[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 102 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H7441-H7449]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 474 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill, H.R. 3396.

                              {time}  0040


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3396) to define and protect the institution of marriage, with Mr. 
Gillmor in the Chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] will each be recognized for 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today, the House begins its consideration of H.R. 3396, 
the Defense of Marriage Act. H.R. 3396 has two operative provisions. 
Section 2 of the bill reads as follows:

       No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or 
     Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public 
     act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, 
     territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship 
     between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage 
     under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or 
     tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

  This provision invokes Congress' constitutional authority, under 
Article IV, section 1, to prescribe the effect that shall be given the 
public records, acts, and proceedings of the various States. This 
section provides only that States ``shall not be required'' to 
recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued by other States. It would 
not prevent any State from permitting homosexual couples to marry, just 
as it would not prevent any State from choosing to give full legal 
effect to same-sex marriages contracted in other States. It means only 
that they are not required by the Full Faith and Credit Clause to do 
so.
  It appears that gay rights lawyers are soon likely to win the right 
for homosexuals to marry in Hawaii, and that they will attempt to 
``nationalize'' that anticipated victory under force of the Full Faith 
and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution. I do not believe that other 
States would necessarily be required, under a proper interpretation of 
that Clause and the ``public policy'' exception to it, to give effect 
to a Hawaiian same-sex marriage license.
  But here is the situation we confront: Gay rights lawyers have made 
plain their intention to invoke the Full Faith and Credit Clause to 
persuade judges in the other 49 States to ignore the public policy of 
those States and to recognize a Hawaiian same-sex marriage license. 
This strategy is no secret; it is well documented. I would hope that 
judges would reject this strategy. But we all know that some courts 
will go the other way. That explains why, as we learned at our hearing, 
over 30 States are busily trying to enact legislation that will assist 
their efforts to fend off the impending assault on their marriage laws. 
There is, in short, disquiet in the States over how this legal scenario 
will play out.

  The strategy the gay rights groups are pursuing is profoundly 
undemocratic, and it is surely an abuse of the Full Faith and Credit 
Clause. Indeed, I cannot imagine a more appropriate occasion for 
invoking our constitutional authority to define the States' obligations 
under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. As Representative Torrance Tom 
from Hawaii testified before the Subcommittee: ``If inaction by the 
Congress runs the risk that a single Judge in Hawaii may re-define the 
scope of legislation throughout the other forty-nine states, [then] 
failure to act is a dereliction of the responsibilities [we] were 
invested with by the voters.''
  Section 3 of the bill is even more straightforward. It proves that, 
for purposes of federal law only, ``word `marriage' means only 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.'' Again, this is a reaction to the Hawaii situation. Prior 
to the Hawaii Supreme Court decision there was never any reason to 
define the words ``marriage'' or ``spouse'' in federal law, because the 
laws of the fifty States were uniform in defining them exclusively with 
reference to heterosexual unions. But now, it is necessary to make 
explicit in the federal code Congress' well-established and 
unquestionable intention that ``marriage'' is limited to unions between 
one man and one woman. Section 3 changes nothing; it simply reaffirms 
existing law.
  I would note that the Clinton administration Justice Department 
believes that H.R. 3396 is constitutional. President Clinton, more 
over, has indicated that he ``would sign the bill if it was presented 
to him as currently written.''
  I'd make just one final point. Opponents of this bill have been quick 
to allege that its sponsors are motivated by crass political 
considerations; they have argued, in effect, that we have contrived 
this issue in order to score political points. In light of the Hawaii 
situation, the proclaimed intention of the gay rights lawyers, and the 
strong bipartisan support for the bill, this simply is not a credible 
argument. It is, rather, an argument designed to shift the focus of 
debate away from the fundamental issues at stake in this controversy.

  What is at stake in this controversy? Nothing less than our 
collective moral understanding--as expressed in the law--of the 
essential nature of the family--the fundamental building block of 
society. This is far from a trivial political issue. Families are not 
merely constructs of outdated convention, and traditional marriage laws 
were not based on animosity toward homosexuals. Rather, I believe that 
the traditional family structure--centered on a lawful union between 
one man and one woman--comports with nature and with our Judeo-
Christian moral tradition. It is one of the essential foundations on 
which our civilization is based.
  Our law should embody an unequivocal recognition of that fundamental 
fact. Our law should not treat homosexual relationships as the moral 
equivalent of the heterosexual relationships on which the family is 
based. That is why we are here today.

                              {time}  0045

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just exercise my objection to the way this House 
is being run. If this is such an important issue, why are we debating 
this at a quarter to 1? I must say that for an important piece of 
legislation like this to

[[Page H7442]]

