Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 103 (Friday, July 12, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 103 (Friday, July 12, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H7480-H7506]
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 the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 3396.

{time} 1113

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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose on the legislative

[[Page H7481]]

day of Thursday, July 11, 1996, all time for general debate had
expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under
the 5-minute rule.
The text of H.R. 3396 is as follows:

H.R. 3396

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Defense of Marriage Act''.

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) In General.--Chapter 115 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:

``Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the
effect thereof

``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.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B
the following new item:

``1748C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect
thereof.''.
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.
(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'

``7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'.''.

The CHAIRMAN. No amendments shall be in order except those specified
in House Report 140-666, which shall be considered in the order
specified, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report,
shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified,
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall
not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for
division of the question.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House
Report 104-666.

{time} 1115

amendment offered by mr. frank of massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts:
Strike section 3 (page 3, line 9 and all that follows through
the matter following line 24).

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 474, the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady]
each shall control 37\1/2\ minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to
the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] because this amendment deals
with the section of the bill which would have a particularly negative
impact on the State of Hawaii.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to state that I believe that the word marriage
should be reserved to man and woman. But I rise to state my unequivocal
opposition to H.R. 3396. It goes far beyond the defense of the
institution of marriage. It attacks the U.S. Constitution by allowing
States to ignore the ``full faith and credit'' clause. If same sex
marriages are to be excluded from this protection it must be done by a
constitutional amendment. It cannot be done by statute.
First, I would like to point out that marriage is not only a
religious ceremony. A marriage is also a ceremony presided over by a
judge or a justice of the peace. After the marriage ceremony in a
church the minister has the married couple sign a marriage certificate
in order to have it registered in the State Bureau of Registrations. A
marriage therefor is a State recognized decree. A duly valid marriage
in any State is a marriage that is duly recognized in every other
State. And despite the minister's statement during the wedding that
this union is ``until death do us part,'' marriages are broken by the
court, not by a church ceremony. Marriage is an instrument of the
State. It may be ordained by the church, but it is a decree of the
State, and it is dissolved by the State.
If in Hawaii the Hawaii Supreme Court decrees that the State of
Hawaii Constitution requires that gays and lesbians be allowed to have
a marriage recorded as a State decree, because to do otherwise
constitutes discrimination, then same sex marriage will be the law of
the State of Hawaii.
Under the U.S. Constitution, laws of one State must be given ``full
faith and credit'' by every other State. Congress should not be
enacting any bill to declare otherwise. If a State decides not to honor
the Hawaii Supreme Court decision it must justify its decision before a
court of law. This congressional bill can not answer questions as to
whether this refusal by one State violates the ``full faith and
credit'' of the U.S. Constitution. Congress can not pass a generic law
to declare that every State may chose to ignore a duly decreed State
court ordered decision.
We all know that Congress cannot amend the U.S. Constitution. It is a
sham to pass a bill that purports to amend the Constitution. When we
took our oath of office here in the well of the House, we swore to
defend the Constitution from all enemies.
The full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution was written
by the framers of the Constitution explicitly to prevent the 50 States
from acting as ``independent sovereign States'' and instead require
that they recognize each other's laws particularly as they set up
contractual obligations and to act as a nation.
If the State of Hawaii Supreme Court decrees that same sex marriages
must be registered in the State, then, notwithstanding my contrary
view, I shall defend it as the law.
I would have preferred the enactment of a domestic partner law. It
would have provided all the protections that gays and lesbians have
been seeking over the years. Failure of the State to assure gays and
lesbians all the protections under the law require that we pass a
domestic partner law. Unfortunately the State of Hawaii Legislature
chose not to pass a domestic partner law and in doing so left this
matter for the courts to decide.
Under this bill, H.R. 3396, same sex marriages, if and when allowed
in Hawaii, will be denied equal protection of the laws insofar as the
Federal Government is concerned. Even though it is a valid marriage in
Hawaii as decided by the Hawaii Supreme Court, these couples will not
be allowed to be considered as ``spouses'' when deciding such things as
Federal retirement benefits, health benefits under Federal programs,
Federal housing benefits, burial rights, privilege against testifying
against partner in Federal trials, visitation rights at hospitals by
partners, rights to family and medical leave to care for a partner, and
many more programs which allow special rights to spouses. This
exclusion would be extremely destructive of the principle of States
rights in determining status.
Mr. Chairman, it is my regret that this issue has had to be raised
before this body. It seems to me quite apparent that our court system
is going to yield a decision which will validate same-sex marriages. It
may take several years. It may require several more legislative
sessions in orders to define this issue. But the court, in its previous
decisions, said to the Attorney General of my State unless there is a
compelling State interest to rule otherwise, this is what they intended
to do.
Now, this is not a debate about religion. It is a debate about a
State process which has been in place in all of the 50 States, granting
to the States the right to issue licenses. It is not a matter of
invasion of the prerogatives of religion or the churches because long
ago judges and justices of the peace were granted the power to also
ordain a marriage.
What happens after the marriage ceremony is that all parties must
sign a marriage certificate application which is then certified by the
State. So it has become a matter which is implicitly and explicitly a
matter of interpretation under our Constitution, and our Constitution
accords the rights of civil rights to all parties. Under that
interpretation, our State undoubtedly in several years will find itself
having to issue a ruling which authenticates same-sex marriages.
What is an affront by this legislation is an effort to try to clarify
and declare by edict what the other 49 States shall or shall not do
under the full faith and credit clues. I believe that that is an
invasion of the Constitution, if not an

[[Page H7482]]

outright effort to amend the constitutional guarantees of full faith
and credit, which was an effort by our Founding Fathers to do away with
this idea of 50 sovereign States and try to develop a concept of a
Nation.
Mr. Chairman, what we are doing today is to nullify that full faith
and credit clause to allow the State in its own deliberations how it is
to deal with this issue once it is determined by my State.
But the further gravity of this situation is that this body, is being
asked, beyond that, this body is being asked to take away rights that
are accorded every other citizen by Federal law in determining
retirement benefits, health benefits, the rights to burial in a Federal
cemetery, the rights to privilege in a Federal trial which is accorded
married couples not to have to provide testimony against each other. It
is defining in a way contrary to the citizens of my State rights that
will be accorded to every other citizen in this country. It is a
deprivation of the concept of equal protection.
We hear constantly in this body the need for States to be left alone
to determine the rights of their citizens and the programs that they
are is to endure. Here we have legislation, before anything is done in
my State, that will deliberately deny all of these rights that are
characterized by Federal law by determining that what my courts have
decided does not apply under Federal legislation, and that is an
extreme travesty against the whole principle of equal protection.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, as Rome burned, Nero fiddled, and that is exactly what
the gentlewoman and others on her side who spoke yesterday and last
night would have us do. Mr. Chairman, we ain't going to be fooled.
The very foundations of our society are in danger of being burned.
The flames of hedonism, the flames of narcissism, the flames of self-
centered morality are licking at the very foundations of our society:
the family unit.
The courts in Hawaii have rendered a decision loud and clear. They
have told the lower court: You shall recognize same-sex marriages. What
more does it take, America? What more does it take, my colleagues, to
wake up and see that this is an issue being shouted at us by extremists
intent, bent on forcing a tortured view of morality on the rest of the
country?
Yet, I suppose only in the Congress would we have people take the
well and say that a provision that guarantees by law that each State
retains its right to decide this issue is taking something away from
the States. I suppose only in the Congress would we have people take
the well and say that a law that simply guarantees the status quo in
terms of the definition of marriage for Federal purposes is taking
something away from somebody.
Yet here we have it. The red herrings are flying. Yet we must be
resolute. This is an issue of fundamental importance to this country,
to our families, to our children, and I would strongly urge all of our
colleagues to reject this killer amendment which guts a very important
piece of legislation.
We all must stand up and say we support this. Enough is enough. We
must maintain a moral foundation, an ethical foundation for our
families and ultimately for the United States of America.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first a word on this amendment. What this amendment
aims at is the anti-States' rights portion of this bill. This bill has
been grossly misadvertised in several ways. One, it says that it is a
defense of marriage, and I will return to that. But it is a defense
against a nonattack.
Nothing in what Hawaii is about to say, namely probably sometime late
next year or early in 1998 allowing same-sex marriages, nothing in that
by any rational explanation would impinge on marriages between men and
women. Nothing whatsoever.
The factors that erode marriages, the factors that lead to divorce,
the factors that lead to abandonment and spousal abuse, none of them
have ever been attributed to, in any significant degree, same-sex
marriage.
But there is another misadvertisement. Proponents of the bill say it
is necessary to keep other States from having to do what Hawaii does.
Now we should make clear that none of them think that is true. None of
them believe that, absent this bill, any other State would be compelled
to do what Hawaii does. I stress that again. Every single sponsor of
this bill believes as I do that the States already have the right that
this bill gives them.
Mr. Chairman, this is a bill which conveys on the press the right to
write articles. This is a bill which conveys on individuals the right
to go to synagogues on Saturday, church on Sunday, mosques on Friday.
This is a bill to do what the people in charge of the bill think is
already there. That is why we understand it to be purely political.
That is why a Supreme Court decision in Hawaii from 1993 which will not
be made final probably until 1998 comes up in 1996. It is a declaration
that the States have the rights that they already have coming a few
months before the Presidential election.
But there is another place of it. They say this is a States' rights
bill and it is to prevent another State from having to do what Hawaii
does. It has a second and only operative section, and that section says
if Hawaii or any other State decides to allow same-sex marriage by
whatever means, whether they do it by court decision or by popular
referendum or whether they do it by legislation, the Federal Government
will say to the State: Wrong, you cannot do that as far as we are
concerned. We, the Federal Government, will disallow that. While you
can make a decision for your State's processes to allow same-sex
marriage, we, the Federal Government, will substantially overrule that
because we will say that is not a marriage as far as Federal law is
concerned.

As people understand, given today's rule, Federal law has a lot to do
with their lives, so as far as Federal income tax is concerned and
Social Security and pensions and other things, they will not be
covered.
Now, let me talk a little bit personally. We have had some personal
talks. I would feel uncomfortable if I thought I was up here advocating
something that I thought would be directly benefitting me.
I should say that Herb Moses, the man I live with, already has my
pension rights. He has exactly the same pension rights I have. Zero. I
do not pay into the pension. I am not a member of the congressional
pension system, so Herb already has those pension rights.
That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about people less
well favored in society than I and other Members. I am talking about
working people, people who are working together, pooling their incomes
as many Americans do that today in difficult situations and economic
circumstances, trying to get back, and feeling a strong emotional bond
to each other, deciding they would like to pool their resources in a
binding legal way. Hawaii says: We allow you to do that. This bill
says: We overrule Hawaii. This bill says there will be no States'
rights here.
Mr. Chairman, what the other side of the aisle believes on the whole
is the right of the States to follow what they think is correct. There
is nothing new about this. When it comes to tort reform, they will tell
the States what to do. When it comes to a whole range of areas, they
will tell the States what to do.
I do not think there is any principle I have ever seen more
frequently enunciated and less frequently followed than States' rights
from the Republicans. What they mean is that the States will do
whatever they tell them to do.
Mr. Chairman, I do not claim to be a States' rights advocate. I think
there are times, given a national economy, when a national uniform
solution is the only sensible one, but this is not one of them. I want
to be particularly clear now. People talk about their marriages being
threatened. I find it implausible that two men deciding to commit
themselves to each other threatens the marriage of people a couple of
blocks away. I find it bizarre, even by the standards that my
Republican colleagues are using for this political argument here, to
tell me that

[[Page H7483]]

two women falling in love in Hawaii, as far away as you can get and
still be within the United States, threatens the marriage of people in
other States.

That is what this bill says: Do not worry, you people in
Massachusetts and Nebraska and Wyoming and Texas and California. The
Federal Government is running to the rescue. You say your marriage is
in trouble? You say there are problems with divorce?
It would seem to be clear that divorce does more to dissolve
marriages than gay marriages. It is extraordinary to have people
talking about how marriage is in peril. When the gentlewoman from
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] wanted to offer amendments dealing with
divorce, she was ruled out of order.
The gentleman from Oklahoma said the Bible speaks ill of
homosexuality, and it does. There are also strong passages in the Bible
that say if couples get a divorce and remarry, they have violated the
rules. There are religions that do not allow people who have been
divorced to remarry. There are religions that make divorce very, very
difficult: Roman Catholics, Orthodox Jews, and others.
I believe that those religions have every right to say if couples get
divorced, if they take this oath and say it is a lifetime solemn oath
and then they dissolve, for whatever reason, they find someone else
more attractive, they get tired of each other, we will make it
difficult for them to dissolve those bonds as we put them on and we
will not allow them to remarry.
That is a right we should fight for every religion to have, but there
are clearly Members in this Chamber, supporters of this bill, who do
not think that biblical injunction should be civil law. There are
people who believe that that biblical injunction that says if couples
divorce, they shall not remarry, should be disregarded by those who
wish to disregard it; that the religion should not have the right to
enforce them, but individuals should have the right under civil law to
make alternate choices. That is all we are talking about here.
People say, well, we do not want to have State sanctions. Let me talk
about that. I am very puzzled by the antilimited Government notion that
brings out.

{time} 1130

I have not had people come to me and say, I am in love with another
woman, I want to get married because I really want to have State
sanction. I want to know that the gentleman from Florida, the gentleman
from Georgia, that they really like me. No one has come forward and
said, can you please arrange so that the Republican Party and the House
of Representatives will express their approval of my lifestyle. That is
not a request I have ever gotten nor expect to get.
What people have said is, can I regularize this relationship so we
are legally responsible for each other. Can I get to the point where if
one of us gets very ill we will be protected in our ability to
undertake financial responsibilities? Can we buy property jointly? Can
we do the other things that people do? Can we decide that one will work
and one might be in child rearing, there are people who have children
in these relationships. That is what they are asking for.
What kind of an almost totalitarian notion is it to say that whatever
the Government permits, it sanctions and approves? That is what is
clear. Yes, there is a role for morality in Government. Of course there
is. The Government has an absolute overriding duty to enforce morality
in interpersonal relations. We have a moral duty to protect innocent
people from those who would impose on them. That is a very important
moral duty.
But is it the Government's duty to say, divorce is wrong and there
are strong biblical arguments that say if you are divorced, you should
not remarry. And should the Government then put obstacles in the way?
No. What we say in this society is, religion has its place. If you want
a religious ceremony, if you want to be married as Roman Catholic, if
you want to be married by orthodox Jewish rabbis, if you want to be
married by other groups, you better abide by their rules. But if you as
an individual say, I do not love that person anymore, I am walking out,
I am tired, I want a new husband, I want a new wife and, therefore, I
dissolve it, no fault divorce, leave me out, and I want to remarry,
civil law allows you to do that.
Does civil law say that is a good thing? Does civil law, by allowing
you to divorce and remarry, say, good, we approve of that, we sanction
your walking out on that marriage and starting a new one? No, what
civil law says is, in a free society that is a choice you can make. We
will require, I hope, that you pay up any obligation you have to the
children who were the product of the first marriage. We do not do that
well enough.
But beyond that we leave that choice. And that is all we are talking
about. No one is asking for sanctioning. In particular, what we are
saying is, if the State of Hawaii and, by the way, if you were going to
pick a State less likely to infect others, I am still trying to
understand, I said, what is it about two men living together that
threatens marriage? The people who denigrate marriage are the people
who argue that marital bonds are so fragile between man and woman that
knowing that two men can marry each other will somehow erode them. How
could that be?
We heard one argument about it yesterday. He said, well, it might
lead to polygamy. I am a student of legislative debate. Let me make one
very clear point. When people get off the subject, allowing Hawaii to
have gay marriages without penalizing them federally, and on to
something wholly unrelated, polygamy, and attack the unrelated one, it
is because they cannot think of any arguments to attack the first one.
Yes, it is true polygamy as an option for heterosexuals would weaken
the current option of monogamous heterosexual marriage. That is why I
do not know anyone who is advocating polygamy. Why are they then
debating polygamy? Because they are cannot argue over here.
There is a story about a guy who is on his hands and knees under the
streetlight, and he is walking around, looking around. Somebody stops
to help him, says, what is the matter. He said, I lost my watch. He
said, I will help you. After 5 minutes, he said, gee, I do not think
your watch is here. He said, I know, I did not lose it over here.
He said, why are we looking here under the streetlight. He said,
well, the light is better. They want to debate polygamy because the
argument is better. But there are no arguments about same-sex marriage.
I have asked Member after Member who is an advocate of this bill, how
does the fact that two men live together in a loving relationship and
commit themselves in Hawaii threaten your marriage in Florida or
Georgia or wherever? And the answer is always, well, it does not
threaten my marriage, it threatens the institution of marriage. That,
of course, baffles me some. Institutions do not marry. They may merge,
but they do not marry. People marry, human beings. Men and women who
love each other marry. And no one who understands human nature thinks
that allowing two other people who love each other interferes.

