Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 121 (Thursday, September 30, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 121 (Thursday, September 30, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H7898-H7934]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 801,
proceedings will now resume on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 106)
proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
relating to marriage.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. When proceedings were postponed earlier
today, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) had 68 minutes remaining
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) had 72 minutes remaining.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time,
and I want to thank the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) for
having the courage to bring this forth.
Our Constitution is one of our country's most sacred documents. It is
the fulfillment of the promises made in the Declaration of
Independence, and it is the backbone of our system of government. It
identifies our rights as citizens, the roles and responsibilities of
each branch of government, and identifies the limits that prevent
government overreaching. It also ensures that our system of government
remains a democratic system, whereby the people, through their elected
Representatives and officials, make laws. This means a form of
government under which laws are passed by the duly elected
Representatives of the people, not by judges.
Amending our Constitution is the most democratic process in our
Federal system of government, requiring two-thirds of each House of
Congress and three-quarters of the State legislatures in order to pass
a constitutional amendment. But it has been done and should only be
done when principles for governing and for existing in society need to
be stated.

[[Page H7899]]

The best example of this is the Bill of Rights. The first ten
amendments were added to the Constitution to ensure that principles
that were so important, that were fundamental for governing and living,
were explicitly referenced in the Constitution in advance of any
adverse judicial ruling.
We find ourselves in a similar situation today. There should be no
disagreement that traditional marriage, as defined throughout our
history, is under attack by liberal activists and rogue judges. The
only real question at hand is how to protect this important cornerstone
of our society.
This issue was first raised with me when I became chairman of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution in the 107th Congress. At that time I
clearly stated my preference to consider all possible legislative
options before pursuing a constitutional amendment. I also felt that we
should wait to learn the results of ongoing litigation. My hope had
been that the courts would not attempt to alter our social fabric and,
instead, leave the issue where it belongs, before Congress and the
State legislatures. Obviously, that has not been the case.
In response to judicial decisions and the attempt by elected
officials in several communities to approve same-sex marriages in
violation of their own State laws, I called for a series of hearings to
consider different options for maintaining marriage as a union between
a man and a woman. During those hearings, we heard from many experts
that provided us with extensive information on legal and social issues.
Perhaps most important to this debate we reviewed the status of DOMA,
the Defense of Marriage Act, and the consequences that would result
from a judge striking down that important legislation.
DOMA's status is at risk. Judge Robert Bork, for example, one of the
witnesses, stated in testimony before the Subcommittee on the
Constitution during the hearing on the amendment, ``I think DOMA is
absolutely a dead letter constitutionally; not because it would be
under the original Constitution, but because it is the way this Supreme
Court is behaving.''
Professor Lawrence Tribe of Harvard Law School has stated, ``Same-sex
marriage is bound to follow. It is only a question of time.''

{time} 1400

As a result, our national definition of marriage and the important
role that marriage plays in our society more than likely will be
changed forever, and it will not be for the better. Once that change is
made and forced on every State in our Union, it will be virtually
impossible to reverse.
Mr. Speaker, marriage is an institution, not a right. The hearings
confirm this. Congress is obligated to support the means that best
protect this institution that has been a part of our history. The
marriage protection amendment states as follows: ``Marriage in the
United States shall consist solely of a union of a man and a woman.
Neither this Constitution nor the Constitution of any State shall be
construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be
conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.''
That is what it states.
The first sentence of this amendment ensures that a common definition
of marriage, that between a man and a woman, exists for the entire
Nation. This will preclude attempts by the judiciary or State
legislatures to determine otherwise.
The second sentence will prevent the courts from interpreting the
Federal Constitution or State constitution to require a legislative
body or an executive agency to enact or recognize marriage and its
benefits on a civil union or domestic partnership. The second sentence
also ensures that State legislatures are able to define for themselves
the status of civil unions and domestic partnerships and the resulting
benefits.
One way or another, we know that the Constitution will be amended.
The question is, is it done the appropriate way, or is it done by
unelected, activist judges?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 6 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution, who has in this Congress found
himself busier than almost every other subcommittee that we have. We
have a long history of court-stripping attempts, constitutional
amendments that were of high dubious legal question, and he has worked
tirelessly with a staff I think that is second to none on our
committee.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for
yielding me this time, and I thank him for those kind words.
Mr. Speaker, today the drumbeat of political demagoguery has reached
its crescendo as the House prepared to consider an amendment to the
U.S. Constitution banning marriage between persons of the same gender.
This amendment does not belong in our Constitution. It is unworthy of
this great Nation, and the Senate could not even muster a simple
majority to consider it, much less the requisite two-thirds to adopt
it.
We have amended the Constitution only 27 times in our history.
Constitutional amendments have been used to enhance and expand the
rights of citizens, not to take them away.
The Constitution was amended to add the Bill of Rights, protecting
freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the right
to be secure in our homes; 10 amendments for protection of individual
rights and liberties. We amended the Constitution to wipe away
permanently the stain of slavery, to expand the right to vote, to
expand the right of citizenship, to allow for the direct election of
Senators, and to allow for the income tax.
Now we are being asked to amend the Constitution again to single out
a single unpopular group and say permanently, you cannot even attempt
to convince the legislature of your State to give you the right to
marry. We have certainly never amended the Constitution on the mere
speculation that a court might rule a law unconstitutional. No court
has struck down as unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act that we
passed 8 years ago. There is not even a case pending before any
appellate court in this country today. There has not been a single
trial-level court decision holding the Defense of Marriage Act
unconstitutional; and yet we are told this necessity is imposed upon
us. We must protect marriage now. What an imaginary threat.
In fact, the amendment before us is a new version of the amendment.
It was not introduced until the end of last week. Although this issue
has been the subject of four hearings before the Committee on the
Judiciary, this proposed amendment and its potential impact on State
marriage laws, historically a right of the States, has not.
When the sponsor of the amendment appeared before the Subcommittee on
the Constitution, she was not prepared to comment on a similar version
or any version other than the one she had introduced, which is not the
one today before us.
The Committee on the Judiciary has not marked up this amendment,
either in subcommittee or full committee, although the designation of
the oak tree as the national tree has merited such careful
deliberation. That is a first. My Republican friends, as amendment-
happy as they are, have never previously skipped over committee
consideration to bring a just-introduced constitutional amendment to
the floor. But I understand them. What is the Constitution between
friends? Why should we consider it carefully?
As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, I am
normally called upon to explain proposed constitutional amendments.
Explaining this one requires some extra effort. From what, precisely,
would the so-called marriage protection amendment protect marriage?
From no-fault divorce? From legalized fornication? From the failure of
States to incarcerate adulterers, perhaps? No. Evidently, the threat to
marriage, so-called, is the fact that there are thousands of people in
this country who very much believe in marriage, who very much want to
marry, who may not marry under the laws of the various States of this
country, but whose fellow citizens may conceivably one day permit them
to do so; and that we must prevent.
I have been searching in vain for some indication of what might
happen to my marriage or to the marriage of anyone in this room if
loving couples,

[[Page H7900]]

including couples who have had children for years, are permitted to
enjoy the blessings of matrimony. If there is a Member of this House
who believes that his or her own marriage would be destabilized or
destroyed by a same-sex marriage somewhere in America, I would welcome
an explanation as to what you think would happen to your marriage and
why. Any takers?
The overheated rhetoric we have been hearing is reminiscent of the
bellicose fearmongering that followed the Supreme Court's 1967 Loving
v. Virginia, which struck down State prohibitions against interracial
marriage. The Supreme Court had overstepped its authority, we were
told. The Supreme Court had overridden the democratic will of the
majority. The Supreme Court had signed a death warrant for all that is
good and pure in this Nation.
Fortunately, we have survived as a Nation; and we are the better for
it.
In the not-too-distant future, people will look back on these debates
with the same incredulity we now view the segregationist debates of
years past.
This amendment does more than it purports to do. It would preempt any
State law or legislature from passing a law allowing people of the same
gender to marry, even if that law was approved by the legislature or,
for that matter, by referendum of the people. This is not to protect
the States; this is to protect a notion against the democratic will of
the majority of the people in the States. Read the first sentence: any
such marriage would be unconstitutional.
Proponents of this amendment have already tried to use a similar
prohibition against same-sex marriage to attack domestic partner
benefits in courts. So do not tell me this is only about marriage. I do
not believe it. It says nothing in this amendment about recognition of
marriages from one State to another. If you want to allow democratic
majorities to have their way within their own borders, this amendment
will do the exact opposite.
There are many loving families who deserve the benefits and
protections of the law. They do not live just in New York or San
Francisco or Boston. They live in every one of the 435 congressional
districts in the United States. They are not from outer space, they are
not a public menace, and they do not threaten anyone. They are our
neighbors, our coworkers, our friends, our siblings, our parents, and
our children. They deserve to be treated fairly. They deserve to have
the rights of any other family.
I regret that this House is being so demeaned by this debate. It
saddens me that this great institution would sink to these depths even
on the eve of an election. We know this is not going anywhere. We know
it is merely a political exercise. Shame on this House for playing
politics with bigotry.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Feeney), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished majority leader
for his leadership on this issue, especially, along with the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) and her brave leadership.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, the Constitution is going to
be amended. Either radical, unelected judges are going to amend the
Constitution from the bench to redefine the traditional view of
marriage, or the people's Representatives here in this House and across
in the other body are going to act to amend the Constitution to
preserve the traditional, historic definition of marriage. I notice
that none of the opponents yet of this amendment have said that he or
she will do whatever it takes to defend marriage when the time comes,
but the action is unnecessary. If they are willing to commit to do
whatever it takes to defend marriage, that is another matter; but that
is not what they are saying.
Mr. Speaker, we have already seen the Massachusetts Supreme Court
undo over 400 years of history in Massachusetts, undo a Constitution
which is older than the United States Constitution, and find some new
right. In doing so, in establishing same-sex marriage, what the
Massachusetts court did is to belittle the traditional definition of
marriage and all of the States that actually believe that. They said
that there was no logical reason to preserve the benefits of a marriage
between a man and a woman.
Even the liberal Washington Post Editorial Board was shocked by the
Massachusetts judge's decision, stating in their editorial, ``We are
skeptical that American society will come to formally recognize gay
relationships as a result of judicial fiats.'' That is exactly what we
are here to prevent, the judicial fiat that will undo the traditional
definition of marriage which has protected and been the building block
of this country forever. None of the States, not one of the State
legislatures has ever tried to redefine marriage, but we have had
courts in Vermont, in Hawaii, and in Massachusetts now attempt to do
that very thing.
What we are here to do is to remind people that under the fourth
article to the United States Constitution full faith and credit clause,
when one State establishes a marriage as something other than a man and
a woman, eventually all other 49 States will be forced, despite DOMA,
which we have heard is going to be struck as unconstitutional, both
liberal and conservative scholars agree, 49 States will have the
definition that Massachusetts has imposed by the bench on their people
imposed on us unless we act today.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), a gentleman who has followed the
civil rights struggle and the struggle for women in this country for
many years.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the 14th amendment of the U.S.
Constitution guarantees the same rights to all people under the law,
all people. It is what keeps us a United States. We call ourselves one
Nation under God. Surely we know from the Bible that a city, a house,
or a nation divided against itself cannot stand.
This amendment divides our Nation. This amendment creates two classes
of people based on sexual orientation. It creates a second-class
citizenship. In America, every individual is entitled to equal
protection of the law. We could not remain a United States, half slave,
half free. We could not remain a United States if a woman's right to
vote or to choice were denied, and we cannot remain united if our
brothers and sisters are denied equal protection of the law because of
their sexual orientation.
In America, we work to eradicate discrimination. In America, we work
to create a more just and equal society. In America, our Constitution
should further that goal. In America, our Constitution should give
rights, not take them away. In America, we must continue to fight for
equality and justice. Here we must always be the land of the free, the
home of the brave, where the rights of all people are protected,
regardless of race, color, creed, or sexual orientation.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is not about discrimination. It is about marriage and judicial
activism, but the timing is really important. I would just quote, since
we are doing a lot of quoting around here, Paul Kates, director of
Public Education for the American Civil Liberties Union's Lesbian and
Gay Rights project, who said, ``Once more States agree with
Massachusetts. We think it is more likely that we will win in the
Federal courts,'' in which case same-sex marriage policies can be
imposed across multiple States and even nationwide. It is a concerted
strategy to go this route.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Hayworth).
(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment, and I
would like to highlight two basic principles in support of the
amendment.
The first is this, and everyone should understand this, including my
friend, the gentleman from Ohio who preceded me in the well of this
House. Same-sex couples have the right to live as they choose, but
neither they nor a handful of activist judges have the right to
redefine marriage for our entire Nation.

{time} 1415

The second point again goes with what my friend from Ohio said and I
take issue with. Marriage is not about

[[Page H7901]]

excluding a group of people. Marriage is about what is best for our
children and our society.
To the first principle, I wish this were not an issue that needed at
long last constitutional protection via an amendment, but
unfortunately, activist lawyers and judges have been working across our
Nation to undermine marriage and impose a new national marriage
standard without a public debate. Thousands of same-sex couples from at
least 46 States have received marriage licenses in California and
Oregon, then return to their home States. This is a national issue, and
regardless of the months on the calendar and the so-called political
season, the American people have a right to know where their
representatives stand.
Mr. Speaker, to those who believe that marriage protection and that
this marriage protection amendment is discriminatory, I would ask them
this: Do my colleagues truly believe that marriage, the traditional and
foundational union between a man and a woman, is discrimination? Mr.
Speaker, once we start treating a child's need for a mother and father
as discrimination, it becomes impossible for the institution of
marriage to do its work. If it is discriminatory to restrict marriage
to a man and a woman, then why not have three parents or four or more?
Even groups of single people are now protesting that their exclusion
from the benefits of marriage is discriminatory.
Now to the second point. Marriage is not about exclusion. It is about
inclusion and an inclusive foundation for children and society. Whether
a couple is a man and a woman has everything to do with the meaning of
marriage. Marriage encourages the men and women who together create
life to unite in a bond for the protection of children. That is not
discrimination. It is the building block on which our society is based.
Now, Mr. Speaker, failed marriages between individuals does not mean
that the institution of marriage itself is failing, but Mr. Speaker, we
will fail in our responsibilities to our Nation if we fail to neglect
and fail to protect this basic institution in our society.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), from the Committee on the
Judiciary, a very distinguished lawyer in her third term who has served
with us from the time she arrived here.
(Ms. BALDWIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, amending the Constitution is a radical
action which should only be undertaken when absolutely necessary.
Preemptively amending the Constitution to prevent something that has
yet to happen is a dangerous principle that this Congress should not
endorse. We must always remember what President Calvin Coolidge once
said, ``The Constitution is the sole source and guaranty of national
freedom.''
Mr. Speaker, our Constitution has been amended only 17 times since
the Bill of Rights, and with the exception of prohibition, which was
promptly repealed, the amendments to our Constitution have always been
used to secure greater rights and liberties for the American penal
system. We have amended the Constitution to make our union more
perfect, to ensure all Americans are free to secure the blessings of
liberty, that all Americans may achieve the American dream of life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Never in our history have we used
our most sacred governing document to deny the rights of any group of
Americans, nor should we do so today.
This debate today is not simply a theoretical debate. It has a real
impact on millions of Americans. I believe that the institution of
marriage enhances our social fabric in many positive ways. I think we
all agree that loving, supportive marriages provide strong environments
for raising children.
Children with two-parent families who are actively engaged in their
lives typically have greater financial and emotional stability during
the time they grow up than those who are able to only rely on a single
parent.
Marriage's role in protecting children is about providing sustenance.
It is about teaching. It is about sharing cultures and beliefs. It is
about transmitting a family's values. It is about providing love and
emotional support. These are all important components of marriage, and
none of them are exclusive to a couple consisting of a man and a woman.
Marriage laws in the United States provide important rights,
responsibilities, privileges and obligations. In each State, literally
thousands of rights, responsibilities, privileges and obligations are
conferred upon the receipt of a State marriage license. Likewise, there
are more than 1,000 Federal rights that benefit married persons, among
them: the right to make decisions on a spouse's behalf in a medical
emergency; the right to take the benefits of the Family Medical and
Leave Act for an ill spouse or ill parent of a spouse; the right to
petition for spouses to immigrate; the right to assume parenting rights
for children who are brought in to a family through birth, adoption,
surrogacy or other means; family-related Social Security benefits,
income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related
military and veterans benefits and other important benefits; the right
to inherit property from a spouse in the absence of a will; the right
to purchase continued health coverage for a spouse after the loss of a
job.
When making this point, many times I have heard opponents say that
these rights can be obtained in other ways besides marriage. Some of
them can, at a cost, with enough legal help, but many cannot.
I want to return briefly to the role of marriage in protecting
children because, contrary to the opponents of same-sex marriage and
civil unions, I believe that this is a powerful argument in favor of
marriage recognition for same-sex relationships. There are over 1
million children being raised in gay and lesbian families in the United
States. These children do not have the same legal protections as
children of opposite-sex married couples have, and their parents have
significantly increased financial burdens in providing for them.
The rights of gay and lesbian and transgendered Americans have been
at the center of a national debate for the past decade and more.
Attitudes have changed dramatically, as more and more Americans have
discovered that their friends, their neighbors, their coworkers, family
members are gay or lesbian and that they are just like other Americans,
with the same hopes, dreams, fears, the same challenges. I believe our
country has taken major steps forward toward the American ideal that
all people are created equal.
Mr. Speaker, change is never easy. Some people push for change with
all their might, while others struggle to maintain the status quo. Most
of the others are somewhere in between, trying to apply their competing
values to assess the merits of change. Our political leaders can try to
facilitate this debate and discussion and work towards consensus or
they can exploit those tensions and fears to divide America.
I firmly believe that too many of our leaders have decided to use
this issue to polarize Americans in order to win this election, and
this is wrong. Today, we must reject this attempt to use the
Constitution of the United States simply as a wedge issue to win an
election.
Bringing this issue to the forefront now, five weeks before the
election, with no chance to pass it in this House, accomplishes only
one thing. It distracts the American people from the urgent issues and
immediate policy decisions that are at the heart of this election.
Each hour this Congress spends on a constitutional amendment that
will divide America, we are not working to help provide health care to
the 45 million Americans who have no health insurance. Each hour this
Congress spends on a constitutional amendment that will divide America,
we are not working to help the millions of unemployed and underemployed
Americans.
These must be our priorities, not writing discrimination into the
Constitution of the United States.
I implore my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address this
issue.
Is it a blatant attempt by Republicans to score political points in a
political season? I am sorry, but it was