be treated in this fashion is quite shabby.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island 
[Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, this debate really is 
about a simple question, a question of equal rights. Marriage is a 
basic right. It is a basic human right. Love and commitment are 
essential pillars of marriage. They are qualities that do not 
discriminate on account of gender. It is not right for this Congress to 
step in and to intrude into the private relationships and the most 
personal decisions of our constituencies. Love and commitment can exist 
between a man and a woman and it can and does exist between men and 
between women.
  Proponents of this curiously titled bill say that we need legislation 
to protect the family. Nothing could be further from the truth. 
Families are not threatened when two adults who love each other make a 
lifelong commitment to one another. Families will not fall apart if gay 
men and women are allowed to marry, if they are allowed the same basic 
legal right to marry that is already enjoyed by heterosexuals.
  This is not about defending marriage. It is about finding an enemy. 
It is not about marital union. It is about disunion, about dividing one 
group of Americans against another. This bill is unconstitutional, this 
bill is unfair, and the spirit behind this bill further fans the flames 
of prejudice and bigotry that this 104th Congress has done a pretty 
good job at fanning thus far.
  I think it is a travesty that people would bring this bill out simply 
to polarize Americans even further. Instead of bringing love and 
commitment and worshiping that in our society, this bill sows the seeds 
of division and hatred amongst people. I think that is a very 
unfortunate thing.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the institution of marriage 
and this bill, which seeks to uphold and preserve traditional 
heterosexual marriage, the fundamental building block of our society.
  Mr. Chairman, it is true that the institution of marriage, understood 
to be the social, legal and spiritual union of one man and one woman, 
has been the foundation of every human society. In 1988 the U.S. 
Supreme Court described marriage, quote, as creating the most important 
relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and civilization 
of a people than any other institution.
  In the 1970's, the Minnesota State Supreme Court went further by 
stating that, quote, the institution of marriage as a union of man and 
woman uniquely involving the procreating and rearing of children within 
the family is as old as the Book of Genesis.
  Most Americans who are still up at this hour will think it odd that 
we are actually considering legislation to define marriage as an 
exclusively heterosexual monogamous institution when, in fact, in the 
history of our country marriage has never meant anything else. It is 
inherently reserved for one man and one woman. As Webster's Dictionary 
states, quote, marriage is the institution whereby a man and a woman 
are joined in a special social and legal relationship.
  Furthermore, I believe that marriage is a covenant established by God 
wherein one man and one woman are united for the purpose of founding 
and maintaining a family. H.R. 3396 solidly reinforces these previous 
U.S. and State Supreme Court findings by simply restating the current 
and long-established understanding of marriage as the social, legal and 
spiritual union of one man and one woman.
  The President, who has promised his support for this legislation, and 
promised to sign this bill, said it very well at the National Prayer 
Breakfast this past January. He said, ``We know that ultimately this is 
an affair of the heart, an affair of the heart that has enormous 
economic and political and social implications for America, but, most 
importantly has moral implications, because families,'' he said, ``are 
ordained by God as a way of giving children and their parents the 
change to live up to the fullest of their God-given capacities.''
  The President is absolutely right.
  Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that our country can survive many 
things, but one thing it cannot survive is the destruction of the 
family unit which forms the foundation of our society. Those among us 
who truly desire a strong and thriving America for our children and 
grandchildren will defend traditional heterosexual marriage and will 
vote for final passage of this bill.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from San Francisco, CA [Ms. Pelosi], a great champion of 
human rights.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for his strong leadership on this important issue and other 
issues of civil and human rights in this country and throughout the 
world.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this ill-named Defense 
of Marriage Act and I do so on the basis of conscience, Constitution 
and constituency.
  This legislation in terms of the Constitution, I believe, violates 
the spirit of the Constitution's full faith and credit clause as well 
as its equal protection provisions. It also is quite ironic to me that 
the Republican Party, which is a strong advocate for States' rights, 
now wants to override the will of the States and this is all in the 
hypothetical at that.
  As a matter of conscience, I am opposed to this legislation because I 
believe it is a blatant act of discrimination. It is also disappointing 
that it is happening at this time because last week on the Fourth of 
July we celebrated our country's independence and our country's 
greatness. This week we are acting to diminish that greatness by saying 
to some members of our society that they are not equal under the law. 
Who is next? This bill is an insult to gays and lesbians in our 
country. Who is next? That brings me to my constituency.
  I have the privilege of representing the most diverse population of 
any district in the country. I know there will be those who say their 
districts are as diverse but I do not think anyone's is more diverse 
than mine. In my district, I can easily see and say that the beauty is 
in the mix. I want to be sure that the power is also in the mix, the 
power for all of those different people to make their own decisions 
about their personal lives, the power for them to reach their own 
fulfillment, newcomer or old guard, black, brown, white or yellow, gay 
or lesbian.
  Those decisions and that fulfillment include those affecting their 
life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. We value family in our 
community as a source of strength to our country and a source of 
comfort to our people. What constitutes that family is an individual 
and personal decision. But it is for all a place where people find love 
and support. If that happens to be with people living together of the 
same sex or of different sex, if it happens platonically or not, if it 
happens that they find comfort and love and support, God bless them.
  Let me tell you about two very special constituents of mine who have 
lived together for over 25 years. Their commitment, their love and 
their happiness are a source of strength to all who know them. Their 
relationship--I hold this up so you can all see--is not a threat to 
anyone's marriage. This is Phyllis Lyons and Dell Martin. Phyllis has 
two grandchildren. Phyllis and Dell have been leaders in our community 
and command the respect of all who know them. Why should they not be 
able to share each other's health and bereavement benefits? Why should 
they not be able to visit each other in the hospital in case of 
accident or in case of illness? I know people will say, you can sign up 
in advance and tell the doctor before you go in for the operation. That 
does not happen is you are in an accident. Why should they not be able 
to share a financial relationship inheritance, immigration, the list 
goes on and on.

  Why should they not have the full protection of the law? All of our 
community in our area are in debt to Phyllis and Dell for their 
contribution to the community, serving on commissions, they have been 
officially recognized over and over again in the course of their years 
of service. Tonight I am again in their debt for allowing me to share 
their personal history with you. I

[[Page H7443]]

thank them for doing that, and I say to all of you, if you knew Phyllis 
and Dell and many hundreds of thousands of people that I know like 
them, why would you not want them to be treated equally?
  But I ask you to make a more personal question of yourselves. Should 
you find yourself in a situation where your children or your close 
relatives or your close friends find solace, happiness, comfort, love, 
support in a relationship that is appropriate for them, would you not 
want them to have the legal recognition that they deserve? It is not 
again a threat to anyone.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish I could go into what is a threat to marriage in 
this country, but with that I urge my colleagues to think carefully 
before discriminating against anyone in this country. I urge our 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Defense of 
Marriage Act and begin by saying that the reason that it is called the 
Defense of Marriage Act is very simple and very plain. There is an 
active court action in the State of Hawaii that is scheduled--some say 
as long as two years from now, earlier it was reported it could be as 
early as the first week in August--that they would rule that same-sex 
marriages are in order and according to the full faith and credit 
clause of the Constitution that a couple could fly from any part of the 
country to the State of Hawaii, receive a marriage certificate in that 
State, return to their home State and be obligated in that State, 
potentially be obligated in that State, that State would have to honor 
that marriage certificate. There is a very radical element that is in 
the process of redefining what marriage is.
  We do not need to explain that for thousands of years and across 
many, many different cultures, a definition of marriage that transcends 
time has always been one man and one woman united for the purposes of 
forming a family. But that very definition is under assault. There have 
been many people that have spoken already this evening that have said, 
this is about equal rights, or this is about discrimination. Let me 
just say first of all that this is not about equal rights. We have 
equal rights.

                              {time}  0100

  Homosexuals have the same rights as I do. They have the ability to 
marry right now, today. However, when they get married, they must marry 
a person of the opposite sex, the same as me. That is the same right 
that I have. Now, I would also say that, just like a homosexual, I do 
not have the right to marry somebody of the same sex. It is the same 
for them as it is for me. There is no disparate between this rights 
issue.
  Further, I would say that marriage is not a right in the first place. 
It is a privilege. That really brings me to another subject, when we 
talk about this bill defining for Federal purposes what constitutes a 
marriage, one man and one woman. There is, as I said, a radical 
element, a homosexual agenda that wants to redefine what marriage is. 
They want to say that a marriage not only is one man and one woman but 
it is two men or it is two women.
  What logical reason is there to keep us from stopping expansion of 
that definition to include three people or an adult and a child, or any 
other odd combination that we want to have? There really is no logical 
reason why we could not also include polygamy or any other definition 
to say, as long as these are consenting human beings, and it does not 
even have to be limited to human beings, by the way. I mean it could be 
anything. But what rational reason, logical reason is there to say no, 
it is okay for two males or two females but we are not going to expand 
the definition beyond that. There is no reason why we cannot just 
completely erase whatever boundaries that currently exist on the 
definition of marriage and say it is a free-for-all, anything goes.