Is there some emanation that is given off that ruins it for you? Gee,
Hawaii is pretty far away. Will not the ocean stop it? Are those waves
that undercut your marriages? People who are divorced, I had one of my
colleagues say to me, I have been divorced a couple of times. I was
feeling guilty about it, but now I know it was your fault, he told me.
He said, the Republicans have explained it to me. That is why I have
been married three times. You did it to me.
He said, the next time I have an argument with my wife, I am going to
blame you. And I guess that is what we do because it has got to be some
mysterious emanation. And apparently it is such a powerful emanation
that it crosses oceans.
Hawaii, let me ask my friend, how many miles, 3,000? How many miles
is Hawaii from here? It is 5,000 from here, 5,000 miles away. My
friend, the gentleman from Hawaii, my friend, the gentlewoman from
Hawaii, what power they have. They allow same sex marriage in Hawaii
and 5,000 miles away, marital bonds will crumble. That seems pretty
silly, but that is what the bill says.
All I am saying here is, and by the way, I agree each State ought to
be able to decide for itself. That is not

[[Page H7484]]

what this amendment is about. I believe the States already have that
right. I am not even touching in this amendment the part of the bill
that does it.
This amendment says, if the State of Hawaii by any reason whatsoever
decides to allow gay marriage, we, the Federal Government, will treat
marriages that Hawaii validates the same as we treat others. The answer
is, that will be sanctioning gay marriage, as if the Federal Government
sanctions, what, many divorces and remarriages. We have no-fault
divorces. People walk out for no good reason. That is an unfortunate
trend. We ought to try and change it. But scapegoating gay men and
lesbians for the failure of marriages in this society is very good
politics but very terrible social analysis. That is what we are talking
about.
I am simply saying here, I do not know of another State that is even
close to Hawaii in doing this. Hawaii will probably do it in about a
year. No other State is doing it. Are you that desperate for a
political issue that you reach out this far? We have in the law
something called long-arm statutes. This is a real long-arm statute.
This reaches from the politics of Washington, DC, 5,000 miles out to
Hawaii, and says, how dare you let two women express the love they feel
for each other in a legally binding way because that is all we are
talking about. We are talking about nothing that undercuts heterosexual
marriage. We are talking about nothing that promotes divorce, nothing
that would encourage spousal abuse, nothing that would encourage
neglect of children. None of that.
We are talking about an entirely unrelated subject. The arguments
are, therefore, so weak that, as I said, we get into polygamy and other
unrelated issues.
If Members are really telling me they do not understand the
difference between a polygamous heterosexual relationship and a
monogamous homosexual relationship, then they are confessing a degree
of confusion that I guess I would be embarrassed to confess.
All this amendment says is, and let us be clear on this amendment, no
argument about protecting one State from another State is relevant. To
the extent that this bill has any role in protecting one State from
another State, this amendment leaves it detached.
What this says is simply, if Hawaii does it, we will recognize what
Hawaii does. And we will not falsely claim that multiple divorces and
remarriages, spousal abuse, child neglect, all of those problems, and
economic stress and others things that cause stress in marriages,
nobody will argue that letting two women love each other in Hawaii in
any way, shape, or form threatens that. That is the vote I will be
asking Members to take.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner].
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Frank].
This is not a States rights amendment. This amendment would allow the
will of Congress to be usurped by three justices on a divided Hawaii
Supreme Court.
In rebuttal to the argument made by the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs.
Mink], the Justice Department, headed by Janet Reno, not one of ours
but one of yours, has twice said that the Defense of Marriage Act is
constitutional. It is time for the Congress to define the full faith
and credit clause, what the Constitution allows us to do, and that is
what this bill proposes.
As was stated several times during the debate yesterday, this act is
necessary because of a concerted effort on the part of homosexual
activities to win the Hawaii case and then to impose the decision on
every other State by a lawsuit invoking the full faith and credit
clause. My colleagues do not have to take my word for it. I would like
to reiterate the words from a memo written by the director of the
Marriage Project of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education fund, a gay
rights group. This memo is entitled, ``Winning and Keeping Equal
Marriage Rights: What will Follow Victory in Baehr v. Levin,'' unquote.
On page 2 of this memorandum it is written, ``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 recognition of their unions.''
It is important to remember that this gay activist scheme may not
only affect every other State but the Federal Government as well. The
Federal Government currently extends benefits, rights, obligations and
privileges on the basis of marital status. These include Social
Security survivor and Medicare benefits, veterans' benefits, Federal
health, life insurance and pension benefits and immigration privileges.
In fact, the word marriage appears more than 800 times in Federal
statutes and regulations, and the word spouse appears over 3,100 times.
However, these terms are never defined in the statutes and regulations.
This bill proposes to do so.
Because this United States Code does not contain a definition of
marriage, a State's definition of marriage is regularly utilized in the
implementation of Federal laws and regulations. Such deference is
possible now because of the differences, because the difference in
State marriage laws, although numerous, are relatively minor. Every
State concurs in the most basic marital qualification, that a valid
marriage must be between one man and one woman. There never has been
any reason to make this implicit understanding explicit until now. If
Hawaii legalizes same-sex marriage, which the gentlewoman from Hawaii
[Mrs. Mink], says is going to happen, then the basic qualification is
altered.
Consequently, section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act amends the
United States Code to make it clear for purposes of Federal law
marriage means what Congress intended it to mean, that is, a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.
Congress certainly has the authority to define qualifications,
conditions and obligations surrounding the application of Federal law
and the disbursement of Federal benefits. Exercising such authority is
not uncommon. When Congress voted on Federal laws that conferred
benefits on married persons, I do not think that Congress ever
contemplated their application to same-sex couples. I do not think the
American people did either. Should we not let the American people and
their elected Representatives, as opposed to a sharply divided Hawaii
court, decide whether we should alter the fundamental definition of
marriage recognized by civilizations for thousands of years and always
presumed by the U.S. Congress?

Gay rights groups are scheming to manipulate the full faith and
credit clause to achieve through the judicial system what they cannot
obtain through the democratic process. I do not think that Congress
should be forced by Hawaii's State court to recognize a marriage
between two males or between two females. Congress did not pick that
fight. The groups that filed suit in Hawaii did.
We are simply responding to an unprecedented overt effort to impose
one State's marital rules on the rest of the Nation.
We have enough problems financing our Social Security trust funds. If
the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] is
adopted, there will be a huge expansion of the number of people
eligible to receive Medicare survivor benefits. We should decide that
by ourselves, not by Hawaii court.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to
address one point on what the gentleman from Wisconsin said. He made a
point a couple of times to the effect that this is a Hawaii Supreme
Court decision. He said it should be elected representatives.
The second version of this amendment says that we will recognize
marriages so declared by States if they are done democratically by
legislation or by referenda.
I would yield to the gentleman. Would that make any difference in his
argument?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H7485]]

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, at least in terms of Federal
benefits, to me, no.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thought so.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I think Congress should decide whether the
domestic spouses of gays and lesbians should get Social Security
survivor benefits.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, one
point on legislative debate, when people use arguments they do not
really mean, that is an indicator. The gentleman from Wisconsin made a
big point of saying, we cannot do it if Hawaii does it by court, if
they do not do it democratically.

{time} 1145

When I mentioned an amendment that would allow that, it is, oh, never
mind. Do not use arguments you do not mean. Do not make up arguments.
That does not help the debate.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand the gentleman's words be
taken down. He has impugned my motives.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts will be seated.

{time} 1152

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
proceed out of order for 1 minute.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, in a spirit of
conciliation, even though my plane is not until Sunday, but I know
others have quicker ones, I would make it clear that my point was that
I believe when Members are debating, they should be careful to use
arguments which are genuinely central to their point. And I was
admonishing people about what I think is the tendency to use arguments
that are not central, and particularly, I think it is a mistake for
people to use an argument and then, when that argument is met by a
change in the legislation, disregard it. That is what I was intending
to imply
I believe that the second amendment that I have offered meets part of
the argument that was made, and I always find it frustrating when
people make an argument and an amendment is then offered which meets
that argument and that is disregarded.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner]
seek recognition?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. With that explanation, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my
demand that the gentleman's words be taken down.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his demand.
The gentleman from Massachusetts may proceed in order.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman].
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I realize that my views are likely to be in
the minority, as well as unpopular, but this is not the first time I
have come to the well to stand up for what I believe in, and it will
not be the last.
Mr. Chairman, our Nation faces many pressing and critical problems:
The size of the Federal deficit and its effect on our international
competitiveness; threats from rogue nations and terrorists armed with
chemical, biological, and small nuclear weapons; a deteriorating public
infrastructure; the decline in the quality of public education, to name
just a few. Yet, this body is embarked today on an extended debate of a
nonproblem, an issue which the States themselves are fully capable of
handling without the interjection of the views of Congress.
In fact, this issue already has been carefully considered by the
legislatures, the legislatures of 34 States. Today, we debate
legislation of questionable constitutionality, legislation in which we
``authorize'' the States to ignore the dictates of the full faith and
credit clause of the Constitution. Yet what is clear from the sparse
history on the full faith and credit clause is that whatever powers the
States have to have to reject the decision by another State are
directly derived from the Constitution. Nothing Congress can do by
statute either adds to or detracts from that power. Congress cannot
grant a power to the States which, under the Constitution, the Congress
itself does not have or control.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, today, we debate legislation designed to
divide and ostracize individuals and to advance or protect interests
which are hardly threatened. As some of my colleagues have already
said, what is by far the weakest part of this bill is its title. But
that is not accidental. This bill reflects a calculated political
judgment that wedge issues can be used to paint individuals in our
society, as well as Members of this Chamber. This bill's accelerated
consideration in this House was, unfortunately, part of that political
agenda. Whatever Hawaii finally decides will be years off, so what is
the rush?
This is a sad day when partisan political considerations once again
upstage careful deliberations designed to address the Nation's
important challenges.
I urge my colleagues to stand up and reject this divisive, untimely,
and possibly unconstitutional bill.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand].
Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Defense
of Marriage Act. As a cosponsor of this bill, I believe it reinforces
the traditional definition of marriage without subjecting same-sex
couples to bias or harassment. It is our duty in this Congress to
affirm what is good in our society. We need this so much. As special
interest pressure increasingly demands a tolerant and fluid definition
of marriage, we progressively attempt to redefine marriage to fit
social trends.
Traditional marriage, however, is a house built on a rock. As
shifting sands of public opinion and prevailing winds of compromise
damage other institutions, marriage endures, and so must its
historically legal definition. This bill will fortify marriage against
the storm of revisionism, so I urge all of my colleagues to support
this very good bill, the defense of marriage act.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to batten
down, because I yield 4 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie], and we all know what power Hawaii has, so get
ready.
(Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Chairman, as long as Hawaii has this incredible power to be able
to mandate whatever it decides on the rest of the Nation, I wan
thinking that perhaps we could mandate the Hawaii health care system
for the other 49 States, so that we would not have to worry about
national health care, and we would mandate the weather, if we could,
but I think that is even beyond our powers.
There is a serious note to be engaged in here, because the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has to do with
the definition. If Members are in fact intending to define marriage
nationally in the terms that have been related in the debate so far,
they have indicated it is an institution in which we have a secular,
sacred duty to maintain the union between a man and a woman.
If that is the case, and Members really intend to do this, and we are
sincere about covering this as a national definition of marriage, then
why do Members not have a national divorce clause in here as well,
forbidding it? Where are the criminal penalties associated with
adultery? I have heard a continuous drumbeat from some Members here
about this union of a man and a woman. If that is the case, I presume,
then, Members are going to forbid divorce and most certainly impose
penalties with adultery. But I do not see it in here.
There appear to be circumstances in which this union of a man and
woman can take place in the context of marriage again and again and
again. I am not quite sure how the transition is made in Members'
definitions, but that is what takes place, all of this within the
context that this deficition has to be made in a national context,
because of what may or may not happen in Hawaii.

[[Page H7486]]

But what is left out of this is that the Federal law over and over
again, as stated as recently as 1992, and I am quoting the Supreme
Court, ``Without exceptions, domestic relations have been a matter of
State, not Federal, concern and control since the founding of the
Republic.''
In this particular instance, it is the State constitution in Hawaii
that is the grounds for the suit in Hawaii. The State constitution in
Hawaii has particular references to the right of privacy and equal
protection that are not found in other constitutions in other States.
Therefore, it does not apply.
Members should vote for the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] because even if there is a ruling in Hawaii,
it does not therefore follow that Pennsylvania or Florida or Illinois
or any of the other States have to follow it at all, unless there are
similar provisions, and there are judges that would make decisions
based on similar interpretations of similar provisions in Members' own
State constitutions.
The attorneys for the coules that came into court in Hawaii have
stated again and again that it is the particular provisions of the
Hawaii State Constitution that they are refering to, so it is
disingenuous at best for those who want to maintain that this amendment
is something that should be voted for to indicate that unless we have
this bill today, and unless we defeat the amendment of the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], Members are going to be forced to
accept what was a result of a court decision in Hawaii, if it happens
to go that way.
The State is disputing this at the present time, and may prevail. So
unless someone who is in favor of the bill can tell me how the U.S.
Constitution reflects the specific provisions in the Hawaii State
Constitution, which extend beyond the Federal Constitution the right of
privacy and the equal protection based on gender, unless they can
explain that, I do not see how Members can deny the validity of the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I would yield to anybody who can explain to me how the U.S.
Constitution, which only deals by implication with the Hawaii State
Constitution, will somebody please tell me how the U.S. Constitution
and the Hawaii State Constitution are comparable in these two respects,
which is the basis for the suit in Hawaii?
There are constitutional experts. Do not look puzzled. Members know
perfectly well what I am talking about. There is a right to privacy in
Hawaii, there is no discrimination based on gender in the Hawaii State
Constitution, which does not appear in the U.S. Constitution except by
implication, if Members make the argument. In other words, I get no
response.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer].
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, permit me to be theological and
philosophical, for a moment. I believe that as a people, as a people,
as a God-fearing people, at times, that there are what are viewed, what
I believe are called depraved judgments by people in our society. They
come in all forms of sin. We learn that early on.
I believe that the first creature of God and the words of the first
days was the light of sense. We refer to it as God-given common sense.
The last, perhaps, was the light of reason. His Sabbath work ever since
has been the illumination of his spirit, the Holy Spirit.
Above me it reads, ``In God we trust.'' It says, ``In God we trust.''
I believe that God breatheth light into the face of chaos and into the
face of mankind to deliver his word to others who do not see the light
of day, who do not follow the word of God.
Mr. Chairman, we are a nation of people, a society based upon very
strong Biblical principles. To lead a Nation at moments of chaos
through the storm, you rely on God-given principles for that. He
shineth the light into our face.
We as legislators and leaders for the country are in the midst of a
chaos, an attack upon God's principles. God laid down that one man and
one woman is a legal union. That is marriage, known for thousands of
years. That God-given principle is under attack. It is under attack.
There are those in our society that try to shift us away from a society
based on religious principles to humanistic principles; that the human
being can do whatever they want, as long as it feels good and does not
hurt others.
When one State wants to move towards the recognition of same-sex
marriages, it is wrong. The full faith and credit of the Constitution
would force States like Indiana to abide by it. We as a Federal
Government have a responsibility to act, and we will act.

{time} 1205

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
The CHAIRMAN. I might advise the Members, the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has 11 minutes remaining and the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Canady] has 27 minutes remaining.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, today we are debating a bill that purports
to defend marriage. I have been thinking a lot about this legislation
this week because tomorrow, I am getting married. My finance and I are
going to vow to spend the rest of our lives together--no matter what
lies ahead. For that commitment, we will enjoy all the rights and
privileges the Government bestows on married couples--from tax breaks
to Social Security benefits.
I can't imagine that my fiance and I could make such a momentous
decision to wed--and then have the Government step in and say no, you
can't do that. I can't imagine that two people who simply want to
exercise a basic human right to marry, a right our society encourages
could be denied. I can't imagine that two people could make a
commitment to spend the rest of their lives together--and never be
allowed to have that commitment recognized under the law.
Because, you see, for many years, gay couples have made a commitment
to spend their lives together. They have spent years building a life
together, through good times and bad. Yet, if a gay man becomes gravely
ill, his partner is not allowed to visit him in the hospital. A gay
couple can share houses, cars, bank accounts, yet one partner cannot
inherit a single thing if the other dies without a will. Furthermore,
no matter how long they are together, a gay couple cannot share medical
and pension benefits.
This bill denies a group of Americans a basic right because they lead
a different lifestyle. We must be careful when we make legislative
determinations on who is different. If gay people are considered
``different'' today, who is to say your lifestyle or my lifestyle will
not be considered different tomorrow?
This bill also challenges one of the most basic tenets of the
Constitution: the ``full faith and credit'' clause. This country is
great because people take for granted that the laws of one State are
honored by the other States--regardless of whether or not one State
likes another State's laws. We have not been able to pick and choose
for the past two centuries and now is not the time to start.
Our society encourages and values a commitment to long-term
monogamous relationships--and we honor those commitments by creating
the legal institution of marriage.
If we then deny the right of marriage to a segment of our population,
we devalue their commitment without compelling reasons but simply
because we don't like their choice of partners. We can't have it both
ways.
Protecting everyone's right to make a legal commitment to another is
a defense of marriage. This bill denies certain persons that right. It
is an attack on gay men and women. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to
vote against it.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I want to offer my congratulations to the
gentleman from Massachusetts on his upcoming wedding tomorrow. I did
not know he was getting married tomorrow. I think that is wonderful. I
wish him all the best and a wonderful future.
Mr. Chairman, I think this piece of legislation is very timely and
very important, and I commend the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady]
and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] for bringing it to the floor.
Many people are questioning why we are bringing it to the floor today
but,

[[Page H7487]]

Mr. Chairman, to me the answer is very clear. Polls in Hawaii and
across this country show that the majority of the people of this
country do not support legalizing same-sex marriage. However, despite
the will of the legislature in Hawaii, three judges are about to rule
otherwise. Now the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, an organization that is
pushing very hard for the legalization of gay and lesbian marriage, is
advertising their intent to use the Hawaiian Supreme Court ruling to
force other States to recognize gay and lesbian marriages.
I would just like to read the quote, and this is from a publication
of Lambda Legal Defense Fund:

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 home in the rest of the country expecting full legal
recognition of their union.