[[Page H7902]]

not the Republicans who brought up the Massachusetts Supreme Court
decision on May 17. We have very little influence in that particular
matter.
From my friends on the other side of the aisle who declare to us that
amending the Constitution is just the extension of rights, I would
remind them that the Dred Scott decision that said that slavery is
correct and proper for these United States was, in fact, turned around
in a very similar situation that we are facing today.
A Supreme Court is positioning itself to declare a certain thing
which is in opposition to the will of the majority of the people, and
we are simply going to turn that around with a constitutional
amendment, the same as the Thirteenth Amendment turned around the Dred
Scott decision of the Supreme Court.
Now for the discussion about what this is really about. Once we leave
the discussion of what is right for children as the heart of the
discussion, we begin to get confused about what is right. When we talk
about the fact that there are loving, gay couples who would like to
raise their children, we seem to depart from the facts because only one
out of three lesbians living in the same household are actually raising
children, and among gay men, only one out of five.
This issue is not about the right to raise children. This issue is
about their rights to redefine marriage for the entire Nation, and I
will disagree with my friends on the other side of the aisle that it is
worth fighting for right now. It is worth fighting for in this House,
and it is worth fighting for on the streets of America so that we have
this national public discussion to determine what is most effective for
our children.
If we want examples, we can look to Scandinavia where more than 60
percent now of the children are born out of wedlock, just a few short
years after they have taken the same step that we are taking here.
This discussion is about what is right for children. It has nothing
to do with what is right for adults. How can we say that the rights of
adults to choose their desire is more important than what is necessary
to correctly and properly raise our children? What is right for our
children is a discussion.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren) who has been of immeasurable assistance on
constitutional questions in our committee.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, the Republican leadership has put us on
notice that Congress will probably adjourn next week until after the
November elections. We should have done so much more this year. Yet,
this week, Republican leaders have decided to bring to the floor a
constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and a bill to repeal gun
laws in the District of Columbia. Are these really the most important
issues facing the Nation?
Earlier this month, the Republican leader, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. DeLay), said that he would not allow a vote to continue the
assault weapons ban because it did not have the votes. When asked about
scheduling a vote, he said the following, ``If the President asked me,
it would still be no . . . because we don't have the votes to pass an
assault weapons ban, and it will expire Monday and that's that.''
Despite the overwhelming support of Americans everywhere, he let the
assault weapons ban expire.
Apparently, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) only brings things
to a vote when he has the votes. But wait, this week the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay) has taken a different position on what he brings to
the floor.
In Roll Call, he acknowledged he does not have the votes to pass the
marriage amendment. This amendment will not pass the House, and it did
not even a get a simple majority in the Senate earlier this year. This
amendment is going nowhere.
Let us be clear. The only reason this bill is being considered today
is to score political points a month before the election. I am not
surprised in the least that the Republicans would put politics before
solutions. What is shocking is that we would waste time on these
political games when they have accomplished so very little this year.
Earlier this month, the CBO released its update and confirmed that
the 2004 deficit will be the largest in history, $422 billion. This
$818 billion deterioration from the $397 billion surplus that they
inherited when President Bush took office is just a shame.

{time} 1430

And what have the Republicans done to bring the deficit under
control? Absolutely nothing. As a result of their policies, and for the
third time in 3 years, Republicans need to increase the debt limit once
again. What have Republicans done about this, the national debt?
Nothing. The list goes on and on.
The Republicans never passed a 2004 budget. The fiscal year ends
tomorrow, yet we have only done one of our 13 appropriation bills. The
9/11 Commission report was released in July. It has been 71 days, and
the House and Senate have still not voted on its recommendations.
We have not passed a transportation reauthorization bill since
January 2001. We have lost 1.7 million private-sector jobs. And for the
third year in a row, the number of Americans without health insurance
has gone up. Medicare premiums are as high as they have ever been. We
have more people in poverty this year than we did when Bush assumed the
Presidency.
The Republicans control the White House, they control the House of
Representatives, and they control the Senate. They control everything
in Washington. Despite all these advantages, all of this power, they
have no accomplishments. All they can do is play political games to
hide their truly abysmal record and hope that the American people do
not notice.
The House Republicans have controlled Congress for a decade. On
January 4, 1995, the day I was first sworn in, moments before being
sworn in, then Speaker Newt Gingrich told the Members of the House that
we were hired to do a job, and we have to start today to prove we will
do it. Well, the Republicans have had 10 years, and just look at the
dismal record. They have proven they just cannot do this job. It is
time for a change. House Democrats are ready to get to work.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay) has 55 minutes remaining and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) has 53 minutes remaining.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Carter), a former judge.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, today, we gather in this honorable chamber,
and as we gather, there is an attack taking place on the basic building
blocks of our society, the traditional family. Since the dawn of
civilization, a family has consisted of a union between a man and a
woman. In a civilized society, that union has historically been joined
through a legal process we call marriage.
Mr. Speaker, you can go anywhere on this earth or here in the United
States and wake somebody up from a dead sleep and ask them to define
marriage, and they will tell you that it is a union between a man and a
woman. Yet, today, we are dealing with living with a court ruling by
the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts which tosses aside the
history of traditional marriage.
This judicial activism, better called social engineering, flies in
the face of legal precedent, and as The Washington Post shockingly
stated, ``is done by judicial fiat.'' Not a single State of the 50
States in this union have any legislation or a constitutional amendment
which changes the definition of marriage. This assault on traditional
marriage continues as legal challenges are joined in most all the
States of this Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I have had the dubious distinction of having presided
over the dissolution of 20,000 marriages in my career of public
service. I would venture to say that is more than anyone else in this
House. I have listened to thousands of hours of testimony about the
damage that can be done by the breakup of marriage to the children of
our Nation. It is a shame that we have to go through this attack on
marriage, but to add a further attack on marriage by redefining the
definition of marriage would be an abomination to our children.
For those who say, let the States choose, I would point out that the

[[Page H7903]]

amendment will be required to pass three-fourths of the States, so it
is up for debate in the States of this union. The Bill of Rights
amendments were ratified precisely to make sure that fundamental
principles were explicitly laid out in our constitution. The marriage
protection amendment would explicitly protect the institution of
marriage before the courts so that we will not be socially engineered
out of our rights as American citizens and to destroy traditional
marriage.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Weiner), the honorable Member who serves on the Committee on
the Judiciary with great skill and distinction.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WEINER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the previous
speaker, who said he had presided over the dissolution of 20,000
marriages, I just wonder, in how many of those was the cause of the
dissolution some gay relationship?
I mean, I am prepared to own up when I am at fault. Am I responsible,
as a gay man, for any of those 20,000 dissolutions? The gentleman said
there were 20,000 dissolutions. Would he tell us in how many of those
20,000 dissolutions was the existence of a gay marriage or gay civil
union the cause?
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WEINER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas for a response.
Mr. CARTER. About a half a dozen. But that was not the issue I was
talking about.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. A half a dozen out of 20,000.
Mr. CARTER. If I have the floor, and I might speak, my point was the
damage that the dissolution of marriage causes to the children of this
marriage. I said nothing about gay marriages in my speech whatsoever.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I apologize. If the gentleman would
continue to yield briefly.
Mr. WEINER. I continue to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I apologize for assuming that the
gentleman was referring to gay marriage. This is a debate about gay
marriage. So when the gentleman talked about the dissolution of 20,000
marriages, I made, apparently, the incorrect inference that there was
some relationship between what the gentleman was saying and the subject
under suggestion. I withdraw the inference.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I am going to reclaim my time, since the
gentleman is not referring to gay marriage, and that is what this very
important debate is about.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard a great deal on this floor about the
message we send our children, and we have different interpretations
about what this debate means to our children. One thing I would urge my
colleagues on the other side not to do is not to tell your children you
are being conservative by supporting this. Conservative values, as I
understand them, means not taking government and sticking it into every
relationship and into every corner of someone's personal life, like you
seek to do with a woman's right to reproductive freedom and like you
seek to do with the most intimate of relationships today.
Certainly, do not tell them that you are passing laws in this body to
protect them. That you should not tell the children when you have
passed laws to weaken water standards, weaken clean-air standards and
to underfund education. So when you are talking to your children, do
not tell them that.
Certainly, do not tell them that you are being consistent, because
many of the folks on the floor here are the strongest supporters of the
Defense of Marriage Act, yet in the Committee on the Judiciary and on
this floor over and over, when challenged as to its constitutionality,
say, oh, absolutely; absolutely, it is constitutional. It has not even
been struck down and already you are running away from your
interpretation of DOMA. So do not tell them you are being consistent.
And certainly, do not tell them that you are being honest, because if
you were being honest, you would not lie to them and tell them that you
are doing anything to amend the Constitution today. The Senate has
already defeated this. If you are going to be honest with them, you are
going to have to tell them what you are doing is simply posturing. So,
certainly, do not tell them you are being honest.
What you are doing is teaching them to hate. You are teaching them
that the Constitution is the place you remove rights, not protect them.
That, I think, has been a consistent theme of this year's session. So,
perhaps, in that case, you are being consistent in using the
Constitution that way.
And I have to tell my colleagues, there are so many people who hang
their heads today when talking about their grandparents who served in
this august body. They hang their heads when they talk about their
grandfather who stood up on the floor of the well and argued in favor
of slavery. They are embarrassed by that.
There are so many who hang their head when they talk about their
grandfather who served in this august body and fought for denying the
rights of women. They are embarrassed by that.
Why is it that you think your grandchildren will not some day grow up
and be telling their children about granddad or grandmom and have to be
embarrassed about this debate; have to be embarrassed and ashamed by
the idea that you, their grandparents, God willing, they are able to
tell the story and how embarrassed they will be? Will they be
embarrassed like those who have to talk about their grandparents who
voted to support slavery or voted in support of rounding up Americans
and putting them in internment camps?
I hope that that is not the case. If you are concerned about what you
will tell your grandkids, be more concerned about what they will tell
their grandkids about you.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
just mention that we are talking about marriage. I know some think this
is a debate or a constitutional amendment on gay marriage and same-sex
marriage. No, we are talking about marriage and the definition of
marriage. That is what this debate is about.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am not embarrassed to say I stand
here on behalf of tens of thousands of families in the Eighth
Congressional District in strong support of the marriage protection
amendment.
I believe the institution of marriage is a sacred union. It predates
Congress and the constitution. Marriage is not simply a legal contract.
For all its flaws, it is a covenant that truly binds individuals and
families to each other and has, for centuries, provided social
stability, not only for our country but for our culture.
Marriage matters. It matters to the American people. It matters to
our children, and it matters to our Nation's future. Because strong
families foster strong morals and a strong Nation to go with it.
As for those who say this is no business of Congress, I strongly
disagree. Our Founding Fathers and mothers may never have imagined this
debate today, but they created the thoughtful process for the American
people to decide such matters of importance.
And make no mistake, the definition of marriage will be defined. The
only question today we are debating is by whom, the unelected justices
of the Federal courts or the American people? So you decide, who do you
trust to decide this nation-changing decision? I have faith in the
American people.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Oakland, California (Ms. Lee), who replaced our good
colleague Ron Dellums, an activist in domestic and international
matters.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time and for his tireless efforts on behalf of civil liberties and
civil rights for all Americans.
This is a very mean-spirited and divisive constitutional amendment,
and it is just plain wrong. It would take everything this Nation stands
for, as a beacon of hope, as a land of opportunity and a tolerant
Democratic society, and really just turn it all on its head. Government
should not be in the business of passing constitutional

[[Page H7904]]

amendments to discriminate against anyone.
In an election year, with so much at stake, this amendment is clearly
a ploy to divide the country's focus from the real issues, and I say,
do not be fooled. There are far more important issues facing our Nation
this year that this administration and Republican-controlled Congress
refuse to debate and which have far greater impact on our country than
this issue of a constitutional amendment.
In my district, the Ninth Congressional District of California, six
members of the clergy, six members of the African-American clergy, led
by a great religious leader, the Reverend J. Alfred Smith, Sr., Senior
Pastor of the Allen Temple Baptist Church, addressed this very issue.
In this open letter, published in the Oakland Tribune, they
characterized the intent of this amendment to disrupt the peace and
good will of many in both the secular and religious communities.
They continued, ``whatever your personal opinion is regarding same-
sex marriages, ask yourself this litany of questions.'' They said:
``Can America survive if she continues unilateral war-making in a time
that calls for international peace-seeking collaboration?'' ``Can the
American common people, whom we serve as clergy, survive the
diminishing resources for public education and health care?'' They ask
the question: ``Can the American image survive the rejection of global
treaties and environmental controls?'' They said: ``Is it liberty and
justice for all Americans when preferential treatment is given to the
wealthy and select corporations?''
Mr. Speaker, the answer to all of these questions is no. So I
strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this cynical and divisive
attempt to legitimize discrimination in our most important secular,
mind you, our most important secular, not religious, document, the
Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the open letter published in the
Oakland Tribune, which I earlier referred to:

Here We Stand

In a democracy each citizen is given freedom of speech. No
one is to be condemned for being Democratic or Republican,
conservative, moderate, or liberal. Most recently, twenty
African American Clergy exercised freedom of speech at a
press conference. These ministers stated that they were
working to elect President George W. Bush for a second term
of office as President. These Pastors spoke not for their
Churches but they as individuals exercised their American
privilege and democratic right as citizens.
As a result of their exercise of free speech, conflict and
controversy have disrupted the peace and goodwill of many in
both the secular and religious communities. There are those
who believe that there would have been no hatred and
hostility if those Ministers would have not stated that their
reasons for supporting electing Mr. Bush to a second term was
not tied to the divisive issue of same sex marriages. The
AIDS activists responded to the press conference by saying
the Ministers have harmed future funding for the fight
against the spread of AIDS.
We are calling all of us to relate to each other with
mutual respect for each other so as to allow us to differ
logically and humanely on the issues. A Caring and
compassionate number of African American clergy do not
support President George W. Bush for re-election, but they
support traditional family values while promoting ministries
to decrease and spread of AIDS. These Pastors teach and
preach against racism, sexism, ageism, classism, and
homophobia. No one can place all African American Ministers
into a single theological, ideological or political camp.
We encourage you to investigate the larger and more far
reaching implications of the upcoming presidential race. In
addition to whatever your personal opinion is regarding same
sex marriages, ask yourself this litany of questions. Can
America survive if she continues unilateral war making in a
time that calls for international peace-seeking
collaboration? Can the economic infrastructure of city,
county, state and the nation survive continuous lavish
investment in the military? Can the American common people
whom we serve as clergy persons survive the diminishing of
resources for public education and health care? Can the
American image survive our rejection of global treaties and
environmental controls? Is it liberty and justice for all
Americans when preferential treatment is given to the wealthy
and select corporations? Should not all Americans seek an
administration that will protect our freedoms against
punitive patriot legislation while defending America from our
enemies? Last, but not least, we do not give our souls to any
imperfect human made political system. When the Kingdom of
God comes, we do not believe it will arrive on the wings of
Air Force One. We are committed to the principles of
compassion, courage, and critical thinking in leading a
People whose purpose driven lives elevate principles of
ethics far above the perils of political expediency.

Bishop Bob Jackson, Acts Full Gospel; Bishop Ernestine
Reems, Center of Hope; Reverend Joseph Smith, Pastor, Good
Hope Baptist Church and President, Bay Cities; Baptist
Minister's Union; Reverend Lloyd Farr, Pastor, New Bethel
Missionary Baptist Church, and President, Baptist Minister's
Union; Dr. Frank Pinkard, Pastor, Evergreen Baptist Church;
Dr. J. Alfred Smith, Sr., Senior Pastor, Allen Temple Baptist
Church.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today
in support of the marriage protection amendment, which is before the
House today. Over the past several years, the traditional family has
been under attack. The survival of the American family is of crucial
importance because it serves as the backbone to our Nation as the
primary protector and educator of our children.
Studies overwhelmingly suggest that children have a greater chance at
success in life when a mother and a father are both present in the
home. It is true that the recognition of the family unit has been
traditionally a State issue. In fact, in my home State of Georgia, we
will have a direct voice this November 2. In Georgia, we will vote yea
or nay on a constitutional amendment banning so-called same-sex
marriages.