  It has also been said many times that the reason that this bill is 
being brought forth in the House of Representatives and later in the 
Senate is because of political reasons. I would just also reiterate the 
fact that the President is waiting for this bill at this moment. He has 
said many times that now is the time to act and to reaffirm the fact 
that marriage constitutes one man and one woman.
  The President has already agreed to sign this bill. This is not a 
wedge issue. This is not a political football that is going back and 
forth between presidential candidates. We need to move on this bill as 
quickly as possible and reaffirm marriage as the foundation and the 
cornerstone of our society.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, before yielding to the 
gentleman from Illinois let me say that the previous speaker said that 
this might be decided as early as the first week of August. There is 
not a shed of evidence of that. The trial of this issue is going to 
begin in September in Hawaii. Now, how a trial that is going to begin 
in September could be decided in the first week of August baffles me 
but no more than a lot of the other things he said.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Gutierrez].
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, without question, we've heard some 
puzzling arguments in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act.
  But at least one good thing has come from this debate.
  I think everyone understands better when to take my Republican 
friends seriously and when they are just having a good laugh at the 
expense of the American people.
  I now realize that my friends on the other side of the aisle aren't 
the least bit serious when they talk about how important it is for the 
federal government not to interfere in the lives of our people.
  I understand that they are just kidding--just teasing us--when they 
stress the importance of taking power out of Washington and giving it 
to local officials.
  And now I know that their biggest joke of all is that old line about 
the importance of family values--all that talk about encouraging people 
to care about and be committed to each other.
  Because the bill that most of my friends on the other side of the 
aisle are supporting tonight represents the polar opposite of all those 
lofty goals we've heard them talk so much about.
  The misleadingly titled ``Defense of Marriage Act'' is the ultimate 
in Washington bureaucracy dictating to the American people how they 
should live their lives.
  And it is an outstanding example of telling state officials how they 
should legislate and make policy.
  This should be a simple issue.
  Unfortunately, for many of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, that simple issue is politics.
  It's as simple as exploiting fears and promoting prejudice.
  But something more important than looking for a few extra votes 
should be simple, too.
  Seeking fairness.
  Seeking an America where, all people are treated the same under the 
law, in every aspect of their lives--from choosing where they live to 
who they marry.
  And one more thing should be simple.
  Promoting freedom.
  Making sure that all Americans have the freedom to live their 
personal lives in exactly the way they choose.
  Without being discriminated against. Without being stopped or 
harassed by a meddling federal government. Without being prevented by 
legislators from deciding what is best for them.
  I think the debate we hear tonight is the very reason so many 
Americans are troubled by politicians exploiting the idea of ``family 
values.''
  I don't know many Americans--regardless of their political party, 
race, religion or sexual orientation--who don't believe that family 
values are vitally important.
  But I also don't know many Americans who want a couple of hundred 
politicians in Washington to impose their values on everyone else's 
families.
  Let me tell you about some very basic values I think we're talking 
about when we stand up against this bill.
  The values of people who love each other. People who share each 
other's lives. People who care about their future and the future of 
those around them. People who want to make a commitment that is legal 
and official and is important to them.

[[Page H7444]]

  To me, that sounds like family values.
  And all of the noise we hear on the other side of the aisle sounds 
like politics as usual.
  I encourage my colleagues in the house today--and I don't say this 
very often--give my Republican friends what they say they want.
  Real family values. And more local control. And a federal government 
that stays out of American's lives.
  There's only one way to do that.
  Vote to defeat the Defense of Marriage Act.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
  (Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise an extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot tonight already. We 
heard a lot in the debate on the rule about discrimination. We just 
heard about family values. I do not think it is about any of those 
things. The real debate is about homosexuality and whether or not we 
sanction homosexuality in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I come from a district in Oklahoma who has very 
profound beliefs that homosexuality is wrong. I represent that 
district. They base that belief on what they believe God says about 
homosexuality. It is what they believe God says about it. What they 
believe is, is that homosexuality is immoral, that it is based on 
perversion, that it is based on lust. It is not to say that the 
individual is any less valuable than anybody that might believe that, 
but it is discrimination towards the act, not towards the individuals. 
That should be something that we stand for, that should be something 
that we stand on.
  So I support the Defense of Marriage Act for many reasons, but I 
support it because my district supports it. My district says it is time 
to say that homosexuality should not be sanctioned on an equal level 
with heterosexuality, and there are lots of reasons to back that up.
  If you look at some of the studies that are put forward to say 
homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, all you have to do is look 
at the number of partners on average that we see with homosexuality, 
and there are studies to say that over 43 percent of all people who 
profess homosexuality have greater than 500 partners. There are studies 
that would say that. The point being is I stand here representing my 
district to say homosexuality, the act of homosexuality, not the 
individual, is immoral, it is wrong. We should say that and we should 
not be afraid to stand on the very principles of our beliefs.
  We can claim our beliefs, we can claim to represent the beliefs of 
those whom we represent, and we should stand for that. Others have 
different beliefs, I recognize that, and I would yield to their 
beliefs. But for me and my district, I am going to yield to the beliefs 
that we hold. I believe it is discrimination against the act and not 
the individual.
  We hear about diversity, but we do not hear about perversity, and I 
think that we should not be afraid to talk about the very issues that 
are at the core of this. This is a great debate that we are going to 
have in our country, and it is not going to end with the debate on this 
bill. The fact is, no society that has lived through the transition to 
homosexuality and the perversion which it lives and what it brought 
forth.
  It is not to say that the individuals are any less valuable or any 
less bright, but the fact is it is morally wrong, and I stand on that 
statement.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis] because I cannot think of a more 
fitting response, since he would not yield on the question of morality 
and discrimination, than one of the great heroes of the fight against 
discrimination in our lifetime.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and 
colleague for yielding me the time.
  Let me say to the gentleman that when I was growing up in the south 
during the 1940s and the 1950s, the great majority of the people in 
that region believed that black people should not be able to enter 
places of public accommodation, and they felt that black people should 
not be able to register to vote, and many people felt that was right 
but that was wrong. I think as politicians, as elected officials, we 
should not only follow but we must lead, lead our districts, not put 
our fingers into the wind to see which way the air is blowing but be 
leaders.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a mean bill. It is cruel. This bill seeks to 
divide our nation, turn Americans against Americans, sew the seeds of 
fear, hatred and intolerance. Let us remember the Preamble of the 
Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths self-evident that all 
people are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. 
Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
  This bill is a slap in the face of the Declaration of Independence. 
It denies gay men and women the right to liberty and the pursuit of 
happiness. Marriage is a basic human right. You cannot tell people they 
cannot fall in love. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. used to say when 
people talked about interracial marriage and I quote, ``Races do not 
fall in love and get married. Individuals fall in love and get 
married.''
  Why do you not want your fellow men and women, your fellow Americans 
to be happy? Why do you attack them? Why do you want to destroy the 
love they hold in their hearts? Why do you want to crush their hopes, 
their dreams, their longings, their aspirations?
  We are talking about human beings, people like you, people who want 
to get married, buy a house, and spend their lives with the one they 
love. They have done no wrong.
  I will not turn my back on another American. I will not oppress my 
fellow human being. I have fought too hard and too long against 
discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against 
discrimination based on sexual orientation.
  Mr. Chairman, I have know racism. I have known bigotry. This bill 
stinks of the same fear, hatred and intolerance. It should not be 
called the Defense of Marriage Act. It should be called the defense of 
mean-spirited bigots act.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, to have the courage to do 
what is right. This bill appeals to our worst fears and emotions. It 
encourages hatred of our fellow Americans for political advantage. 
Every word, every purpose, every message is wrong. It is not the right 
thing to do, to divide Americans.
  We are moving toward the 21st century. Let us come together and 
create one nation, one people, one family, one house, the American 
house, the American family, the American nation.

