[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 122 (Monday, September 9, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10065-S10066]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT

  Mrs. BOXER. Now there is the question of the other bill that will 
come before us, known as DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. When I 
heard that there was going to be a bill before us called the Defense of 
Marriage Act, I thought it was going to be about our families and how 
they cope with the problems and stresses that most married people face. 
There are financial insecurities with jobs that are ever changing, 
pension insecurities with corporate raids on pensions and inadequate 
protections in the law, there is pressure to save enough to afford a 
home, there is child abuse going on in families, there is alcohol and 
drug abuse, there is spousal abuse, there are pressures from lack of 
health care. We have tried to fix some of those in this Congress. There 
are pressures, worrying, ``Will Grandma and Grandpa be all right? Will 
they make it? Will their Medicare be cut? Can we function as an 
extended family in this fast moving world?'' These are some of the 
pressures.
  I thought it was about, perhaps, flexible working schedules so there 
could be more time off for school and doctor appointments. I thought it 
maybe addressed the issue of child care. It is called the Defense of 
Marriage Act. I thought we were going to deal with those issues, the 
stresses on marriage. So I was looking forward to seeing this 
legislation.
  Then, when I see it, it turns out to be something completely 
different. It turns out to be about the U.S. Congress getting into the 
issue of marriage. No State legislature is even suggesting that it 
recognize gay marriage, not one State in this Union. Not one person in 
the Senate or the House has introduced legislation to recognize gay 
marriage--not one. There is no bill pending before us to legalize gay 
marriage and provide benefits to these couples. Not one group has asked 
any of us, to my knowledge, to carry such legislation.

  We are told by constitutional scholars that even if one State does 
recognize gay marriage, other States have the option not to recognize 
it. University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein, one of the 
Nation's most distinguished legal scholars, author of numerous texts 
and articles on constitutional law, testified before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee that States are not required to recognize other 
States' marriages. So why this legislation now? With all the things we 
could be doing that would make a real difference in people's lives, 
with all the things we could be doing that would really matter to 
families, we are taking up this so-called Defense of Marriage Act, 
which, as I have stated, has nothing to do, in my view, with helping 
married couples cope with the stress on their marriages.
  Does the author of the bill in the House, whom the press says has 
been married three times, truly believe that the Defense of Marriage 
Act would have made him a better husband or his wives better wives? I 
seriously doubt that. I doubt that.
  Marriages do run into trouble; one in two ends in divorce and that is 
tragic. It is tragic for the people involved and it is tragic for the 
children. There are things we should all do in our relationships and as 
a community and in our religious institutions to make marriage 
stronger. But passing this act does nothing to affirm marriage at all.
  Many of us in this Chamber, myself included, have been married for 
many years to the same person, and I truly believe that those of us who 
are honest about it would never list the possibility of gay marriage 
looming on the horizon as a reason there may be stress in our marriage. 
I believe, if we were honest, we would never cite that as a reason for 
a problem of stress in our marriage. In any event, gay marriage is not 
looming anywhere. As I said, not one State is considering it, not one 
State legislature. No one has asked to do it. There is no bill pending.
  Yes, the Hawaii courts are looking at the issue, but that final 
resolution is years away. There is plenty of time for us to have this 
debate. But this Congress cannot wait to have this debate. The Hawaii 
case is only now about to go to trial. Legal experts are convinced that 
given the stakes, the losing side will surely appeal the case all the 
way to the State supreme court. We are talking about a long time here.
  So why are we doing this bill now? No one is asking for it, no one is 
proposing any of it, no one State is considering recognizing gay 
marriage.
  I have to give my opinion. It is all about the calendar, that is what 
I think. It is an election-year ploy to get Senate and House Members to 
cast a tough vote. We know it is a tough vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for another 10 
minutes. My understanding is we would not have a 10-minute rule at this 
point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The Senator has an additional 10 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. But I think, when we do this, we do lose something. I 
think we lose our soul. That is what you lose when you scapegoat a 
group of people, a whole group of people who have never even asked us 
to legalize gay marriage. Scapegoating is ugly. History has seen it too 
many times. You know that and I know that. Groups of people who are 
different are identified. It becomes ``we'' versus ``them.'' Their 
identity as individuals is lost and they become faceless. Special rules 
are written for them. They are singled out as a group. Read the history 
books, my colleagues. You will find it there. We are all Americans in 
this country, regardless of our differences. We are Americans first. We 
are God's children, all of us, regardless of our differences. Why do we 
need to craft a piece of legislation designed to hurt our fellow 
Americans when there is absolutely no need to do it?

  President Clinton, who comes to a different conclusion on this bill 
than I do, writes in his book ``Between Hope and History'':

       . . . we must make a choice . . . shall we live by our 
     fears and define ourselves by what we are against, or shall 
     we live by our hopes and define ourselves by what we are 
     working for, by our vision of a better future . . . that is a 
     choice we must make every day.

  This DOMA bill, in my opinion, is a statement of what we are against. 
It does nothing, it does not do one thing, to make Americans' lives 
better. It is a classic example of the politics of division, of a so-
called wedge issue to divide us one from another without any reason to 
do so. I think even if it means you pick up a seat or two in Congress, 
the better angels of our nature should stop this politics of division 
and hatred. The Defense of Marriage Act is a preemptive strike against 
a gay marriage proposal that does not even exist. It is a little bit 
like bombing a country because you think they are a threat when in 
reality they want nothing more than to live in peace. We would never do 
that as a nation, and we should not do this. It hurts people for no 
reason.
  I thank those of my colleagues, in advance, who will vote against 
this scapegoating measure. There will only be a few of us. It will be a 
brave vote. I say that because I know what the polls show. But what is 
leadership about, anyway? It is about the really tough votes.
  When I went into politics 20 years ago, I told my constituents then 
and I tell them now I would not always take the popular side of an 
issue if I felt it was meanspirited. For me to do that

[[Page S10066]]

would be an insult to them and an insult to me. It would diminish all 
of us.
  To me, this vote is not about how I feel about gay marriage. I have 
always supported the idea of communities deciding these issues without 
the long arm of the Federal Government.
  Many communities recognize domestic partnerships for those who choose 
to make a long-term commitment. Many communities in California do this, 
and, Mr. President, it seems to be working. I have not had one phone 
call or one letter indicating Congress should override these community 
decisions. Clearly, this is an issue that should be decided in our 
communities, not in the Senate.
  So to me, this vote is not about how Senators feel about marriage, 
and it certainly is not about defending marriage. To me, it is about 
scapegoating. It is about dividing us. It is ugly politics. It is a 
diversion from what we should be doing. For example, we could be using 
this time to pass President Clinton's college tax breaks to ease the 
stress on our married couples today. Now that would be defending 
marriage.
  By my no vote on this legislation tomorrow, I am disassociating 
myself from the politics of negativity and division, from the politics 
of scapegoating, and I will cast my vote in that spirit.
  Mr. President, thank you very much for the time. I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] is 
recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Nickles pertaining to the introduction of S. 2060 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________