[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 23, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1346]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JAMES M. TALENT

                              of missouri

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 23, 1996

  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, marriage is older than the Government, older 
than the Constitution and the Union, older than the political 
traditions from which our Republic springs. It originated with human 
civilization; it is rooted in and sanctioned by the precepts of all the 
great monotheistic religions and in particular the Judeo-Christian 
religion. It strikes me as an enormous act of presumption to treat the 
institution of marriage as if it were infinitely malleable, like silly 
putty that can be turned and twisted into any shape without destroying 
it. If marriage means anything, it means nothing, and if it means 
nothing then our society fades away like a flower with no roots. I 
support this bill because it does what it says it will do; it defends 
marriage insofar as it is appropriate in our Federal system for the 
Congress to do so.
  I want primarily today to concentrate on the arguments offered 
against the bill.
  First, it is said that the bill discriminates against loving 
homosexual partners. Well, Mr. Chairman, this bill maintains the 
standards of our society; and whenever you maintain a standard, you 
necessarily place a burden on those who don't meet the standard. Our 
society has a standard against polygamy; that means that loving 
polygamous couples cannot all marry each other. We have a rule against 
incest. That discriminates against adult incestuous couples who wish to 
marry. Mr. Chairman, our society is hurting so badly that I'm for 
almost any kind of real love or commitment. But there is a limit to how 
much we can change the organic institutions of our society in response 
to the alienation some people feel. We live in a free country, where 
people can live pretty much as they want. It is free precisely because 
we have standards, because our society has successfully socialized most 
Americans in the values of love, charity, and tolerance; and the 
institution on which we depend to socialize these values is the 
institution of marriage. Those who oppose this bill are either seeking 
no standards or a standard vastly different from that sanctioned by 
millennia of tradition, the teachings of all the monotheistic 
religions, and in particular the teachings of Judeo-Christian religion 
on which our culture is based.
  It is also argued that supporting this bill and defending traditional 
marriage is equivalent to racial bigotry. Here I have to offer the 
House a personal complaint. I don't speak very often on the House 
floor, and it seems like every time I do somebody is calling me a 
racial bigot. I was for a balanced budget and that made me the same as 
a racist. I'm for welfare reform and in the eyes of some that was the 
equivalent of racism. Now I'm for the traditional standards of marriage 
and once again the other side is calling me a bigot. Well, if 
supporting heterosexual marriage is the equivalent of racism, then Pope 
John Paul is the equivalent of a racist and so are a lot of black 
pastors around the country because they all support traditional 
marriage, too. Mr. Chairman, it is precisely this kind of incoherence, 
this substitute of moral posturing for moral reasoning, that is at the 
heart of the cultural decline in America today.
  Finally, we are told that this bill is divisive. Mr. Chairman, there 
is a division in our society over whether homosexuality should be 
treated in all respects as equivalent to heterosexuality. Those who 
support this agenda are attacking the marriage institution in support 
of their cultural goals. We do not call you divisive because you are 
attacking the institution of marriage. Why do you call us divisive for 
defending it? The question isn't whether any of us are being divisive; 
it is what side of the division you are on, and whether you want this 
dispute to be resolved for every State by the Supreme Court of one 
State. If you respect marriage, if you cherish the traditions of our 
society, if you want to nurture the most basic institutions of our 
culture, then vote against these amendments and for the Defense of 
Marriage Act.

                          ____________________