This is not a partisan issue, Mr. Chairman. The threat posed by the
ruling in Hawaii is recognized by Members of both sides of the aisle.
The bill before us is very simple. First it honors the State's right
to decide its own position on the legalization of same-sex marriage.
Second, it says that for Federal purposes, marriage is the legal union
between one man and one woman. The Frank amendment strikes that. This
bill does not tell people what they can or cannot do in the privacy of
their own homes. It simply says it is not right to ask the American
people to condone it.
As a father and an observer of this culture, I look ahead to the
future of my daughter and wonder what building a family will be like
for her. We saw startling statistics in 1992 that told us that Dan
Quayle was right. Children do best in a family with a mom and a dad. We
need to protect our social and moral foundations.
We should not be forced to send a message to our children that
undermines the definition of marriage as the union between one man and
one woman. Such attacks on the institution of marriage will only take
us further down the road of social deterioration. Vote ``no'' on the
Frank amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I do this with trepidation because I underestimated to some extent the
sensitivity on the other side when I point this out, but the gentleman
from Texas made a point of the fact that three judges did this in
Hawaii, and not the legislature and not a referendum.
I have a subsequent amendment which would allow a State to get
Federal recognition of marriages only when it is done by the
legislature or by referendum or in other ways by the people, and it
will probably make no difference. But I just want to say that that
argument that this is only the judges in Hawaii does not appear to me
to be one that the Members who make it attach a great deal of weight to
because when I offer an amendment which obviates it, it would not make
any difference.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr.
Gejdenson].
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, there were times and there may still be
times in this country today where there are States where you can get
married if you are 14 or 15. In my State that is statutory rape. There
were times in this country where in many States it took years to get a
divorce, sometimes almost impossible. People could fly to I think Las
Vegas and other places and get a divorce almost overnight. We did not
rush to the floor to ban those actions, to make them not apply to the
State where the individual is a resident.
What we face here is a challenge of the majority party, the
Republicans, and the failure of their entire agenda, and they need a
new scapegoat. To try to salvage their political tailspin, we are here
on the floor today trying to pick on the powerless. The politics works
very well. It is not popular out in the countryside. It is a difficult
issue for most Americans to deal with.
But if we want to protect families, then we ought to give families
health care. If we want to protect families, we need to protect their
pensions. If we want to protect families, we ought not be raiding
Medicare to give tax breaks to billionaires. If we want to protect
families, we need to protect their pensions, not to come here today
with a show-stopper that does very little to protect families and I
doubt will get the political gain that many are seeking in this
legislation.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
Mr. GEKAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, the overwhelming majority of my constituents favor the
bill that we are presenting to the Congress today, and for concomitant
reasons oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
If I were not sure of a numerical count of my constituents to
determine what I have just said, that the majority opposes the Frank
amendment and supports the underlying bill, I would now have the action
of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives to bolster that count on
my part. Recently the Pennsylvania House, only about 2 weeks ago,
supported a similar bill by a tune of 177-16. In it they endorsed and
reendorsed, both in the speeches on the floor and the matters of record
that were included finally in their legislative record, the notion that
marriage has to be, for the sake of family values, marriage between
members of the opposite sex.
So, with all of that, I am guided by the frank expression of the
Pennsylvania legislature rather than the Frank amendment. I oppose the
amendment and support the underlying bill.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Funderburk].
Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Chairman, people in my district in North Carolina
are outraged by the possibility that our State might be forced to
recognize same sex marriages performed in other States. They are
outraged that their tax money could be spent paying veteran's benefits
or Social Security based on the recognition of same-sex marriages.
Homosexuals have been saying they only want tolerance--now it is clear
they have been less than honest. They already have tolerance but are
aiming for government and corporate mandated acceptance. The Boy Scouts
of America are under legal attack in the States which have special
rights for sexual orientation. The Scouts, a private group, are being
told to abandon their moral code of 80 years and to place young boys
under homosexual men on camping trips--or face financial ruin. If
homosexuals achieve the power to pretend that their unions are
marriages, then people of conscience will be told to ignore their God-
given beliefs and support what they regard as immoral and destructive.
As the Family Research Council points out: Homosexuality has been
discouraged in all cultures because it is inherently wrong and harmful
to individuals, families, and societies. The only reason it has been
able to gain such prominence in America today is the near blackout on
information about homosexual behavior itself. We are being treated to a
steady drumbeat of propaganda echoing the stolen rhetoric of the black
civil rights movement and misrepresenting science. Now activists are
demanding that society elevate homosexuality to the moral level of
marriage. If you are a devout Christian or Jew, or merely someone who
believes homosexuality is immoral and harmful, and the law declares
homosexuality a protected status, then your personal beliefs are now
outside civil law. This has very serious implications, for if the law
declares opposition to homosexuality as bigotry, then the entire power
of the civil rights apparatus can be brought against you. Businessmen
would have to subsidize homosexuality or face legal sanctions;
schoolchildren will have to be taught that homosexuality is the
equivalent of marital love; and religious people will be told their
beliefs are no longer valid.
Mr. Chairman, let's do what is right and good for America today.
Let's pass the Defense of Marriage Act and turn down both Frank
amendments.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I just want to read the portion of the bill that is being stricken by
this amendment. It is called definition of ``marriage'' and ``spouse.''

[[Page H7488]]

``In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any
ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative
bureaus and agencies of the United States, the 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.''
The proponents of the amendment before the House now want to strike
that provision of the bill. They do not agree with that definition of
marriage. That is what is at issue here. I think the Members need to
focus on that. Is this House unwilling to take a stand in defining
marriage in this way?
We are talking about for purposes of the Federal statute. We have a
responsibility as the Congress to make a determination on this matter.
We have a responsibility as the elected representatives of the various
States to take a stand against what one State is attempting to do.
This bill does that, as has been discussed and debated at great
length, and there is nothing offensive about this definition. It has
been described in many ways, this bill has been described in many ways,
I will talk about that somewhat later. But if the Members would focus
on what is in this amendment, I think they will have to come to the
conclusion that all we are doing in this amendment is reaffirming what
everyone has always understood by marriage, what everyone has always
understood by the term ``spouse,'' and we are simply resisting a change
which is being advanced by a small minority in this country.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to stand here and take up a minute to
tell people on the floor how to vote. I think and I hope earnestly that
this debate will result in a positive picture for the values of all
Americans. But what I want to do is quote from two historical figures
to show that none of us, none of us, have all the right answers to all
the questions.
The first one is a figure that changed Catholicism and evolved it
into the Protestant movement, Martin Luther, in which he said, ``We are
all weak and ignorant creatures trying to probe and understand the
incomprehensible majesty of the unfathomable light of the wonder of
God.'' He was saying each of us do not have all the answers.
The second historical figure gave a sermon on the side of a mountain.
He said, and I cannot repeat all of that sermon because there is not
enough time, but I encourage people in the room and my colleagues to
read the Sermon on the Mount and especially chapter 7 in Matthew which
starts off, ``Judge not lest ye be judged.''

{time} 1223

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to address all of our colleagues here in
the House, those listening as well as those that are on the floor, on
both sides of the aisle, because this clearly is a nonpartisan matter.
One merely has to look at the long list of cosponsors from both sides
of the aisle. One has to look no further than the thousands of
communications to Members of Congress on this legislation and recognize
it is very much bipartisan.
The issue is clear and not even remotely complex. With this
amendment, with the Frank amendment, if Members believe that one State
can now define ``spouse'' or ``marriage'' for all Federal purposes, if
you believe that it is fiscally responsible to throw open the doors of
the U.S. Treasury, and if you believe that the will of the vast
majority of the American citizens has no meaning, no importance
whatsoever, then vote for the Frank amendment because it represents and
does all three of those things.
But if Members believe that the views of a vast majority of American
citizens are important, do have meaning and ought to be listened to,
and if Members believe that the Congress of the United States of
America and not an individual State has the authority and the sole
jurisdiction and responsibility to decide the use of Federal taxpayer
benefits, and if you do not believe it is fiscally responsible to throw
open the doors of the U.S. Treasury to be raided by the homosexual
movement, then the choice is very clear, oppose the Frank amendment.
It is a gutting amendment. It is a killing amendment. That is why
this opponent of the bill is proposing it. It is not complex. It is
crystal clear. This amendment must be defeated so that the underlying
bill can go forward, as we believe it will, through both Houses of
Congress and get to the President's desk so that he, as he has said,
will sign this important piece of legislation. Let us give him that
opportunity and not deny him that opportunity by supporting the Frank
amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Frank amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has 6
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] has
15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds
to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to my colleagues in
the House, this is a defining issue. I believe it even goes further
than what we have talked about. It is defining in terms of Republicans
and Democrats. On this side of the aisle so many people have lined up
to speak, so many people feel so passionately about this, we do not
even have enough time.
But you know, one thing I would like to talk about just to be clear
and not emotional about this, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Frank] mentions the fact that, he mentions that the Defense of Marriage
Act preempts States' rights. This is wrong. This is not correct. This
legislation provides that no State shall be required to give effect to
a same-sex marriage license if issued by another State, nor does it
prevent other States from choosing to give effect to same-sex marriage
licenses from other States.
This legislation merely provides that States who do not sanction this
distortion of marriage do not have to recognize it. Sixty-seven percent
of the people in America agree with this legislation.
I would like to respond to what I think are Mr. Frank's main
arguments against the Defense of Marriage Act.
Mr. Frank says by abandoning the true definition of marriage,
traditional marriages are not threatened. You are right Mr. Frank you
are not threatening my marriage. You do not threaten my marriage but
you do threaten the moral fiber that keeps this Nation together. You
threaten the future of families which have traditional marriage at
their very heart. If traditional marriage is thrown by the wayside,
brought down by your manipulation of the definition that has been
accepted since the beginning of civilized society, children will suffer
because family will lose its very essence. Instead of trying to ruin
families we should be preserving them for future generations.
You say if we pass the Defense of Marriage Act we are preempting
States rights. You are wrong Mr. Frank. This legislation provides that
no State shall be required to give effect to a same-sex marriage
license if issued by another State; nor does it prevent other States
from choosing to give effect to same-sex marriage licenses from other
States. This legislation merely provides States who do not sanction
this distortion of marriage do not have to recognize it. With at least
67 percent of people polled opposing the legalization of same-sex
marriages, we are doing the right thing.
Mr. Frank may not agree with this also but he is here today pushing a
definition of marriage which the majority of Americans don't agree
with. He may use debaters' techniques to divert our attention on this
matter, but the facts remain.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to point out to the Members that

[[Page H7489]]

the reason I have not asked for time during this debate is that I will
be doing an hour this afternoon following an hour by Mr. Frank, be
plenty of time for me to discuss that midafternoon, morning in Hawaii.
This is a defining issue. I did not believe when I came here 20 years
ago we would ever be discussing homosexuals have the same rights as the
sacrament of holy matrimony, and I predict, that within 3 or 4 years we
are going to be discussing pedophilia only for males and that will be
the subject of my discussion this afternoon.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds
to say first, if people on the other side are content to have the last
comment stand as representative of their viewpoint, so am I. I would
say to the gentleman from Florida, he totally misstated this amendment.
We are on an amendment that appears to have escaped him. He said I said
it preempts States' rights and then talked about the section of the
bill not relevant to the amendment. He just got it totally wrong. Yes,
there is a section that purports to give the States rights that I
believe the States already have. But there is another section which is
what this amendment was about, and this second section says that if a
State does allow such a marriage, the Federal Government would
recognize it.
So he was talking about the first section, not about the second
section. The second section is the subject of the amendment, and I did
want to point out that he was, therefore, totally inaccurate in his
representation of what I had said.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis].
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, 220 years of history in this Nation where we have not
had to define what marriage is. It has been pretty common knowledge and
it has been understood by most people. But now we have reached a period
in our history when we are going to have to define what marriage
actually is. We have to allow the States to define and Hawaii is going
to be making that decision and I think in order to allow the other
States to have that opportunity, then we must proceed with this Defense
of Marriage Act to make sure that they are not bound by the full faith
and credit clause to accept something that would not be acceptable to
the majority of the people in those particular States, or in this
Nation for that matter. But again, I think it is a sad day that we have
to stand here in the Capitol of the United States and define what
marriage actually is.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
I was looking for that long list of Republicans, which has apparently
dwindled, that the gentleman was talking about.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] is recognized
for 3 minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment because
I support the U.S. Constitution and particularly the 10th amendment to
the Constitution.
As you know, the 10th amendment was designed to prevent us from
preempting States' right. Yet for this purpose, we are willing to
federalize the one area of law that has been under State control for
the last 200 years. What is worse is that it is the Subcommittee on the
Constitution of our full Committee on the Judiciary that is willing to
limit for the first time in history the full faith and credit clause of
the Constitution. The term that the Subcommittee on the Constitution
uses is that it wants ``to free the States from a constitutional
compulsion.''
If we want ``to free the States from a constitutional compulsion,''
we ought to do it with a constitutional amendment, not through this
kind of a statute.
This bill in fact is both unnecessary and premature. The Hawaii
appeals court is not expected to reach a final decision until 1997.
There is no reason to act before that. But by rushing to judgment,
Congress is preventing the States from free and open deliberation and
failing to allow them to come to their own determinations.
States already have the power to refuse to honor same-sex marriages
conducted in other States under the public policy exemption to the full
faith and credit clause. This is the law right now. So why are we
debating an unnecessary bill? I am afraid that the real answer is that
it is political exploitation of prejudicial attitudes.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. The Chairman, I would just like to ask the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Moran], what effect on your last statement that the
States have the power to do this, what effect does the Romer versus
Evans case, decided May 20 of this year, have on that power of the
States, or are you aware of that case?
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would submit to the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] that any State can pass a law now
under the public policy exemption that makes it clear that whatever
Hawaii's decision might be, they do not have to recognize it. They have
that right.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, does
the gentleman know the Romer case? Because the Romer case directly
vitiates what the gentleman just said.
Mr. MORAN. The gentleman and I have a difference of opinion.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman familiar with the case?
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not perceive it in the same way the
gentleman does. If the gentleman would like to explain why it does,
then I would be happy to yield the time that I have. I do not interpret
it as accomplishing what the gentleman said.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I will send the gentleman a copy of the
opinion and dissent by Justice Scalia.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard quite a bit about the full faith and
credit Clause, I think it might be helpful to read it. It is contained
in article IV, section 1 of the Constitution, and I will read it in its
entirety.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the
public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other
State, and the Congress may by general laws prescribe the
manner in which such Act, Records and Proceedings shall be
approved and the effect thereof.

The full faith and credit clause, which I have just read, recognizes
a role for the Congress to play in circumstances just such as those
that are now before us arising from the situation in Hawaii.
Now, that is one element of this bill. On the other hand, there is an
element in this bill which deals with Federal law, Federal benefits,
and the interpretation of the Federal statutes and regulations that use
the terms ``marriage'' and ``spouse.''
We have a responsibility as the Congress to determine how Federal
funds will be spent, and I believe that it is certainly within our
prerogative to determine that those funds will not be used to support
an institution which is rejected by the vast majority of the American
people. We, as their representatives, can take that position. That is
not in derogation of States' rights. That is simply in fulfillment of
our responsibilities, and that is what we are doing through this bill.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CANADY of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to point out with
respect to the constant allusions to other States being forced to do
what may be decided in Hawaii that the case in Hawaii is based on the
Hawaii State Constitution, which has an expansive provision for the
right of privacy and a provision against sex discrimination, which by
definition of the attorneys in the case is stated as only being implied
at best in the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, they are
not making any such claim.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the
gentleman has made his point. With all due respect to the gentleman
from Hawaii, the gentleman has not gotten the point here.
I would point out to the gentleman that there is available for him
and all

[[Page H7490]]

the other Members a memorandum prepared by the Lambda Legal Defense
Fund which indicates the clear strategy that is being pursued here. The
idea of the gay rights legal advocacy community is that they will have
same-sex marriages recognized in the State of Hawaii, and then folks
will go there from around the country, be married under the laws of the
State of Hawaii, and then go back to where they came from and attempt
to use the full faith and credit clause to force those States to which
they have returned to recognize the legality of that same-sex union
contracted in the State of Hawaii.
That is what is at stake in that part of the bill. That is very
clear. That is why we are here. How Hawaii happens to get to the point
of deciding that is a subsidiary issue.
Now, do I think the courts around the country should be required to
recognize those same-sex marriages that may be contracted in Hawaii?
No, I do not think they should be required to. But I do believe that
there is substantial doubt about that question, and I am concerned that
there is uncertainty, and this bill is motivated by that uncertainty.
We are trying to do what we can to put that uncertainty to rest, to
bring more certainty to the issue. That is the motivation here. That is
not hard to discern.
Mr. Chairman, I understand and I respect those people who say, ``We
think same-sex marriage is a good thing and we think that they should
be able to go there and then have it recognized elsewhere.'' That is a
principle position. I disagree with the principle. I vehemently
disagree with it. We have heard that expressed. But you know, it is
clear what is going on here. There is a real issue that we are trying
to deal with.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CANADY of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, that is not the position of the State
of Hawaii, that this is a good thing. What is trying to be determined
now is what is imperative based on the Hawaii State Constitution. As
for the recitation about the Lambda Defense Fund, the Lambda Defense
Fund turned down the people in Hawaii. They did not want to participate
in this.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the
gentleman will have to continue that on his own time. I would suggest
to the gentleman that the documents provided by the Lambda Legal
Defense Fund are very clear, and I do not think there is much mistaking
what the objective is behind this whole effort.
It may not turn out that way, even in the absence of this bill, but
there is a risk that it would and we are trying to address that risk.
That is very clear. There is no reason to be confused about it. We are
trying to deal with that uncertainty.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].
(Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Frank amendment
and in opposition to this legislation.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Frank amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].
(Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill and in
support of this particular amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she
may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Frank
amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she
may consume to the gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney].
(Ms. McKINNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Frank amendment
and oppose this bill.
Mr. Chairman, once again, the Republican leadership is seeking to
divide the American people by appealing to our emotions and fears.
Rather than working to protect middle-class families in this changing
economy, the GOP prefers to divert everyone's attention from Republican
efforts to cripple Medicare and cut taxes for the rich.
Why, Mr. Chairman, are we targeting gays and lesbians, blacks, and
immigrants this year, now, today? The answer, pure and simple, is
politics--election year politics. The Republicans will stop at nothing
to win the White House and the Congress. They will fan the flames of
intolerance and bigotry right up to November. And if the result is an
election won--at the expense of national unity--their attitude is, so
be it.
By the time my Republican colleagues are done, this country will be a
boiling cauldron. This bill doesn't prevent a single divorce, a single
case of spousal abuse, or protect the institution of marriage.
Mr. Chairman, America was settled by people fleeing the intolerance
and bigotry prevalent in Europe. Our Nation has always been a haven for
those seeking peace, tolerance, and justice.
The real issues are extremist Republican values versus American
values. Health care for the elderly and needy versus tax breaks for the
wealthy. Money for children and education versus money for corporate
welfare. More police on the streets versus assault weapons in the hands
of dope dealers.
In short, the real issue is the kind of America we want--one of hope
and fairness, or one of division and hate.