                              {time}  0115

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes and 30 seconds 
to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, when this issue first came up earlier this year, some 
constituents back home approached me and they said, Bob, if somebody 
had come to you two years ago or three years ago, when you were 
contemplating running for the Congress of the United States of America 
and said, Bob, one of the things that you are going to have to draft up 
and champion in the Congress of the United States is a piece of 
legislation that defends against an assault on the institution of 
marriage. And it is going to be necessary in that piece of legislation 
to define marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman, 
and it is going to be essential that you do that.
  I probably would have said they were crazy.
  This is America. This is America. This is the land that has as its 
most basic building block the family unit, a marriage between a man and 
a woman. But here we are, and it is indeed an issue.
  It is an issue that is being used by the homosexual extremists to 
divide America. It is part of a deliberate, coldly calculated power 
move to confront the basic social institutions on which our country not 
only was founded but has prospered and will continue to prosper, thank 
you.
  For those who say it is just a hypothetical issue, look here. This is 
one of the homosexual groups that espouses

[[Page H7445]]

the various things that we are hearing on the other side. They say, 
many same-sex couples in and out of Hawaii are likely to take advantage 
of what would be a landmark victory. The great majority of those who 
travel to Hawaii to marry will return to their homes in the rest of the 
country expecting full legal recognition of their unions.
  That is their plan. They are bent on carrying it out. I kid you not, 
they will try to do it.
  The legislation before us today simply stands up and says, enough is 
enough. There is not one other country in the world, not one other 
country on the face of the earth, for heaven's sake, that is doing what 
the judges in Hawaii are poised to do and from there use that as a 
launching pad all across America to do, and that is to throw out the 
window the very definition of the building block on which our society 
and all societies in the world are founded. Not one other country in 
the world has taken this extreme, radical step. America would be the 
first.
  I do not stand here with anger. I think this is a great day for 
America, to stand here and debate an issue of such fundamental 
importance that vast majorities of our citizens, even in Hawaii, 
believe is an important issue. They are saying, stand up for marriage, 
stand up for the basic building blocks on which our society is founded. 
Stand up to the extremists. I hear them and I believe a vast majority 
of Members in both bodies, indeed, the President of the United States 
himself hears those voices, and we are responding to them as 
representatives ought to do.
  The issue is a very real one. It is not just the extremist homosexual 
groups that are pushing this agenda. It is people in the White House. 
It is people in the Washington Post, the Washington Blade. To them 
marriage means just two people living together alone. Is that not 
sweet? In other words, it means absolutely nothing.
  Now, if folks on the other side believe that homosexual relationships 
are just great and if they believe that marriage should mean simply 
people doing whatever it is they want to do, then fine, say that. And 
bring out the dictionaries and let us completely change what marriage 
means. Marriage does not mean two men or two women getting married. It 
just does not mean that. You can say it does, but it does not. You are 
talking about something completely different. If that is what you want, 
then come up with legislation and say, that is what we want. We want to 
redefine the basic building block on which our society was founded, and 
then let us have a debate about it.
  But do not come here and debate the legitimate claim that we are 
doing something wrong, that we are being divisive by standing up to 
extremists who are bent on completely eradicating the concept of 
marriage as all civilizations not only know it but have known it.
  This legislation goes no further than is absolutely essential, Mr. 
Chairman, to meet this very specific challenge. It is indeed a 
challenge, as we can see by the groups advocating it and as can be seen 
by the court case in Hawaii. It is not a hypothetical court case. The 
Supreme Court of Hawaii has made very clear in rulings already on 
record that they believe in their minds it is unconstitutional in the 
Hawaiian Constitution to deny a marriage license to two people of the 
same sex. They have told the lower courts that it is almost impossible, 
virtually impossible for the lower courts not to reach that same 
decision or, if they do not, it is going to be overturned on appeal.
  In other words, my colleagues, the courts in Hawaii are going to 
recognize homosexual marriages, and these groups are then going to take 
those marriage licenses, so-called marriage licenses, pieces of paper 
that purport to be marriage licenses and come to the mainland.
  The fact of the matter is that, even though many of us believe that 
the full faith and credit clause of our Constitution cannot be used, 
should not be used to override the public policy of the different 
States, the fact of the matter is, none of us know how the courts are 
going to rule on these things. So in an exercise of responsibility and 
in an exercise of proper role of federalism, we have crafted the 
Defense of Marriage Act. It simply says, this is the status quo and no 
one State of the Union can have its decision of its people overridden, 
run roughshod by people from judges from another State.
  I forget who it was over here on the other side talking about that 
being an erosion or trampling of States rights, good heavens. We are 
saying that States have those rights and maintain that right. This 
legislation simply reaffirms it, Mr. Chairman.
  The only other thing that it does, also clearly within the purview of 
the jurisdiction of the Congress, is to define the reach of Federal 
statutes that concur legitimate Federal benefits on its citizens, to 
define it for purposes of determining spouses and marriage, what it has 
meant over the entire long history of western civilization. And that is 
that marriage means, does mean, always will mean legal union between 
one man and one woman.
  I strongly urge passage of and support for the Defense of Marriage 
Act.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3396 outlaws something that does not 
even exist. It tramples over the Constitution. It flies in the face of 
States rights, and it plays into the hands of the radical right, those 
who are trying to divide our country by scapegoating gays and lesbians. 
But let us move beyond the bill's numerous flaws and look at how it 
will affect American families. Let us look at what it will mean to my 
family.
  Last month my youngest son married a wonderful young woman. As 
friends and family gathered to celebrate their commitment to each 
other, the State of California also granted them the legal benefits of 
marriage. This bill, however, would ensure that another of my sons will 
never have the same options nor the protections that come with 
marriage. In fact, even the most basic rights of marriage that my 
youngest son already takes for granted, such as the ability to visit 
his spouse in a hospital, could be denied to his brother, denied 
because of his sexual orientation.
  Mr. Chairman, let us not reduce ourselves to being pawns for the 
radical right. Let us not turn the House of Representatives into a 
political convention for extremists. For once let us reject fear, 
embrace tolerance and move this Nation forward without leaving anyone 
behind.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this really mean-spirited bill.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 15 
seconds to the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Rivers].
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill and I 
oppose it with both my head and my heart. My head, because my brain and 
my legal training tell me that there are constitutional flaws in this 
particular bill. My heart speaks even more strongly to tell me that 
this is wrong. Wrong because in America, rights are not for some but 
not for others. We do not have one-half citizenship or three-quarters 
citizenship for some people and different kinds of citizenship for 
another. We treat all of our citizens the same.
  I took a look at the marriage vows, because I tried to decide what it 
is exactly that we want to keep people from having under this bill. 
When you take generic wedding vows that are accepted in many churches 
you find words like this: I so-and-so take you to be my wedded husband, 
wife, to have and to hold. And I thought, to have and to hold, which 
people is it that we want to forbid to have a committed relationship, 
to be sustained by the love of another person.
  For better for worse, I ask again, which people are there that we 
want to make sure should not have a soul mate, a partner in life's 
struggle, someone to laugh with, someone to cry with, someone to work 
with, to improve their lives, to support one another through good times 
and bad.
  I looked at the words ``in sickness and in health'' and I asked 
myself, what people does the government want to keep from having a 
partner who will nurture them, who will nurse them, who will wipe their 
brow, who will hold their hand when they are ill. I could not find any.