{time} 1445

However, with the recent onslaught against the traditional family in
the courts, I believe it is now time for the Federal Government to act
decisively as well.
Mr. Speaker, 44 out of 50 United States have already enacted laws
that identify marriage as a union of a man and a woman, mother and
father. Yet activist judges who look to enforce their own personal
views continue to strike down laws passed by State legislatures and
approved by our constituents. In fact, over 60 percent of the American
people agree we need a Federal constitutional amendment. The citizens
of the United States, our constituents, want us to support traditional
marriage between one man and one woman. They do not want a court to
decide the definition of marriage.
Therefore, if we do not pass a constitutional amendment on the
Federal level, federally appointed judges will make their own
definition without a single vote by the American people or their
representatives. I believe this body has an important decision to make,
a decision that is obviously a major concern to the majority of the
American public.
To illustrate this, as of this morning, over 2,600 constituents from
Georgia's 11th Congressional District have written to me in favor of
this amendment. They have voiced their concerns to me, and I believe
they are right, and I strongly urge Congress to pass the marriage
protection amendment.
As far as the gentleman from the other side of the aisle who
questioned what our grandchildren will think of their grandparents some
day, my four grandchildren will say thank God their granddad stood up
for their moms and dads for the passage of this constitutional
amendment.

announcement by the speaker pro tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would admonish
guests in the gallery that they are here as guests of the House, and
are not to show approval or disapproval for remarks on the floor.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) who has worked on civil rights and
constitutional matters with great skill ever since she has come to this
Congress
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
ranking member for his continued service to America.
I thought I would take just a moment to move this debate to the
document which we are attempting to amend, and that is the
Constitution. As I arrived on the floor of the House, I was listening
to one of the speakers mention that the concept of marriage is embedded
in the Constitution of the United States. I took a moment, as I

[[Page H7905]]

listened and reflected on the various voices that have been raised,
because this is a constitutional debate that heretofore would take
numbers of days because we would be serious about amending the
Constitution.
But I came upon article IV that talks about full faith and credit
shall be given in each State by the public acts, records, and the
judicial proceedings of every other State, and so I do not understand
the argument that is being made by my friends on the other side of the
aisle, and I take issue in that because there will be different voices
raised from both sides of the aisle. This is a constitutional question.
This is a debate for all America, no matter what political hat one may
be wearing.
But I come upon the first amendment that clearly distinguishes and
says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
I stand before Members to respect and acknowledge the faith community
and the definitions they may give to unions of human beings and people
in the United States. But I again remind my colleagues that this again
is a secular Nation. Embedded in the Constitution is our right to
freedom of religion, but it indicates very specifically that we are to
designate no particular religion for this Nation.
As a southerner coming from the State of Texas, I stand before you
with great jeopardy because the predominant individuals in my community
do speak as others have already spoken; however, I would be incensed if
anyone was to define the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) or
any of us who hold this Constitution dear, as someone who would fall
over to the comfort zone where you would be patted on the back and
praised and given all kinds of accolades because you decided to stand
against a justice system that allows people to be human and dignified
and equal in this country. I refuse to do that.
I might offer to Members that I spent some time finding myself on the
wrong side of the majority of the people of the United States of
America. The good news is that those of us who have done that wake up
every morning feeling good because we have slept well. The impeachment
we went through in 1998, I am reminded of that room when everybody
thought this was the way we should go, and I frankly believed, as many
of my colleagues who joined us believed, that the Constitution at the
time must prevail.
So let me share some words during a very difficult time in America,
and that was the civil rights movement first, but the Civil War in the
1800s when this country was divided both in terms of individual family
members and States. It was a time when people were trying to find some
way to preserve the Union. Daniel Webster stood on the floor of the
United States Senate and stated, ``Mr. President, I wish to speak today
not as a Massachusetts man, not as a northern man, but as an American
and a Member of the Senate of the United States. I speak today for the
preservation of the Union.''
So I speak today for the preservation of the Constitution of the
United States of America. It troubles me that even though we can find
ways to divide over many, many issues, it troubles me that we do not
embrace the respect and the understanding of the freedom of the
religion.
I also offer to say that Daniel Webster made it very clear that we
must work in order to preserve not only this Union, and he said
``Instead of dwelling in those caverns of darkness, let us enjoy the
fresh air of liberty and union.''
Let us enjoy the fresh air of liberty and the understanding that this
constitutional document would protect any American who would fall on
the minority side of a cause. If it is not you today, it may be you
tomorrow.
For us to have a constitutional amendment that takes this document
and make mockery of it, it has served us well. There is not a page or
line or sentence in this document that undermines the human dignity of
anyone. I welcome the clergy, and I would go to pray and sit with them
and discuss with them their beliefs as I respect them, as I respect all
of our beliefs. But who are we as a Nation if we are promoting
democracy in the very bottom of the insurgency of Iraq and Baghdad, and
we would stand today to deny the constitutional understanding that says
we all are created equal. This document stands to the living testament
that whoever you are in this Nation, you have freedom under this
Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to defeat this amendment because it
is unjust and it is not befitting of these United States of America and
those of us who desire to preserve the Union and the Constitution,
realize that this amendment does not promote freedom of religion or the
sanctity of our Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is the symbol of misplaced priorities.
As my colleague from California eloquently enunciated during a
Judiciary Committee markup of the ``9/11 Recommendations Implementation
Act,'' H.R. 10 yesterday, it is unfathomable that we rushed through the
consideration of that very important legislation so that we could
debate this unnecessary proposal. Whether same-sex unions negatively
affect our traditional notions of marriage will not make a difference
to the families of 9/11 victims. Our first responders will not get the
needed funding to prepare for imminent attacks as a result of swift
passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment. This debate is ridiculous
and will not help the American people.
I oppose this bill. H.J. Res. 106, the ``Federal Marriage
Amendment,'' proposes to assert Congress' opinion on the lives of all
Americans on matters that concern their personal lives, their family
relations, and their very identity.
This Constitutional amendment is not necessary and therefore should
not be transmitted to the Committee of the Whole with a rule that
restricts the voices of the members who function as one of the few
voices that the Nation will have on its future.

Tenth Amendment

The 10th Amendment states: ``The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' This amendment
was the basis of the doctrine of states' rights that became the ante-
bellum rallying cry of the southern states, which sought to restrict
the ever-growing powers of the federal government. The principle of
states' rights and state sovereignty eventually led the southern states
to secede from the central government that they believed had failed to
honor the covenant that had originally bound the states together.
In this case, the individual states need to have the ability to
differ with the federal government in an area that relates to what goes
on in the homes of individuals.

Full Faith and Credit

In 1887 the court told us that ``Without doubt the constitutional
requirement, Art. IV, Sec. 1, that `full faith and credit shall be
given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial
proceedings of every other State,' implies that the public acts of
every State shall be given the same effect by the courts of another
State that they have by law and usage at home.'' Chicago & Alton R.R.
v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 119 U.S. 615, 622 (1887).
The proposal in H.J. Res. 106 will overturn Wiggins Ferry, and all
other supreme court jurisprudence that have pronounced what the Framers
of the U.S. Constitution intended in drafting Article IV, Sec. 1.

equal protection of the law

Gay and lesbian Americans are American citizens who pay taxes and
protect our communities as fire fighters, police officers, and by
serving in the military, and therefore desire the same rights and
protections as other Americans.
Denying gay and lesbian couples the right to engage in a union equals
a federal taking--legal rights in pensions, health insurance, hospital
visitations, and inheritance that other long-term committed couples
enjoy.
As Members of Congress with the authorities vested in us as a body,
we have a responsibility to deal with issues that need attention. There
is no emergent need relating to individual well-being, national
security, or any other government interest that warrants a
constitutional amendment for this purpose. This is a waste of the
taxpayer's dollars. This amendment takes away existing legal
protections, under State and local laws, for committed, long-term
couples, such as hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights,
pension benefits, and health insurance coverage among others.
Under current law, marriage is a decision of the State. As marriage
was initially tied to property rights, this has historically always
been a local issue. The State gives us a marriage license, determines a
couples' tax bracket and authorizes its divorce. It does not need
additional control over the situation. Religious conceptions of
marriage are sacrosanct and should remain so, but how a State decides
to dole out hospital visitation rights or insurance benefits should be
a matter of State law. As legal relationships change, laws adapt
accordingly.

[[Page H7906]]

Matters of great importance, such as marriage, need to reflect the
will of the people and be resolved within the democratic process. By
having Congress give the States restrictions initially, we are denying
them the chance to let their constituents decide what is best for them.
We cannot use the Constitution as a bullhorn to dictate social policy
from Washington.
We are fighting global war on terrorism, we are still recovering from
the greatest attack on American soil and we are working to create
alliances around the world. We have men and women overseas who are
giving their lives to see freedom in Iraq. We have troops in
Afghanistan that are still trying to set up a functioning democracy in
Kabul. Why are we wasting time on the house floor, in our legislative
offices and with our valuable staff to handle this ludicrous amendment?
This proposed amendment will forever write discrimination into the
U.S. Constitution rather than focusing on the crucial problems and
challenges that affect the lives of all of us. At a time of record high
unemployment, diminishing job prospects, a ballooning budget deficit
that is choking our economy and crucial social service programs, a
public school system that is in great need of attention and a health
care system that is failing over 43 million Americans that remain
uninsured over the past 3 years. This discriminatory constitutional
amendment is nothing more than a political distraction for the country
to divert attention from the overabundance of real problems and our
tremendous lack of effective solutions.

Violation of Privacy

Our civil liberties are based upon the fundamental premise that each
individual has a right to privacy, to be free from governmental
interference in the most personal, private areas of one's life.
Deciding when and whether to have children is one of those areas.
Marriage is another.
In 1965 the Supreme Court ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut that a
married couple had the right to use birth control. In doing so, the
Court recognized a ``zone of privacy'' implicit in various provisions
of the Constitution. Most recently, the Supreme Court struck down a law
criminalizing sex between same-sex couples in Lawrence v. Texas based
upon these same principles.
Indeed, Lawrence relied principally on Griswold, Eisenstadt and Roe
v. Wade. Collectively, these decisions recognize the fundamental
principle that the Constitution protects individuals' decisions about
marriage, procreation, contraception and family relationships. The
issues are inextricably linked--in law as well as policy.

There is no valid need to amend the Constitution

Amending the Constitution is a radical act that should only be
undertaken to address great public-policy needs. Since the adoption of
the Bill of Rights in 1791, the Constitution has been amended only 17
times. Moreover, the Constitution should be amended only to protect and
expand, not limit, individual freedoms. By contrast, the Federal
Marriage Amendment is an attempt to restrict liberties, and on a
discriminatory basis.

defense of marriage act already exists

The Defense of Marriage Act, which President Bill Clinton signed into
law in 1996, already exists and recognizes marriage as a heterosexual
union for purposes of federal law only. DOMA was designed to provide
individual states individual autonomy in deciding how to recognize
marriage and other unions within their borders. This allowed
legislators the latitude to decide how to deal with marriage rights
themselves, while simultaneously stating that no state could force
another to recognize marriage of same sex couples. For those who want
to take a stance on marriage alone, DOMA should quell their fears. We
do not need additional, far reaching legislation.

fma will not change views on same sex marriage

The Federal government cannot use its influence to change people's
minds about a social issue. it did not work in the 1920s with the 18th
amendment declared alcohol to be illegal and it did not work in the
1960s when interracial marriage was still considered a crime. This
amendment will not change the lives of those who want to live as a
married couple, all it will do is take away their license to do so.

this will clog the judicial system

The FMA is a lawyer's dream and a judge's nightmare. The number of
cases that will flood the system will be outlandish. Does the FMA
retroactively invalidate all marriages that have occurred in the
interim? If a spouse has died, how does the retroactive annulment
affect custody of the children, or property rights? There will be a
litany of case law brought to deal with these questions, and our
judicial system will be filled with cases trying to sort out the
lasting effects of the FMA.

this is likely to fail

Amending the constitution is not a simple thing, and should be done
with care and caution over a long period of time. Our haste in this
matter will be the tragic flaw of FMA's journey. Recent polls show that
a majority of people who oppose gay marriage also oppose amending the
constitution to ban them. Even if the Bush administration can whip
enough votes to pass this through both chambers, it is highly unlikely
that 35 states would approve it.

fma does not help families

Many of my colleagues are arguing that FMA is here to protect the
family. Spending time and resources to amend the constitution to
prevent gay marriages is not helping a single family. Divorce, abuse,
unwed motherhood and unemployment are doing far more harm to millions
of families everywhere. To those who are taking up the cause to protect
American families, perhaps your attention could be focused elsewhere on
the problems which are truly plaguing them.
The vocal proponents of the FMA show their strong and willful hatred
of the gay and lesbian community. This egregious amendment would
enshrine discrimination against a specific group of citizens and
intolerance of specific religious beliefs into our Nation's most sacred
document. The fight for equality is uniquely woven into our Nation's
history. From the suffrage movement, to the civil rights movement, to
the gay rights movement, minorities in this country have worked
tirelessly to achieve the equal rights guaranteed.

the legal incident of marriage warrants a license

There are a multitude of critical protections needed for same sex
couples and their children. These legal incidents include rights
related to group insurance, victim's compensation, worker's
compensation, durable powers of attorney, family leave benefits and a
joint tax return. These benefits are necessary for families to
function. Legal status is truly a license that extends rights, it
should not be denied to one group of people--otherwise, this body will
be guilty of legislating in violation of the Equal Protections Clause
of the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution,
and I urge this body to preserve the Constitution for the document of
equality that it is--vote ``no.''
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Neugebauer).
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
marriage protection amendment. This bill could also be called the
family protection amendment. It could be called the child protection
amendment because it is the best environment for our children's future.
It is one that arises out of a marriage between one man and one woman.
It is unfortunate that we have come to this point where Congress must
step up and amend the United States Constitution in order to protect
marriage in our country. However, the circumstances presented to us
today leave us no choice but to do so. I want to ensure that the
citizens of our Nation make this decision directly through their
elected officials and their vote, and not by unelected Federal judges.
I want my fellow Texans, not a Federal court, to decide what marriage
is in our State.
In 2003, the Texas legislature passed a law defining marriage as a
union between a man and a woman. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act does
not compel Texas to recognize same-sex marriages authorized by other
States, and I support that law. However, the law does not keep same-sex
couples with marriage licenses issued in other States from moving to
Texas and suing to have their union recognized as a marriage in Texas.
Would a Federal court or a Supreme Court uphold DOMA in this case? We
do not know that. But what we do know based on recent history, the
indication is that it is a safe bet that appointed judges and not the
American people may make that decision. The situation I just described
is not an imagined one. It is a reality in 11 States that are currently
facing legal challenges in their States. Judges in these cases, not the
people, will be able to define marriage. Mr. Speaker, this is not how
our system of government was designed to work.
To date, people across 44 States have spoken. They have sent the
message that they believe marriage should consist of a union of a man
and a woman. This represents 88 percent of our States.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, it is not just what I am saying, but the
children also know what the definition of marriage is.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), a longtime civil rights and human rights
advocate.

[[Page H7907]]

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, let me say that I support the traditional
definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I voted
for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, but I believe, like Vice
President Cheney, that this is an issue that should be regulated by the
States, as it has been throughout the history of this great Nation.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the chair of the House Republican Policy
Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) stated on Tuesday in
the Wall Street Journal and I quote, ``The Federal marriage amendment
would do more harm than good were it to be enshrined in our charter.''
That is the statement of the chairman of their policy committee.
Through their legislatures and courts, the States have proven quite
capable of determining the legal definition of marriage. I believe the
proper venue to consider decisions affecting this issue is in State
courts and legislatures, and yes, with the people of the individual
States. Thus, I oppose this constitutional amendment which is, at its
core, based on intolerance and is a patently obvious effort to energize
a part of the Republican Party's base and inflame the passions of
others.
None of us should ignore the Republican majority's real intent here
today. This constitutional amendment represents the perfect marriage of
raw political cynicism and distraction. Everyone in this Chamber
understands that this amendment is not going to pass. In fact, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) said again in the Wall Street
Journal, ``The Federal marriage amendment is more symbol than substance
given the near impossibility of a two-thirds vote.''
Even the majority leader himself acknowledged as much this week,
telling Congress Daily, ``I think it is really important to put Members
on the record, particularly before an election.'' Orval Faubus would
have agreed with that; George Wallace would have agreed with that;
Lester Maddox would have agreed with that.
The majority leader's decision to move this amendment to the floor
just 7 months after stating that it was unlikely to be considered this
year is more than ironic, it is patently political. The purpose in
bringing this amendment to the floor today, just 4 weeks before the
election, is to create the fodder for a demagogic political ad that
appeals to voters' worst fears and prejudices rather than, as we should
do, to their best instincts.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, given that this amendment is not going to pass,
it is nothing short of amazing and irresponsible that we are spending
time debating this issue on the floor today.

{time} 1500

Again as our colleague from California (Mr. Cox) pointed out, there
have been more than 130 amendments to the Constitution proposed in our
history regarding marriage. The gentleman from California pointed out
not one of those amendments has ever been voted on in either House
because the leadership in those houses over those years thought those
130 amendments did not belong on the floor. How sad it is that we do
not have that kind of leadership today.
At midnight tonight, my colleagues, the new fiscal year begins. How
many of 13 must-pass appropriation bills have passed? One. Mr. Speaker,
the Republican majority's legislative malfeasance is on full display
today. The appropriations process is in meltdown. This Republican
Congress has failed to enact a budget, failed to enact intelligence
reform, failed to enact energy reform, failed to enact the
reauthorization of the highway bill, failed to enact the
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. The list goes on and on.
Yet with all that outstanding legislation, with all of America's
business bottled up and pending, we consider a constitutional amendment
that the chairman of the policy committee on the Republican side says
will not pass. How patently political today is.
Mr. Speaker, this Republican majority has failed. The American people
deserve better. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our majority leader for
his leadership on this issue. It is an honor for me to stand here with
my colleagues today to protect marriage. To my colleagues who oppose
this amendment, they want to argue that marriage is a right that should
be extended to relationships beyond those of one man and one woman.
They want to claim that the effort to protect marriage is about
discrimination.
Mr. Speaker, I have a statement I want to enter into the Record. It
is from one of Boston's most respected African American leaders,
Reverend Richard Richardson of the St. Paul African Methodist Episcopal
Church, standing in support of marriage, working to help protect
marriage.
The statement is as follows:

``As an African-American, I know something about
discrimination. . . . The traditional institution of marriage
is not discrimination. And I find it offensive to call it
that. Marriage was not created to oppress people. It was
created for children. It boggles my mind that people would
compare the traditional institution of marriage to slavery.
From what I can tell, every U.S. Senator--both Democrat and
Republican--who has talked about marriage has said that they
support traditional marriage laws and oppose what the
Massachusetts court did. Are they all guilty of
discrimination?''