{time} 1241

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair
concerning the amount of time remaining on each side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has 3\1/4\
minutes remaining and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] has 6
minutes remaining.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant].
Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time and I rise in support of this bill.
Obviously, as one of the original cosponsors of this bill, I feel
like it is a bill that we ought to pass and I would oppose, as such,
any amendment to it.
I think it is very important that we remember much of our history
lessons, that I am sure have already been discussed here before.
Without our action, this would be the first time that any religious or
civil marriage ceremony recognized this type of marriage. It would be
against the traditional marriage of husband and wife. At some point I
think this bill recognizes, the underlying bill recognizes the need to
make this distinction, to draw this line, to clarify it, for it,
unfortunately at this time, appears to be necessary in this country.
It is important we accomplish the two things that are contained in
this bill. First of all, again for the purposes of Federal law, Social
Security, tax and so forth, it clarifies what the definition of a
marriage is. A marriage is between one man and one woman. Not more, not
less, not anything else out there, but, clearly, for the first time, it
defines for the purposes of Federal law only.
Certainly we should not allow one State, whether it be Hawaii or any
other State, to, in effect, establish what the Federal law will be in
regards to what a marriage is.
Second, as we discussed already today, it gives the States the right
to recognize or not to recognize these types of marriages. it does not
prohibit marriages of same sex but it gives the States those rights to
do it. And once again it would not be appropriate and it would not be
fair and it would not be right to those other States out there to have
their laws controlled in this type of very nontraditional sense by one
small State, whichever it might be.
Again I urge my colleagues to vote against this and support the
underlying bill.

[[Page H7491]]

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my
time to my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] is
recognized for 3\1/4\ minutes.
(Mr. STUDDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, earlier this morning, I think somewhere
around a quarter of two, I observed with some sadness that there was an
imbalance between the two aisles in this debate.
Words have been thrown around. Although they have not been taken down
or requested to be taken down, today I wrote down so far promiscuity,
perversion, hedonism, narcissism, well, that may be in this House,
depravity and sin. All, I regret to say, from the same side of the
aisle.
I also thought for a moment I was in some kind of a revival meeting
and was about to be preached at from Leviticus. The particular chapter
which was implicitly cited from Leviticus is not very popular in my
district because the next verse forbids the eating of shellfish, and I
would caution people in citing that.
Let me also just ask my Republican colleagues. One of them even
boasted a moment ago and asked people to notice the partisan divisions
here. If ever there was a nonpartisan issue here, this is it. Sexual
orientation is the same in Republican families as in Democratic
families, in Republican Members as in Democratic Members, as in the
general population. It is a sad and tragic political mistake, never
mind a moral mistake, for a party to do this. I think that lesson
should have been learned 4 years ago.
I observed last night, Mr. Chairman, that it is a mistake sometimes
to say this is the way things have always been and, therefore, that is
good and they should always be that way. When this country was founded
our revered Constitution was written in part by men who owned slaves.
Women themselves were, in most of these States of ours, were virtually
chattel. They did not have the right to own property. People of color
were property for many years after this country was founded. And even
thereafter, for many years, the different races were not allowed to
marry.
I wish Members were here last night to hear our distinguished
colleague from Georgia, Mr. Lewis, because through him came the words
and the spirit of a very great American, Dr. King. And this is, whether
Members like to hear it or not, the last unfinished chapter of civil
rights in this country.
Although I have no doubt, I do not think anybody in this room has any
doubt, about the outcome of the vote today, I have equally no doubt
about the final resolution of this chapter. We are going to prevail,
Mr. Chairman. And we are going to prevail just as every other component
of the civil rights movement in this country has prevailed. In the
words of the great Dr. King, as echoed so eloquently last night by the
distinguished gentleman from Georgia, this country is going to rise up
and live out the true meaning of its creed.
There is nothing any of us can do today to stop that. We can embrace
it warmly, as some of us do; we can resist it bitterly, as some of us
do; but there is no power on earth that can stop it.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
In the course of the debate last evening and today we have heard many
things from the opponents of the Defense of Marriage Act. They have
said much about those who support this bill and those who oppose same-
sex marriage. They have described opposition to same-sex marriage and
support for this bill as laughable, prejudiced, mean spirited, cruel,
bigoted, despicable, hateful, disgusting, and ignorant.
One of the leading opponents of the bill has described opposition to
same-sex marriage as being based on the morality of the club. In the
course of this debate those making these assertions have congratulated
themselves on the quality of the debate they have engaged in.
In my view, all of this is an insult to the American people, 70
percent of whom oppose same-sex marriages. Seventy percent of the
American people are not bigots, 70 percent of the American people are
not prejudiced, 70 percent of the American people are not mean
spirited, cruel, and hateful. It is a slander against the American
people themselves to assert that opposition to same-sex marriage is
immoral.
All of this rhetoric is simply designed to divert attention from what
is really at stake here. It is designed to obscure the fundamental
question that is raised by this bill. It is calculated as a
distraction. 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 this Congress 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 this
Congress tell the children of America that we as a society believe
there is no moral difference between homosexual relationships and
heterosexual relationships? Should this Congress 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 that have always been
reserved for a man and woman united in marriage?
To all these questions the opponents of this bill say yes. They say a
resounding yes. They support homosexual marriage. They believe that it
is a good thing. They believe that opposition to same-sex marriage is
immoral. 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; that the law of this land is indifferent to
such matters.
Those of us who support this bill reject the view that such choices
are a matter of indifference. We reject the view that the law should be
indifferent on such matters, and in doing so I think it is
unquestionable that we have the overwhelming support of the American
people.
I would urge my colleagues to listen to the American people, defeat
this amendment and pass this bill.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, first, let me say that this has been one of
the toughest votes I've had to cast in Congress. I fully embrace the
idea that marriage is an institution that historically, culturally, and
morally is set aside to recognize and respect the union of a man and a
woman. If this bill were a resolution affirming that proposition, I'd
gladly have voted for it.
Unfortunately, this bill went far beyond that simple affirmation,
entering uncharted and very troubling constitutional territory, as well
as being motivated on the part of some of its advocates by a gratuitous
hostility toward gays and lesbians. At best, it is unnecessary--for
reasons I'll explain; at worst, it is dangerous--for reasons I'll
explain.
Much has been made of the argument that Hawaii is about to legalize
same-sex marriage. The truth is, nobody knows what decision the courts
in Hawaii may make or when they will make it. The Hawaii Supreme Court
has remanded to a trial court, for a trial on the merits, a case
brought asserting the claim that the Hawaii State Constitution requires
recognition of same-sex marriage because that Constitution prohibits
gender discrimination. That trial is scheduled for later this year;
with inevitable appeals, no final, appellate decision is likely before
late 1997 or early 1998. In other words, there's no crisis; no imminent
threat of same-sex couples from Hawaii presenting themselves as married
in other States. And so, there's nothing that demands precipitous
action by Congress on this question.
In addition to borrowing trouble in assuming the Hawaii case may turn
out adversely with respect to the traditional view of marriage--a view
I share--this legislation is most likely completely unnecessary insofar
as it purports to grant States powers the States already possess to
reject recognition of same-sex marriages. This point involves an
examination of an obscure provision of the U.S. Constitution, article
IV, section 1, known as the full faith and credit clause. That
provision reads as follows:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the
public Acts, Records, and

[[Page H7492]]

judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress
may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,
Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effects
thereof.

The Framers included this clause, borrowed from the Articles of
Confederation and then expanded significantly, to make sure these
States were truly united, and not a mere legal patchwork. The gist of
the clause is that each State must honor the official acts and judicial
proceedings of the others.
However, there soon grew up, in judicial interpretation of this
clause, what's known as the public policy exception. Related primarily
to the very question of the circumstances under which one State must
recognize a marriage performed in another State, the courts have held
that a State can assert its own overriding public policy in refusing to
recognize an out-of-State marriage that runs counter to its public
policy. The cases here have dealt with such factors as under-age
marriages, incestuous marriages, and polygamous marriages. But the
principle is well established and can certainly be extended by any
State to the matter of same-sex marriages. In fact, some 14 States have
already acted to assert such a public-policy position, in anticipation
of the possibility that they'll face the question.
There is broad consensus among constitutional scholars that the full
faith and credit clause already permits such State initiative in behalf
of protecting the supremacy of one State's public policy as against
another's attempt to legalize same-sex marriage. Therefore, no need
exists for Congress to enact a law granting States the power or
discretion they already enjoy under the public-policy exception to the
full faith and credit clause. Or, put differently, this legislation is
unnecessary. Certainly, we've got enough legitimate work to do around
here without passing laws telling the States they have powers that they
are already known to have.
But wait a minute. Perhaps, the States don't have quite all the
powers this bill would give them, because it also apparently would
grant States the power to ignore certain final judicial proceedings
concluded in another State. The public-policy exception has not
previously been construed to go that far.
What does that really mean? Where does it come from? I believe that
dimension of this legislation can only be rationalized constitutionally
as falling under the scope of the last three words of the full faith
and credit clause, which provide that ``Congress may by general Laws
prescribe * * * the Effect thereof.'' (Emphasis added.)
We have no explicit Supreme Court interpretation of these words to
rely on. One possibility is a fairly limited meaning, consistent with
the notion that Congress can figure out how best to implement and give
effect to the interstate rights and responsibilities already prescribed
by the earlier words in the clause. If this is correct, ``the effect
thereof'' can't be the basis for expanding the public-policy exception
beyond the bounds that already exist. And, if that's the case, then
again, this legislation is merely redundant and unnecessary.

The other possible reading of these words, and the one evidently
asserted by the proponents of this legislation, is that they provide
back-door authority for Congress by law to greatly expand the now very-
limited public-policy exception to full faith and credit. But think
about that.
If you can believe it, we have here an allegedly State's-rights-
minded Congress offering up new constitutional theory to justify a
whole new basis on which to nationalize and centralize vast areas of
law heretofore left to the States. If this rational is sound in this
instance as to same-sex marriages--and I don't believe it is--then what
are the bounds of this new Congressional power to preempt State law
under the guise of ``by general Laws prescrib[ing] * * * the Effect
thereof''? I this legislation permits State A to ignore the final
judgment of the courts of State B as to any claim derived from a same-
sex marriage, then there is no constitutional bar to our passing a law
authorizing State A to ignore State B's no-fault divorce decrees, or
anything else.
It should be self-evident that this is an extraordinarily dangerous
constitutional precedent. It takes the objective of the full faith and
credit clause in unifying the States and assuring interstate comity,
and turns it on its head. The potential for mischief and invidious
intrusion of the Federal Government into State affairs boggles the
mind.
I wish to preserve the institution of marriage for the honorable and
traditional relationship between a man and women. But reserving that
word for that institution means just that.
I also recognize that gay and lesbian couples seek legal recognition
and permanence for their relationships and the rights and
responsibilities that flow from those relationships. I hope this
society, and its political and legal institutions, can move to
accommodate the legitimate needs of gay and lesbian citizens in this
respect. No one, I believe, would want, for example, to deny a claim of
inheritance, or of participation in terminal health care decisions, for
the life-long partner of a gay man or lesbian woman. Yet, by refusing
as part of this legislation even to permit a formal study of disparate
treatment of domestic partnerships in these areas, the proponents of
this legislation may reveal their real motivation.
Because there is no imminent problem of same-sex marriage-being
legalized, because, even if there were, the full faith and credit
clause's public-policy exception already gives States the power not to
recognize such a marriage, because this legislation is therefore
unnecessary, because in its insinuation of new and constitutionally
suspect congressional power under ``the Effects thereof'' phrase this
legislation is unwise, and because so many advocates of the
legislation, by their approach, seem primarily moved to demonstrate a
gratuitous disrespect for some citizens based on their sexual
orientation, I cannot support it and will vote against it.
My faith in the fair-mindedness of the American people is unshakable.
This legislation is not true to that wonderful American virtue.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I am a traditionalist. My entire life's
environment and upbringing have created within me a respect for
traditional values. Theology interprets marriage as a union between one
man and one woman. Random House Dictionary defines marriage as a union
between man and woman.
Accordingly, tho I am a gay man in a 13-year relationship, I was
fully prepared to reach out to my colleagues in reaffirming the
institution of marriage as we know and understand it. Throughout these
discussions, I have suggested to my gay and lesbian friends that we
should not resort to some semantic debate about the word ``marriage.''
As this issue evolved, I went to Chairman Hyde and to Speaker
Gingrich. I said to them, ``I am willing to join with you in
reaffirming the definition of marriage, tho I am a gay man. All I ask
in return is that you remove the `meanness, prejudice, and hatred'
surrounding this issue.''
I went further.
The debate fails to recognize the painful reality thrown on many
innocent people who happen to be in long-term relationships outside of
marriage. For example, if I should get sick, should not my partner have
automatic visitation rights? Should he not have automatic consultation
rights with the attending physician? I think most would say ``yes.''
But I have letters from many people in my office indicating that from
cancer to AIDS, they have been denied this basic right.
Second, a close friend of ours recently lost his partner of 16 years
to AIDS. While the hospital in Washington respected the relationship
and gave him visitation--something worse happened after his partner's
death. The funeral home would not allow him to sign any of the
documents or arrangement forms.
Third, I have a 13-year relationship with my partner. Yet, while some
of my congressional colleagues are in their second or third marriage--
their spouse receives the benefits of their health insurance, and
automatically receives their survivor benefits should that occur. Why
should they be given these benefits, when my partner--in a relationship
much longer than theirs--is denied the same?
Many corporations would like to extend such benefits to the domestic
partners of their employees. The problem is that there is no agreement
on a civil process to recognize legitimate long-term relationships from
those who would simple seek to fraud the system.
These are just some of the basic questions that our society must and
should ask. If we seek civility, mutual respect, and the promotion of
long-term relationships--in marriage or otherwise--then we have no
choice. Accordingly, I asked my leadership to accept an amendment I or
others would offer creating a commission to look at such questions.
Chairman Hyde responded that while he could not support a commission,
he would support a GAO study of such questions. Based upon this act of
goodwill, I developed an amendment to accomplish this goal. We created
an amendment which would call upon GAO to look at the question of the
differences in benefits, rights, and privileges available to persons in
marriage versus those in a domestic partnership. The study would look
at State laws on these questions, Federal differences in benefits, and
even how other nations responded to such relationships. The study would
be complete by October 1997. It would not change any policy. Rather, it
would simply provide the basis of information necessary for rational
discussions in the future.

[[Page H7493]]

To their credit, both Mr. Hyde and Speaker Gingrich told me
personally they believed there was merit in my proposal. However, when
this amendment was offered to the Rules Committee for consideration--it
was denied recognition before the full House.
Unfortunately, this action exposes those who advance this legislation
for their real goals. There is no sincere attempt to simply reaffirm
marriage. There is certainly no attempt to respond to legitimate and
real issues facing many Americans in 1996. There is, unfortunately,
every attempt to pursue a mean, political-wedge issue at the expense of
the gay and lesbian community in this country. And it hurts me deeply
to say that about my own party.
This legislation will do nothing to defend marriage. May I suggest
that no gay man is after your wives, and no lesbian is after your
husbands. If marriage is at risk in this country, and it may be--there
are other more real factors at the heart of this problem. May I suggest
that alcohol abuse, spousal abuse, and even Sunday football are far
more likely to destroy marriage. Perhaps if people really meant it when
they said their marital vows, marriage would be more stable. Perhaps if
people were more willing to pursue marriage counseling, when necessary,
the institution of marriage would be better off. There may be a
problem, but we ought to go after the legitimate cause of that problem,
not some scapegoat for political gain.

Is this legislation necessary? No. There is not a single State in the
Union today where gay and lesbian marriages are legal. There exists
only one State in the Nation that even is debating such an issue in the
courts--and that State's court will not decide the issue for at least 2
years.
Is this legislation constitutional? I am not a lawyer, but the
constitutional scholars I have spoken with and whose opinions I have
read say that, ultimately, it will be declared unconstitutional. Simply
stated, the second sentence of the full faith and credit clause of the
Constitution permits Congress only to specify the conditions under
which one State must recognize the public acts and records of another
State. Congress is not given the authority to override the mandate of
the first sentence which requires one State to give full faith and
credit to the laws of another State. Similarly, to the extent that the
legislation creates a status-based classification of persons for its
own sake, it violates the recently articulated principle in the
landmark case of Romer versus Evans which was decided on May 20 of this
year.
Is this legislation morally principled? Perhaps, more than anything
else, my colleagues advancing this legislation believe they are
advancing the basic Judeo-Christian ethics of our Nation. I would
encourage them to pursue a closer analysis of the Bible. No where in
the Bible does Jesus condemn homosexuality. There are many places where
Jesus condemns divorce. How can people, who have been divorced, suggest
that they can defend marriage by condemning hoe involved in single-sex
relationships?
Mr. Chairman, this legislation before us it not a priority in the
eyes of the American people. We are not responding to some public
demand or crisis. Rather, this legislation was designed, pure and
simple, to drive some political wedge for political gain. The first
hope, was that the President would veto this legislation--and it would
be used against him. When the President announced that he would sign
the bill, the focus then was directed on finding some Democrat in a
marginal district that would vote against the bill on principle, only
to then lose the political debate back home.
If there was a legitimate desire to reaffirm marriage in a civil,
respectful, and realistic way that recognized the reality of long-term
relationships in America today. I reached out to my leadership to find
a common middle ground--achieving their goals, without the hatred,
prejudice, meanness, and insensitivity directed to those who happen to
be gay or lesbian. That good faith effort was intentionally rejected.
I am willing to reach out, listen to, and work with all elements of
society to find common ground upon which we as a diverse nation might
go forward. I am not willing, however, to participate in a blatant
attempt to score political points at the expense of those in our
society who might be gay or lesbian. Therefore, I must oppose this
bill.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of H.R. 3396, the
Defense of Marriage Act, I rise in strong support of the bill. We must
work to strengthen the American family, which is the bedrock of our
society. And, marriage of a man and woman is the foundation of the
family. The marriage relationship provides children with the best
environment in which to grow and learn. We need to work to restore
marriage, and it is vital that we protect marriage against attempts to
redefine it in a way that causes the family to lose its special
meaning. In the 1885 case of Murphy v. Ramsey, the U.S. Supreme Court
defined marriage as the ``union for life of one man and one woman in
the holy estate of matrimony.''
Unfortunately, the courts of Hawaii are in the process of deciding if
the State is going to sanction marriages between people of the same sex
despite the Hawaiian people's clear rejection of such a policy change.
The repercussions could be felt by the Federal Government and the other
49 States almost immediately. The full faith and credit provisions of
the Constitution, article IV, require recognition of the ``public Acts,
Records, and judicial Proceedings'' of each State. However, Congress
has the authority to prescribe the manner in which such acts, records,
and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Federal policies could be dramatically affected by the Hawaii
decision since the Federal Government generally recognizes State
documents in granting benefits and privileges to married individuals.
Veterans' benefits, labor policies, Federal health and pension
benefits, and Social Security benefits are just a few of the areas that
would be subjected to substantive revision if Congress does not act
soon. I think it would be wrong to take money out of the pockets of
working families across America and use those tax dollars to give
Federal acceptance and financial support to same sex-marriages. Without
the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act, this would be the case.
The American people clearly recognize the importance of protecting
the sanctity of marriage. We should not be forced to give public
sanction to relationships that clearly fall outside the scope of our
Nation's traditional understanding of marriage as the legal union
between one man and one woman as husband and wife. This act will
protect the institution of marriage which has been and will remain the
foundation of Western civilization.
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3396, the Defense of Marriage Act,
presently before the House is unnecessary, untimely, purports to solve
a problem that does not exist, professes to defend an institution--
marriage--that is not under attack in the manner suggested by the
legislation, and violates the full faith and credit clause of the
Constitution. This legislation is before us as part of a political
agenda and for no other reason. It is a proposed solution looking for a
problem.
This legislation is simply yet another attempt by the Republican
majority to shift the Nation's attention away from their extreme agenda
that hurts children, the elderly, and the poor. Under current law,
States will continue to be free to decline to recognize same-sex
marriages if they choose. To date, nearly 80 percent of the States--
37--have already addressed the issue of same-sex marriages in their
legislatures. Eighteen States thus far have had legislation banning
same-sex marriages either fail or die in the legislative process and 13
States have passed legislation that would deny recognition to same-sex
marriages. In fact, the House of Representatives in my State of
Pennsylvania voted on June 28th of this year to prohibit same-sex
marriages. These statistics hardly present a compelling mandate for the
Federal Government to step in and rescue the States.
Unlike the future solvency of the Medicare Program or the problems
associated with ensuring that all Americans have the opportunity to
earn a living wage and enjoy a decent retirement, establishing a
Federal definition of marriage, when every State has already addressed
this issue, is not the most pressing item of business before Congress.
There is no clear and compelling reason to address this issue at this
time.
I oppose this legislation because I believe that States should
continue to have the freedom to define their own policies toward
marriage as they have had for the past 220 years.
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