[[Page H7446]]

  I looked at the words ``to love and to cherish'' and I asked myself, 
who does the government want to keep from being the center of another 
person's life. Who do we want to stop from being hugged, held, adored?
  I looked at the words ``I promise to be faithful to you until death 
parts us'' and I asked myself, as a matter of public policy, who do we 
want to forbid from a monogamous promise. And given the comments made 
earlier about promiscuity, I cannot imagine who that would be.
  Love is not a zero sum game, Mr. Chairman. One couple's love is not a 
threat to another. Today's marriages are threatened by a lack of 
commitment, a lack of maturity and a lack of fidelity. To argue any 
other thing else is specious.

                              {time}  0130

  I hope that all Members and all Americans will let their conscience 
be their guide on this despicable bill.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes, 45 
seconds, to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, we began our national life by declaring 
that all men are created equal. We did not really mean it. We meant 
that all white men of property are created equal. The history of this 
country is largely the history of expanding that definition to all 
white men, to white men and black men, to white men and black men and 
white women and black women. We have achieved all that, but we said we 
want to achieve all that. We are just beginning to go down that road 
for gay and lesbian people. We still permit discrimination by law. We 
are just beginning to expand that definition, and we will.
  The arguments against gay and lesbian marriage are essentially the 
same argument that we used to hear against black-white marriages. We 
had antimiscegenation laws in this country. I have no doubt that one 
day we will permit in every State in this Union, and we will celebrate, 
gay and lesbian marriages. One day we will look back and wonder why it 
was ever thought controversial to allow two people who wanted to share 
each other's lives in a committed, monogamous relationship to undertake 
the obligations and benefits of marriage, why it was ever thought that 
allowing gay and lesbian people to visit each other in the hospital or 
to share each other's pension rights posed a threat to marriages of 
heterosexual people.

  But the bill before us today is not designed to solve a real problem. 
It is designed to appeal to fear and prejudice and hatred and bigotry. 
It is also a fraud.
  We are told we must pass this bill to protect our States from being 
compelled by the Constitution's full faith and credit clause to 
recognize same-sex marriages entered into in Hawaii. Aside from the 
fact they were a year or two away from Hawaii making any such decision, 
the full faith and credit clause does not compel or would not compel 
States to do such a thing. The public policy exception that today 
allows New York or Connecticut to refuse to recognize a 15-year-old 
marriage entered into in States which permit 15-year-old marriages 
would permit States on public policy grounds not to recognize same-sex 
marriages if they choose not to. So that section of the bill is 
unnecessary.
  But the other section of the bill, the section that defines marriage 
in Federal law for the first time and says to any State, ``No matter 
what you do, whether you do it by referendum or by public decision or 
by legislative action, the Federal Government won't recognize a 
marriage contracted in your state if we don't like the definition. We 
are going to trample the States' rights,'' shows exactly where this 
bill is coming from. We are going to say those are second-class 
marriages because we overruled New York or Connecticut or Hawaii or 
whoever decides to do that.
  Why do we want to start down the road of a Federal marriage law? This 
bill, Mr. Chairman, defends against a nonexistent threat. Marriages in 
this country are threatened by a 50 percent divorce rate, by drugs, by 
alcoholism, by gambling, by immaturity, by lots of things, but not by 
allowing gay or lesbian couples to formalize their relationships and 
pursue their happiness.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a despicable bill, and I urge its defeat.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent].
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the institution of marriage is not a creation of the 
State. It is older than the government, older than the Constitution and 
the laws, older than the Union, older than the Western tradition of 
political democracy from which our Republic springs, and I think it is 
deeply rooted in the basic precepts of our civilization. It has been 
sanctified by all the great monotheistic religions and, in particular, 
by the Judeo-Christian religion which is the underpinning of our 
culture.
  Mr. Chairman, it is an act of hubris to believe that marriage can be 
infinitely malleable, that it can be pushed and pulled around like 
silly-putty without destroying its essential stability and what it 
means to our society, and if marriage goes, then the family goes, and 
if the family goes, we have none of the decency or ordered liberty 
which Americans have been brought up to enjoy and to appreciate. That 
is what this bill is about.
  I am going to deal just very briefly with two of the arguments that 
have been used against it. The one is that the bill is somehow against 
love or against loving or caring relationships. It is not. There are 
all kinds of loving and caring relationships in America, and basically 
that is a good thing, and people can do that if this bill passes. We 
are not saying that people cannot do that. We are saying that the 
States should not be forced to give the imprimatur of legal sanction to 
those kinds of relationships, and to argue to the contrary is to say 
essentially the States have to recognize polygamy if it is loving 
relationships or adult incestuous marriages if it is a loving 
relationship, and what it shows is we are on a slope that leads to no 
standards and no relationships, as the gentleman from Georgia said, 
where marriage becomes meaningless.
  The other argument that this bill is somehow divisive. Mr. Chairman, 
let us be frank here. There is a division that already exists in our 
society, a great gulf over how we ought to define marriage and what it 
means in terms of sexual morality. This bill does not create that. The 
people who are trying to attack marriage, the other side, is not saying 
they are being divisive. Why are we being divisive? Because we are 
trying to defend it.
  The question is not whether there is a division. The question is 
which side of the division are my colleagues on and whether we are 
going to allow these issues to be worked out democratically in the 
States according to the democratic processes or whether we are going to 
have a resolution that is forced upon the States by the court.

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say I welcome the gentleman's support for the 
principle that the States should be able to work this out. When I offer 
an amendment tomorrow that would strike the part of the bill that would 
prevent the State from fully doing that, I will look for his support. 
But consistency might evaporate overnight.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Farr].
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for yielding. As one of the great leaders of human rights 
issues, I appreciate his time.
  I cannot believe that we call ourselves lawmakers. I think we fail to 
ask ourselves what is broke here that needs fixing. Our country has 
just gone through 220 years without Federal law on marriages. Think 
about it. We do not have Federal a marriage license. People get married 
under State law. Some States allow people to marry cousins. Some States 
allow persons committing statutory rape to have the rape dropped if 
they marry the person. States do not regulate how many times someone 
can get married, they do not regulate how many times someone can get a 
divorce.
  So why is this bill called the Defense of Marriage Act? It does not 
improve marriages, and it takes away States' rights.