Mr. Speaker, there is an emotional appeal to their arguments, but we
are not here to legislate on emotion, and this is not comparable to the
civil rights movement. We are here today, Mr. Speaker, because logic,
because reason, because experience tell us that marriage is something
that is worth preserving and protecting. Despite what some of my
colleagues will say, we are not here for malicious purposes. We are
here to ensure that our marriage laws protect an institution that is
part of the bedrock fiber of our society.
To determine whether or not a law is discriminatory, you have got to
have an understanding about something of the purposes of that law. Is
Social Security age discrimination because only people of retirement
age are affected by that? Of course not. Similarly, common sense,
experience, and social science will tell us that the purposes of our
marriage laws are neither ugly nor invidious.
Marriage is a social institution. Individuals freely decide to enter
marriage, but they do not have a right to redefine its basic nature
because they disagree with our shared American understanding of what
marriage is. They do not have that right any more than an individual
can privately redefine the meaning of other basic social terms like
``property'' or ``democracy'' or ``church'' or ``corporation.''
A vote for this amendment is a vote to preserve and protect an
institution that is critical to the well-being of American families and
children. Mr. Speaker, today we are going to stand with a basic element
of our society. We have an obligation to preserve it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), a distinguished member of the
Committee on the Judiciary now on leave.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, consistently proponents of
this amendment have tried to hide what it does. Yes, there is a
question about what one State could be compelled to do by the Federal
courts to respect another. If that were the problem, an amendment could
come forward aimed narrowly at that. I would not support it. But an
amendment that said the full faith and credit clause does not apply
could have come forward. This amendment goes far beyond that. But the
proponents of it apparently understand how indefensible it is in the
very democratic terms which they use, and therefore they conceal it
from the people, speaker after speaker after speaker.
I hope the majority leader will tell us why he will not be
straightforward about this element of it and here is what it is: this
does not simply say that judges cannot decide the question. And it does
not say that one State cannot compel another. It also says, and its
major impact, if it were to pass, would be to say to the voters of
Massachusetts, no matter what you say in a referendum, no matter how
you, the democratic electorate of Massachusetts, choose to define
marriage, we the Federal Government overrule you.
What justification have you for that? You say the people of Texas,
the people

[[Page H7908]]

of Tennessee want to decide. Why not the people of Massachusetts? Why
did you not draft an amendment that would have honored the right of a
State's electorate to make a decision? Our legislature is now in charge
of this issue. The legislature will decide and the referendum will
decide; and this amendment undeniably, but silently, says that no
matter what any State does, it will be overruled. Vermont's civil union
law originally came from the courts, but it has since been accepted by
the political electorate. There have been votes in Vermont over this.
Elections. This would also be overturned.
But now let me turn to the merits. We heard one gentleman say that he
was not talking about same-sex marriage. He just noted that he had
presided over the dissolution of 20,000 marriages. I am a gay man and I
have presided over the dissolution of none. So I guess I do not feel
quite as guilty about assaulting marriage as some of you would like me
to feel. I am sorry Rush Limbaugh has been divorced three times, but it
ain't my fault; and it is not the fault of any of my friends. That is
the issue.
We are not assaulting marriage. Since when is it an assault on
something for people to say, you know what, we have been excluded from
this institution. We are also human beings and we feel love. We feel it
in a way different than you. We feel it for someone of the same sex,
male or female. And we look at your institution of marriage, and we see
the joy it brings. We see the stability it brings to society. How does
it hurt you if we share in it? That is the core issue I have not heard
understood. What is it about the fact that two women in love in
Massachusetts want to be legally as well as morally responsible for
each other and live together and keep their home? Why is that an
assault on you?
What a case of blaming the victim. You are defending yourselves
against two loving people whose failure is to love each other and to
want not simply to be free floating but to be committed? What is it you
are protecting yourselves against? How do we threaten you? What about
the love of two men so disturbs you that it would dissolve marriages?
There are apparently, what, men and women happily married all over the
country and they will learn that in Massachusetts the legislature
allowed same-sex marriage to continue and they will get a divorce, they
will call the gentleman from Texas and he can make it 20,001.
The gentleman from Texas, the majority leader, says this is not about
gay marriage. Yes. And God didn't make little green apples and it don't
rain in Indianapolis in the summertime. This is a political effort and
it comes up a month before the election when it has been an issue since
May of this year at least and before, a month before the election, an
amendment that has no chance to pass, demonizes same-sex couples.
I say demonize for this reason. You say, we do not have anything
against these people. Then why do you change my love into a weapon? Why
if I have the same feelings that you do towards another human being
does that somehow become the only weapon of mass destruction you have
ever been able to find?
I urge the House to turn this down, let the people of Massachusetts
make their own choices, and let loving men and loving women live in
peace.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have the utmost respect for the gentleman from Massachusetts. I
respect his feelings. No one is attacking his feelings or his
relationships. There are many loving relationships between adults. But,
Mr. Speaker, what we are saying and what this amendment is about is
children, having children, raising children, and the ideal of marriage
between one man and one woman raising those children.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Forbes).
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, one thing that both sides of the aisle, I
think, can agree on today is that we should not be here today debating
this amendment. I was thinking as I was sitting here, if we could go
back in time to the days when they were laying the very foundation of
this building that we are in today and we could ask the individuals
laying that foundation, people walking the streets in D.C., what is the
definition in America of marriage, they would have looked at us in
bewilderment and they would have said without question, it is the
relationship between one man and one woman.
Mr. Speaker, if I had dared to tell them that there would come a day
when I would stand in this Chamber and people would point their finger
at me and they would yell and they would scream and they would call me
names because I dared to stand up here to defend that definition of
marriage, they would have been just awestruck.
Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle always talk
about representing the people in this country; but when their
definition of marriage was challenged, 78 percent of them in Louisiana
stood up and said that they believed that marriage should be between a
man and a woman; 71 percent of them stood up in Missouri; 70 percent in
Nebraska; 69 percent in Hawaii; 61 percent in California.
Mr. Speaker, what we are facing today is an assault by a few
individuals on that basic traditional definition of marriage between a
man and a woman. The problem we had is that when this Congress stood up
with the people in this country and said we want to protect that
definition for you and they passed the Defense of Marriage Act, they
realized that that act is currently under attack in Nebraska alone
where 70 percent of the voters amended the Nebraska constitution to
define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, that is being
attacked and trying to be overturned now.
Mr. Speaker, before our subcommittees we have heard testimony after
testimony by leading scholars of the courts that tell us that when that
act comes before the courts, it will be declared unconstitutional, not
because that was the original Constitution but because of the way a few
handful of judges are interpreting that Constitution today.
Mr. Speaker, the question for us is very simple. There are some of
our friends who say that the protection of marriage is not worth
amending the Constitution. I think it is worth that, Mr. Speaker; and I
hope we will pass this amendment so we can stand with all the people
across this country who believe very strongly that marriage should be
between a man and a woman for the protection of the children in that
marriage.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to reach across the aisle
and yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the distinguished majority leader said that this
amendment is about protecting children. With all due respect, it has
nothing to do with protecting children. Gay people, lesbian people
raise children today. They have children. They raise them. The laws of
many States permit them to adopt children and they do. What this
amendment is aimed at doing is aimed at preventing any State from
bringing some stability to the lives of those children by allowing
their lesbian or gay couples who have legal custody of those children,
who are raising those children, to be able to get married. And this
amendment says never mind what the electorate says, never mind what the
legislature says, we do no want those parents to be able to be married.
So do not tell us this is about protecting children. Whatever it is
about, it is not about that.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I
thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time. I wish I
could seek time from my side of the aisle to speak today for basic
human rights.

{time} 1515

Unfortunately, the misguided effort to enshrine family law into the
Constitution of the United States comes from this side of the aisle. So
I am grateful to the minority for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, the very process by which this bill is brought before us
today is an affront to this institution. It was not considered by any
committee of the House. It is not brought to the floor by the chairman
of that

[[Page H7909]]

committee. Rather, it is brought by the Republican leadership, who
decided to take upon themselves to do the work of the committees and
their chairmen. Moreover, this very same legislation was considered in
the Senate and did not even achieve a majority vote, much less the
required two-thirds for a constitutional amendment. Why then are we
rushing to judgment here today? What is the compelling reason to
consider this now?
Eleven States have proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot
this November which would define marriage in their own States as being
between a man and a woman. While I might disagree with the actions of
the voters in my State or any State considering such an amendment to
their constitution, that is their prerogative. For better than 200
years, family law has exclusively been the domain of the States. And
that is where it should remain. Vice President Cheney said exactly
this, and I agree with him. The chief crafter of the Defense of
Marriage Act in 1996, former Representative Bob Barr, has said as much.
And I agree with him. Marriage and divorce, inheritance and adoption,
child custody, these are matters which correctly belong with our
States. It certainly does not belong in the Constitution of the United
States.
Many of the States considering amendments to their own constitutions
would permit their legislatures to enact provisions for civil unions
between two people of the same sex. This amendment would prohibit that.
But that is the genius of our federal system. To allow States to find
solutions to issues such as family law which work uniquely for them.
Amending the Constitution is, thankfully, a difficult task. That
cumbersome process has saved us from making ill-advised changes during
these past 215 years. It will save us from ourselves again this day.
Never in our history have we used the amending process to limit the
rights of citizens. From the first amendment to the fourteenth, the
framers and the Congresses which followed have sought to expand and
protect the rights of citizens. This would be a unique amendment in
that it takes away rights from one group while specifically conferring
it upon another. Try to find another provision in the Constitution that
does this. They will look in vain.
Mr. Speaker, this Congress and those before it should be about
protecting rights and expanding rights. This proposed amendment to our
Constitution is about discrimination. It is unnecessary. It is
unwarranted. It should be soundly defeated.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have been here before. Abortion was up to the States,
and it was supposed to be up to the States. Unfortunately, those who
wanted more abortions in the States and the States were not doing what
they wanted had a concerted strategy to use the courts to get abortion.
And they worked over the years, went to the Supreme Court, and they got
their abortions. And we have abortions.
The same thing is happening now on marriage. They are trying to get
marriage redefined in this country, so we know that we will end up in
the Supreme Court.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that Congress has moved
this important legislation to the floor of the House for a vote today.
My office has received literally thousands of letters and e-mails,
personal visits and phone calls from constituents urging me to support
the institution of traditional marriage. And I want them to know today
that I have heard them.
I realize that reasonable men can differ on whether to allow
nontraditional marriages in the United States. But I am clear on this
issue because the values I share with the people of the Second
Congressional District of Georgia are deeply held for God, country,
work, and family. Moreover, these families' values are those of the
traditional family based in our Judeo-Christian principles. That is why
I have cosponsored and will vote for this important constitutional
amendment, H.J. Res. 106, in order to protect the institution of
marriage by defining marriage in the United States as the union between
a man and a woman.
I also voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which prohibits
federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows individual States
to refuse to recognize such marriages.
Mr. Speaker, only by having a uniform definition of marriage
established in the Constitution and interpreted by the federal courts
can this most basic unit of society be protected.
God, country, work, family, marriage between one man and one woman,
to these we must pledge our sacred honor.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey), who has worked with us on civil rights, human
rights and international issues throughout her career.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. With all the important
legislation we should be working on with just 1 week left in our
session, we are writing discrimination into the Constitution for the
first time in our country's history.
Whether one supports or opposes gay marriages, there is no reason to
threaten the democratic values set forth in our Constitution. Not now,
not ever.
Of course, Republicans are getting a lot of political mileage out of
this debate today from their right-wing fundamental supporters. And
they get a lot of mileage out of being on the side of what we they call
``family values.'' They have offered programs like their Marriage
Initiative, where $1.5 billion has been funded to help the poor acquire
interpersonal and conflict management skills to promote and strengthen
marriage.
The people I talk with, however, do not want the government to be
their family therapist. They do not want the government to be in their
bedroom. They want a government that helps create good jobs with good
benefits, flexible workplaces, universal health coverage, affordable
child care, safe after-school programs and much more. They know what
real family values are.
And let me read a letter I just received from a family that knows
about family values. The woman writing, her name is Casey. She is from
Santa Rosa, California. She writes: ``I was in a very long relationship
with my partner until her death on April 17, 2000. Although I wanted
very badly to, we could not legally marry, and my partner refused to
marry me until our marriage would be legal. Hence, we were never able
to marry even though we raised two children, who, by the way, are both
heterosexual.
``Shortly after her terminal diagnosis after 18 months of a valiant
fight against cancer, she asked me to marry her brother. This would
accomplish three goals: I would be afforded health insurance through
his work. As I have several debilitating chronic conditions, it is
vital that I have health coverage.'' Second, ``if and when he becomes
ill from his HIV or Hepatitis C, he will have someone to care for
him.'' And, third, ``our youngest child would have two parents for the
rest of her childhood, another 3 years.
``Three weeks to the day after her brother and I were married, the
love of my life died in my arms at the age of 37. If we had been
allowed to marry, we would have felt that we were full citizens in our
State and in our country. As it was, she died a second-class citizen.
Please do not let any more Americans die as second-class citizens.
Sincerely Casey McChesney.''
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Berman).
(Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called
Marriage Protection Amendment.
During the Civil Rights movement there was great public turmoil over
whether or not white and black children should go to the same schools;
whether people of different races should eat in the same areas of
restaurants, drink from the same water fountains, sleep in the same
hotels; even whether consenting adults of different races should be
allowed to marry each other. After years of struggle and public
discourse, the minority went to our country's highest court and to its
elected representatives in Congress, and at long last, in their quest
for equality, our government realized that Black Americans are
Americans.
Today, only 40 years later, these questions seem preposterous. To
children learning about

[[Page H7910]]

that time in school, it seem unreal. Listening to the debate today, I
have to wonder if we will ever learn from the lessons of our history.
Today we're talking about an amendment to the Constitution--the
document that assures all Americans that they are equal. We're asked to
amend the Constitution in a way that will say all Americans are equal,
except for this one group. What we're really talking about today is one
question. Are Gay and Lesbian Americans, Americans?
I hear those who support this amendment saying we have to amend the
Constitution to protect us from activist judges who are not upholding
the notions of family that existed when the country was founded. If the
authors of this amendment had served in Congress during the Civil
Rights movement, we could have heard them argue to defend segregation
with an ``Education Protection Amendment'' after the Supreme Court's
activist decision in the Brown v. Board decision. After the Loving v.
Virginia decision they would have reacted to the judicial activism with
a ``Racial Purity Protection Amendment.''
I don't believe that the proponents of this amendment, or for that
matter the majority of the American people, truly believe that a gay
couple living down the street in a committed relationship is a threat
to their own marriages or to other marriages in their community. I
don't think they really believe it because such a belief would be
completely nonsensical.
The proponents of this amendment argue that two women who fall in
love and want to marry will eventually be the downfall of all families
in the United States. They say it will lead to the breakdown of the
family. I want the people in favor of this amendment to look at the
more than one million children of gay and lesbian parents in this
country today one million children of gay and lesbian parents in this
country today and tell them that you're here fighting to protect the
rest of the country from their family.
The Members who support this amendment claim they want to protect
marriage. Open your eyes and look around. There are plenty of threats
to marriages today--adultery, divorce, just the challenge of two adults
making it through life's struggle together. Two people falling in love
is not a threat to marriage--it's the basis of marriage.
If the other side were sincere about wanting to protect marriage,
we'd have an amendment on the floor today constitutionally banning
divorce. If they really wanted to protect children from the dangers of
being raised without a father and mother, we'd be banning single
parenthood. But we aren't.
Each Member of this Congress took a vow to defend the Constitution
when we took office. The Marriage Protection Act would defile our
Constitution, and we should uphold our duty today by opposing it.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. King), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for
yielding me this time.
A lot has been said about this Constitution. I will just take my
colleagues to article I, section 1. It says ``All legislative powers
herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.'' That is what the courts
have taken over from us, legislative powers.
So I want to say this about families: There is only one institution
that is as old as humanity itself. There is only one institution that
we know is right for raising children. There is only one institution
that we know is best to teach our children our values of faith, our
moral values; only one proven institution to transfer our work ethic to
the next generation. There is only one institution that transfers all
that we are as a people to our children and grandchildren and only one
relationship between people that ensures the survival of the human
race.
All of human history, all that we were, all that we are and all that
we are ever going to be is built upon one institution, the cornerstone
of civilization. And that institution, Mr. Speaker, is marriage.
Mr. Speaker, we owe too much to our Creator, too much to posterity
and too much to our children to throw away marriage, redefine marriage
for no more reason than to demonstrate tolerance.
The active effort on the part of four unelected Massachusetts judges
to impose same-sex marriage on all of America without the consent of
the people is judicial tyranny. And if we believe in ourselves, and we
do, and if we believe the Constitution is a sacred covenant that
provides the best hope for all of humanity, then we have no other
alternative but to amend the Constitution to protect our posterity from
those who would forever alter or abolish our way of life and to do so
without thought given to the price that would be paid by all future
generations.
We cannot put the Genie or the Gina or the Jimmy or the Joey back in
the bottle. If same-sex marriage were something that was an experiment
that, if it did not pan out, we could simply change it back, I would
not be so emphatic here today. Mr. Speaker, we will not get a ``do-
over'' on marriage. We will not get a second chance to get it right
again; not in this country, not in this civilization and not in this
generation of man.
I support the constitutional amendment.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Smith), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and
subcommittee chairman.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas,
majority leader, for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, however we feel about the subject of marriage, we can
still support the Marriage Protection Amendment. That is because
judicial activism in America has reached a crisis.
Judges routinely overrule the will of the people, invent so-called
rights and ignore traditional values. Recently, judges have even
changed the definition of marriage. Most Americans simply do not want
judges to dictate a new kind of marriage that is so different from the
one that has served so many so well for so long. They want to protect
marriage as we know it.
Eleven States have proposed to alter their constitutions or statutes
to protect traditional marriage through ballot initiatives. Five States
have already done so, with an average of over 70 percent of the voters
wanting to protect marriage.
To prevent judges from overruling these popular initiatives, we must
pass the Marriage Protection Amendment. Either we act in Congress or a
few judges will redefine marriage and impose their personal views on
the country.
The constitutional amendment process is an integral part of our
democratic system, requiring approval from two-thirds of each House of
Congress and three-quarters of the States by votes of their State
legislatures. Passing a constitutional amendment places this debate
back where it belongs, and that is with the American people. It is the
American people and their representatives who should determine how
marriage is defined. That is why we should support the Marriage
Protection Amendment.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say, we have heard two arguments time
and time again today by the opposition that they have used to cite to
oppose the Marriage Protection Amendment. The first is some variation
of ``all people are created equal,'' that somehow this is about equal
rights. But, Mr. Speaker, just because all people are created equal
does not mean that all kinds of marriages are equal, just like it does
not mean that all kinds of flags are equal or all kinds of governments
are equal.
The second argument we have heard today over and over again is that
somehow this is a political issue being used to win elections. I do not
mind that argument, Mr. Speaker, because that concedes that a majority
of the American people agree with us that we want to protect marriage
as we know it.

