country. I know Senator Feinstein had made that point, so I
    appreciate you making that, that this bill does not in any way
    require churches, synagogues, or mosques to recognize or
    perform same-sex marriages.
        Thank you. I really appreciate it, and I thought the panel
    before this--not that your panel is not stupendous, but I
    thought that the way that they told their stories, their own
    individual stories, was quite moving and also gave us a sense
    of the legal problems that they are encountering because of
    this law. Thank you.
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar.
        If I might turn first to Mr. Whelan, in both your testimony
    and Mr. Nimocks' testimony, there is a suggestion that somehow
    there is an inevitable connection between procreation,
    parenthood, opposite-sex couples, and then a critical national
    Federal policy interest in promoting marriage as being just
    between a man and a woman. What do you see as the rationale for
    why Federal law is silent on unlimited serial heterosexual
    marriage with all the pain and difficulty of divorce and its
    impact on children and child rearing, but prohibits one life-
    long loving, stable same-sex marriage? Help me understand that.
        Mr. Whelan. Well, I think the answer to that, Senator, is
    the same as the answer to why Congress in the mid-19th century
    took action to outlaw polygamy and to condition--or, more
    precisely, to condition the admission of several States on
    those States' permanently banning polygamy.
        It is true that within broad bounds the general practice of
    the Federal Government has been to permit variations among
    State laws in terms of what constitutes marriage. At the same
    time, as the anti-polygamy effort illustrates, there is an
    understanding that there is some genuine core, some genuine
    essence to what marriage is, that marriage cannot simply be
    defined to mean anything. And I think what we see here and what
    84 of your predecessors in the Senate understood in 1996 is
    that the union of one man and one woman is at the very core of
    what marriage needs to be in order to serve the interests of
    children over the generations.
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Whelan.
        If I might, Mr. Solmonese, your written testimony notes, I
    think quite correctly, that DOMA harms more than just gay and
    lesbian couples. One of my areas of focus on LGBT issues has
    been participation in and support for the It Gets Better
    project, which uses the Internet to share messages of hope to
    LGBT youth.
        There has been testimony here by several witnesses about
    public opinion. I am not sure what the relevance is of whether
    60 or 70 support today or yesterday. In my view, DOMA, to the
    extent it enshrines and advances discrimination, has negative
    secondary impacts not just immediately on the couples from whom
    we heard previously, but also more indirectly, symbolically, in
    terms of encouraging discrimination and harassment in our
    broader society. Could you speak, Mr. Solmonese, if you would,
    to HRC's experience and views on how DOMA might have secondary
    negative symbolic effects on LGBT youth and on our culture as a
    whole?
        Mr. Solmonese. Thank you, Senator, certainly. I think there
    are a number of ways, and certainly we heard from the previous
    panels ways in which individuals in our community have faced
    genuine discrimination in the absence of the right to full
    marriage.
        But one of the things that I think is important to point
    out--and I see this and I experience this as I travel the
    country and I travel to places where it is, for lack of a
    better term, perhaps more difficult to be a member of the LGBT
    community, parts of the country where I talk to people who just
    face much more sort of discrimination on a number of fronts.
    And one of the things that they tell me that I think is
    important to point out is that, for instance, when they walk
    into a hospital emergency room, even in a place where civil
    unions perhaps may be the law of the land, there is sort of a
    process that that admitting person goes through as they
    evaluate the circumstances and the individual family in front
    of them. ``You are not married, and so while you are not
    married, you know, there is sort of a societal disparity there,
    and I need as an admitting person in this hospital emergency
    room to understand what is different about you and what is
    different about the circumstances of your particular life that
    I need to be aware of.''
        You know, parents tell me that they send their children off
    to school nowadays from the household of a civil-unioned family
    and what sort of--beyond the tangible perhaps benefits
    disparity that we talked about here today, you know, what does
    that mean? What does that speak to to that child and the sort
    of experience that they might encounter as having been sent to
    school from a civil-unioned family or from a same-sex-couple
    family as opposed to from a married household? You know, there
    is a societal understanding of what it means to walk in the
    door of an emergency room as a married couple or to walk into a
    PTA meeting as a married couple and what that means generally.
        And that is something that I think is important to point
    out because that is beyond sort of the tangible benefits
    discrimination that we heard about earlier today, something
    that I hear a great deal of as I travel across the country.
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Solmonese, and I just want
    thank everyone who has testified today to the very real impact,
    the negative impact that DOMA has had on married couples, on
    legally married couples in States across this country. I am
    committed, as one of the original cosponsors, to the passage of
    the Respect for Marriage Act, and I am hopeful that the
    remainder of this hearing can be constructive.
        Given there are just a few minutes left in the vote
    currently going on on the floor, I will yield the gavel and the
    microphone to my more senior colleague, Senator Schumer, who
    will close out today's hearing. Thank you very much

     STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
                           STATE OF NEW YORK

        Senator Schumer. [presiding.] Well, thank you, and I want
    to thank you, Chairman Coons--sounds good right, ``Chairman
    Coons'' ?--for running this hearing. When I recruit members, I
    say you would be amazed how quickly you move around here up the
    ladder.
        I want to thank our witnesses on this panel and on the
    previous two panels for this testimony, and I am just going to
    give an opening statement or a statement, and then we will
    adjourn the hearing.
        I think the powerful testimony of the witnesses we have
    heard today speaks volumes. So, Mr. Chairman, I just want to
    say a few brief words about the importance of repealing DOMA.
        Not long after this hearing concludes, in less than 100
    hours, gay couples from across my home State of New York will
    be lining up outside courthouses and clerks' offices to
    officially tie the knot. Many of those who plan to say ``I do''
    have been together for decades. They have raised children
    together, battled illnesses together, built loving, lasting
    lives together. And on Sunday, our State of New York will
    recognize that--that love, that life, that commitment until
    death do they part--with a marriage license.
        So personally I support marriage equality. I believe one of
    the defining qualities of America has always been our
    inexorable drive to equality. As the French historian Alexis de
    Tocqueville observed when he visited the U.S. in the 1930's, it
    is the quality that distinguishes the United States from all
    other countries.
        Now, we are not here today to discuss the relative merits
    of marriage equality but another issue of bringing equality.
    The purpose of this hearing--and I want to thank Chairman
    Leahy--is to examine the real-life impact of the Defense of
    Marriage Act on same-sex married couples.
        It is a fact that when New York begins conferring marriage
    licenses to same-sex couples this weekend, the Federal
    Government will not be able to give those married couples the
    same Federal benefits that straight couples receive who
    similarly pledge in the eyes of the law to spend their lives
    together. Instead, in the eyes of the Federal Government, these
    couples will remain strangers, with none of the
    responsibilities or privileges of matrimony. The same is true,
    of course, of couples in five other States and the District of
    Columbia.
        There are well over a thousands different Federal benefits
    that married gay couples are denied because of DOMA.
    Unfortunately, the effects of this discrimination are most
    acutely felt in the times of vulnerability. Gay couples are
    denied family medical leave, Social Security survivor benefits,
    estate tax exemption, and many other vital rights that their
    heterosexual neighbors and friends enjoy. This is not right,
    this is not fair, and something needs to be done about it.
        I want to draw my attention to one particular way in which
    DOMA adversely impacts gay couples: the Federal tax exemption
    for health benefits. If a straight married man wants to add his
    wife to his health insurance plan, he can do so without hassle
    or expense. It is a tax-free fringe benefit. It has been for
    decades. Now, let us say you are gay, legally married in your
    State, and your employer is kind enough to offer same-sex-
    partner health benefits. That is becoming increasingly common:
    83 of the Fortune 100 companies offer them. But because of
    DOMA, gay employees must include the cost of insurance--and we
    all know that health care is not cheap--in their taxable
    income. That means that even though they are married in the
    eyes of their State and their company is being fair and
    generous, the Federal Government hits them with a heaping tax
    burden every April 15th. Worse still, the employer is required
    to pay FICA taxes on the benefit. That is right. Because of
    DOMA, major employers are forced to pay--I am looking at that
    side of the room--extra taxes.
        I have a bipartisan bill with Senator Collins to change
    that. It is called the Tax Parity for Health Plan Beneficiaries
    Act. Needless to say, were we successful in repealing DOMA,
    there would be no need for the legislation. Our tax parity bill
    addresses one of a thousands Federal benefits that married gay
    couples cannot receive under law.
        So I hope we will repeal DOMA. CBO came to the following
    conclusion in 2004: ``If DOMA were repealed, revenues would be
    higher by less than $400 million a year from 2005 through 2010
    and by $500 million to $700 million from 2011 to 2014.''
        I want to say this: There are three fundamental principles
    at stake here: repealing DOMA makes good fiscal sense, it
    respects States' rights, and it treats all married people the
    same. It is fair, it makes sense, and it is time.
        And I would say to many in the audience who have waited a
    long time for many things that one of my favorite expressions
    was what Martin Luther King said and what I was proud to repeat
    over and over again at the Gay Pride parade in New York a few
    weeks ago, and that is, ``The arc of history is long, but it
    bends in the direction of justice.''
        The hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
        [Questions and answers and submissions for the record
    follow.]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.012