[[Page H7447]]

  This bill is not about marriage, because the Federal Government does 
not marry people. This bill is about meanness, it is about taking away 
States' right to enact a law that would allow an elderly man or an 
elderly woman, maybe a grandmother, even someone's grandfather, from 
receiving the benefits or giving benefits to a caretaker of the same 
sex who they may marry for only the reasons of being able to inherit 
property. It says that the only way someone can leave Social Security 
benefits or medical care benefits or Federal estate tax deductions is 
if they married someone of the opposite sex. Elderly people often live 
together with friends of the same sex. If a State wants to honor that 
arrangement for tax benefit purposes equal to marriage, this bill would 
ban it.

  My wife and I have raised our daughter in a loving supportive 
relationship. Our daughter recently asked us, ``Why is your generation 
so homophobic?'' I told her that it was the last civil rights battle in 
America. She said, ``I hope you solve it because our generation, it's 
no big deal.''
  Let us listen to our elderly, let us listen to our youth; make laws 
that help people, not hurt them. Reject this mean-spirited bill.

                              {time}  1345

  Women could not own property. There could not be marriage between the 
races. Many things change over time, Mr. Chairman. This, too, is going 
to change.
  I would like to pay tribute, special personal tribute to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis], to Dr. King, to all those of both 
parties and no parties. There was nothing partisan about that movement; 
there is and ought never to be anything partisan about this, the final 
chapter in the history of the civil rights of this country.
  I wish I could remember, I used to know the entirety of that ``I Have 
a Dream'' speech, but we will rise up and live out the full meaning of 
our Creator. It may not be this year and it certainly will not be this 
Congress, but it will happen As I said earlier, we can embrace that 
change and welcome it, or we can resist it, but there is nothing on 
God's Earth that we can do to stop it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUDDS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for 
yielding to me.
  We are in a great debate. I would hope that people reading the 
Congressional Record, watching this debate, would compare the tone, the 
sensitivity, and the reaching out of my friend's words, and then read 
the earlier words of the gentleman from Oklahoma, the words which were 
denunciatory and denigratory of the gentleman from Massachusetts and 
myself, and I would hope that people would compare the spirit of the 
approach, compare the attitude toward others, compare the way in which 
things are debated.
  I would say, as someone who has been included in this denunciatory 
rhetoric, that I would be very satisfied to have people in forming 
their judgment listen to the words uttered by the gentleman from 
Oklahoma, and listen to the words of my friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts. I think we are helping people form a basis.
  This notion that a loving relationship between two people of the same 
sex threatens relationships between two people of the opposite sex, 
that is what denigrates heterosexual marriage. The argument that we 
have denigrated marriage or the institution of marriage or any other 
formulation says that two people loving each other somehow threatens 
heterosexual marriage. That is what denigrates heterosexual marriage. I 
thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentlemen from Massachusetts have congratulated 
themselves on the tone and quality of the debate in opposition to this 
bill. We have heard in opposition to this bill the following words. We 
have heard that those who oppose same-sex marriage and those who 
support this bill are laughable. We have heard that it is a joke. We 
have heard it is based on prejudice. We have heard that it is mean-
spirited, that the bill is cruel, that those who support it are 
bigoted, despicable, hateful, ignorant. Those are words that have been 
uttered here tonight. I believe the American people can make their own 
judgment about that.
  I believe that those words are an insult to the American people, 70 
percent of whom or more oppose same-sex marriages. Seventy percent of 
the American people are not bigots. Seventy percent of the American 
people are not prejudiced. Seventy percent of the American people are 
not mean-spirited, cruel, and hateful. It is a slander against the 
American people to assert that they are.
  All this rhetoric is simply designed to divert attention from the 
fundamental issue involved here. It is an attempt to evade the basic 
question of whether the law of this country should treat homosexual 
relationships as morally equivalent to heterosexual relationships. That 
is what is at stake here: Should the law express its neutrality between 
homosexual and heterosexual relationships? Should the law elevate 
homosexual unions to the same status as the heterosexual relationships 
on which the traditional family is based, a status which has been 
reserved from time immemorial for the union between a man and a woman? 
Should we tell the children of America that it is a matter of 
indifference whether they establish families with a partner of the 
opposite sex or cohabit with someone of the same sex? Should we tell 
the children of America that we a society believe there is no moral 
difference between homosexual relationships and heterosexual 
relationships? Shall we tell the children of America that in the eyes 
of the law, the parties to a homosexual union are entitled to all the 
rights and privileges and benefits that have always been reserved for a 
man and woman united in marriage?

  To all of these questions the opponents of this bill say yes. They 
support homosexual marriage. They believe that it is a good thing. They 
believe opposition to same-sex marriage is immoral. That is their 
opinion. I respect their right to express that. They want to tell the 
children of America that it makes no difference whether they choose a 
partner of the opposite sex or a partner of the same sex. They want the 
law to be indifferent to such matters.
  Although I respect the right of Members to express that sentiment, I 
vehemently disagree with it. Those of us who support this bill reject 
the view that such choices are a matter of indifference. In doing so, 
we have the overwhelming support of the American people. In doing so, 
we have the support of President Clinton. In doing so, I believe we 
will have the support of a majority of both parties in this House. I 
would urge the Members of the House to support this bill and to oppose 
all amendments that will be offered tomorrow.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the ill-named ``Defense of Marriage Act'' 
is little more than a half-baked effort by the Republicans to find yet 
another issue which they can use to divide the country in a desperate 
search for votes, deep in an election year. Before we rush head long to 
judgment on yet another divisive social issue, we ought to at least 
consider the following:
  There is no reason to act on this issue now. The Hawaii Supreme Court 
decision that the supporters of this bill are so fearful of took place 
way back in 1993. And the trial proceeding, which is expected to take 
place shortly, will be subject to appeal to the intermediate and State 
supreme court--no final binding decision is expected for two years at 
the earliest.
  The States are completely free to act on their own on this issue 
without any help from Congress. It is black letter law that the States 
are free to reject marriages approved by other States which violate 
public policy. It is pursuant to this authority that States have 
invalidated marriages consummated in other States which are incestuous, 
polygamous, based on common law, and involve under-age minors. 
Ironically, by enacting this law, Congress will by implication be 
limiting the States' authority to reject other types of marriage which 
may be contrary to public policy.
  The full ``faith and credit'' hook on which this bill is based is 
nothing less than a legal charade. The second sentence of the full 
faith and credit clause merely grants Congress the authority to specify 
how certain acts, records, and judicial proceedings may be 
authenticated. There is nothing in the full faith and credit clause 
which permits Congress to place a break on the application of sister 
States policies, as opposed to their judgments. Enacting