{time} 1530

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Akin).
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of the
Marriage Protection Amendment.
There have been references to the Constitution. Mine starts out ``we
the people,'' not ``we the judges.'' We did not ask for this debate. It
has been brought on us by activist judges who have chosen to ignore the
will of the people and instead redefine marriage for all Americans.
Sociologists, psychologists, and other experts can give us all sorts
of technical explanations, but we all know from experience that kids
are best off when they have a mom and a dad.
And kids is what this debate is all about. It is not about civil
rights or the rights of same-sex couples. Same-sex couples are free to
live as they choose. This amendment does not

[[Page H7911]]

change that. Instead, this amendment simply defines what marriage is,
the union of one man and one woman.
Now, some have used the word ``discrimination'' or
``discriminating.'' You know, 342 Members of this House, along with the
President, signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Does that mean they were
discriminating? How about the 70 percent of the voters in of my State
of Missouri or 80 percent in the State of Louisiana? Are they
discriminating? I think not.
Activist judges are trying to institutionalize a lie that marriage is
just about big people relationships, but they forget the little people,
the whole generation of kids who will struggle with this terrible
precedent.
We do not have to look very far to see the results of family
deterioration. Whole cities have suffered terrible poverty and crime
because the model of traditional families has been weakened. Should we
now stand idly by while a mere handful of activist judges seek to
institutionalize the lie that marriage is disconnected from child
rearing?
It has been tried before. It has been tried in the Netherlands, and
the result is a tremendous increase in the number of little children
who are born without any families.
The other night I went to a dinner, there was a 16-year-old little
girl, and she said that ever since she could remember being alive she
had only one wish: She wished that she had a family.
Do you know what it is like to be lonely, to be really lonely, to
have no mom and to have no dad? Do you realize what you miss when you
do not have a family, about the love and the affection? When you wake
up in a bed and dream at night and there is someone there to give you a
hug? The self-sacrifice and self-discipline and grace, forgiveness, all
these things that families teach us?
I remember when I was a little kid trying to learn to ride a bicycle.
I finally got it going and ran it smack into a bush. I was all bruised
and scratched and in tears; and my dad, my big strong dad, came over
and he picked it up and he said to me, ``It is time to get back and try
again.'' See, those are the kinds of things that moms and dads provide.
So this thing is about the little people. It is whether kids are
going to have a mom and a dad. The real discrimination here is by
activist judges who are trying to deny children the advantages of a
simple family. If this Congress does not act, then it is a gross
dereliction of duty if we do not protect our children and protect our
marriages.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Marriage Protection
Amendment. This amendment is about recognizing a simple, important, and
fundamental truth, and that is just that the marriage of one man and
one woman is a unique, special and, in fact, an indispensable
relationship that deserves the special recognition we have given it for
millennia.
We have got many kinds of important relationships in life. We all
know those. Siblings, friends, cousins, in-laws, neighbors, there are
lots of important relationships. But only one relationship, the
marriage of one man and one woman, can provide the optimal environment
for raising children. And that is why the family with a married husband
and wife at the center has always been the most important building
block of society. And that is why we are here today, to ensure that
that unique and vital and important relationship be recognized,
preserved, and protected.
Let me reaffirm something that the majority leader said earlier. The
fact is the definition of marriage is going to be written at the
Federal level. The question here today is whether that is going to be
done by nine men and women wearing black robes or whether it is going
to be done by the American people through their elected Representatives
in Congress and the 50 States through a very democratic process. Put me
squarely on the side of those who believe that the American people
should make this decision.
We in Congress have stood by and watched the courts usurp more and
more power from the American people for decades, and I think we have
abrogated our responsibility to the American people by tolerating
judicial activists for too long. It is finally time to draw the line
and let the American people affirm the definition of marriage by
passing this amendment.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Marriage
Protection Amendment. I am proud to be counted among the cosponsors of
this constitutional amendment this afternoon.
In the history of our country, I do not believe anyone has ever said
that our system of democracy would be easy. Our Constitution was
designed to set us on a path, but it also gave us the ability to change
that path when it became necessary. Our Founding Fathers wanted to
ensure that we took that process very seriously. They set the bar very
high.
Today, many of us here in this body believe that the time has come to
change paths, and many people in our country agree. It is time that
their voices are heard in this debate.
Today on the floor we have heard a litany of questions about why we
are considering this issue. Yes, there are important bills that need to
be considered: health care, homeland security, education, jobs. All of
them need to be addressed, and no one would argue with that.
But how could anyone say that protecting marriage and the future of
the American family is not a top priority? Marriage and the family is
the very foundation of our society. It is the activist judges in
Massachusetts and Oregon that have compelled the Congress to act, not
the other way around.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation this
afternoon as we support the marriage between a man and a woman.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, why are we standing here today, wasting taxpayer dollars
in an attempt to, for the first time in our history, amend our
Constitution to deny a specific group equal rights? Why do we not leave
it to the States, as our Constitution provides?
Frankly, I fail to understand why gay marriage threatens my wife's
and my 24 years of marriage, or anybody else's marriage, or why it
would undermine the Republic.
Gay and lesbian Americans want their secular government to legally
recognize their committed relationships. They want their secular
government to provide equal benefits in tax law, access to health care,
Social Security, and death benefits. They want the same benefits as
other Americans.
Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle are being
disingenuous by saying they simply only want to define the institution
of marriage. If that is their only motive, then why do they also oppose
domestic partnerships and civil unions, which would give gays and
lesbians the same rights as other Americans?
Why are we even dealing with this now? The Senate has defeated it.
Could it be an attempt to divert attention from the failings of the
Congress to do its work on appropriations and transportation; to divert
attention from the war in Iraq, from a poor economy or from
skyrocketing deficits; to force a blatantly political vote in this
House; to whip up a frenzy in a specific group of voters one month
before an election?
Let us stop playing political games. Vote down this amendment. We
should not be dealing with something that is best being left to the
States.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, marriage is a universal human institution. It
always has been in all societies. But marriage in the United States has
been under attack in recent years. And the future of marriage really
does matter.
Regardless of where we look, we have seen a gradual weakening of the
institution of family that historically we have relied on to raise
kids. And while marriage has taken a beating from divorce and other
factors, the statistics

[[Page H7912]]

still show that the best home for kids is still with a mom and a dad
who are married.
This debate is really about what is best for our children. Children
living with their mom and dad are safer, children living with their mom
and dad are less likely to be abused or neglected, and children living
with their mom and dad have fewer health problems and engage in fewer
risky behaviors than their peers. These children are more likely to do
well in school. They are better off economically and display increased
ability to adapt to changing circumstances than peers not living with
their mom and dad.
Data shows children who do not have the benefit of mom and dad have
unique challenges they would not face if their parents were married and
living at home.
And do not try to tell me that people who believe children need moms
and dads are bigots. Do not try to tell me that people who believe in
moral absolutes are guilty of moral bigotry. We are here to protect our
kids. We are here because marriage is healthy for our children.
When marriage ceases to be seen as a means to bring people together
for the sake of children, marriage suffers; and when marriage suffers,
children pay the price.
Marriage is important because kids need a mom and a dad. History
shows that when one aspect of marriage is damaged, the entire
institution suffers.
We need to protect marriage by passing this amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the leader of the equal
rights amendment.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the United States is
the single greatest foundation of law in history. It serves as a model
for democracies around the world. Therefore, we should approach
amending it with great caution and reverence.
For 215 years the U.S. Constitution has protected the rights of the
American people; the right to assemble, the right to worship, the right
to speak freely, and we ought to pass a constitutional amendment that
gives equal rights to women. Instead, today we are debating a
constitutional amendment that would curtail a right. Our predecessors
tried this once in the 20th century. Fourteen years later they had to
unamend the Constitution by rolling back prohibition.
Our Constitution is silent on marriage, and that is good, because the
American people's definition of what is an acceptable marriage has
evolved over the years. A marriage once signified that a woman had no
legal identity apart from her husband. Within the last 100 years, over
a dozen States prohibited marriages between those of a European and
Asian decent, and the Supreme Court overruled laws barring interracial
marriage less than four decades ago.
No constitutional amendment stood in the way of those changes. Laws
governing families and marriage have always been determined by State
governments. Dozens of States are already dealing with this issue. It
is federalism in action. Many of this constitutional amendment's
supporters have preached the virtues of federalism on other issues. You
cannot be a federalist except when federalism is inconvenient.
This is not governing on principle, it is practicing the politics of
expedience and divisiveness right before a major election, and we
should know better than to play politics with the United States
Constitution.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. Pence asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
More to the point, I thank the majority leader, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay), for his extraordinary moral courage in leading this
critical issue to the floor of this Congress and leading the debate
today.
I also congratulate the original author of this legislation (Mrs.
Musgrave), who even as a freshman has left already an indelible imprint
on the national debate in this legislation.
I rise today in support of the Marriage Protection Act because I
believe, as the overwhelming majority of the American people have ever
believed, that marriage matters; that it was ordained by God,
established in the law; that it is the glue of the American family and
the safest harbor to raise children.
We have heard again and again throughout this afternoon that marriage
is under attack by judicial advocates. But I rise today to say that
marriage matters to children. And we need not look to the theoretical.
Marriage in Scandinavia and in Holland is dying since the advent of
same-sex marriage over the last decade in those countries.

{time} 1545

As a result, a majority of children in Sweden and Norway are now born
out of wedlock. In some parts of Norway, as many as 80 percent of
first-born children and two-thirds of subsequent children are now born
out of wedlock. And we know ever since my colleague from Indiana, Dan
Quayle, first said it, marriage matters to children. Children born out
of wedlock have statistically been proven to be more than twice as
likely to be poor, to give birth outside of marriage themselves, to
have behavioral or psychological problems, and fall into every form of
social malady that besets our children.
Marriage matters to children.
I rise today to say against this extraordinary phalanx of legal
attacks in virtually every jurisdiction of the country that I commend
the leadership of this Congress and, to no less extent, the President
of the United States of America for saying that marriage matters enough
to find space in the Supreme Court of our land to defend it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DeGette), a distinguished lawyer in her own right.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, one of the most glaringly absurd aspects of
this debate is that marriage has never been and should not be now a
Federal issue. Marriage is quintessentially a State issue. States have
always had the ability to determine what constitutes marriage and the
protections that it affords the will of the citizens.
Not only does this proposed amendment turn the notion of Federalism
on its head, though. It is antithetical to the spirit of our
Constitution. This amendment would enshrine discrimination in our
Constitution and be the only amendment that actually takes away a
group's rights. It would not only take away the right to marriage, but
also the right to provide basic fundamental rights, such as the right
to visit a partner or child in the hospital.
And to those who say it will help children, I have this question: Why
should we not instead ban divorce? Approximately 1 million children,
the product of heterosexual marriages, are living in single-parent
homes in this country. Fifty percent of heterosexual marriages will end
in divorce. If a State allowed same-sex marriage, I do not think it
would affect my own heterosexual marriage. We are proud of the fact
that this body represents America.
So I would ask those who are divorced or those who have committed
adultery, search in your soul and ask yourself, are you really ready to
stand here today, today in this body, and cast the first stone?
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want everyone to keep
in mind in the midst of this debate that a primary benefit of marriage
is that it provides children with a mother and father from whom they
can learn and be protected. What we are talking about today is whether
or not we as a Nation will work to reaffirm an institution that
provides profound benefits for children.
It is correct that there are millions of men and women in this
country who bravely raise children as single parents, and I applaud
them for that. But there is an ideal for our children. Social science
and everyday experiences teach us that children raised without the
presence of both a mother and a father experience more poverty, more
substance abuse, a higher rate of educational failure, and much more.
Given the importance of marriage in the presence of a mother and father
for our children's general welfare, this institution must remain
strong.

[[Page H7913]]

As a wife and a mother of two sons, I know the importance of children
having both a mother and father. When our boys were growing up, my
presence was important and irreplaceable. Studies have shown that young
men raised by both a mother and father have more positive attitudes
toward women, children, and family life. This is exceedingly important,
as our society benefits when boys grow up to be men who take raising
children seriously. My husband also played an equally important role in
the lives of our boys, the role of father, a role that I could never
play.
It is true the future of marriage as a strong institution goes far
beyond whether or not the Constitution is amended to reaffirm the
definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. This does
not mean that the Marriage Protection Amendment is unimportant. As a
society, we will have no hope of strengthening the bonds of marriage
without a unified, national definition of marriage that promotes the
ideal for our children, that of being raised by both a mother and a
father.
As an original cosponsor of this amendment for the last 3 years, I
stand in strong support of the Marriage Protection Amendment, and I
urge its passage.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Frank) for the purpose of making a unanimousconsent request.
(Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record
answers I gave to the Committee on the Judiciary and some further
material which rebut the preposterous conclusion of Stanley Krutz,
which was quoted here, that somehow, same-sex marriage resulted in a
decline in heterosexual marriages elsewhere.

Judiciary Committee, Constitution Subcommittee,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Answers to the questions from Jerrold Nadler:
When I was asked about Stanley Kurtz's research by
Congresswoman Hart at the hearing, I had not read any of his
work. I now have and I can say that I believe his
interpretation is entirely without intellectual merit.
As I recall Ms. Hart's question, she asked me to accept Mr.
Kurtz's factual assertion that a recognition of same-sex
marriage had been followed in various European countries by a
decline in heterosexual marriage, and asked if I could think
of any possible explanation other than that the former had
caused the latter.
I was reluctant to answer the question before reading the
data lest I be validating premises and assumptions which I
would later find to be invalid. This turns out to be the
case. In fact, Mr. Kurtz does not himself argue that same-sex
marriage recognition preceded a decline in heterosexual
marriage. In every country he discusses, and his selection is
surprisingly sparse, a point to which I'll return, a decline
in heterosexual marriage and childrearing in heterosexual
marriages preceded by a significant period of years any
recognition of same-sex marriages.
But even on the narrow--and inaccurate--statement of Mr.
Kurtz's position that Ms. Hart put forward, the alternative
explanation to the assertion that same-sex marriage causes a
deterioration in heterosexual marriage is a simple one: They
may both be effects of the same or similar social causes.
Indeed, as Ms. Hart put the question to me, it can serve as a
dictionary example of the logical fallacy known as ``post hoc
ergo propterhoc.'' That is, the fallacy that believes that if
something happened after something else, it must necessarily
have been caused by it.
The key point again to stress is that Mr. Kurtz himself
does not argue that same-sex marriage recognition preceded
the deterioration in opposite-sex marriage.
In fact, Mr. Kurtz himself argues essentially that the
primary relationship of same-sex marriage and a decline in
heterosexual marriage is that they are both cause by the same
set of social phenomena. A fundamental flaw in his reasoning
of course is that he does virtually no analysis of any of the
European countries in which there has not been some form of
recognition of same-sex relationships. In other words, there
is zero comparative analysis in his work. Have significant
deteriorations in the incidence of heterosexual marriages
happened in other European countries which have not in
fact recognized same-sex relationships. The answer is
almost certainly yes but we will never know that from
reading Mr. Kurtz, who carefully avoids even posing that
question, obviously lest his hypothesis be endangered. He
does refer to England as a country where there has been a
significant deterioration in the number of heterosexual
marriages, but fails to note that this undercuts his
argument about the relationship between this and
recognizing same-sex relationships since England had not
done that at the time of his analysis.
The second point to be stressed is that Mr. Kurtz is not
talking about same-sex marriage in most cases, but rather of
various forms of recognition of same-sex relationships, akin
to domestic partnerships or civil unions. This is relevant
because some of those who questioned me who are supporters of
a Constitutional amendment asserted that they were talking
only about the unique nature of marriage, and seemed to think
that Mr. Kurtz supported them. Of course he does not since he
conflates marriage and other forms of recognition throughout
his analysis. Thus, the distinction that one Constitutional
amendment draws between marriage and other forms of same-sex
relationships does not appear to be at all supported by Mr.
Kurtz's analysis.
I have read both his testimony and his article in the
Weekly Standard carefully and I am unable to find any
coherent argument that says that recognizing same-sex
relationships reinforced--he does not claim that they are the
primary cause--a decline in heterosexual marriage. His exact
statement is ``there is good reason to believe that same-sex
marriage and marriage-like same-sex registered partnerships
are both an effect and a reinforcing cause of the
Scandinavian trend towards unmarried parenthood.'' The
primary cause of the ``marital decline in Scandinavia''
according to Mr. Kurtz, incidentally, are ``contraception,
abortion, women in the workforce, cultural individualism,
secularism and the welfare state.'' That is, all of these
have by Mr. Kurtz's own analysis more of a responsibility for
the decline of heterosexual marriage and same-sex-marriage.
This of course reinforces my earlier point--namely that Mr.
Kurtz scrupulously in his analysis avoids looking at the
statistics in countries which have not recognized same-sex
marriage, since virtually all of them in Western Europe are
affected by these other factors. And it does appear that to
Mr. Kurtz, even if we abolish same-sex relationship
recognition, we would have to ban or severely restrict
contraception, abortion, women in the workforce, cultural
individualism, secularism and the welfare state if we were to
save marriage. I recognize that there are members of the
Judiciary Committee who are attracted by the notion of
restricting some or all of these, and I commend their
discretion in not being more explicit about this wish.
When it comes to causality, the only effort to establish a
causal relationship-between recognizing same-sex unions and
the decline in heterosexual marriage comes in his testimony
when Mr. Kurtz says that ``same-sex partnerships in
Scandinavia have furthered the cultural separation of
marriage and parenthood in at least two ways.'' He then says
that ``first, the debate over same-sex partnerships has split
the Norwegian Church,'' and he argues that this weakening of
the traditionals within the Norwegian Lutheran Church is a
cause of an increase in same-sex relationships. I have tried
very hard to find the second causal factor but a very close
reading of the text produces no second. So we are left with
one assertion of causality--namely that the fact that
``clergy who preach against homosexual behavior are banned''
from preaching in parts of Norway means that their advocacy
of heterosexual marriage is no longer heard. This
reinforces my view that whatever is or is not happening in
Scandinavia in this regard has virtually no relevance to
the United States.
I am aware of no religious denomination that has banned
clergy from the pulpit if they are against same-sex
marriages. There are some denominations that allow this to be
performed, but there should be no analogy between the United
States, where the great majority of religious groups do not
recognize same-sex marriages, and Mr. Kurtz's view of parts
of Norway where virtually all clergy who oppose same-sex
marriage are banned. To be explicit, if the causality that
links a recognition of same-sex relationships to a decline in
heterosexual marriage rests entirely on the fact that anti-
same-sex relationship clergy are being marginalized and in
some cases silenced, it has no relevance to the United States
where nothing of that sort has happened or is likely to
happen.
This leads me to my final point--namely that reading Mr.
Kurtz makes it even clearer than it was to me before that the
most relevant experience to draw on in predicting what impact
recognizing same-sex relationships will have on American
society comes from Vermont. Some have argued that the Vermont
experience is not relevant because it has only been in effect
for four years or so. But Mr. Kurtz himself has an important
section in his testimony on the Netherlands, where ``formal
same-sex marriage . . . took effect in 2001,'' and
``marriage-like registered partnerships'' dates from 1998. In
other words, the Vermont experience is roughly comparable in
time to that of the Netherlands, and if Mr. Kurtz is right in
judging an impact based on the Netherlands, Vermont should be
equally relevant from the chronological standpoint--and, as a
part of the United States, far more relevant culturally.
We have one set of experiences with legal recognition of
same-sex relationships in the United States--that of Vermont.
It shows none of the negative effects that opponents of same-
sex marriage have predicted. Mr. Kurtz advances a correlation
in the contin

[[Page H7914]]

ued decline of marriage in various European countries--where
that decline long predated any recognition of same-sex
relationships--and the recognition of same-sex relationships.
But he carefully confines his analysis only to those
countries where same-sex relationships have been recognized,
so we have no way of telling whether or not the decline in
marriage that he attributes to same-sex relationships has
been equally great in countries where there is no such
recognition. And the only specific causal point he advances
is that this silencing or intimidation of Norwegian Lutheran
clergy who oppose same-sex marriage has diminished their
ability to preach in favor of heterosexual marriage. I am
very certain in my view that the experience in Vermont is far
more relevant to gauging the impact of a recognition of same-
sex relationships in the United States than is the experience
in a couple of Norwegian counties where the clergy opposed to
same-sex relationships have been silenced.

Barney Frank.
____

Will Providing Marriage Rights to Same-Sex Couples Undermine
Heterosexual Marriage?