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.013

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.014

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.015

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.016

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.017

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.018

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.019

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.020

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.021

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.022

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.023

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.024

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.025

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.026

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.027

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.028

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.029

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.030

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.031

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.032

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.033

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.034

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.035

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.036

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.040

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.041

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.042

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.043

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.044

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.045

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.046

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.047

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.048

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.049

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.050

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.051

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.052

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.053

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.054

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.055

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.056

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.057

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.058

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.059

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.060

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.061

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.062

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.063

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.064

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.065

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.066

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.067

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.068

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.069

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.070

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.071

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.072

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.073

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.074

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.075

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.076

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.077

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.314

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.315

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.078

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.079

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.316

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.080

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.081

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.082

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.083

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.084

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.085

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.086

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.087

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.091

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.092

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.037

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.038

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.039

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.093

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.094

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.095

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.097

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.098

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.099

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.100

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.101

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.102

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.103

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.104

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.105

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.106

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.107

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.108

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.109

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.110

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.096

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.111

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.112

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.113

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.114

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.115

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.116

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.117

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.118

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.119

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.120

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.121

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.122

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.123

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.124

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.125

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.126

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.127

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.128

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.129

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.130

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.131

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.132

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.133

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.134

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.135

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.136

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.137

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.138

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.139

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.140

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.141

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.142

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.143

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.144

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.145

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.146

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.147

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.148

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.149

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.150

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.151

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.152

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.153

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.154

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.155

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.156

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.157

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.158

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.159

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.160

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.161

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.162

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.163

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.164

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.165

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.166

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.167

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.168

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.169

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.170

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.171

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.172

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.173

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.174

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.175

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.176

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.177

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.178

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.179

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.180

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.181

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.182

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.183

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.184

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.185

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.186

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.187

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.188

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.189

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.190

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.191

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.192

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.193

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.194

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.195

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.196

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.197

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.198

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.199

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.200

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.201

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.202

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.203

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.204

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.205

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.206

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.207

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.208

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.209

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.210

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.211

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.212

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.213

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.214

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.215

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.216

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.217

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.218

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.219

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.220

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.221

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.222

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.223

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.224

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.225

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.226

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.227

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.228

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.229

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.230

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.231

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.232

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.233

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.234

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.235

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.236

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.237

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.238

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.239

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.240

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.241

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.242

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.243

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.244

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.245

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.246

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.247

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.248

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.249

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.250

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.251

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.252

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.253

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.254

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.255

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.256

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.257

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.258

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.259

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.260

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.261

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.262

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.263

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.264

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.265

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.266

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.267

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.268

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.269

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.270

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.271

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.272

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.273

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.274

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.275

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.276

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.277

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.278

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.279

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.280

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.281

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.282

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.283

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.284

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.285

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.286

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.287

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.288

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.289

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.290

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.291

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.292

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.293

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.294

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.295

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.296

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.297

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.298

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.299

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.300

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.301

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.302

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.303

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.304

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.305

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.306

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.307

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.308

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.309

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.310

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.311

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.312

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70639.313