[[Page H7448]]

a law of the nature before us today would be nothing less than 
unprecedented.
  Given these problems, why are we acting today? Why has a bill gone 
from introduction, to hearing, to subcommittee, full committee, and now 
the floor in a mere two month's time? The only possible answer is that 
Republicans are intent on creating a political issue completely out of 
thin air so they can demonize gay and lesbian individuals and further 
divide the American people. The Contract with America has been a flop, 
the Republican party is behind in the polls, and their leadership is 
desperately trying to manufacture ``wedge'' political issues. If there 
were any other reason, they would slow this bill down, wait for the 
courts and the State of Hawaii to act, and seriously analyze the legal 
implications of what they are doing.
  Fortunately, I don't think the American people will be fooled by this 
legislative red herring. They want real solutions that improve their 
every day lives, not legislative placebos. This is legislation by mob 
rule and is wrong.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the rule for 
the so-called ``Defense of Marriage Act''. The rule allows only two 
amendments to this very unnecessary piece of legislation. In committee, 
an attempt by Congresswoman Schroeder and myself to include the words 
non-adulterous and monogamous to the definition of marriage in the bill 
was rejected and because this is a modified closed rule we cannot offer 
this change today.
  No one can deny that the family as an institution has changed 
dramatically since the days when our own parents were children. Today, 
there is no single definition of family that applies to all 
individuals. A family may be made up of two parents and their children, 
grandparents caring for grandchildren, single mothers or single fathers 
raising their children, couples without children, foster parents and 
foster children, or individuals of the same-sex living together and 
sharing their lives as a couple, how their relationships are handled 
should be left to the states. This legislation takes the right of the 
states away.
  We need to respect the human rights of all these American families. 
We should not make laws which are based on an antiquated notion of what 
constitutes a family. This unnecessary legislation patently disregards 
the 14th Amendment provision that provides equal protection under the 
law to all Americans. I believe this legislation has been rushed 
forward with little thought and reason.
  As a wife and a mother, I believe in the human family. The 
institution of marriage should be cherished and respected, however, 
same-sex relationships allow human beings to express their attitude of 
caring for each other. Recognized same-sex relationships simply 
allow individuals living together and loving each other to be entitled 
to the rights associated with a loving and caring relationship.

  This legislation would define marriage as ``a legal union between one 
man and one woman as husband and wife''. The word spouse would refer 
``only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.''
  Never before has the federal government attempted to define either 
marriage or spouse. This has, and continues to be, the role of the 
states and they have done it well for the past 200 years. It is beyond 
the responsibility of the federal government to define marriage and 
impose that definition on the states.
  Furthermore, even if (as the bill's sponsors claim) the federal 
government needs to step in to clarify differing definitions between 
states, this legislation is premature. Same-sex marriage is not legal 
in any state. Hawaii is unlikely to decide the issue of same-sex 
marriage for at least two years, so this legislation attacks an issue 
which is not yet ripe. The only reasons to deal with it now is to make 
it a political controversy.
  Finally, since we are being forced to consider this legislation, I do 
not see why we could not attach the Employment Non-Discrimination Act 
(ENDA) to this legislation. This long awaited legislation would extend 
federal employment discrimination protections to include sexual 
orientation, providing basic protection to ensure fairness in the 
workplace for Americans who are currently denied equal protection under 
the law. If we are going to consider this type of legislation a 
consideration of ENDA should be included. This rule does not allow for 
such a consideration. I urge my colleagues to vote down this rule. 
Thank you.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3396, The Defense 
of Marriage Act.
  The need to enact legislation to preserve the fundamental definition 
of matrimony as a union between one man and one woman is pressing and 
necessary. This legislation is not about mean-spirited antics or 
election year politics. A pending ruling by a Hawaii court could 
legalize same-sex marriages in that state. According to the Full Faith 
and Credit Clause of the Constitution, unless Congress says otherwise, 
the other 49 states in the Union would be required to abide by the 
Hawaii decision. Requiring the entire nation to discard the will of the 
clear majority of Americans undermines our democracy and would deny 
other states the opportunity to enforce laws banning the recognition of 
same-sex marriages.
  The time-honored and unique institution of marriage between one man 
and one woman is a fundamental pillar of our society and its values. 
The Defense of Marriage Act does not deny citizens the opportunity--
either through their elected representatives or ballot referendum--to 
enact legislation recognizing same-sex marriages or domestic 
partnerships within their own borders. The Defense of Marriage Act says 
that states should determine their own policy and that the federal 
government has a right to define who is entitled to benefit as a 
spouse. This legislation is consistent with the need to return power 
and decision making to the states where it rightfully belongs.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to carefully examine the issue 
of same-sex marriages and separate two fundamental issues. The first 
issue involves the question of whether individuals have a right to 
privacy and the choice to live as they see fit. I think most Americans, 
myself included, would agree that everyone should have the right to 
privacy. The second issue involves the question of whether all states 
must follow Hawaii's example, and has greater societal and 
constitutional implications than the issue of privacy. The Defense of 
Marriage Act addresses the second issue and does nothing to deny an 
individual his or her right to privacy.
  During a time when the traditional two parent family is becoming the 
exception, I believe it is important to reaffirm our commitment to 
ensuring that moms and dads are encouraged and strengthened in the task 
or raising their children.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to marvel at the wisdom of 
Congress. We have done such a wonderful job over these past 2 years 
that we are ready to take on the awesome task of matchmaking for all 
citizens of the United States.
  The legislation we are debating now dictates to them who they can 
love and spend their lives with in order to benefit from the rights 
guaranteed by the Constitution and the legal benefits of our laws--
civil laws governing marriage and divorce that have previously been the 
province of the States.
  Have we nothing better to do with our time?
  Marriage is a personal matter. Marriage is about two people coming 
together to love and support each other. Why should Congress interfere 
in this very personal decision?
  It was less than 30 year ago that our courts ruled it 
unconstitutional for the States to ban marriage between persons of 
different ethnic backgrounds. Have we learned so little in the last 30 
years?
  This bill has nothing to do with family values or protecting the 
institution of marriage. It is a political game to obscure the real 
issues behind the failure of marriages and to divide Americans in an 
election year.
  It is an attempt to fan the coals of bigotry and hatred to try to 
gain a few votes. The institution of marriage will not be saved to 
strengthened by increasing hate between our citizens.
  This is not a religious issue. Each of the numerous religions 
practiced in America is free to perform the rites of marriage in 
accordance with its tenets.
  Many marriages between persons of the same gender have been blessed 
by their religions--in all 50 States. This is purely and simply a civil 
matter--whether the Federal Government should decide for its citizens 
which of these unions to recognize and with whom citizens may share 
their vows of marriage.
  Nor is this a moral issue. The only moral question before us is 
whether it is moral to use this legislation to foster prejudice and 
misinformation among our citizens for political gain.
  I suggest we turn our attention to creating conditions that foster 
relationships between people in which they care for each other. To 
quote Ecclesiastes 4:9-10, ``Two are better than one. If one falls 
down, his friend can help him up.''
  The Reverend Billy Graham used that Biblical quote to justify 
marriage. Reverend Graham stated, `` Nowhere is this truer than in 
marriage when sickness or other problems come. One of the reasons God 
has given marriage to us is for times like this.''
  It is with marriage that our society makes it a little easier to 
survive and obtain fulfillment.
  Let's turn our efforts to making life a little easier for people by 
giving them all equal opportunities to love and help each other.
  Let's also give them the freedom to decide for themselves who they 
would like for a partner in life. Let's not raise barriers to prevent 
our citizens from partaking equally in the rights guaranteed by our 
Constitution and legal benefits granted by our laws.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this narrow-minded legislation.
  Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, because I believe it is necessary to 
attend the funerals of