Since the November 2003 court ruling allowing same-sex
couples to marry in Massachusetts, a new debate on expanding
the right to marry has exploded across the United States.
While the debate involves many issues, one particularly
controversial question is whether heterosexual people would
change their marriage behavior if same-sex couples were given
the same marital rights and obligations.
As a way to understand what might happen, some writers have
looked to the experience of those Scandinavian countries that
have pioneered giving a marriage-like status to gay and
lesbian couples. Denmark adopted such a ``registered
partnership'' law in 1989, Norway in 1993, Sweden in 1994,
and Iceland in 1996. Same-sex couples who register as
partners in those countries receive most of the rights and
responsibilities of marriage. Since then, three other
countries (France, Germany, and Finland) have also created a
new status for same-sex couples, and two (the Netherlands and
Belgium) opened marriage to same-sex couples.
What can we learn from the experience of these countries
about how giving gay couples the right to marry affects
heterosexual marriage patterns? On the one hand, the fact
that Danish marriage rates increased slightly after the
passage of partner recognition laws has led some observers to
conclude that gay couples are saving the institution of
marriage.
On the other hand, Stanley Kurtz of the Hoover Institution
claims that allowing gay couples to marry or have marital
rights has undermined the institution of marriage in
Scandinavia and the Netherlands. This second argument has
been widely reprinted and quoted around the country. However,
the claim that giving marital rights to gay couples will
undermine heterosexual marriage is based on the consistent
misuse and misinterpretation of data.
The argument that same-sex partnerships undermine
heterosexual marriage rests on four claims:
1. In the European countries that allow same-sex couples to
register as partners, marriage and parenthood have become
separated, and married parenthood has become a minority
occurrence.
2. The separation of marriage and parenthood in those
countries is disastrous for children because of higher rates
of break-up among cohabitors.
3. Allowing gay marriage accelerates the separation of
parenthood and marriage.
4. If the U.S. allows gay couples to marry, heterosexual
people in the U.S. will adopt European-style family dynamics.
In fact, none of these claims fits the actual evidence of
the Scandinavian and Dutch experience and the U.S. context. A
closer look at the data reveals a very different picture:
Divorce rates have not risen since the passage of
partnership laws, and marriage rates have remained stable or
actually increased.
The majority of parents are married. The average
Scandinavian child spends more than 80% of his or her youth
living with both parents--more time than the average American
child.
Non-marital birth rates have not risen faster in
Scandinavia or the Netherlands since the passage of
partnership laws. Although there has been a long-term trend
toward the separation of sex, reproduction, and marriage in
the industrialized west, this trend is unrelated to the legal
recognition of same-sex couples. Non-marital birth rates
changed just as much in countries without partnership laws as
in countries that legally recognize same-sex couples'
partnerships.

Married parents are still the majority in Scandinavia

Marriage and child-bearing have become less directly
connected over time in many European countries, including
Scandinavia. But as we shall see, this separation hardly
qualifies as the death of marriage, and it cannot be blamed
on the passage of same-sex partner laws.
In fact, Denmark's longterm decline in marriage rates
turned around in the early 1980's, and the upward trend has
continued since the 1989 passage of the registered partner
law. Now the Danish heterosexual marriage rates are now the
highest they have been since the early 1970's. The most
recent marriage rates in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are also
higher today than they were in the years before the
partnership laws were passed. The slight dip in marriage
rates in the Netherlands since 2001 is the result of a
recession-induced cutback on weddings, according to Dutch
demographers, and the actual number of marriages has gone up
and down in the last few years, even before the legalization
of same-sex marriage.
No research suggests that recognizing same-sex couples'
relationships caused the increase in marriage rates. But
heterosexual couples in those countries were clearly not
deterred from marrying by the legalization of same-sex
couples' rights.
Divorce rates also show no evidence of harm to heterosexual
marriage from partnership laws. Scandinavian divorce rates
have not changed much in Scandinavia in the last two decades.
Danish demographers have even found that marriages in the
early 1990's appear to be more stable than those in the
1980's.
Cohabitation rates are indeed on the rise, though, as is
the likelihood that an unmarried cohabiting couple will have
children. In Denmark, the number of cohabiting couples with
children rose by 25% in the 1990s. Roughly half of all births
in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, and almost 2/3 in Iceland,
are to parents who are not married. From these figures, Kurtz
concludes that ``married parenthood has become a minority
phenomenon.''
In fact, however, the majority of families with children in
Scandinavia and the Netherlands are still headed by married
parents. In 2000, for instance, 78% of Danish couples with
children were married couples. If we also include single
parent families in the calculation, almost two-thirds of
families with children were headed by a married couple. In
Norway, 77% of couples with children are married, and 61% of
all families with children are headed by married parents. And
75% of Dutch families with children include married couples.
By comparison, 72% of families with children are headed by
married couples in the United States.
How can this fact coexist with high nonmarital birth rates
and cohabitation rates? The main reason is that in
Scandinavia and the Netherlands most cohabiting couples marry
after they start having children. In Sweden, for instance,
70% of cohabiters marry after the birth of the first child,
most of them within five years. In the Netherlands, while 30%
of children are born outside of marriage, only 21% of
children under one live with unmarried parents, and by age
five, only 11% live with unmarried parents. As a result, high
rates of married couple parenting and rising marriage rates
in Scandinavia are not incompatible with high nonmarital
birth rates.

The impact on children

Kurtz claims that the rise in nonmarital births will hurt
children since unmarried couples are more likely to break-up
than married couples. And it is true that unmarried
cohabiters' unions are more likely to dissolve in Scandinavia
than are marriages, even when children are present. But when
cohabiting parents marry in Scandinavian countries, as most
eventually do, they are not more likely to divorce than are
couples who were married when they had their children.
As a result, children in Scandinavian countries still spend
most of their lives with their parents living together. In
fact, they spend more time than kids in the U.S. do! Gunnar
Andersson has calculated how much time the average child
spent living with both parents in the same household in the
1980's, the most recent period that allows comparisons across
countries. Of the countries he examines, the lowest average
is in the United States, where the time spent with both
parents is 67%. The highest is in Italy, where it is 97%. In
Sweden the average is 81%, in Norway it is 89%, and in
Finland it is 88%. In other words, combining the time that
parents are cohabiting and married demonstrates that children
are spending the vast majority of their young lives with
their parents in the Scandinavian countries.

Did gay marriage widen the split between parenthood and marriage?

No one would argue that marriage plays the same role in
Scandinavia and in other parts of Europe that it once did.
And to his credit, Kurtz himself recognizes that changes in
marriage in Scandinavia were in many ways cause rather than
effect of the legal recognition extended to gay couples.
Kurtz acknowledges that high rates of cohabitation and the
changing role of marriage in Scandinavia probably made it
more likely that those countries would be the innovators in
giving marriage-like rights to gay people. The decline of
religious practice and belief, the rise of the welfare state,
advances in contraception and abortion, and the improving
economic status of women--all long-term trends in Scandinavia
and the Netherlands--probably contributed both to the rise in
cohabitation and to the equalizing of rights for gay and
lesbian people.
In a recent study, I compared the cohabitation rates (and
other variables) in the nine countries that recognize same-
sex partners with other European and North American countries
that do not. Cohabitation rates were higher in the partner
recognition countries before the passage of same-sex partner

[[Page H7915]]

laws. Since higher cohabitation rates came first, it would be
inappropriate to blame partnership laws for more
cohabitation.
But Kurtz also makes the subtler claim that registered
partnerships ``further undermined the institution'' (his
emphasis) and that ``gay marriage has widened the
separation'' between marriage and parenthood. In other words,
things were already bad but gay marriage made it worse.
However, this argument does not hold up, either, since the
nonmarital birth rate began rising in the 1970's, long before
any legal recognition of same-sex couples, and it has
actually slowed down in Scandinavia in recent years. From
1970 to 1980, the Danish nonmarital birth rate tripled,
rising from 11% to 33%. It rose again in the following
decade, but by a much smaller amount, to 46% in 1990, before
ending its climb. Denmark's nonmarital birth rate did not
increase at all when the Danish partnership law was passed in
1989. In fact, it actually decreased a bit after that date!
Norway's big surge in non-marital births also occurred well
before the passage of its registered partnership law in 1993.
In the 1980's, the percentage of births to unmarried parents
rose from 16% to 39%. In first half of the 1990's, the
nonmarital birth rate rose more slowly, leveling off at
50% in the mid-1990s.
Kurtz argues that the main impact of partner registration
laws in Norway was to discourage couples from marrying after
the birth of their first child. But the data on second,
third, and later babies born to unmarried parents tell the
same story as the overall trend. In 1985, 10% of second and
later babies had unmarried parents, a number that tripled to
31% by 1993. From 1994 to 2003, though, the number only rose
to 41% where it appears to be leveling off. If the
partnership law had ``further'' encouraged nonmarital births
of first or later children, these rates should have increased
faster after 1993, but in fact the increase slowed down (for
second and later births) or stopped (for first births).
The Netherlands show a slightly different pattern, but
here, too, there is no correlation between recognition of
same-sex partnerships and rising rates of non-marital births.
Despite high rates of cohabitation, the Dutch have
traditionally been much less likely than Scandinavians to
have babies before marriage, with fewer than one in ten
births to unmarried parents until 1988. Kurtz argues that
legal recognition for same-sex couples kicked Holland into
the Scandinavian league with respect to nonmarital parenting.
It is true that the Dutch nonmarital birth rate has been
rising steadily since the 1980's, and sometime in the early
1990's the nonmarital birth rate started increasing at a
somewhat faster rate. But that acceleration began well before
the Netherlands implemented registered partnerships in 1998
and gave same-sex couples the right to marry in 2001.
Another helpful perspective is to compare the trends of
countries that have a partner registration law with those
that do not. I recognizing gay couples contributed to the
increase in nonmarital births, then we should see a bigger
change in countries with those laws than in countries without
them. Data from Eurostat shows that in the 1990's, the eight
countries that recognized registered partners at some point
in that decade saw an increase in the average nonmarital
birth rate from 36% in 1991 to 44% in 2000, for an eight
percentage point increase. In the EU countries (plus
Switzerland) that didn't recognize partners, the average rate
rose from 15% to 23%--also an eight percentage point
increase. The change in rates was exactly the same,
demonstrating that partner registration laws did not cause
the nonmarital birth rate trends.
Even if we distinguish two kinds of countries--separating
out those like the Netherlands with traditionally low
nonmarital birth rates from those like Norway with
traditionally high rates--we see that there is no connection
between partnership recognition and the growth in nonmarital
births. The same rapid rise in nonmarital births that that we
see in the Netherlands in the 1990s also occurred in other
European countries that initially had low nonmarital birth
rates. Nonmarital birth rates have soared in in Ireland,
Luxembourg, Hungary, Lithuania, and several other eastern
European countries--all countries that do not allow same-sex
couples to marry or register.
Only one piece of evidence supports Kurtz's argument that
partnership created a new wedge between parenthood and
marriage, and that piece of evidence directly contradicts
Kurtz's ideas about the cause of such a separation. Contrary
to what many observers believe, Scandinavian parliaments did
not give same-sex couples the exact same rights as
heterosexual couples. Quite deliberately, the various
Scandinavian parliaments chose to provide legal ties for
same-sex couples through a special new legal relationship,
not by the simpler path of extending the right to marry to
same-sex couples. And the parliaments denied same-sex couples
the right to adopt children (including their nonbiological
children raised from birth) or to gain access to reproductive
technologies. Thus Scandinavian governments did create a
wedge between marriage and reproduction, but they did so by
design and they did so only for same-sex couples. Despite
some loosening of those prohibitions over time, registered
partners who want to have children still face legal
hurdles that heterosexual married couples do not.

the impact of gay marriage in the u.s.

In the end, the Scandinavian and Dutch experience suggests
that there is little reason to worry that heterosexual people
will flee marriage if gay and lesbian couples get the same
rights. This conclusion is even stronger when looking at the
United States, where couples have many more tangible
incentives to marry. Scholars of social welfare programs have
noted that the U.S. relies heavily on the labor market and
families to provide income and support for individuals. In
the United States, unlike Scandinavia, marriage is often the
only route to survivor coverage in pensions and social
security, and many people have access to health care only
through their spouse's employment. Scandinavian states, on
the other hand, are much more financially supportive of
families and individuals, regardless of their family or
marital status.
The lack of support alternatives plus the tangible benefits
of marriage all lead to one conclusion: if and when same-sex
couples are allowed to marry, heterosexual couples will
continue to marry in the United States.

conclusion

Overall, there is no evidence that giving partnership
rights to same-sex couples had any impact on heterosexual
marriage in Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands.
Marriage rates, divorce rates, and nonmarital birth rates
have been changing in Scandinavia, Europe, and the United
States for the past thirty years. But those changes have
occurred in all countries, regardless of whether or not they
adopted same-sex partnership laws, and these trends were
underway well before the passage of laws that gave same-sex
couples rights.
Furthermore, the legal and cultural context in the United
States gives many more incentives for heterosexual couples to
marry than in Europe, and those incentives will still exist
even if same-sex couples can marry. Giving same-sex couples
marriage or marriage-like rights has not undermined
heterosexual marriage in Europe, and it is not likely to do
so in the United States.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our ranking member for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this constitutional amendment because it would
write discrimination against gays and lesbians into our Nation's
Constitution. This amendment not only prevents gays and lesbians from
marrying; it also restricts civil unions. Over the last couple of
years, polls in New Jersey have shown the majority of the State's
residents strongly support civil unions.
This amendment is nothing more than red meat for the conservative
right 1 month before an election. They know it is not going anywhere.
The Senate could not even get a simple majority to bring an amendment
to the floor. Here in the House, the majority leader, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. DeLay), recently admitted that he did not believe the
amendment would pass. Yet here we are today spending 2\1/2\ hours
debating an amendment that we all know is going nowhere.
There was a lot of talk on the Republican side today about the
Founding Fathers. Well, since our Nation's infancy, family law has been
left to the States. It was our Founding Fathers' belief that issues of
intense local concern should be debated and resolved at the local
level. We should keep it that way and defeat this amendment.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I am here to speak in favor of the Marriage
Protection Amendment, in favor of limiting marriage to the union of a
man and a woman, in favor of the overwhelming opinion of the American
people, and against the unelected judges that want to reshape our
country, even if they destroy democracy in the process.
Families and children deserve the protection of the Marriage
Protection Amendment; the best home for kids is one with a mom and a
dad. Single parents work valiantly to raise their children, but it is a
struggle whenever a child does not have both a mom and a dad at home.
Our laws should recognize and promote stability in our homes.
But when judges usurp the work of legislators, when they twist State
and Federal constitutions, as they have on this issue, then they are
attacking more than marriage. They are attacking the principles of
democracy and undermining our republican form of government. They are
attacking the people's ability to govern ourselves. No wonder it is
hard to raise children to

[[Page H7916]]

respect and obey the law when our judges do not.
Those who do not respect the law should never be appointed as judges,
and judges who do not respect the law should be impeached.
But today, we have the opportunity to stand up, both for marriage and
for the people's right to govern themselves. It is sad that a
constitutional amendment is necessary; but without it, we will be under
endless assault by those who want to destroy traditional marriage even
if they destroy the rule of law in the process.
Even if you do not respect the institution of marriage, I hope the
Members of this body will respect the principle of government of the
people, for the people, and by the people. This amendment preserves
what has always been the law of this land, and it preserves the
principle of government by elected representatives, not by unelected
activist judges. I urge every Member to vote for the Marriage
Protection Amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, as some of my colleagues have said, this is
about protecting our children.
Do my colleagues know what I want my children to be protected from?
From Osama bin Laden. We still do not know whether he is dead or alive.
From the anthrax mailer, whom we still have not found. From the 6
million containers that come into our country every year, of which only
5 percent are inspected. From missiles that are being developed in
Iran. From missiles that are being developed in North Korea. I want to
protect children of parents who today are fighting in Iraq and
Afghanistan, some of whom still do not have the protective gear that
they need.
Mr. Speaker, I will go home tonight and say to my two children, thank
God, we have kept you safe from same-sex marriages; but we have not
kept you safe from other threats in the world.
Mr. Speaker, some of us want to make the world safe for democracy;
others want to make this world safe for hypocrisy. This resolution is
not an act of Congress. It is an act of hypocrisy. It is divisive and
should be defeated.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support
of this body's effort to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.
Children are best served when they are raised and influenced by a mom
and a dad, and marriage must continue to be the institution to best
raise children and not simply for the desires of adults.
Mr. Speaker, I am the youngest of four boys who feel we were blessed
to have a mom that we could look to for her loving and nurturing ways,
and a dad to be there, well, when boys will be boys, to know that we
had a dad.
And now I am a dad today with a wife and two young girls of my own,
two young girls who are blessed to know that they can look to their mom
when they need a mom, and they know that they can look to have a dad
there when they need a male influence in their lives.
Marriage exists for the well-being of children. It is the only
institution that gives kids a mom and a dad. Where do grownups get the
right to give their own desires higher priority?
If we redefine marriage, it will harm everyone, especially the
children. It will legally repudiate the idea that marriage has anything
to do with a family, and will legally embrace the idea that marriage is
just an arrangement for the convenience of the grownups.
Now, I am here today to support what is best for the kids. The ideal
situation for a child is to grow up with a mom and a dad in a loving,
committed marriage. Mothers are better able to provide certain lessons
than fathers can, and fathers in turn can provide role models in ways
that moms simply cannot.
I think it is time that we rip away all the rhetoric that we have
heard and know that this debate comes down to this: it is a choice of
being what is in the best interests of our children over the choice of
what is in the best interests of a select few adults. The choice is
clear. I urge all Members to support our children by supporting the
Marriage Protection Amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Inslee), a very distinguished supporter of civil
rights and human rights.
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, have my colleagues ever noticed how
reverential, how worshipful people are when they go over to the
archives and they file in front of the Constitution? Have my colleagues
seen what is in their eyes? Absolute worship of the U.S. Constitution.
I think there is one reason for that, because they understand the
Constitution does not belong just to us; it belongs to the ages. They
realize for that reason they want us to be cautious and conservative
about locking into the Constitution something for a fluid America.
There are some lessons in history that show that is the right attitude.
In 1912, Jack Johnson, an African American heavyweight boxing
champion, had the temerity to marry a white woman. That offended the
vast majority of Americans at the time. And as a result, a Congressman
came down to this Chamber, and he introduced a constitutional amendment
to make it illegal for States to allow an African American to marry a
white person. And Congressman Seaborn Anderson Roddenbery stood where I
am standing and said in 1912: ``Intermarriage between whites and blacks
is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It
is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of a pure Saxon
government.''
Now that statement seems a bit unbelievable in 2004, but it was the
majority opinion in 1912.
Now, I am not suggesting that these issues are equivalent, but I am
suggesting that we ought to be real slow before we put discrimination
to prevent States to make their own decisions about employment and
retirement benefits for themselves into the Constitution. Where would
this country have been if majority sentiment had prevailed in 1912 and
discrimination had been put permanently in the United States
Constitution?
But there is a more commonsense reason for rejecting this amendment.
Anybody who is thinking about voting for this amendment, I would ask
you to come down to the well and look at the five words that are carved
on the rostrum of the House of Representatives.

