[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 106 (Thursday, July 18, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1320-E1321]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT--PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. CARDISS COLLINS

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, July 12, 1996

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3396) to 
     define and protect the institution of marriage:

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, on July 12, 1996, there was a 
vote for final passage of H.R. 3396, the Defense of Marriage Act. On 
rollcall vote No. 316, as you can see from my statement on this issue, 
which is attached, I intended to vote against that bill, but in my 
haste to get to the airport so that I could get my plane to Chicago and 
my district, I inadvertently pushed the green button and was, 
therefore, recorded as having voted for the bill.
  I want my constituents to know I intended to vote against that bill:

       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

[[Page E1321]]

     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.

                          ____________________