[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 147 (Monday, October 20, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H9689-H9690]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    EQUAL RIGHTS: A PERSONAL ODYSSEY

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the evolution of the gay and lesbian 
civil rights issue has touched my notion of fairness in government 
policy in very profound ways. Since I chaired the Oregon Legislature's 
first hearing on nondiscrimination some 30 years ago, I have observed 
the ebb and flow of the debate on gay rights, attended hearings, and 
learned the stories of real people. I have also developed a wide circle 
of friends and have many colleagues who are gay and in committed 
relationships. I have come to understand the equality for gays and 
lesbians as an issue of justice for us all regardless of our sexual 
orientation or political philosophy.
  Along the way, I have experienced a couple of painful episodes that 
helped define my thinking. As a county commissioner in the 1980's, we 
enacted one of the first and most comprehensive nondiscrimination 
ordinances in the country. The backlash, however, from some of the 
extreme right was brutal. And faced with an opposing referendum that 
would threaten to divide the community, leaders in the local gay and 
lesbian movement urged the commission to repeal the ordinance. But that 
did not make it any easier to explain to gay citizens sitting in the 
front rows, some of whom were crying with disbelief and anger.
  Twelve years later in Congress, I confronted the Defense of Marriage 
Act to create a Federal definition of marriage as a union between a man 
and a woman. Until DOMA, marriage issues had not been a high priority 
for the gay and lesbian movement nor for Congress. But with the 
introduction of this legislation, all that changed when some people 
from the extreme right wing were pushing the hot button issue of same 
sex marriage in order to assure the political failure of the gay and 
lesbian civil rights agenda. The country was not simply ready to 
discuss same sex marriage in any rational way.
  Hoping to deny the extreme right wing the opportunity to exploit this

[[Page H9690]]

issue further, I cast my vote in favor of DOMA. Looking back 8 years 
later, while my analysis may have been accurate, it remains one of the 
few votes in Congress that I would change. Sadly, people who choose to 
exploit fear and bigotry based on sexual orientation continue to do so 
regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
  My vote on DOMA also caused political confusion and pain for people 
who knew of my commitment for equality for gays and lesbians. Most 
troubling for me was the implication that my vote somehow may have been 
interpreted as an attack on people's ability to make their own choices 
about their personal relationships and their dignity as human beings.
  Recently, gay civil rights victories in the Supreme Court, the State 
of Vermont, and in Canada have created a resurgence of controversy 
surrounding this issue. These successes do not have to lead to more 
antigay proposals and rhetoric. Most Americans today have friends and 
relatives who are involved with same sex relationships based on the 
same deep emotional commitment and affection found in the heterosexual 
community.
  It is now time for Congress to play a constructive role in affirming 
civil rights for gays and lesbians. The House should start by enacting 
nondiscrimination in employment, which should be one of the bedrocks of 
a society that claims to value self-reliance and the opportunity for 
individuals to reach their full potential. The Congress should also 
forcefully reject H.J. Res. 56, a constitutional amendment which would 
define marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman. It simply 
makes no sense to deny the benefits, legal rights, and opportunities 
afforded to married couples to others who want to commit to a long-term 
loving relationship, especially when the administration proposes to 
spend hundreds of millions of dollars to ``promote marriage.''
  This attempt to preempt decisions at the State level is not just 
stunningly hypocritical; it will fuel fear and prejudice, create 
further divisions in our communities, and intolerance throughout our 
society. Instead of pitting citizen against citizen over questions of 
identity, sexuality, and private behavior, the Congress should model 
the behavior it expects of others: fairness, tolerance, and a basic 
respect for human dignity.

                          ____________________