{time} 1600

There are five words that are carved here, and of all the words that
we could have chosen to carve on to the rostrum, do my colleagues know
what those five words are? Union, liberty, peace, justice, and the
fifth one may surprise some of my colleagues.
The fifth value is tolerance. Tolerance is the value that was
selected to put on here, and tolerance is as American as apple pie.
Tolerance is carved into the rostrum of the U.S. House of
Representatives and intolerance should not be carved into the U.S.
Constitution.
Reject this injury to the Constitution. Reject this amendment.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sam Johnson).
(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
the marriage protection amendment. It is sad even having this debate.
Amending the Constitution, we all agree, should only be considered in
the rarest of circumstances. However, we are being forced to.
What makes America strong is the American family. What makes American
families strong is marriage.
This bill reinforces what marriage has meant since our country's
founding. Simply stated, marriage consists of one man and one woman.
The primary responsibility of marriage in the family is parenting.
Children need a father. They need a mother for healthy and proper
development. Men and women were created to complement each other, and
that is most obvious in successful parenting.
Congress cannot allow unelected judges to redefine marriage and the
American family, and that is why we

[[Page H7917]]

are here today. We have got to put the decision about marriage back
into the hands of the American people.
The people of Texas have spoken loud and clear. Texas passed a law
which recognizes marriage between a man and a woman, regardless of what
the other States might do. Citizens of the Lone Star State do not want
people from other States telling them how to live, and they definitely
do not want some judge telling them what marriage is.
Back home, we have a popular slogan, ``Don't mess with Texas.'' Well,
I have got one for this debate, ``Don't mess with marriage.''
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this proposed
constitutional amendment. As lawmakers, our responsibility is to
preserve the rights and dignity of all Americans. That leaves me to
oppose this constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.
I support the right of a State or local jurisdiction to give gay and
lesbian couples equal marriage rights under the law. This proposal is
an unnecessary and divisive attack on the gay and lesbian community. It
would dictate that communities deny the equal provision of rights,
benefits and responsibilities of partnership for gay and lesbian
couples.
This is an unparalleled attempt to force discrimination against a
group of Americans. It is antithetical to other constitutional
amendments that expand rights for women and African-Americans.
Mr. Speaker, the Constitution exists to protect our rights, not to
take them away. This amendment would be the first, and only, amendment
to set aside one group of Americans, giving them fewer rights than
other Americans. Additionally, it would strip them of rights currently
given them by several States.
Gay and lesbian couples deserve to have their commitment honored with
the same rights to insurance, health care authority and visitation,
adoption and other benefits granted to committed couples.
I thought the days of enshrining discrimination in our laws were long
behind us. A century ago, women were unable to file for divorce and
could not have owned property. What if we had enshrined that
discrimination for all time? Within the last 40 years, interracial
marriages were outlawed. Imagine if that had been formalized in the
Constitution.
This complete disregard for human rights is not necessary to protect
religious freedom in our country either. No church or other house of
worship is required to marry couples of the same gender.
The role of the Federal Government in defining the institution of
marriage has historically been a limited one, deferring to States and
religious organizations. So this is a cruel and callous attempt to
disenfranchise a group of Americans for political gain. It calls for
the discrimination of a group in a document almost exclusively devoted
to protecting and expanding the rights of Americans.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and this attempt to
insert bigotry into our Constitution.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just point out that I have here hundreds of letters from
Hispanic pastors, churches, leaders, civil rights leaders; African-
Americans, civil rights leaders, pastors, from all over the country.
They do not say that the marriage protection amendment is
discrimination. In fact, they say just the opposite: It is
discriminating to undermine the definition of marriage by judicial
fiat.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Hayes).
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today because my constituents are fearful that
appointed judges will destroy the institution of marriage. I share
their fear and speak with them today in strong support of H.J. Res.
106, the Marriage Protection Amendment, and I thank my friend the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) for her outstanding
leadership on this critical issue.
Marriage has always been and will always be a covenant between one
man and one woman. Marriage is a fundamental building block of society,
and it is special. It has been from the beginning of time about
procreation and the rearing of children.
I wish that this fight here today was not necessary, and we did not
ask for it, but because a handful of activist judges launched an all-
out attack on the bedrock of Western civilization, the people of the
eighth district of North Carolina, in a completely bipartisan way, have
overwhelmingly asked me to stand here today and defend our Constitution
and to protect marriage.
Mr. Speaker, I believe in the Constitution. I have read it and
studied it. We do not amend this lightly, but with activist judges
writing law from the bench with their so-called interpretations, I can
think of no better reason nor venue for the American people to be heard
on whether the institution of marriage will stand or fall.
Do not be fooled. Same-sex marriage and this debate is not about
hospital visitation rights, joint bank accounts or inheritance rights.
It is about marriage and children.
Marriage between one man and one woman is associated with a broad
array of positive outcomes.
Americans have spoken clearly, and it is not about politics. It is
about their desire to protect marriage from unelected judges who are
appointed for life. I urge my colleagues to stand with nearly 2,000 of
my constituents who have contacted my office over the past few months
and protect the institution of marriage.
Mr. Speaker, I represent folks from both sides of the aisle in the
eighth district of North Carolina. They do not see it as an issue for
one political party. They want to defend our institution of marriage.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time. I urge my colleagues to stand and
protect marriage today.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) for the time.
I am standing here as living proof. I live in a district. I have been
married for 30 years. I have two wonderful children. I now have the
honor of representing, I do not know how many, married gay couples, and
not once, not once has my wife and I had a discussion now that we have
to split up because we have gay couples living near us. Not once have I
had a single discussion by a single constituent who said, you know
what, I am not going to get married because we can have gay marriage.
Not once have I had a single child come to see me and say, oh, my God,
save me, save me from having gay couples next door.
Yet I have had people, heterosexual couples, come to me and try to
help them bring children from around the world so that they can enjoy
the company and the love that they can share with children. I know gay
couples, both married and not married gay couples, who are raising
children. Some of those children are theirs. Some of those children are
adopted. Some of those children are the children of their family
members who have passed away.
I am not aware of any that are somehow being twisted; society is
coming to an end. I am living proof; you will be okay. We will survive
this, and all that will happen is that a few people, a few of all of
our constituents, will have some joy in their life.
I am not threatened. My wife is not threatened. My children are not
threatened. My world is not threatened, and it will not be. It is not
threatened in Canada.
As a few points of information, these judicial activists, these
terrible, horrendous people who have the audacity to interpret the
Constitution of Massachusetts, happen to be appointed by Republican
governors. Terrible.
As a final point of information, the people of Massachusetts will
most likely have the opportunity to vote on this in a few years. Let
them speak as well.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time and rise
in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment.

[[Page H7918]]

There, again, needs to be the general statement that gays and
lesbians have a right to live as they choose, and I will work to
support that right, but they do not have the right to define marriage
for all of us.
As far as the question of bigotry and civil rights, 60 percent of
African-Americans oppose same-sex marriage. Are they bigots? I do not
think so.
Shelby Steele, an African-American scholar, said properly, ``Gay
marriage is simply not a civil rights issue. It is not a struggle for
freedom. It is a struggle of already free people for complete social
acceptance. Black leaders . . . have distanced themselves from the gay
marriage issue.''
We have had a little lecture on tolerance, and yet it is the side of
the people who are arguing against this marriage act who have called
death threats in to the original sponsor. It is those people who e-mail
daily hateful comments. I wonder where the question of tolerance is at
this point when someone dares to differ with them.
There is a question of, who gets harmed from same-sex marriage? When
we approve same-sex marriage, we are going to be required to teach that
it is okay. In fact, it is going to be wrong to teach against it. If we
think that that is not going to happen, look at what has happened to
the Boy Scouts of America who dared to take a stance. The all-out
assault on the institution of the Boy Scouts of America has been
unending, trying to get them to change their stance, simply saying, we
want to teach our values.
Religious groups like Catholic Charities or Salvation Army may lose
their non-profit status and other facilities unless they endorse gay
marriage. Is that what we want? Do we want common, decent, God-fearing
people to be declared as bigots, to be declared as speakers of hate
speech?
That is where this discussion is going, Mr. Speaker. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, no one has been closer in this Congress to
Dr. Martin Luther King than he has, and I proudly yield 2\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for
yielding me the time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding.
For those of my colleagues who are so worried about unelected judges
making the decision of marriage, I want to remind them; it was
unelected judges that picked their President.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, over the years, this Nation has
worked hard to take discrimination out of the Constitution, and today,
we want to put it back in.
I can recall just a few short years ago that there were laws
inscribed in some State constitutions saying that blacks and whites
could not marry. We changed that.
Today, we look back on those days, and we laugh. There will come a
time when generations yet unborn will look back on this Congress, look
back on this debate, and laugh at us. This is not a good day in
America. This is a sad day in the House of the people.
For one who faced death, who was beaten and left bloody and
unconscious at the Greyhound bus station in Montgomery, Alabama, in May
of 1961; for one who had a concussion at the bridge in Selma on March
7, 1965, demonstrating, trying to end discrimination, segregation and
separation, this is not the way.
This is unbelievable. It is unreal. I thought as a Nation and as a
people we had moved so far down the road toward one family, one House,
one America. To pass this legislation would be a step backward.
The institution of marriage is not begging this Congress for
protection. No one is running through the halls of Congress. No one is
running around this building saying protect us.

{time} 1615

Whose marriage is threatened? Whose marriage is in danger if two
people, in the privacy of their own hearts, decide they want to be
committed to each other? Whose marriage is threatened? Whose marriage
is in danger if we decide to recognize the dignity, the worth and
humanity of all human beings?
The Constitution is a sacred document. It defines who we are as a
Nation and as a people. Over the years, we have tried to make it more
and more inclusive. We cannot turn back. We do not want to go back. We
want to go forward. Today it is gay marriage; tomorrow it will be
something else.
Forget about the politics; vote your conscience. Vote with your
heart, vote with your soul, vote with your gut. Do what is right and
defeat this amendment.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
say that there were people running around the halls screaming ``protect
marriage.'' In fact, there were 50 African American pastors trying to
meet with the Congressional Black Caucus, who refused to meet with
them. So I am going to bring up one letter out of hundreds of thousands
of letters that I have from particular pastors.
From this particular pastor, Dr. Creflo A. Dollar of the World
Changes Ministries at College Park, Georgia, and I will not read the
letter, but I will quote him, because he says that this is not a civil
rights issue. This is an African American pastor from an African
American church. Dr. Dollar says, ``This is not a civil rights issue,
as many would have you believe, and attempts to frame it as such are an
insult to the millions of Americans who have been the victims of actual
discrimination in the past.''
Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record Dr. Dollar's letter.

It is a privilege for me to voice my enthusiastic support
for the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment currently
pending before Congress. The institution of marriage is a
fundamental building block of the American way of life, and
we are here today to say that it must not be allowed to be
redefined or reconstituted. The American family is under
attack--we are in the middle of a character crisis that
threatens the very foundations of our society--and our
message this morning is clear. There is only one kind of
marriage, and that is between a man and a woman. Any attempt
to deviate from that standard by any means--be it
legislative, judicial or executive--is equivalent to
spiritual treason. The sacred covenant of marriage was
created by God Himself and is not subject to interpretation
by anyone.
Our support for this amendment should not be viewed as
homophobic, exclusionary or discriminatory. The ministries
represented here today extend the love of God to all people,
including those who exemplify lifestyles that we don't agree
with, and our doors are open to everyone. To attempt to
categorize our collective stance in any other way is both
irresponsible and inaccurate. This is not a Civil rights
issue, as many would have you believe, and attempts to frame
it as such are an insult to the millions of Americans who
have been the victims of actual discrimination in the past.
Part of what makes America the greatest country in the world
is the freedoms that our citizens enjoy to make whatever
religious, social, professional and lifestyle choices they
desire, within the reasonable boundaries of a civil society.
However, for America to redefine herself for every movement
that comes along would weaken who we are as a nation, not to
mention the profound negative impact such a change would have
on our children. We speak as one voice for the millions of
Americans in our congregations and all over the country who
can all be heard making the same plea today--please don't
begin a process of de-stabilizing the United States of
America by changing the rules for all of us in order to
accommodate a few of us. For mainstream Americans, this issue
is not negotiable.
We urge the members of Congress to approve this amendment
and to do it swiftly. Part of the responsibility of an
elected official is to represent the best interests of his or
her constituency, and we affirm today that the Federal
Marriage Protection Amendment is the right thing to do for
America. We wholeheartedly support President Bush and his
stance on this vital issue. We must seize this opportunity to
make a lasting statement to all who would alter the
fundamental institution on which our society is based. I
shudder to think about the America my grandchildren will
inherit tomorrow, if we don't take decisive action to protect
our heritage today. We are confident that the members of
Congress will stand up for what is right, and not allow
themselves to be bullied by a noisy minority. Our future as a
nation hangs in the balance. Thank you and God bless you . .
.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming
(Mrs. Cubin).
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today on behalf of the
over 100,000 married couples in Wyoming in defense of traditional
marriage. I do not judge those who have chosen a different life-style
than I have chosen, but marriage is an institution cherished by the
American people, as shown by the 44 States that have enacted laws
defining marriage as between a man and a

[[Page H7919]]

woman. This same institution is now under attack in our courtrooms, an
assault we can defend only by passing the Marriage Protection
Amendment.
In the marriage debate, we have a case of political correctness going
too far and costing too much. As we all work to be an inclusive
society, we simply cannot forget the time-honored family values, the
bedrock of our culture that have made America what it is today. These
are the values that gave the early homesteaders in Wyoming the strength
to brave the vast plains and the harsh winters. And these same values
help today's families face newfound challenges in a modern society.
Tradition gives our children roots, a base of strength from which to
operate when facing politically correct pressures to abandon their
values, whether it be God, their country, or, yes, even marriage.
We know in our hearts what is right. We know logically and we know
personally that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and we
need to protect the traditional family structure.
Mr. Speaker, I ask everyone's support in favor of the Marriage
Protection Amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time. I just want to set the record straight here. Some of
these so-called black ministers and so-called civil rights leaders
never supported civil rights. They never marched for one day. They
never put their bodies on the line for the cause of civil rights.
Coretta Scott King, the widow of Martin Luther King, Jr. is opposed
to this amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the very
courageous gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), a distinguished
member of this body.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. Today, we are debating a constitutional amendment drafted not to
protect my marriage or my family, I see no reasonable way to argue it
would, but rather to explicitly deny a portion of our society the right
to marry and the benefits that accompany that kind of partnership.
I do not advocate the legalization of gay marriage, but our
constitution is simply not the proper place to set this kind of social
policy. I believed back in 1996, when I voted for the Defense of
Marriage Act, and I still believe today, the decision about whether to
recognize gay marriage should be left to the States.
I cannot help but wonder why are we doing this. What are we so afraid
of? Gay men and women pass through our lives every day. They are
wonderful teachers and leaders and role models who happen to be gay.
And sometimes we do not even know they are gay.
I would not be a Member of Congress today if it were not for an
extraordinary teacher I had in high school, 40 years ago. I learned
years later he was gay and that he had commuted from Connecticut to
Washington, D.C., every weekend in part to protect his privacy and his
job.
When I went to college, my understanding of gay people was impacted
again by my wife's best friend. One day she told us she too had found
the love of her life. We were eager to meet the boyfriend she was so
madly in love with, but we soon learned her love was not a ``he'' but a
``she.'' Once we got over our surprise and our way of thinking about
relationships, we were able to sincerely rejoice in the joy they
brought each other because we knew what a dear and good person our
friend is.
My perception of gay people evolved further during my first campaign
for Congress, when I worked with a magnificent young man named Carl
Brown. He became my friend, and he gave me another gay face to know.
Carl has since passed away, but I remember him as a person of
exceptional dignity and grace.
My teacher, my wife's best friend, and Carl helped me understand
their lives and I think helped make me a better person in the process.
The Constitution of the United States, which established our
government, grants us free speech, and gives all citizens the right to
vote, should not be dishonored by this effort to write into the
Constitution discrimination.
I am sensitive to some of my colleagues' concerns about potential
biblical and social implications of legalizing same-sex marriage, but I
oppose this proposed amendment because I believe the Constitution is
not the proper instrument to set or reject such policy. That debate
should happen in our State legislatures.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence) to answer the gentleman from Connecticut's question
about what is the harm, and his other question being why the harm of
redefining marriage to include other lifestyles.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in the wake of, I think, a very important question by
my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays):
What are we afraid of? And the gentleman from Connecticut knows that I
admire him and have great affection for him and the integrity with
which he does his work, but I would like to answer that.
My colleague, we are afraid of the decline of marriage. We are afraid
that what has happened in the last 15 years in the Netherlands since
the advent of same-sex marriage is going to happen in America, and that
our children and our society will be harmed as a result. As Dan Quayle
first said on the national stage some 14 years ago, we know that
marriage matters to children. Children born outside of wedlock are more
than two times more likely to fall into every form of social malady
that besets our kids.
The experience in the Netherlands is undeniable. Since the advent of
same-sex marriage in the Netherlands and in Holland, the decline of
marriage has been from 95,000 to 82,000. As Dutch academics wrote in
their newspapers there recently: ``Over the past 15 years, the number
of marriages has declined substantially. The same period also witnessed
a spectacular rise in the number of out-of-wedlock births. In 1989, one
in 10 children were born out of wedlock, roughly 11 percent; by 2003
that number had risen to almost one in three children.''
That is what we are afraid of, Mr. Speaker. We are afraid of the
decline of marriage and the attendant harm to the American family that
will undeniably follow. Marriage matters. And we come into this
hallowed place today to stand by that institution knowing that we are
informed by our core values that it matters and that it is central to
our society, but also knowing the experience of our neighbors in Europe
has been that when we change the definition of marriage, we begin the
decline and ultimately the abolition of marriage as we know it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the previous remarks are
drawn from the research of a man named Stanley Kurtz, research that is
of a very low level of intellectual activity. It would make some of the
debate here today seem scintillating.
In fact, I have submitted information that makes it very clear that
as far as the Netherlands are concerned, the trends involved predate
same-sex marriage. As a matter of fact, there were same-sex civil
unions first, then same-sex marriage. What has happened in the
Netherlands predates that. The main author himself states that these
are probably effects of the same cause.
Now, let us look to the United States. Vermont has had full civil
unions, which most of the Members over there disagree with, since 2001,
with zero, no negative effects, the same period of time as the
Netherlands has had.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, the men and women targeted by this
constitutional amendment are Americans, loved and respected by their
parents, grandparents, sisters, brothers, children and grandchildren,
neighbors, friends, coworkers, and this Member of Congress.
Collectively, we believe in

[[Page H7920]]

equal justice and strive to defeat discrimination and absolutely reject
the State-sponsored hatred before the Congress today.
The Constitution belongs to all Americans to protect and extend
equality and justice for all. Our constitution must never be soiled by
this type of bigotry and hate-filled amendment.
My faith teaches me to believe in a loving God, and it is in this
spirit that I proudly stand with millions of Americans, and especially
with my gay and lesbian friends, neighbors, colleagues, constituents,
and coworkers to oppose this constitutional amendment.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding me
this time, and I want to make a correction for the record.
The gentleman from Massachusetts was talking about the predating the
same-sex marriage. Well, in fact, when same-sex marriage was approved
in the Netherlands, the rate of births out of wedlock doubled. So that
information was incorrect.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment.
It is becoming increasingly common to see activist judges legislating
from the bench on this important issue. Today, a handful of judges are
poised to destroy the traditional marriage definition, which is the
cornerstone of civilization itself.
The institution of a husband and wife, of mother and father, have
served our society well; and it is this foundation that makes our
families and communities strong. Passage of this amendment today is
overwhelmingly supported by the citizens of this country. Nearly three-
fourths of Americans believe that marriage should be a union between
one man and one woman.
Today, 44 States have enacted laws that define marriage as between a
man and a woman; and without action today, the will of the American
people will be ignored with the strike of a gavel by a few activist
judges.
To ensure the will of the American people is done today, I urge my
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, before he leaves, because he is so certain
about the Netherlands, and I will yield him my remaining time, when
does he believe that same-sex marriages began in the Netherlands and
what was the rate? What is the date?
Would the gentleman from Pennsylvania answer me? When did the same-
sex marriages start in the Netherlands?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The time of the gentleman from
Massachusetts has expired.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield to the
gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, you made the statement. You do not
know?
Mr. SHUSTER. 1989.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, they started in 2001.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. SHUSTER. That is what the facts show.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlemen will suspend.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman gets the date wrong. He
said since 1989. Same-sex marriage started in the Netherlands in 2001.
When Members are giving statistics, they ought to know what they
mean.