[[Page H7494]]

own policy and that the Federal Government has a right to define who is
entitled to benefits as a spouse. This legislation is consistent with
the need to return power and decisionmaking 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
of raising their children.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R.
3396, the ``Defense of Marriage Act.''
Many of my colleagues today will give eloquent legal arguments in
favor of this legislation. Rather than focus on the legal need for this
legislation, I would like to discuss some of the reasons why I feel it
is morally necessary.
Same-sex ``marriages'' demean the fundamental institution of
marriage. They legitimize unnatural and immoral behavior. And they
trivialize marriage as a mere ``lifestyle choice.''
The institution of marriage sets a necessary and high standard.
Anything that lowers this standard, as same-sex ``marriages'' do,
inevitably belittles marriage.
Traditional marriage has served across the majority of cultures as a
foundation for a stable society. Undermining traditional marriage by
forcing States to legalize same-sex ``marriages'' will have far-
reaching social consequences. The attempt to legitimize same-sex
``marriages'' threatens our cultural values that have proved their
worth down the centuries.
Those who seek to overturn our system of values are attempting to
achieve not just toleration of their behavior, but full social
acceptance as well. We should not undermine the standards that elevate
civilization.
We must act now to preserve traditional marriage as the foundation of
American society. I urge my colleagues to defend the institution of
marriage by voting ``yes'' on H.R. 3396.

[From the National Review, June 3, 1996]

The Misanthrope's Corner

(By Florence King)

Gay marriage is a consummation devoutly to be missed, but
it's a dead cert. If you doubt it, try to remember the last
time America turned down a vocal minority. In the Sixties we
were the Girl Who Can't Say No, but she was a font of virtue
compared to what we are now. Overcome by miasmic gases of
diversity and inclusion wafting from the Nineties swamp, we
have turned into the Punchdrunk Kid, a twitching lummox with
cauliflower ears who mumbles ``Sure, Jake, sure'' to
everybody.
The preliminary stage of brainwashing is already underway.
``Husband'' and ``wife'' are yielding to ``spouse,'' a vague
usage that benefits no one but gays. Gov. Roy Romer recently
vetoed Colorado's proposed anti-gay marriage law, calling it
``mean-spirited,'' a word that functions in America like the
bell in Pavlov's laboratory. And now Bill Clinton has
announced, through his gay-liaison office, that he is
``personally opposed'' to homosexual marriage. This
phraseology, a staple of the abortion debate, is a reminder
not to let our premises stand in the way of our conclusions.
The major brainwashing, soon to begin, will proceed as
follows.
Magazines will run cover stories that thinking Americans--
all 17 of us--recognize as that brand of persuasion called
``nibbled to death by a duck.'' Time does ``Debating Same-Sex
Marriage'' and Newsweek does ``Rethinking Gay Marriage.''
Lofty opinion journals weight in with ``A Symposium on,''
``In Defense of,'' and ``Voices from,'' while Parade does
``If They Say I do' . . . Will We Say `You Can't' '' Cover
art consists of a pair of wedding rings sporting identical
biological signs: two arrow-shooting circles for men, two
mirror-handle circles for women. We will start seeing these
logos in our sleep.
Next, the pundits. Molly Ivins writes ``Bubba, Hold Yore
Peace.'' Ellen Goodman waxes earnest about tradition
versus change in ``Something Old, Something New,'' Ruth
Shalit writes something borrowed, and Richard Cohen,
Victim America's identifier-in-chief, does a column called
``We're All Single.''
Arianna Huffington will figure out a compassionate way to
be against gay marriage, but most conservatives stand to fare
badly in this debate. Will Durant wrote, ``When religion
submits to reason it begins to die.'' In a media-saturated
society teeming with talk-show producers casting dragnets
over think tanks, proponents of gay marriage, win merely by
being scheduled. By contrast, the conservative instinctively
recoils from analyzing eternal verities. He may know the
words to legal arguments such as ``the need to show a
compelling state interest, etc,'' but he doesn't know the
tune. In the final analysis he believes in the sanctity of
marriage ``just because.''
To liberals, the just-because mindset betokens racism.
Therefore, anyone who opposes gay marriage must hate blacks.
Anti-gay marriage laws will be equated with the old anti-
miscegenation laws, producing tortured sophistry about ``the
difference between race and sex.'' The liberal will claim
that all differences are the same, forcing the conservative
to claim that some differences are more different than
others. Caught in an Orwellian trap, terrified of being
called a racist, he will seek safety in a soundbite of
chortling folksiness.
``When a baby is born, people don't say `it's white' or
`it's black,' they say `it's boy' or `it's girl.' ''
Because this makes no sense, it becomes instantly popular.
Repeated incessantly on talk shows, it starts running through
our heads like the beat-beat-beat of the tom-toms in ``Begin
the Beguine,'' intensifying when Bob Dole soundbites it into
a back-to-basics vision of blood and sex and whatever in a
prime-time press conference.
Then Jesse Jackson and the feminists change the word order,
ostentatiously placing ``black'' before ``white'' and
``girl'' before ``boy''. Remembering to say it the PC way
becomes such an overriding obsession that we forget what it
has to do with gay marriage, especially after Clarence Page
points out that in slave days the color of a baby was indeed
the first thing people noticed.
Soon, Republicans panicked by mounting accusations of
racism suggest that gay couples be allowed to register their
unions and establish common-law marriages based on seven
years of cohabitation. But gays reject these half measures,
comparing them to the irregular marriages of slavery, when
couples ``jumped over the broom.''
All attempts at compromise elicit cries of ``Second-class
marriage!'' and lead to lawsuits under the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Calling themselves ``connubially
challenged,'' gays will sue the Christian Coalition for
forcing them to lead immoral lives. Arguing that marriage
will keep them from promiscuity, which will keep them from
getting AIDS, they will equate prohibition of same-sex
marriage with capital punishment. A Clinton judicial
appointee will find the ``right'' to gay marriage lurking
under a constitutional penumbra, and CNN will give a 900
number so viewers can vote yes to prove they aren't racists.
I find it ironic that gays are now singing the praises of
wedded bliss in terms that were the bane of my existence
forty years ago, when ``settling down'' proved you were
``mature and responsible.'' If they keep it up, they will
corroborate the English prostitute who plied her trade in the
States and wound up in a book about American sexual
attitudes. A great many of her clients, she said, showed her
photos of their wives and children. Clearly bemused, her sign
almost audible on the page, she added: ``Yanks are born
married.''
My personal opinion of marriage reflects my status as a
pariah in the Fifties snuggery of joined-at-the-hip
Togetherness. ``Rather a beggar woman and single be, than
Queen and married,'' said Elizabeth I, and so say I. My
objective opinion, however, conforms with Timothy Dwight:
``It is incomparably better that individuals should suffer
than that an institution, which is the basis of all human
good, should be shaken or endangered.

[From the Washington Post, May 21, 1996]

Not a Very Good Idea

(By William J. Bennett)

We are engaged in a debate which, in a less confused time,
would be considered pointless and even oxymoronic: the
question of same-sex marriage.
But we are where we are. The Hawaii Supreme Court has
discovered a new state constitutional ``right''--the legal
union of same-sex couples. Unless a ``compelling state
interest'' can be shown against them, Hawaii will become the
first state to sanction such unions. And if Hawaii legalizes
same-sex marriages, other states might well have to recognize
them because of the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit
Clause. Some in Congress recently introduced legislation to
prevent this from happening.
Now, anyone who has known someone who has struggled with
his homosexuality can appreciate the poignancy, human pain
and sense of exclusion that are often involved. One can
therefore understand the effort to achieve for homosexual
unions both legal recognition and social acceptance.
Advocates of homosexual marriages even make what appears to
be a sound conservative argument: Allow marriage in order to
promote faithfulness and monogamy. This is an intelligent and
politically shrewd argument. One can even concede that it
might benefit some people. But I believe that overall,
allowing same-sex marriages would do significant, long-term
social damage.
Recognizing the legal union of gay and lesbian couples
would represent a profound change in the meaning and
definition of marriage. Indeed, it would be the most radical
step ever taken in the deconstruction of society's most
important institution. It is not a step we ought to take.

[[Page H7495]]

The function of marriage is not elastic; the institution is
already fragile enough. Broadening its definition to include
same-sex marriages would stretch it almost beyond
recognition--and new attempts to broaden the definition still
further would surely follow. On what principled grounds could
the advocates of same-sex marriage oppose the marriage of two
consenting brothers? How could they explain why we ought to
deny a marriage license to a bisexual who wants to marry two
people? After all, doing so would be a denial of that
person's sexuality. In our time, there are more (not fewer)
reasons than ever to preserve the essence of marriage.
Marriage is not an arbitrary constrict; it is an
``honorable estate'' based on the different, complementary
nature of men and women--and how they refine, support,
encourage and complete one another. To insist that we
maintain this traditional understanding of marriage is not an
attempt to put others down. It is simply an acknowledgment
and celebration of our most precious and important social
act.
Nor is this view arbitrary or idiosyncratic. It mirrors the
accumulated wisdom of millennia and the teaching of every
major religion. Among worldwide cultures, where there are so
few common threads, it is not a coincidence that marriage is
almost universally recognized as an act meant to unite a man
and a woman.
To say that same-sex unions are not comparable to
heterosexual marriages is not an argument for intolerance,
bigotry or lack of compassion (although I am fully aware that
it will be considered so by some). But it is an argument for
making distinctions in law about relationships that are
themselves distinct. Even Andrew Sullivan, among the most
intelligent advocates of same-sex marriage, has admitted that
a homosexual marriage contract will entail a greater
understanding of the need for ``extramarital outlets.'' He
argues that gay male relationships are served by the
``openness of the contract,'' and he has written that
homosexuals should resist allowing their ``varied and
complicated lives'' to be flattened into a ``single,
moralistic model.''
But this ``single, moralistic model'' is precisely the
point. The marriage commitment between a man and a woman does
not--it cannot--countenance extramarital outlets. By
definition it is not an open contract; its essential idea is
fidelity. Obviously that is not always honored in practice.
But it is normative, the ideal to which we aspire precisely
because we believe some things are right (faithfulness in
marriage) and others are wrong (adultery). In insisting that
marriage accommodate the less restrained sexual practices of
homosexuals, Sullivan and his allies destroy the very thing
that supposedly has drawn them to marriage in the first
place.
There are other arguments to consider against same-sex
marriage--for example, the signals it would send, and the
impact of such signals on the shaping of human sexuality,
particularly among the young. Former Harvard professor E.L.
Pattullo has written that ``a very substantial number of
people are born with the potential to live either straight or
gay lives.'' Societal indifference about heterosexuality and
homosexuality would cause a lot of confusion. A remarkable
1993 article in The Post supports this point. Fifty teenagers
and dozens of school counselors and parents from the local
area were interviewed. According to the article, teenagers
said it has become ``cool'' for students to proclaim they are
gay or bisexual--even for some who are not. Not surprisingly,
the caseload of teenagers in ``sexual identity crisis''
doubled in one year. ``Everything is front page, gay and
homosexual,'' according to one psychologist who works with
the schools. ``Kids are jumping on it . . . [counselors] are
saying, `What are we going to do with all these kids
proclaiming they are bisexual or homosexual when we know they
are not?' ''
If the law recognizes homosexual marriages as the legal
equivalent of heterosexual marriages, it will have enormous
repercussions in many areas. Consider just two: sex education
in the school and adoption. The sex education curriculum of
public schools would have to teach that heterosexual and
homosexual marriage are equivalent. ``Heather Has Two
Mommies'' would no longer be regarded as an anomaly; it would
more likely become a staple of sex education curriculum.
Parents who want their children to be taught (for both moral
and utilitarian reasons) the privileged status of
heterosexual marriage will be portrayed as intolerant bigots;
they will necessarily be at odds with the new law of
matrimony and its derivative curriculum.
Homosexual couples will also have equal claim with
heterosexual couples in adopting children, forcing us (in law
at least) to deny what we know to be true: that it is far
better for a child to be raised by a mother and a father than
by, say, two male homosexuals.
The institution of marriage is already reeling because of
the effects of the sexual revolution, no-fault divorce and
out-of-wedlock births. We have reaped the consequences of its
devaluation. It is exceedingly imprudent to conduct a
radical, untested and inherently flawed social experiment on
an institution that is the keystone in the arch of
civilization. That we have to debate this issue at all tells
us that the arch has slipped. Getting it firmly back in place
is, as the lawyers say, a ``compelling state interest.''

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my full support
of the Defense of Marriage Act. The issue of homosexual marriage is a
major concern to many Americans, and I feel that the time has come for
Congress to take a stand. What we say today and how we vote on this
bill have both legal and moral ramifications for years to come. We
cannot sit by and do nothing.
Legally, the Defense of Marriage Act is what its title states. It
will define the act of marriage for Federal purposes and preserve its
sanctity. Currently, Federal law has no definition of the words
``marriage'' or ``spouse,'' even though the Federal Government uses
those terms frequently. Traditionally, it has relied upon the relevant
State's law when applying those terms. However, today we are at a
crossroads with this practice, and it is time to make a choice. Right
now a lawsuit in Hawaii may lead to the legalization of homosexual
marriages in that State. The repercussions of such a decision would
legally affect us all. The full faith and credit clause of the
Constitution requires that every State honor the ``Public Acts, Records
and Judicial Proceedings of [every other] State unless specified by
Congress.'' By this clause, all 49 other States would then be required
by law to recognize a marriage between members of the same sex as legal
for all State purposes. Further, because we currently have no
definition of marriage on the rule books, the Federal Government would
be forced to recognize such homosexual marriages for Federal benefit
purposes.
The Defense of Marriage Act would safeguard the rest of the country
from the decision made by one State. The American people might be
surprised to learn that this bill would not outlaw homosexual
marriages; although I believe it should--it would simply exempt a State
from legally recognizing a marriage that did not fit it's own
definition of marriage. States would still be free to recognize gay
marriages if they so choose. However, and most importantly, this act
would define ``marriage'' as ``only a legal union between one man and
one woman as husband and wife'' at the Federal level. This Federal
definition would ensure that a State could not define a ``marriage''
that the Federal Government would have to recognize. If the Federal
Government does not act now, and Hawaii legalizes homosexual marriage,
the Federal Government would then be obliged to provide the same
benefits that heterosexual marriages currently receive. Unless this
bill is passed establishing a Federal definition of marriage, all
Americans will then be paying for benefits for homosexual marriages.
Yes, we must put our foot down. Unless we pass the Defense of
Marriage Act, we will putting our stamp of approval on gay marriages,
forcing the rest of the Nation to follow the whim of one State. This
bill simply preserves the sanctity of the act of marriage between a man
and a woman. It is a bill which will ensure that each State will not
have to follow the lead of another on this issue. This bill will give
each State the leverage it deserves to decide for itself whether or not
to legalize gay marriages.
However, as we all know, this is more than just a legal discussion.
We are here because the issue of gay marriages is a moral one.
Marriage, no matter what your religious belief, is a sacred act. It is
the joining of a man and a woman in a unity that is officially
recognized by the State. Marriage is the foundation of our society;
families are built on it and values are passed on through it. In our
current age, where the sanctity of marriage is constantly being
compromised, I feel that we must seize this rare opportunity to
strengthen it. Homosexual marriages are not necessary; gays can legally
achieve the same legal ends as marriage through draft wills, medical
powers of attorney, and contractual agreements in the event that the
relationship should end. Therefore, asking the rest of the country to
recognize such marriages does nothing that the law cannot currently do,
it is simply asking for special privileges.
I feel that marriage is not an area where the law should bend. Our
Nation's moral fabric is based on this sacred institution. Homosexual
marriages would destroy thousands of years of tradition which has
upheld our society. Marriage has already been undermined by no-fault
divorce, pregnancies out of wedlock, and sexual promiscuity. Allowing
for gay marriages would be the final straw, it would devalue the love
between a man and a woman and weaken us as a Nation. I have received
numerous letters and calls from constituents asking me to vote for this
legislation. Literally thousands of churches across the country have
asked us for our support. The American people have spoken, and now we
have the responsibility to answer them. My fellow Congressmen and
Congresswomen, I hope that you have the moral strength to vote with me
for this bill so that it may be passed. Our country's moral future
depends on it.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
to address what I fear to be the serious constitutional implications
implicit in H.R. 3396, ``Defense of Marriage Act.'' Specifically, I am
concerned that

[[Page H7496]]

this bill poses serious constitutional questions on two grounds: First,
the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, and second,
the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Upon hearing proponents of this bill argue that this bill does not
violate the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, and
after studying the analysis of constitutional experts, and in
particular, Prof. Chai Feldblum of the Georgetown University Law
Center, I feel compelled to express my serious concerns on this point.

implications for the full faith and credit clause

While the Supreme Court has not specifically applied the full faith
and credit clause to the status of marriage, we do know that there is
absolutely no legal precedent for Congress to invite some States to
ignore the official acts of others. Mr. Chairman, section 2 of this
bill adds a section to the Federal full faith and credit statute, which
is no doubt an unconstitutional attempt to do just this.
The full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, article
IV, clause 1, provides, and I quote:
Sentence One:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the
public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other
State.

