[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 37 (Tuesday, March 23, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H1327-H1328]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 20, 2004, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly 8 years since Congress 
overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. DOMA, as it 
is called, passed the Senate by a vote of 85-14 and the House by a vote 
of 342-67. I was honored to have cosponsored and vote for final passage 
of this bipartisan legislation which President Clinton signed into law.
  We passed DOMA in response to a State court decision because we were 
concerned that activist judges in Hawaii would force 49 other States to 
accept gay marriages. We clarified the full faith and credit clause to 
mean that States do not need to recognize same-sex marriages performed 
and validated in other States.
  At the time, DOMA was a reasonable response to a real problem. Nobody 
wanted a handful of judges overturning the will of the individual 
States and millions of American citizens. DOMA relied on the principle 
of federalism to defend States rights and to preserve the sanctity of 
marriage. It was a perfect match.
  But several momentous events occurred in the next few years which 
have put DOMA in a difficult light. In 1997 and 2003, the U.S. Supreme 
Court overturned two duly enacted States' laws regarding homosexuals. 
In the Lawrence case, the Court even went so far as to overturn one of 
its previous decisions. More recently, the Supreme Court and other 
Federal courts have even blatantly disregarded the 2000 Dale decision 
which gave the Boy Scouts the right to exclude avowed homosexuals from 
positions of leadership.
  In Vermont, the State Supreme Court ordered the State legislature to 
provide the benefits of marriage to gay couples. Finally, gay marriages 
have been legalized in several Canadian provinces. These decisions have 
given

[[Page H1328]]

opponents of DOMA ammunition to challenge it in court.
  But in order to challenge DOMA, plaintiffs need standing to sue. That 
was accomplished a month ago when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial 
Court decision set the stage for a constitutional challenge. There is 
no doubt if couples start getting married in Massachusetts on May 17, 
as planned, they will move back to their home States where they will 
demand that their union be recognized and accepted.
  When their States refuse to embrace this new arrangement under the 
Federal DOMA or one of 39 other ``little DOMAs,'' then there will 
probably be a challenge to the State or Federal DOMA. It would not be 
difficult to imagine many Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, 
using legal precedents and their own personal belief to rule on DOMA's 
constitutionality.
  Let me be clear. As we stand now, DOMA prevents same-sex marriages 
from being imposed on the individual States. Of course since no State 
enacted same-sex marriages, there has been no explicit challenge to 
DOMA. There was a Federal tax evasion case in 2002 in which the 
defendant claimed that he and his domestic partner were ``economic 
partners'' who should be afforded filing status equivalent to that of a 
married couple and argued that DOMA was unconstitutional. But since the 
defendant did not even try to have his same-sex union recognized as a 
marriage under State law, and since DOMA was not even in effect when 
the defendant was scamming the Federal Government, this argument was 
not even considered by the court. But as they say on Wall Street, 
``Past performance is no guarantee of future results.''
  Lawsuits will continue to be filed, and State laws defining marriage 
as being between a man and woman will continue to be mocked and ignored 
by public officials, judges, and bureaucrats. Look at what has happened 
in San Francisco, New York City, Oregon, New Mexico and many other 
places over the last month or so. The blatant disregard for the rule of 
law is astonishing.
  These events and rulings over the last few years have compelled many 
of my colleagues and I, and the administration, to seriously consider 
the proposed constitutional amendment to our Constitution defining 
marriage as being between a man and a woman. I have chosen to cosponsor 
this legislation. We passed DOMA. Thirty-nine States have enacted their 
own Defense of Marriage Act. The vast majority of Americans oppose gay 
marriage and do not want such an arrangement forced upon them. We have 
tried every legal and political avenue possible, but 8 years since DOMA 
was passed has shown us now that a constitutional amendment may be a 
better and another way to protect the sanctity of marriage.

                          ____________________