[[Page H7449]]

two close and personal friends of mine, Illinois State Representative 
Roger T. McAuliffe, deputy majority leader of the Illinois House of 
Representatives, and Jack Williams, mayor of Franklin Park, I will 
unfortunately miss tomorrow's vote on H.R. 3396, the Defense of 
Marriage Act.
  As member of both the House Committee on the Judiciary and its 
Subcommittee on the Constitution, both of which had jurisdiction over 
H.R. 3396, I have already twice voted in favor of the bill. Therefore, 
since I am not able to attend tomorrow's flood consideration of H.R. 
3396, it would be my intention to vote ``aye'' on final passage.
  While I will not be present for tomorrow's vote, I have taken the 
necessary steps in arranging a ``pair'' with another member of the 
House who will also be absent. The pairing arrangement will offset our 
votes so that we may be absent without affecting the overall result. As 
it is customary, the name of my pair should appear in tomorrow's 
Congressional Record.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, in the history of our Country, marriage has 
never meant anything other than an exclusively heterosexual and 
monogamous institution. The fact that we have to take up legislation 
today to defend this precious institution is mind-boggling.
  While the Defense of Marriage Act protects the rights of a State to 
decide for itself whether to recognize same-sex marriage entered into 
in a different State, we cannot ignore the larger issue--traditional 
family values. The very nucleus of family is marriage. Perhaps no other 
relation provides society with the benefits marriage does. We cannot 
allow the integrity of marriage to broken down and destroyed.
  We have seen throughout history, civilizations that have allowed the 
traditional bonds of family to be weakened--those civilizations have 
not survived. America has, and should always be a Nation that 
prioritizes traditional family values and the tradition of a one-man 
and one-women marriage.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time we stopped this assault on America's families 
and the sacred institution of marriage. I urge all of my colleagues to 
support this measure.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak against H.R. 
3396, the Defense of Marriage Act. The title of the bill is puzzling. 
What are we defending marriage against: divorce, domestic violence, 
adultery? Can anyone name a single married couple whose union would be 
strengthened or defended against harm by this legislation? With all the 
unresolved burning issues facing this institution, it is nothing short 
of incredible that we would be diverting time and energy away from 
questions like Medicare, the environment, and the economy on this 
matter.
  Supporters of the bill point to what they claim is the danger of 
same-gender marriage. They say that if a court in Hawaii rules in favor 
of same-gender couples, other States will then have to give ``full 
faith and credit'' to the resulting marriages. I'm going to take this 
opportunity to concentrate on the traditions of our Nation, in 
particularly the rights of States and the Constitution of the United 
States. H.R. 3396 is an unnecessary intrusion into the State domain of 
family law. It tears at the fabric of our Constitution.
  Historically, States have the primary authority to regulate marriage 
based upon the 10th amendment of the Constitution. The Supreme Court 
has supported this constitutional right. In Aukenbrandt versus 
Richards, 1992, the Court rules that ``without exception, domestic 
relations has been a matter of state, not federal concern and control 
since the founding of the Republic.''
  It is also interesting to note that questions concerning the validity 
of an out-of-state marriage are generally resolved without reference to 
the ``full faith and credit'' clause of the U.S. Constitution. States 
traditionally recognize out-of-state marriages unless they have 
statutes prohibiting such a union. For example, polygamy is illegal in 
all States, and in most states certain incestuous marriages are illegal 
too. States can declare an out-of-state marriage void if it is against 
the state's public policy or if entered into with the intent to evade 
the law of the State.
  Congress has invoked the ``full faith and credit'' clause only five 
times since the founding of the Republic. The three most recent 
instances have required each State to give child custody, child 
support, and protection orders of other States the same faith and 
credit it gives its own such orders. The Defense of Marriage Act 
differs in one critical aspect from the legislative enactment passed by 
the Congress under it full faith and credit power: H.R. 3396 permits 
sister States to give no effect to the laws of other States.
  This is a novel and unconstitutional interpretation of the clause. 
According to a leading constitutional law scholar, Laurence H. Tribe, 
``the Constitution delegates to the United States no power to create 
categorical exceptions to the Full Faith and Credit Clause.''
  The Supreme Court just recently struck down a Colorado law that 
targeted gay and lesbians in Romer versus Colorado, This case suggests 
that the Supreme Court will rule legislation motivated by animus 
against gays and lesbians unconstitutional under the Equal Protection 
Clause of the 14th amendment unless the legislative classification 
bears a rational relationship to a legitimate State purpose. In other 
words, since H.R. 3396 targets a group of people due to their--in the 
words of Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council--``dangerous 
lifestyle and behavior,'' it is likely to be struck down by the courts. 
There is no dire urgency or compelling public interest to pass this 
measure, which is not only unnecessary but also likely to be found 
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
  In addition, I find it hard to believe how many of my colleagues can 
justify their support of H.R. 3396 when they are also cosponsors of 
H.R. 2270. At least 37 Members of the House are cosponsors of both 
bills. H.R. 2270 would require the Congress to specify the source of 
authority under the U.S. Constitution for the enactment of laws. Where 
in article I or anywhere else in the Constitution is the Congress given 
authority to write a national marriage law? Maybe the sponsors of both 
bills don't see the contradiction. Maybe they just don't care.
  Many on the other side of the aisle have been vocal and unceasing in 
their support for reversing the flow of power away from Washington and 
back to the States. Well, the laws governing marriage are traditionally 
and constitutionally under the authority of the States. If there is any 
area of law to which States can lay a claim to exclusive authority, it 
is the field of family relations. How can someone reconcile being for 
States rights while at the same time taking away a basic, 
constitutional right given to States by the Framers of our 
Constitution? I strongly encourage my colleagues to allow the States to 
continue exercising their constitutional rights and not fan the flames 
of intolerance. As William Eskeridge, Law Professor at Georgetown 
University, simply stated, ``the reasons to hesitate before adopting 
this legislation are conservative ones: federalism, original intent and 
tradition.''
  Let us remember that the United States draws its strength from the 
enormous diversity to be found within the borders of our great Nation. 
Vote against The Defense of Marriage Act.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired for general debate.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hayworth) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gillmor, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3396) to 
define and protect the institution of marriage, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________