Sentence Two:

And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the manner
in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved,
and the Effect thereof.

In other words, each State must give ``full faith and credit'' to
other State laws, and must fully recognize the acts and proceedings of
other States. For example, in the case of Williams v. North Carolina,
317 U.S. 287, 295 (1942), the Supreme Court interpreted the clause as
serving the purpose of ``alter[ing] the status of the several states as
independent foreign sovereignties, each free to ignore the obligations
created under the laws or by the judicial proceedings of the others,
and to make them integral parts of a single nation.''
Never once has Congress implemented laws allowing States not to
recognize certain ``Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings'' of
another State. In fact, Congress has heightened each State's
recognition responsibilities under the clause by enacting the following
pieces of legislation:
First, the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1990 requires States
to enforce, not ignore, other States' child custody determinations;
Second, the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders of 1994
requires that other States enforce, not ignore, child support
determinations of other States; and
Third, the Safe Homes of Women Act of 1994 requires that States
recognize, not ignore, the protective orders of other States to protect
victims of domestic violence.
Thus, Congress has only passed legislation strengthening, not
weakening, requirements on States to recognize the ``Acts, Records and
judicial Proceedings'' of another. Therefore, it is undoubtedly clear
why many constitutional scholars have concluded that Congress would go
beyond the scope of its legislative powers under the Constitution in
passing H.R. 3396.
It is noteworthy that during the subcommittee consideration of this
bill, Representative Sensenbrenner stated that Utah's admission to the
Union was delayed for several years because of ``the fear of the
Congress over a hundred years ago was that polygamous marriages that
were polemized in Utah would have to be recognized in the other
States.'' This statement suggests that Congress contemplated over one
hundred years ago that the drafters of the Constitution intended that
all States, not only those which choose to, must give ``full faith and
credit'' to the ``Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings'' of all other
States, including the recognition of out-of-State marriage, and
interpreted that requirement to its most literal meaning.
Proponents of this bill argue that allowing States to not recognize
the public acts of another is a constitutional exercise of Congress'
power under sentence two of the clause. Mr. Chairman, How can this be
if this bill directly contravenes sentence one's mandate that every
State is required to recognize the official public acts and judicial
proceedings of other States?
If we are to follow the flawed logic of this argument, it would
follow that sentence two of the clause must be read to say that States
must recognize the official acts of other States except when Congress
passes a law that says they don't have to. Mr. Chairman, this not only
flies in the face of every States rights argument I have heard from the
majority since I began serving in this body, but it also has the
unconstitutional effect of amending the full faith and credit clause of
the Constitution without actually going through the very cumbersome and
challenging process of amending the Constitution through a two-thirds
majority vote in both houses of Congress and ratification by the
States.

implications for the equal protection clause

Additionally, H.R. 3396 could engender equal protection challenges
because the law may not survive the rational basis test adopted by the
Supreme Court with respect to legislation establishing certain types of
classifications. H.R. 3396 would allow a State not to recognize same-
sex marriages legalized in other States if it so chooses. Therefore, it
is necessary to determine whether there is rational connection between
this law and the intended governmental purpose it seeks to further.
In the case of Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P. 2d 44 (Haw. 1993) the Hawaii
State Supreme Court rejected the arguments made to deny the right of
two individuals of the same sex to marry on the basis that Hawaii's
State Constitution considers classifications on the basis of sex to be
suspect in nature and subject to strict scrutiny analysis. However, for
purposes of Federal constitutional challenge, legal experts have come
to the conclusion that the rational basis test would probably be used
to consider the constitutionality of the H.R. 3396.
The authors content that H.R. 3396 is necessary for the preservation
of the institution of marriage, hence the title of the bill. However,
would H.R. 3396 in fact allow the United States to further its interest
in the preservation of the institution of marriage? Or put differently,
I have not yet heard of any empirical data which may even mildly
suggest the rational and logical connection between H.R. 3396 and its
intended governmental purpose.
Considering that one in two marriages result in divorce in the U.S.,
and that many children of heterosexual marriages are suffering from
family-unit-debacle, it is safe to conclude that H.R. 3396 is by far
not the most appropriate form of legislation with respect to achieving
the perceived governmental purpose of ``protect[ing] the institution of
marriage'' by defining a marriage only as ``a legal union between one
man and one woman as husband and wife.'' It thus follows that there
does not seem to be a rational basis between H.R. 3396 and the intended
governmental purpose.
Moreover, the Supreme Court this term in the case of Romer v. Evans
64 U.S.L.W. 4353 (1996) rejected amendment No. 2 of the Colorado State
Constitution on the grounds that there was no rational basis between
amendment No. 2's repudiation of special protection for homosexuals and
the State's articulated governmental purpose.
Approximately 17 areas of federally enacted legislation and programs
would be affected if this bill were to become law, specifically
banking; bankruptcy; civil service; consumer credit; copyright;
education' Federal lands and resources; housing; immigration;
judiciary; labor; military; social security; taxation; veterans; the
Soldiers' and Civil Relief Act; and, welfare.
In effect, this bill would deny gay men and women hospital visitation
rights, health coverage, and other forms of insurance, inheritance and
taxation rights, government benefits for spouses, immigration rights
for spouses, and other rights. Just as the States should not interfere
in any way with religious ceremonies, religious groups may not govern
who receives a civil marriage license. This would in fact pose serious
problems for the fundamental principle of the separation of church and
state implicitly established in the first amendment of the U.S.
Constitution.
Mr. Chairman, when I came to Congress, I placed my hand on the Bible
and swore to uphold the Constitution; now, I am being asked to place my
hand on the Constitution and uphold the Bible, the Koran, the Torah,
and other religious doctrine. The U.S. Constitution must remain the
supreme law of the land. This document protects the rights of all to
believe and worship as they choose.
I swore to uphold the Constitution against enemies foreign and
domestic, to protect minorities and minority viewpoints from the
tyranny of the majority, to protect African-Americans from racism, Jews
from anti-Semitism, Arabs from anti-Arabism, women from sexism, and
gays and lesbians from homophobia and discrimination.
With this vote, I am sending a message to all coalitions that those
who have sworn to protect the Constitution will do just that. We will
protect their rights.
If defense of marriage meant a job in every household and adequate
education for all children; if defense of marriage meant a single-
family home for all Americans; if defense of marriage meant universal
health care for all Americans, then we would be truly addressing the
moral crisis confronting the institution of marriage.
We know, however, that the Defense of Marriage Act compels this
Congress to exceed the boundaries of its constitutional authority. This
bill offends the Constitution, by violating both the full faith and
credit and equal protection clauses of this sacred document.
Whether churches choose to perform ceremonies is within the domain of
the churches to decide. Under the Constitution, our national government
must uphold the wall between church and state. We know that we cannot
dictate the churches' activities.

[[Page H7497]]

It is also clear that the church cannot instruct the government to
restrict the rights of the church, their followers, or their faith; nor
can the church call upon Congress to contravene or undermine the
Constitution.
Both the Bible and the Constitution have a role, but they are
different roles. The Bible did not free African-Americans, it saved
African-Americans and it saved me. The Emancipation Proclamation and
the 13th amendment did not save me, but it did outlaw slavery. I am
saved today because of the Bible, but I am in Congress today because of
the 14th amendment and the Constitution as amended.
Mr. Chairman, in light of the foregoing, I caution my colleagues to
look closely at these issues before supporting this bill.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to what I view as
an unfair, unnecessary and unconstitutional bill. This measure will
federally codify discrimination against a group of Americans striking a
blow to justice and equal treatment for all people.
Mr. Chairman, less than 30 years ago many in this Nation believed
that allowing interracial couples to marry would seriously denigrate
American society, and many State laws reflected that. The U.S. Supreme
Court invalidated these laws, recognizing the freedom to marry as ``one
of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of
happiness by free men.'' Should the Federal Government step in and
dictate to States, it would be an abrogation of States' rights.
Currently, no State permits same-sex marriages. Hawaii is debating
the issue, but the final decision is not expected for another 2 years.
Furthermore, States already have the capacity to determine whether they
will recognize marriages performed in other States. Most importantly,
in the entire history of this Nation--for over 200 years--never has the
Federal Government intervened in the State regulation of marriage.
Never. The 10th amendment to our Constitution--which we are sworn to
uphold--states that powers not enumerated to the Federal Government are
reserved to the States. So, I ask my colleagues, why are we getting
involved?
This brings me to my final point. This measure is unconstitutional.
Article four, section one of the U.S. Constitution states that the
``Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public
Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.'' We
cannot alter the U.S. Constitution with a simple act of Congress. In
addition, the 14th amendment provides for ``equal protection of the
laws'' for all citizens. Clearly the rights of gay and lesbian citizens
would be abridged by this bill. Just as the Supreme Court found in 1967
that racial distinctions between citizens are ``odious to a free people
whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality,'' the
Court would again, I believe, invalidate this bill. The Court most
recently ruled that targeting a segment of society with animus must be
unconstitutional.
Lastly, there is clearly a political agenda driving this legislation.
Barely 30 legislative days remain before the election and we have yet
to complete our constitutionally mandated responsibility of funding the
government. Yet we are debating this election-year ploy by a party
attempting to divide the Nation. We are not debating the granting of a
sacrament of marriage: Congress can't do that. We are debating States'
rights and the rights of privacy. I recognize the general, pervasive
discrimination gay men and lesbians face in society and in this House.
I also recognize that many will disagree with me, but by advocating
discrimination, we're breaking down the bonds which hold this Nation
together when we should be strengthening them. I urge all my colleagues
to oppose this unfair, unnecessary and unconstitutional legislation.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
gentleman from Massachusetts' amendment that suspends the definition of
marriage for any State that adopts a different definition through its
normal democratic process.
Mr. Chairman, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act should really be
called the Republican Offense on People Who are Different Act because
it is nothing more than blatant homophobic gay-bashing.
The conservative elements of our American society have often
discriminated against and tried to prevent whatever they didn't like or
didn't understand. It hasn't been so long ago that blacks and whites
weren't allowed to marry in any State. So, devoted couples pledged
their commitment to caring for each other in private ceremonies, their
children were considered illegitimate, and the spouses were not legally
entitled to inherit from their partners, nor share in any public
benefits.
And, not so long ago, 50 States and the District of Columbia had very
different laws about who could marry, the age the partners had to be,
the length of the waiting period between applying for a marriage
license and the ceremony--and they still do. Even now there are
different laws about divorce, about residency requirements to obtain a
divorce, about the kind of alimony or support one spouse has to pay to
another, and many other differences. The Federal Government sorts out
who is eligible to benefit from public support from these spouses and
former spouses, even as people move from one State to another; and the
Federal Government can and will continue to sort these issues out as
they become timely, which this Offense on Marriage Act is not.
The issue of who should marry within a State are the proper
jurisdiction of the individual States. My grandmother probably couldn't
envision a time when interracial marriages would be legal in America,
but today they are. One kind of discrimination is just as onerous as
another, and neither should be tolerated. For the Republican majority
of this Congress to be taking up this bill, which attempts to usurp
States' rights, makes a farce of their frequent rallying cry to limit
Federal intrusion into the personal lives of America's citizens.
However, when it concerns a woman's right to choose, or in this case
the rights of adults to choose their life partners, the Republicans
abandon their mantra of preserving States rights.
This bill should be defeated and I urge my colleagues to use their
common sense and leave this issue up to the States. It is homophobic
and discriminatory, and it attempts to address a situation that should
be left up to the States. It is not the proper jurisdiction of the
Congress or the Constitution.
As I walk past the Republican side of the aisle, I expect to hear
something similar to an old joke from the civil rights era: ``Some of
my good friends are gay, I just wouldn't want my son or daughter to
marry one.''
My response is that: that's their own personal, private business.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Frank
amendments to H.R. 3396, the Defense of Marriage Act.
This has been a Congress that has repeatedly talked about sending
power back to the States.
But now, all of a sudden, the Federal Government must step in on the
issue of marriage, an issue which has always been decided by the
States.
Hawaii is now examining this issue, but the court case is not
expected to be settled for about 2 more years.
From a legal perspective, because same-sex marriage is not legal,
this bill is not necessary except as a direct attack on gays and
lesbians.
Constitutionally, this bill is also not necessary. According to the
``full faith and credit'' provision of the Constitution, States already
have the power not to recognize same-sex marriages.
There is no clear, compelling reason for the Federal Government to
step in now--except a purely political one.
But this issue is more than a legal one--it is about civil rights, it
is about fairness, and it is about equal rights for all citizens.
Despite the rhetoric of the religious right, one can honor the
relationship between a man and a woman without attacking lesbian and
gay people or their relationships.
This issue is important to me because it is important to my
constituents.
Over 1,000 of my constituents have contacted me to express their
opposition to this blatant form of discrimination.
I agree with one writer who said--this legislation is ``nothing more
than an attempt to divide the country by beating up on gay men and
lesbians.''
Another constituent added, ``Congress should be attending to the
business of the country, not attacking American citizens.''
I couldn't have said it better.
This bill is about discrimination, pure and simple.
I urge my colleagues to support the Frank amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
The amendment was rejected.

preferential motion

Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Gunderson moves that the committee do now rise and
report the bill back to the House with the recommendation
that the enacting clause be stricken out.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
(Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer this motion today so that I
might ask a question.
Why are we so mean? Why are we so motivated by prejudice, intolerance

[[Page H7498]]

and, unfortunately in some cases, bigotry? Why must we attack one
element of our society for some cheap political gain? Why must we
pursue the politics of division, of fear, and of hate?
Yes, marriage is under attack in our society today, but may I suggest
to my colleagues it is not because of same-sex relationships. In all
due respect, lesbians have no interest in making anyone their husband
and gay men have no interest in pursuing anyone's wife. Rather,
marriage might be under attack because of alcohol abuse, because of
spousal abuse and, might I suggest, even Sunday afternoon football.
Like most of my colleagues, I too grew up with basical traditional
values. My religion and my heritage also define marriage as a union
between one man and one woman. So I went to my party's leadership and I
went to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Chairman Hyde, and I
went to Speaker Gingrich, and I said I am willing, as a gay man, to
support your efforts to reaffirm that the word marriage represents a
union between a man and a woman. All I ask in return is that we take
the meanness out of this legislative initiative.
I ask my leadership to recognize that those of us who happen to be in
long-term loving relationships also might be considered or at least
studied for the potential of legitimate benefits and privileges. For
example, if I were to get sick, why should my partner not have
automatic visitation rights and automatic consultation with the doctor?
I have letters in my office of people from cancer to AIDS who have
been denied that basic privilege. When a friend of mine died last year
of AIDS, his partner of 16 years could not sign the documents at the
funeral home. Must we impose such indignities upon people even upon the
death of their very best friend in life?
And frankly, I want to ask my colleagues, why should my partner of 13
years not be entitled to the same health insurance and survivor
benefits that individuals around here, my colleagues with second and
third wives, are able to give to them?
So I asked my leadership, can we at least put together a commission
to compare the privileges, rights and benefits given to those in
marriage but denied to those in long-term relationships? We will not
change any policy, we will not change anything in the bill, rather we
would seek simply to look at Federal, State and international law so
that we might have a body of accurate information upon which to
deliberate in the future.

{time} 1256

In so doing, we would not only reaffirm the traditional definition of
marriage, but we would also send the signal of our sensitivity and
respect to those who happen to be gay or lesbian.
The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and I want to thank him for
his decency and sensitivity in discussing this with me, suggested that
while he could not support a commission he could support a GAO study.
So I drafted an amendment which calls for such a GAO study to be a part
of this bill, and I shared it with the gentleman from Illinois and
Chairman Gingrich. Unfortunately, others in my party insisted that this
small step of basic decency and respect not be included in this bill.
Unfortunately such action, I think, exposes this legislative
initiative for the mean political game it is. And I am truly sorry
about that.
I stand here today with respect and with love for each of you as
fellow Members of the human race. All I ask in return is that you do
not intentionally make me any less worthy than you.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the motion be withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsion [Mr. Gunderson]?
There was no objection.

amendment offered by mr. frank of massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made
in order by the rule.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts: Page
3, after line 20, insert:
(b) Application.--
(1) Subsection (a) shall not apply if the State in which
the persons affected by such application of subsection (a)
has determined that the definition of ``marriage'' or
``spouse'', or both, shall be different than that in
subsection (a), provided such State determination is in the
form of--
(A) legislation; or
(B) citizen initiative or referendum.
(2) In the case where such a determination is made by
judicial decision interpreting a State constitution,
subsection (a) shall cease to apply if the minimum time
necessary in that State for an amendment to the State
constitution elapses and the State's determination remains in
effect.
(3) In the case where such a determination is made by
judicial decision interpreting a State statute, subsection
(a) shall cease to apply with the adjournment of the next
session of the State legislature.
Page 3, line 21, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 474, the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and a Member opposed each will control 7\1/2\
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, let me reassure those
Members with ``rollcall envy'' that they can have one on this one.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
(Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment and in
opposition to the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3396, the Defense of
Marriage Act. This bill is unnecessary, discriminatory and possibly
unconstitutional. There is no question that we have real problems with
family disintegration in this country, but this legislation is not
intended to defend or improve the success of marriage, rather it is
intended to further divide the country over the issue of gay rights.
I'm saddened that, at a time when so many important issues face this
country we are taking up valuable time discussing a bill that truly is
a solution in search of a problem.
Same sex marriage is not currently legal anywhere in the United
States. And in over 200 years, the Federal Government has never
attempted to develop a Federal definition of marriage. That right and
responsibility has been left to the States.
The Federal Government recognizes any State sanctioned marriage.
However, States do not have to give full faith and credit to marriages
sanctioned in other States. For instance, my home State of Oregon does
not recognize marriages of 12-year-olds, but the State of Massachusetts
allows 12-year-old females to marry, and the State of Alabama allows
14-year-olds to marry. In fact, several States even allow first cousins
to marry.
So if States can already refuse to recognize certain kinds of
marriages performed in other States, what is the point of this
legislation?
If, as the proponents of this legislation claim, States do not have
the authority to claim exemption from the full faith and credit clause,
then a simple statue is not adequate to circumvent the Constitution's
full faith and credit clause--we would need to pass a constitutional
amendment.
So, again, what is the point of this legislation?
And where would this type of legislation lead us? We risk setting a
dangerous precedent by crossing the threshold of preempting States by
establishing a Federal definition of marriage. Once we cross that
threshold, what is to prevent the Federal Government from setting a
national age of majority for marriage and preempting all States as in
China where the legal marriage age has been set as high as 28 years
old, and changes almost annually. Furthermore, what is to prevent the
Federal Government from setting new and rigorous standards for divorces
preempting all State laws?
I have long supported the ability of long-term committed domestic
partners to receive some sort of legal recognition. There are a host of
areas where family members need legal standing--hospital visitations
when someone is critically ill or injured, to be at a loved one's side
when they die, decisions about medical care and guardianship for
someone who is ill or incapacitated, and the authority to carry out
someone's last wishes, to name a few.
A number of local jurisdictions around the country have extended
legal rights to domestic partners. That is exactly where these types of
decisions should be made--by local communities and States, not by the
Federal Government dictating and mandating these issues for them.
This is not serious legislation to address a real need in this
country. It is a cynical political gesture, which has more to do with
Presidential election year politics than addressing the needs of the
American people.

[[Page H7499]]

I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the ranking Democrat on the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this slimmed-down
revision of section 3 to allow the States, which enact their own same-
sex marriage laws, to have those marriages respected by the Federal
Government. Surely, Members on the other side of the aisle can support
this amendment. I hope they can.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that the excellent job of whipping up the
populace into a frenzy will subside somewhat and we can consider what
we are dealing with.
For my good friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], the
subcommittee chairman who keeps laying this 70-percent population
figure on us, may I remind the gentleman that 70 percent of the
population was against ending segregation when the civil rights laws
passed in the United States of America in the sixties. The gentleman
shakes his head negatively, but he is incorrect.
Now, I wish my good friend from Wisconsin who made his very
impassioned remarks would have included in the reasons for marriage
being in trouble in America, if it is, that it is because of
joblessness. I do not know what is going on between all the spouses,
but joblessness is a huge driving force.
And finally, for ex-Senator Bob Dole, who I give advice on occasion,
why is he so angry that President Clinton agrees with him on this
issue? What is the beef, Bob? I mean, after all, you forced him to do
this.
Mr. Chairman, we are going to stick with the gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. Lewis]. Eventually we will all come around and realize where this
is going. I thank the Members for their kind attention.
I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment revising
section 3 of the bill to allow States, which enact their own same sex
marriage laws, to have those marriages respected by the Federal
Government.
Around this body we hear a lot of talk about States rights. Well this
amendment gives all of the Members a chance to back up their rhetoric.
For more than 200 years Congress has allowed determinations of marriage
status to be a purely State matter. Yet, unless this amendment is
adopted, we in the Congress will be telling the States how to run their
business. We will be saying a marriage that they have blessed is not
good enough for Federal recognition.
This amendment serves to illustrate the blatant hypocrisy which
characterizes the entire legislation. The entire matter has very little
to do with the Federal Government. 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.
It seems clear to me that the only reason we are here even debating
this issue 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 Repubican Party is behind in the polls,
and their leadership is desperately trying to manufacture widge
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.
Fortunatley, 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. We can begin doing so by
voting for this amendment and returning power back to the States.

announcement by the chairman

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would note that remarks in debate should be
addressed to the chair.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in
opposition to the Frank amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] is recognized
for 7\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner].
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I deeply regret that my colleague
from Wisconsin, Mr. Gunderson, left before we could respond to his
remarks. And I regret that he was not here when I made my remarks on
why this legislation is in front of us.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation is not mean-spirited. It is not
divisive. It is not cynical. It is a legitimate response to a well-
publicized legal move to try to expand a decision in Hawaii to the rest
of the country and to Federal law.
Now, the question is not whether or not we are compassionate. I think
we all are compassionate because uncompassionate people do not get
elected to Congress. But the question is how these issues should be
debated and how the decision should be made.
I believe in the power of the people and the power of the Congress to
make the right decisions and to do the right thing. And we ought to
have an open debate on the issue of whether Federal benefits should be
expanded to couples who get involved in gay marriages. The place for
that debate, I would submit, is in the forum of public opinion, and the
greatest deliberative legislative body in the world, the Congress of
the United States, rather than having judges that are not elected and
judges that are not responsible to the people bootstrap a decision in
one State to national policy.
Mr. Chairman, I am sorry the gentleman from Wisconsin does not
understand that. I think the rest of the House does.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the consummate cleverness of the amendment's proponent
is obvious once again. His first amendment was a killer amendment, pure
and simple. It trained its cross hairs on the heart of the bill and
made no bones about it. This one is a little bit different. It trains
its cross hairs on the heart of the bill, but it kills it with a
silencer. Yet the result would be the same.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, it is the prerogative, the
authority, the responsibility, and the sole jurisdictional power of the
Congress of the United States to determine the reach of Federal laws,
Federal benefits, Federal regulations.
I matters not whether that power is attempted to be usurped by a
State court, a State legislature, or the citizens of a State by
referendum. The fact of the matter is they cannot do so. They should
not be allowed to do so. And for any Member of this body to stand up
and say on behalf of my 20 constituents, I am going to abrogate that
responsibility to the citizens of a State, is an absolute outrage and
an irresponsibility. It is a derogation of their duty as a
representative of the people to protect the integrity of Federal
powers, Federal jurisdiction, Federal laws, benefits and
responsibilities.
This amendment is a killer amendment. It may be sugar coated, it may
have a silencer on it, but the effect is just as deadly. This amendment
deserves to be defeated because if it is not, the underlying bill will
not be enacted into law, and I urge my colleagues to defeat this second
Frank amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Chairman, so much for block grants. We heard the gentleman from
Georgia. How dare we think that those State-elected officials ought to
decide how to spend Federal money. Do not let them usurp and preempt. I
could not have heard a better denunciation of block grants from the
staunchest federalizing liberal around, because that is what is at
issue.
Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the reference of the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Barr] to my consummate cleverness. There are circles in
which I will have to explain away having received that compliment from
him, but I am willing to take on that burden.
Mr. Chairman, the point is that the gentleman is upset because the
amendment is not stupid. And I apologize. There is nothing in the rules
that says our amendments have to be stupid. I anticipated some of their
arguments.
They have been arguing, and let us be clear what this amendment says.
This

[[Page H7500]]

amendment leaves alone that part of the bill that purports to protect
other States from having to do what Hawaii does. I do not think they
have to anyway, but this double protects them. That is not an issue.
This amendment says, and it says it clearly. Indeed, let me say
immodestly, citing as authority the gentleman from Georgia, it says it
``consummately cleverly'' or ``cleverly consummately,'' that if a State
by democratic procedures, by involvement of its electorate, either
directly in a referendum or through its legislature or by decision to
allow a court decision to stand after the time has gone by, if a State
makes a democratic decision that says if two men in this State are in
love or two women in this State are in love and they are prepared to
undertake the obligations of marriage, they are prepared to live
together and commit to each other, they are prepared to make legal,
binding representations to each other, the Federal Government will
treat them in that State as it treats anybody else. The Federal
Government will treat them as the beneficiaries of that democratic
decision.
Mr. Chairman, what the bill says is if there is a referendum in a
State, if there is a unanimous vote in the legislature to allow two
people to love each other, we the Federal Government will say no. Why?
We heard the gentleman from Georgia. Because we, the Federal
Government, will decide.
Again, let us not have any of this block grant nonsense. Let us not
talk about State autonomy. We will sit here in Washington and tell
Hawaii who can love each other and who cannot. Of course, they can make
a law in Hawaii, but it will not be a real marriage. It will not have
Federal tax benefits; it will not have pension benefits; it will not
have testimonial privilege.
Let us be very clear, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the candor of the
gentleman. Let us not have any of this nonsense about State autonomy.
That is what this amendment says. It says if the Hawaii Supreme Court
does it, it still would not take effect. But if the Hawaii Supreme
Court makes a decision and enough time goes by under the Hawaii
constitution, the legislature let it stand, there was a referendum in
favor of it, we will then allow it.
So here is what we are being told. Do not let the democratic
processes of a single State allow same-sex marriage in that State to be
a federally valid marriage, even though it means it will have no effect
on any other State. We are not attacking that point.
If my amendment passes, the bill will say what one State does has no
effect on any other State. Another State does not have to have it. If a
State makes a democratic decision to let two women love each other in a
loving relationship, that cannot be because it will dissolve marriage,
and we get back to that.
There are people in this society, heterosexuals who are married, who
have been accused of spousal abuse; who have been accused of and have
acknowledged not supporting their children; who have had multiple
divorces and remarriages. Those are serious problems. We need to help
people with that.
But implicitly to blame those on the fact that two men love each
other is extraordinarily unfair and that is why we heard the eloquent,
passionate statement of the gentleman from Wisconsin who proceeded me.
He and I and others are willing to take on the burden of working out
the difficulties of two human beings becoming mutually committed.
Mr. Chairman, we are talking about two human beings. And for those
who pretend not to know the difference between a monogamous
relationship between two human beings and polygamy, I must say that I
think they debase and debate when they use that kind of analogy.
Everyone knows the real difference.
We are talking about mutuality; about two people loving each other
and committing to each other. Do Members know what they are saying if
they vote down this amendment? ``No, you cannot do that. How dare you
have a democratic vote in a State to allow two people to show love and
commitment and affection. We cannot allow that, because it threatens
our marriages.''
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe anyone really thinks it threatens
their marriages. I do not understand what motivates them. In one case
someone said: Do not allow them the sacrament of matrimony. We have no
power to give anyone any sacraments. We are not in the business of
dispensing sacraments, and I hope we never get there.
Mr. Chairman, we are creating an institution called civil marriage.
People in this Chamber have taken full advantage of their right legally
to divorce. People have had several divorces. That is not a sacrament.
We did not create the sacrament of ``holy divorce.'' We allow this, in
society, in a sensible society with personal freedom, individuals to
make choices in a civil society. Those who find that religiously
offensive are free to do nothing about it. They are free not to
participate in it.
We are talking here about creating an institution of civil society.
In fact we are not talking about creating it. We are saying if the
Federal Government sees a State by democratic means in this amendment
create an institution of civil society that allows two people to love
each other, the Federal Government will do what it can to stop it. Why?
My colleagues heard the gentleman from Georgia. Because how dare they
preempt and usurp the State.

Who is preempting and usurping? The legislature. How dare the
legislature of Hawaii preempt our imperial right to decide who is
married and who is not married. How dare the people of Hawaii presume
to think that they can define love in an effective way.
Mr. Chairman, I hope the amendment is adopted.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time
to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Canady] and my colleagues.
Mr. Chairman, I can tell you this is one of the most uncomfortable
issues I can think of to debate. It is something I really shrink from
because there is no gentle easy way, if we are to be honest and candid,
to discuss the objections to same-sex marriage, the disapprobation of
homosexual conduct, without offending and affronting an ever-widening
group of people who have come to accept homosexual conduct.
But, Mr. Chairman, we are driven to this debate. We are driven to
this debate by the courts. The Romer versus Evans case which was
decided May 20 of this year is a fascinating case, and it provides
really a preferred status for homosexual people, and may very well
invalidate a State's heretofore unquestioned power to reject the
conduct in another State on public policy grounds.
If a marriage was incestuous and it was celebrated in one State,
another State did not have to accept that on public policy grounds.
Now, there is a real question because of Romer versus Evans, a Supreme
Court case.
The fascinating thing is that the Bowers versus Hardwick case was not
even discussed in Romer versus Evans. Bowers versus Hardwick is a 1986
case which said a State may criminalize the act of sodomy. Twenty-five
States have laws criminalizing homosexual conduct. The defining act of
homosexuality is a crime in 25 States. It used to be in all the States,
but many of the States have reversed their laws because they cannot
enforce them. There is no way to enforce them.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman's interpretation, I mean
this seriously, if the gentleman's interpretation of Romer versus Evans
is correct, and we do not know whether it is or not, would that not
also apply then to the section here? In other words, if the court were
to hold under Romer versus Evans----
Mr. HYDE. Yes, it could.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. So that this could also apply to this
section equally.
Mr. HYDE. It could. But that is why we need this statute in my
judgment, to give a little more leverage to the States.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman would continue to yield
for 10 seconds, if in fact it is unconstitutional because of an
interpretation of

[[Page H7501]]

parts of the Constitution, no statute would hold against that.

{time} 1315

Mr. HYDE. Well, maybe, maybe not. Maybe, maybe not is all. You cannot
speculate about the court.
The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] said that the
unfinished business of the civil rights movement is homosexual
acceptability. There is no power on Earth to stop it. Maybe and maybe
not. He has something, when I look around and see the entertainment
stars in our country are Michael Johnson and Madonna, he could be
right. The homosexual movement has been very successful in intimidating
the psychiatric profession. Now people who object to sodomy, to two men
penetrating each other are homophobic. They have the phobia, not the
people doing this act. That is a magnificent accomplishment for public
relations.
Let us talk about this bill. This is the most delicate and limited
measure that Congress could possibly produce on this subject. First of
all, as to defining marriage in the Federal code, who else should
define it except this Congress, the Federal legislature. Not the
courts, the courts are usurping legislative functions. It is
appropriate that Congress define marriage. You may not like the
definition the majority of us want, but most people do not approve of
homosexual conduct. They do not approve of incest. They do not approve
of polygamy, and they express their disapprobation through the law. It
is that simple. It is not mean spirited. It is not bigoted. It is the
way it is, the only way possible to express this disapprobation.
Now, two men loving each other does not hurt anybody else's marriage,
but it demeans, it lowers the concept of marriage by making it
something that it should not be and is not, celebrating conduct that is
not approved by the majority of the people.
Defeat the amendment. Vote for the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 103,
noes 311, not voting 19, as follows:

[Roll No. 314]

AYES--103

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
DeFazio
Dellums
Dingell
Dixon
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Horn
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Moran
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Ward
Waters
Waxman
Woolsey
Yates

NOES--311

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luther
Manton
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--19

Dunn
Ensign
Fields (LA)
Flanagan
Ford
Gibbons
Hall (OH)
Johnston
LaFalce
Lincoln
Longley
McDade
Morella
Roberts
Thompson
Thornton
Watt (NC)
Wilson
Young (FL)

{time} 1335

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Mr. Johnston of Florida for, with Mr. Longley against.

Messrs. ALLARD, SMITH of New Jersey, and GENE GREEN of Texas changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mrs. KENNELLY and Mr. RUSH changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms.
Greene of Utah) 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, pursuant to House
Resolution 474, he reported the bill back to the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Greene of Utah). Under the rule, the
previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion To Recommit Offered By Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Yes, I am, Madam Speaker, in its present
form.

[[Page H7502]]

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order
against the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady]
reserves a point of order.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas moves to recommit the bill, H.R.
3396, back to the Committee on the Judiciary with
instructions to report the bill back forthwith with the
following amendment:
Page 3, line 24, at the end of the bill, add the following
new sections to the legislation:

SEC. 4. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Employment Non-
Discrimination Act of 1996''.

SEC. 5. DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED.

A covered entity, in connection with employment or
employment opportunities, shall not--
(1) subject an individual to different standards or
treatment on the basis of sexual orientation,
(2) discriminate against an individual based on the sexual
orientation of persons with whom such individual is believed
to associate or to have associated, or
(3) otherwise discriminate against an individual on the
basis of sexual orientation.

SEC. 6. BENEFITS.

This Act does not apply to the provision of employee
benefits to an individual for the benefit of his or her
partner.

SEC. 7. NO DISPARATE IMPACT.

The fact that an employment practice has a disparate
impact, as the term ``disparate impact'' is used in section
703(k) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-
2(k)), on the basis of sexual orientation does not establish
a prima facie violation of this Act.

SEC. 8. QUOTAS AND PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT PROHIBITED.

(A) Quotas.--A covered entity shall not adopt or implement
a quota on the basis of sexual orientation.
(b) Preferential Treatment.--A covered entity shall not
give preferential treatment to an individual on the basis of
sexual orientation.

SEC. 9. RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION.

(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this
Act shall not apply to religious organizations.
(b) For-Profit Activities.--This Act shall apply with
respect to employment and employment opportunities that
relate to any employment position that pertains solely to a
religious organization's for-profit activities subject to
taxation under section 511(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.

SEC. 10. NONAPPLICATION TO MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES;
VETERANS' PREFERENCES.

(a) Armed Forces.--(1) For purposes of this Act, the term
``employment or employment opportunities'' does not apply to
the relationship between the United States and members of the
Armed Forces.
(2) As used in paragraph (1), the term ``Armed Forces''
means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast
Guard.
(b) Veterans' Preferences.--This Act does not repeal or
modify any Federal, State, territorial, or local law creating
special rights or preferences for veterans.

SEC. 11. ENFORCEMENT.

(a) Enforcement Powers.--With respect to the administration
and enforcement of this Act in the case of a claim alleged by
an individual for a violation of this Act--
(1) the Commission shall have the same powers as the
Commission has to administer and enforce--
(A) title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.
2000e et seq.), or
(B) sections 302, 303, and 304 of the Government Employee
Rights Act of 1991 (2 U.S.C. 1202, 1203, 1204), in the case
of a claim alleged by such individual for a violation of such
title or of section 302(a)(1) of such Act, respectively,
(2) the Librarian of Congress shall have the same powers as
the Librarian of Congress has to administer and enforce title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.)
in the case of a claim alleged by such individual for a
violation of such title,
(3) the Board (as defined in section 101 of the
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-1;
109 Stat. 3) shall have the same powers as the Board has to
administer and enforce the Congressional Accountability Act
of 1995 in the case of a claim alleged by such individual for
a violation of section 201(a)(1) of such Act,
(4) the Attorney General of the United States shall have
the same powers as the Attorney General has to administer and
enforce--
(A) title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.
2000e et seq.), or
(B) sections 302, 303, and 304 of the Government Employee
Rights Act of 1991 (2 U.S.C. 1202, 1203, 1204),
in the case of a claim alleged by such individual for a
violation of such title or of section 302(a)(1) of such Act,
respectively, and
(5) the courts of the United States shall have the same
jurisdiction and powers as such courts have to enforce--
(A) title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.
2000e et seq.) in the case of a claim alleged by such
individual for a violation of such title,
(B) sections 302, 303, and 304 of the Government Employee
Rights Act of 1991 (2 U.S.C. 1202, 1203, 1204) in the case of
a claim alleged by such individual for a violation of section
302(a)(1) of such Act, and
(C) the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (Public
Law 104-1; 109 Stat. 3) in the case of a claim alleged by
such individual for a violation of section 201(a)(1) of such
Act.
(b) Procedures and Remedies.--The procedures and remedies
applicable to a claim alleged by an individual for a
violation of this Act are--
(1) the procedures and remedies applicable for a violation
of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e
et seq.) in the case of a claim alleged by such individual
for a violation of such title,
(2) the procedures and remedies applicable for a violation
of section 302(a)(1) of the Government Employee Rights Act of
1991 (2 U.S.C. 1202(a)(1)) in the case of a claim alleged by
such individual for a violation of such section, and
(3) the procedures and remedies applicable for a violation
of section 201(a)(1) of Congressional Accountability Act of
1995 (Public Law 104-1; 109 Stat. 3) in the case of a claim
alleged by such individual for a violation of such section.
(c) Other Applicable Provisions.--With respect to claims
alleged by covered employees (as defined in section 101 of
the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-
1; 109 Stat. 3)) for violations of this Act, title III of the
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 shall apply in the
same manner as such title applies with respect to a claims
alleged by such covered employees for violations of section
201(a)(1) of such Act.

SEC. 12. STATE AND FEDERAL IMMUNITY.

(a) State Immunity.--A State shall not be immune under the
eleventh article of amendment to the Constitution of the
United States from an action in a Federal court of competent
jurisdiction for a violation of this Act. In an action
against a State for a violation of this Act, remedies
(including remedies at law and in equity) are available for
the violation to the same extent as such remedies are
available in an action against any public or private entity
other than a State.
(b) Liability of the United States.--The United States
shall be liable for all remedies (excluding punitive damages)
under this Act to the same extent as a private person and
shall be liable to the same extent as a nonpublic party for
interest to compensate for delay in payment.

SEC. 13. ATTORNEYS' FEES.

In any action or administrative proceeding commenced
pursuant to this Act, the court or the Commission, in its
discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the
United States, a reasonable attorney's fee, including expert
fees and other litigation expenses, and costs. The United
States shall be liable for the foregoing the same as a
private person.

SEC. 14. RETALIATION AND COERCION PROHIBITED.

(a) Retaliation.--A covered entity shall not discriminate
against an individual because such individual opposed any act
or practice prohibited by this Act or because such individual
made a charge, assisted, testified, or participated in any
manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this
act.
(b) Coercion.--A person shall not coerce, intimidate,
threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise or
enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised,
enjoyed, assisted, or encouraged the exercise or enjoyment
of, any right granted or protected by this Act.

SEC. 15. POSTING NOTICES.

A covered entity shall post notices for employees,
applicants for employment, and members describing the
applicable provisions of this Act in the manner prescribed
by, and subject to the penalty provided under, section 711 of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e--10).

SEC. 16. REGULATIONS.

The Commission shall have authority to issue regulations to
carry out this Act.

SEC. 17. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS.

This Act shall not invalidate or limit the rights,
remedies, or procedures available to an individual claiming
discrimination prohibited under any other Federal law or any
law of a State or political subdivision of a State.

SEC. 18. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, or the application of such
provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be
invalid, the remainder of this Act and the application of
such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be
affected thereby.

SEC. 19. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act shall take effect 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act and shall not apply to conduct
occurring before such effective date.

SEC. 20. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this Act:
(1) The term ``Commission'' means the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission.
(2) The term ``covered entity'' means an employer,
employment agency, labor organization, joint labor management
committee, an entity to which section 717(a) of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e(a)) applies, an employing
authority to which section 302(a)(1) of the Government
Employee Rights Act of 1991 (2 U.S.C. 1202(a)(1)) applies, or
an employing authority to which section 201(a) of the
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-1;
109 Stat.3) applies.

[[Page H7503]]

(3) The term ``employer'' has the meaning given such term
in section 701(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.
2000e(b)).
(4) The term ``employment agency'' has the meaning given
such term in section 701(c) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(42 U.S.C. 2000e(c)).
(5) The term ``employment or employment opportunities''
includes job application procedures, hiring, advancement,
discharge, compensation, job training, or any other term,
condition, or privilege of employment.
(6) The term ``labor organization'' has the meaning given
such term in section 701(d) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(42 U.S.C. 2000e(d)).
(7) The term ``person'' has the meaning given such term in
section 701(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.
2000e(a)).
(8) The term ``religious organization'' means--
(A) a religious corporation, association, or society, or
(B) a college, school, university, or other educational
institution, not otherwise a religious organization, if--
(i) it is in whole or substantial part controlled, managed,
owned, or supported by a religious corporation, association,
or society, or
(ii) its curriculum is directed toward the propagation of a
particular religion.
(9) The term ``sexual orientation'' means homosexuality,
bisexuality, or heterosexuality, whether such orientation is
real or perceived.
(10) The term ``State'' has the meaning given such term in
section 701(i) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.
2000e(ii)).

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in
the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]
is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion to recommit.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask for the attention of
the House because, as many of us have entered houses of worship, this
debate has been wrapped more in whether one's belief in the Scriptures
and Bible will carry the day.
Let me say, Madam Speaker, that I am a Bible believer and a Bible
reader, but all of God's children have rights. I believe that we have
over these last 24 hours lifted up and increased discrimination as
opposed to decreasing discrimination. The Employment Nondiscrimination
Act is biblical in nature as well, for it gives human dignity to all of
God's children.
I will speak to the issue of germaneness, and I appreciate the
gentleman from Florida, but in fact this amendment and motion to
recommit is germane. It increases the opportunity for all citizens to
be treated equally. It takes away the sting of denying people their
rights. This subject matter is, in fact, appropriate, for it seems that
the legislation that is now on the floor deals with gays and lesbians
and separates them out from the Constitution of the United States. This
Employment Nondiscrimination Act says that we will not be a gestapo,
that we will respect and we will lift up the rights of all citizens.

{time} 1345

Yes, the Committee on the Judiciary, from which this bill has come
out, also has jurisdiction over the Employment Nondiscrimination Act of
1996. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I am not running away from germaneness,
but I do understand that we have been discussing over these last 2 days
legislation that is to respond and control perversion that
characterizes many individuals.
I would simply say that this is the appropriate way for a nation like
ours to go, one that embodies in this House the word ``union,'' stick
together; the word ``justice,'' justice for all; the word
``tolerance,'' to tolerate those citizens who have given their lives
for this flag and this country; and yes, the word ``liberty,'' liberty
for all; and yes, the word ``peace.'' We should go in peace and
harmony.
So I believe that the subject matter that deals with gay and lesbian
rights in the workplace is more than appropriate for a motion to
recommit, for this body to stand equal with America in responding to
the good aspects, to the goodness of what this country stands for; for
the reason we have lost men and women overseas, for liberty and
equality for all. How can we not today stand with America and the flag
and acknowledge the human dignity of all of god's children? How can we
not?

So I ask my colleagues if they would accept this motion to recommit
so we do not leave this place this day; so we, like Esther, will
acknowledge that if I perish, I perish, for I must stand for what is
right.
It is important that we allow this legislation, the Employment
Nondiscrimination Act of 1996, to give human dignity to all of our
citizens. It is important, it is germane. It provides the criteria of
germaneness, for it deals, as I said, with increasing the opportunities
and decreasing discrimination.
Likewise, it deals with gays and lesbians, and yes, the subject
matter is relevant. I would hope the subject matter of equality and the
dignity of all and the respect for the words of this Chamber of justice
and tolerance and peace and liberty is the way that we should go.
Madam Speaker, I would ask my colleagues, can we not, can we not, can
we not acknowledge freedom in America goes to all of our citizens, all
of our citizens?

point of order

The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Ms. Greene of Utah). Does the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Canady] insist on his point of order?
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I insist on my point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. the motion to recommit is not germane to the
bill. The bill relates solely to the subject of marriage. The motion to
recommit seeks to add language which relates to employment
discrimination to a bill dealing with marriage. Clearly, this is a
proposition on a subject different from that under consideration, in
violation of clause 7 of rule XVI, and I ask the chair to rule the
motion to recommit out of order.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, with great pain in my heart,
I would maintain that we are germane, and it is with deepest regrets
and great pain that I hear that human dignity is not germane. But at
this point, Madam Speaker, with this pain and this disappointment, I
will not contest the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained.
The motion to recommit is not in order.

motion to recommit offered by mr. berman

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit with
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. BERMAN. I am in its present form, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Berman of California moves to recommit the bill, H.R.
3396, back to the Committee on the Judiciary with
instructions to report the bill back forthwith with the
following amendment:
Page 3, line 24, at the end of the bill, add the following
new section to the legislation:

``SEC. 4. STUDY OF THE DIFFERENCES IN BENEFITS, RIGHTS AND
PRIVILEGES AVAILABLE TO PERSONS IN A MARRIAGE
AND TO PERSONS IN A DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP.

``(a) General Accounting Office Study.--The General
Accounting Office shall undertake a study of the differences
in the benefits, rights and privileges available to persons
in a marriage and the benefits, rights and privileges
available to persons in a domestic partnership resulting from
the non-recognition of domestic partnerships as legal unions
by State and Federal laws.
``(b) Requirements of Study.--The General Accounting Office
shall--
``(1) conduct a comprehensive review of Federal statutes
and administrative regulations, rulings, and determinations
to compile an inventory of Federal benefits, rights and
privileges available to persons in a marriage and to
determine whether such Federal benefits, rights, and
privileges are also available to persons in a domestic
partnership;
``(2) analyze the impact of Federal statutes and
administrative regulations, rulings, and determinations on
the private sector to determine whether those statutes,
rules, regulations, and determinations influence the private
sector to make benefits, rights, and privileges available to
persons in a marriage which are not available to persons in a
domestic partnership;
``(3) survey State property, testamentary, probate,
insurance, credit, and contract laws to determine whether a
difference exists in their usefulness to address the legal
needs of persons in a marriage and their usefulness to
address the legal needs of persons in a domestic partnership;
``(4) survey the laws of other major industrialized
countries to determine whether

[[Page H7504]]

there is a difference in those countries between the
government benefits, rights and privileges available to
persons in a marriage and the governmental benefits, rights
and privileges available to persons in a domestic
partnership; and
``(5) conduct such further investigation and analysis as it
deems necessary to study the differences in the benefits,
rights and privileges available to persons in a marriage and
the benefits, rights and privileges available to persons in
domestic partnerships resulting from the non-recognition of
domestic partnerships as legal unions by State and Federal
laws.
``(c) Report.--Not later than October 1, 1997, the General
Accounting Office shall submit to the President and to the
Congress a report of its findings pursuant to the study
conducted under this section.
``(d) Assistance in Completing the Study and Report.--
``(1) Assistance from other agencies.--The General
Accounting Office may secure directly from any Federal
department or agency such information as may be necessary to
complete the study and report required by this section.
``(2) Detailed personnel.--On the request of the
Comptroller General, the head of any Federal department or
agency is authorized to detail, without reimbursement, any
personnel of that department or agency to the General
Accounting Office to assist it in carrying out its duties
under this section. The detail of any individual may not
result in the interruption or loss of civil services status
or other privilege of the individual.
``(3) Assistance from attorney general.--The Attorney
General of the United States shall provide the General
Accounting Office with such administrative and support
services as the Comptroller General may request to complete
the study and report required by this section.
``(e) Definition.--For the purposes of this section, the
term `domestic partnership' means two persons committed to an
interpersonal relationship with each other, other than
marriage, which has been acknowledged through a publicly
established governmental procedure, through a privately
enforceable written agreement, or through other documents
executed by those persons which evidence their intention to
commit to an interpersonal relationship with each other.''.

Mr. BERMAN (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, this is a motion to recommit with
instructions. This motion to recommit is simply adding an amendment to
the bill and asking that the bill be reported back forthwith. If this
motion to recommit passes, the body will still be voting on the bill
immediately after the vote on the motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit is very simple: It simply asks for a GAO study
to look at the differences in benefits, rights, and privileges
available to persons in a marriage and to persons in a domestic
partnership resulting from the non-recognition of domestic partnerships
as legal unions by State and Federal laws.
Once again, the passage of this motion to recommit will not send the
bill to a committee, it will not bury this bill. The bill will come
back immediately for a vote on final passage.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this
motion to recommit. Clearly there is a need to understand how we enable
people who are committed to one another to have appropriate legal
rights and responsibilities with regard to each other. All this study
does is to ask the GAO to look at the rights and responsibilities one
has under a marriage contract and the rights and responsibilities that
domestic partners have under current State and Federal law. We simply
need to know this information.
Without question, marriage has been the pillar of social organization
over time in every society, because marriage helps to sustain the
development of love, loyalty, commitment, and responsibility. Domestic
partner relationships are not marriage, and that is what this bill
says. But domestic partner relationships do encourage commitment,
responsibility, love, and loyalty, and I think it is important that our
society rise to the challenge of finding what legal entitles we need to
develop to allow people who want to take responsibility for one
another, who want to, over time, legally share responsibilities for
health care, share responsibilities for planning funerals and so on and
so forth, how we help them do that. This is just a study to get the
information. We are proposing it in a legal form because we want to
acknowledge that this information is important to us as a society; that
all relationships of commitment are important to a stable society. And
in the passage of this bill, which I intend to support, we do not
intend to denigrate other relationships of integrity.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I support the base bill, and I would say
that I also support this motion to recommit, which does not delete,
eliminate, or change anything in the present bill, as we will vote on
final passage on this measure whether or not this motion to recommit
passes or fails.
If Members are like me, a very happily married man with two wonderful
kids, this issue does not come up a lot in my household. But what this
motion to recommit does is it simply adds a section calling upon the
GAO to conduct a study determining the benefits, rights, and privileges
given to those in marriage but not those in long-term domestic
partnerships. As part of the study it will also look at how other
countries have legally dealt with the long-term relationships outside
of marriage.
It changes no law. It only asks the GAO to give us the information
requested by October 1, 1997. Then we are free to use such information
to decide what if any policy changes we want to make. Let us affirm our
commitment to traditional marriage, but let us do so in a way that
respects and is sensitive to those in long-term domestic partnerships.
For example, if our colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Steve
Gunderson, were sick or injured, why should his partner not have
automatic visitation privileges or automatic doctoral consultations,
which many today have been denied?
Madam Speaker, when the former committee staff director, Matt
Fletcher, of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Bill Clinger, lost his
partner of 16 years to AIDS, Matt could not sign the documents at the
funeral home. All this motion to recommit does is ask for a study, ask
for a study, so when the study is completed in 1\1/2\ years from now or
so, we can have better information with which to deal with this issue.
I ask Members to vote to recommit the bill, and I also ask that
Members vote for final passage, whether or not the motion to recommit
passes.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
motion to recommit with instructions.
Madam Speaker, the purpose of the instruction is to require by
statute that which the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has
the authority to do by letter. The chairman of the committee, the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], during the Committee on Rules
meeting when this issue came up offered to write to the GAO for the
study requested by the proposed instruction.
This motion represents a transparent attempt to give some statutory
recognition to domestic partnerships. I do not think this is necessary
to encumber the statute with language which is superfluous outside.
Therefore, I oppose the motion to recommit with instructions.
Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CANADY of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, really, this request for a GAO study does
not belong in the statute. I agreed a long time ago to request it as
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. We should go forward with
that. I pledge to do so. I have assured the gentleman that I will ask
for a study of the instances in which the inability of domestic
partners to form a legal union causes a disparity of entitlement to
Federal benefits, rights, or privileges. So to amend this bill is not
necessary.
The study mandated by the Gunderson amendment is overly broad. It
includes all State laws, it includes other

[[Page H7505]]

majority industrialized countries, in addition to the Federal law. We
think our interest should be limited to the benefits conferred under
Federal law, and it should be tailored to that interest.
There are other objections to it, but suffice it to say putting it in
the statute gives it an equivalence to the marriage institution that we
do not think is appropriate now. I will write the letter, I will do it
Monday, I will request the study, and that should suffice. I would ask
that this motion to recommit be defeated.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the period of time during which a vote by electronic device, if
ordered, will be taken on the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 164,
nays 249, not voting 20, as follows:

[Roll No. 315]

YEAS--164

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bilbray
Blumenauer
Blute
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Campbell
Cardin
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Durbin
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Fox
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Horn
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klug
Kolbe
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pryce
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Thomas
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Ward
Waters
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer

NAYS--249

Allard
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehrlich
English
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flake
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Traficant
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Zeliff

NOT VOTING--20

Archer
Brewster
Dunn
Ensign
Fields (LA)
Flanagan
Ford
Gibbons
Hall (OH)
Johnston
LaFalce
Lincoln
Longley
McDade
Meehan
Roberts
Thompson
Thornton
Watt (NC)
Young (FL)

{time} 1414

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Mr. Johnston of Florida for, with Mr. Longley against.

So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Greene of Utah). The question is on the
passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 342,
nays 67, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 22, as follows:

[Roll No. 316]

YEAS--342

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim

[[Page H7506]]

King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Manton
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Rush
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NAYS--67

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
DeFazio
Dellums
Dixon
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Gejdenson
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Jackson (IL)
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Maloney
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McDermott
McKinney
Meek
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moran
Nadler
Olver
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Rangel
Rivers
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanders
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Waters
Waxman
Williams
Woolsey

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

Jackson-Lee (TX)
Owens

NOT VOTING--22

Brewster
Clay
Dickey
Dunn
Ensign
Fields (LA)
Flanagan
Ford
Gibbons
Greenwood
Hall (OH)
Johnston
LaFalce
Lincoln
Longley
McDade
Meehan
Roberts
Thompson
Thornton
Watt (NC)
Young (FL)

{time} 1421

The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:

Mr. Flanagan for, with Mr. Clay against.
Mr. Longley for, with Mr. Johnston of Florida against.

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid upon the table.

____________________