{time} 1630

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, when the other body defeated this amendment
early this summer, someone one of the Senators on the majority, said
gay marriage is ``the greatest threat to America as we know it.''
Coming from New York City, I think America saw what the greatest threat
to this country is on September 11, 2001. But instead of capturing
those responsible for that event, Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and the
al Qaeda network, instead of passing a homeland security bill here in
the House, instead of reforming our national intelligence system to
prevent another 9/11, we are here talking about an issue that the
Senate has already defeated; and because they have defeated it, it will
not come up again. This is purely political machinations.
This Congress and this President are pushing for a constitutional
amendment to limit the rights of particular Americans. Why are they
doing that? The answer is easy but it is still awful; because today in
America, it is still okay to hate gays and lesbians in this country.
Gays and lesbians represent the last minority group in this country
that it is still publicly acceptable to hate. This legislation has no
place in this body. It demeans the body, our Constitution, and the
values of this country.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman obviously has not been watching the debate
because no one has said anything about hate or the quotes the gentleman
stated in this body. This is about marriage.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Bachus).
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia said what he
wanted to do, he wanted to establish a homosexual marriage as a
fundamental constitutional right that the Federal Government would have
to not only secure but to protect. That is what he wants to do. When he
does that, here is why we are opposed to that. When he does that, he
undermines, he not just expands marriage, he alters it to the core. He
totally severs it from its whole purpose, and that is the relationship
between a man, a woman, and a child.
Marriage is one of the most fundamental institutions of a civil
society. That would simply cripple it. We are not talking about
expanding a right, extending rights or benefits. We are talking about
destroying an institution which has preserved and protected us.
Our decision today will define us as a Nation. It will define us as a
people. It will be a predictor of our future and where our future would
be. The only responsible thing for us to do today is to defend the
institution of marriage and send this amendment to the States for
ratification.
A concerted legal and political effort, lead by activist judges, is
attempting to affirm homosexual marriage as a fundamental civil right
that the Federal Government has a constitutional obligation to secure
and protect.
In doing so, they are undermining one of the most basic and sacred
institutions that exist in an orderly, stable civil society--marriage.
What is happening is not a slight change in degree that merely
extends benefit or rights to a larger class, but a substantive change
in the essence of the institution. It does not expand marriage; it
alters its core meaning, for to redefine marriage so that it is not
intrinsically related to the relationship between fathers, mothers, and
children would sever the institution from its nature and its purposes.
In response, the most important and responsible step Congress can
take to reserve marriage is to send a constitutional amendment that
protects the institution of marriage to the States for ratification.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we have heard this afternoon about
children and activist judges, because that is how the focus groups
suggest this debate should be framed.
My children have been raised around people in committed same-sex
marriages, relationships in some cases which have included children.
They, and most of us, have seen neighbors, relatives, and friends in
dysfunctional heterosexual marriages. It is not their sexual
orientation, it is people's behavior. My children and most American
young people know that marriage is not under attack, and activist
judges do not prevent citizens in States from making their own
decisions, like we will in Oregon in November.
It is shameful to play politics with the personal lives of millions
of Americans who are not just gay, but elderly, and for whatever reason
are not married but are in a committed relationship. Luckily, because
my children and the vast majority of America's youth disagree with the
world view of the

[[Page H7921]]

supporters of this amendment, it will not only fail today, but it
certainly does not represent the future.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Burns).
Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation to the people of America to settle
this debate over whether a handful of political activists are allowed
to use the Federal courts to impose their moral view on the unwilling
majority of the country.
The overwhelming majority of the people of the 12th Congressional
District of Georgia oppose legalized same-sex marriage. They do not
want to play semantic games about the issue.
The people in my district and State believe that legal marriage, and
the benefits associated with the institution, should be reserved for
those whom the benefits were intended, the union of a man and a woman,
period.
Georgia has placed a referendum for a State constitutional amendment
to that effect on this November's ballot lot. That is how it should be.
As a Georgia voter, I will support the amendment with my vote, as will
the majority of my State.
The Federal amendment we consider today will allow those State
decisions to determine this issue, as they have since our Nation's
founding, rather than allowing a small minority to dictate their
opinions on an unwilling majority.
We need to speak plainly here today. A vote against this legislation
is a vote for legalized same-sex marriage to be forced on an unwilling
America. Such a calamity would not just be morally reprehensible to the
majority of Americans, it would provide a chilling precedent for
undermining our system of self-government. We will pay for inaction on
this issue with the loss of government by the people on all issues.
I urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to support the amendment
to restore the protections of the Constitution and self rule.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes this body is
going to vote on this amendment. There will be women voting as well as
men. There will be the grandsons and granddaughters of slaves; and,
yes, there will be several gay people voting because in our diversity,
we are representative of this great society.
But there is one thing we all have in common, we are here to fulfill
the spirit of our Constitution. That is a sacred, generous document
whose purpose was to protect and to expand the individual rights and
liberties of its citizens. It was never intended to be a mean-spirited
tool to punish people who happen not to be in the majority. To legalize
committed, caring relationships between people who love each other is
consistent with the spirit of that Constitution. This amendment is not,
and that is why it should be defeated.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House
Resolution 106. Today, public support for protecting marriage is
strong. Forty-four States have enacted laws that provide that marriage
shall consist of a union between a man and a woman. These States
constitute more than 75 percent of States required to approve a
constitutional amendment and they include 86 percent of the U.S.
population.
Today, Federal courts are being used by activist judges to redefine
marriage for the American people, completely apart from public debate
among those that the American people have elected to represent them.
More than 200 years of American law and thousands of years of human
experience should not be arbitrarily changed by a handful of unelected
judges. The issue of marriage is too important to be decided by
judicial fiat.
Our society relies on strong family structure. As trends challenge
the family, we need to do all we can to strengthen it and oppose trends
that weaken this ideal. Redefining marriage hurts our children because
it hurts the institution we rely on to raise our children. We certainly
do not want judges changing the definition of marriage for us today and
for our children tomorrow.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Velazquez).
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons to oppose this
bill: It is a diversion from the urgent issues facing our Nation; that
today's vote is a cheap election-year tactic of the Republican
leadership to rally its right-wing base; and that we should respect
States rights on the principles of federalism, which Republicans
continue to ignore to suit their political purpose.
Mr. Speaker, each of these concerns is a compelling reason to oppose
this measure, but I want to make this perfectly clear: This bill should
be defeated because it is wrong, it is discriminatory, and it is
unAmerican.
Mr. Speaker, how can we export democracy across the globe when we are
abandoning its fundamental principles here at home? Writing
discrimination into our Constitution will do nothing to protect
marriage, but it will taint this sacred document and sacrifice State
rights based on certain ideological beliefs, and I urge my colleagues
to defeat this mean-spirited, misguided bill.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, the Marriage Protection Amendment would
not prevent any State from enacting civil union laws, but would protect
marriage in all 50 States.
Recently, I went to a friend, Mr. Sage Brown, who is a distinguished
attorney and civil rights leader in Savannah, Georgia. Indeed, he is
featured at the Gilbert Civil Rights Museum as a man who was on the
frontlines of integration and did so much for the African American
community. I asked him, Is this a civil rights-type issue, to which he
said no, the relationship of marriage is the most sacred building block
of our society. Marriage is sacred and protected and has nothing to do
with violating our civil rights.
If we change the definition of marriage to be more inclusive, then is
it logical to argue that we should broaden the definition so we do not
exclude anybody? If marriage violated the civil rights of two men or
two women who wanted to be married to each other, then it would also
violate the civil rights of a polygamist, somebody else who wants to
have a different marriage than that between a man and a woman.
Mr. Brown raised a number of good points which I am going to submit
for the Record. I wish there was more time to have debate on it, but I
wanted to bring up something from his point of view.
Mr. Speaker, the Marriage Protection Amendment would not prevent
States from enacting civil union laws but would protect marriage in all
50 States. It would state that ``marriage in the United States shall
consist only of the union of a man and a woman.'' When I hear my
distinguished colleagues from the other side say that marriage should
be redefined because it is discriminatory, I respectfully disagree.
Moreover, I believe that a great majority of Americans disagree.
I've spoken with many minority men and women in my district who have
experienced civil rights abuses first hand. Recently, I spoke with Mr.
Sage Brown, a distinguished African American civil rights leader from
my district who said and I quote:

The relationship of marriage is a most sacred building
block of our society. Marriage is sacred and protected and
has nothing to do with violating our civil rights. It is not
a question of whether or not a person can enter into a
relationship such as a civil union. Our country was formed by
a group of people who were persecuted for believing certain
fundamental things. They looked at their creator in terms of
the defining foundation for our families . . . and this
foundation included the marriage of a man and a woman. The
installation of marriage was wholly designed for the
production, reproduction and propagation of the family.

Our marriage laws--defining marriage as the union of a man and a
woman--were designed to be a blessing to children and society. There is
a certain element of complementarity between men and women that is
biological by nature.
If marriage violated the civil rights of two men and two women who
want to be married, then it also violates the civil rights of
polygamists, and of single adults who want to marry themselves. If our
distinguished colleagues believe it is a civil rights issue, then do
they also believe it discriminates against people who believe in
polygamy. Does it also discriminate against three men who want to
marry? What about four women? What about

[[Page H7922]]

single people who don't want to marry another person? Should they be
excluded?
If we change the definition of marriage to be more inclusive, then it
is logical to argue that we should broaden the definition so that won't
exclude anyone.
Marriage is an institution fits in perfect harmony with the laws of
nature; whereas systems of slavery and segregation were designed to
brutally oppress people and thereby violated the laws of nature. By
contrast, marriage is designed to help children by keeping their
mothers and fathers together. Slavery and segregation were meant to
exploit and degrade. There is a fundamental difference.

Skin color has nothing to do with marriage. That's why it's wrong to
forbid interracial marriage and that's why overturning these laws was a
legitimate civil rights issue. But whether a couple is a man and a
woman has everything to do with the meaning of marriage. Marriage
encourages the men and women who together create life to unite in a
bond for the protection of children. That is not discrimination. It is
the building block on which society is based.
Marriege was not created to place people in bondage. It was created
for having children, and to propagate the human race from one
generation to the next.
The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution--
which has been around since the origin of mankind. It is honored and
encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith.
Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a
husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare
of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be severed
from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the
good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting
marriage, serves the interests of all.
Moreover, it would prevent the judicial chaos we are beginning to see
with recent rulings whereas gay couples are suing in States that do not
recognize same sex marriage. Recently, Oregon conducted over 3,000 same
sex marriages consisting of couples who live in over 30 States.
Lawless local officials have ignored the law and issued same-sex
licenses in California, New Jersey, New York, New Mexico, Oregon and
Washington. This issue is Federal, not State or local. The States'
rights issue is meaningless if judges are the ultimate rulers.
We are headed for a proliferation of court cases in all 50 States if
we do not act now.
So far, 44 States, or 88 percent of the States, have enacted laws
providing that marriage shall consist of a union between a man and a
woman. Only 75 percent of the States are required to approve a
constitutional amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, 2\1/2\ hours for a debate on
amending the Constitution. It is so important that we contemplate that
ministers, rabbis, priests can marry anybody they choose to. They can
deny marriage to the opposite sex. But the reality is what about
amending the Constitution to guarantee quality education to every child
in this country; what about amending the Constitution to guarantee
health care to every person in this country; what about amending the
Constitution so that our colleagues around here could not spend this
time talking about a moral issue instead of giving people jobs and
giving them an opportunity to protect marriage? Marriages fall apart
because people do not have work.
What about amending the Constitution so we can guarantee all kinds of
rights to all people? Give me a break.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 106, the
constitutional amendment on same sex marriage.
African-American voters are deeply divided on the issue of gay
marriage and increasingly suspicious of Republican motives around the
issue. Currently, 46 percent favor the amendment, while 46 percent
oppose. Gay marriage should not be used as a wedge issue to divide any
community, especially the African-American community. And guess what?
In a June Gallup poll, issues related to the gay community were cited
by 2 percent as the most important problem facing the U.S.--compared to
other issues, such as the war in Iraq which was cited by 27 percent of
the public.
The current administration's policies have devastated our
communities. With unemployment in the African-American community double
the national average, crime on the rise, and working families
struggling to feed and keep their families together, we can't afford to
lose focus and be bamboozled by Republicans who want to change the
subject. Mr. Speaker, as of September 24 the gross Federal debt is
$7.348 trillion. I submit to you that we cannot afford a whole host of
things.
The American public wants Congress to focus on real issues facing our
Nation--the economy, health care, protecting our homeland and
education. To date, Congress has approved only 1 of 13 appropriations
bills, despite the fact that a new fiscal year begins tomorrow.
We must focus our energy on good jobs--3 million lost in the last 3
years; better education; improved healthcare since 41 million don't
have it; sound transportation funding; and turning around our
communities--not about gay marriage.
Mr. Speaker, the administration has indeed captured the Nation's
religious leaders on this issue because it does mirror concepts in
various scriptures of their religious doctrines. Notwithstanding, it is
precisely for that reason that we, in this august body, must resist the
temptation to have the State engage in a religious battle. Separation
of church and state is the basic principle of this Nation and it
exempts us from this unnecessary action. Separation of church and state
gives ministers, rabbis, imams, priests, reverends--you get my drift--
the freedom to practice their faith and choose to marry, or more
importantly not marry, any two people before them.
In these times of spreading war and hate, people of faith must reject
politicians who say they are acting out of faith: But are they really?
When one wears the cloak of one's faith on your sleeve, it almost
automatically calls in question your motives. People who talk about
right, justice, compassion and religion are in fact using those
sentiments to contradict or undo the very teachings of their faith.
Mr. Speaker, this is not compassionate; it is not tolerant; it is not
charitable; it is not inclusive. This is nothing short of divisive and
political. Instead of dividing us, our leaders should make redemption,
understanding and love the foundation of their policies because we are
all sinners.
I believe it's time to start bringing people together to work on the
real issues of faith and moral commitment that confront our communities
like poverty and homelessness instead of changing the Constitution to
deny equal rights to the gay community.
With record high unemployment, crime on the rise, and working
families struggling to keep their families together, it's time to bring
people together to turn our communities around.
We need to focus on real policies.
Amending the Constitution is the most far-reaching step that
legislators can take in governing the citizens of this country, and it
is my belief that the Constitution should be the instrument that
protects and guarantees the rights of individuals; it should not be
used to limit the rights of individuals. The defeat of this legislation
is tantamount to the preservation of human rights in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I vehemently oppose H.J. Res. 106 and I will continue to
do so until it is defeated.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) to close.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) for yielding me this time, our distinguished ranking member on
the Committee on the Judiciary. I thank him for his leadership in
promoting freedom in our country and protecting our civil liberties.
Mr. Speaker, I have been married for over 41 years. I want to hear
some applause for that. I am glad to see my Republican colleagues
appreciate that wonderful accomplishment. I certainly respect the
institution of marriage. As the mother of five and the grandmother of
five, I appreciate the value of family.

{time} 1645

My husband and I value family in our community as a source of
strength to our country and a source of comfort to the people. What
constitutes that family is an individual and personal decision. But it
is for all a place where people find love and support. As for me, I
agree with Vice President Cheney when he said, ``With respect to the
question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means
freedom for everyone. People ought to be free to enter into any kind of
relationship they want to.'' That would be Vice President Dick Cheney,
August 24, 2004.
Mr. Speaker, in the closing days of this Congress, we should be
addressing the urgent needs of the American people, to be secure
against the clear and present danger of terrorism, to protect our men
and women in uniform whose lives are in the battle in Iraq, and to
bring economic prosperity and health care to the American people.
Instead, we are meeting here today about tarnishing our cherished
Constitution

[[Page H7923]]

with an amendment that purports to protect marriage but is one that
benefits no one and actually limits the rights of millions of
Americans.
Our Constitution, to which we all take an oath of office, is an
enduring and living document that throughout our history expanded
rights, not diminished them, to live up to the ideals of our Founding
Fathers, that all are created equal and endowed by their Creator with
inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As
that great defender of the Constitution, the late Congresswoman Barbara
Jordan whose legacy graces this House, noted, ``We promised liberty,
freedom and equality to everyone. No one was to be excluded from the
blessings of liberty.''
As a result, this Nation abolished slavery, established equal
protection under the law, extended the right to vote to women and ended
the poll tax. Today, we consider an amendment that runs counter to that
inclusiveness that underlies our history: one Nation under God,
indivisible; and e pluribus unum, from many, one; and in the words of
the Constitution, to form a more perfect Union.
This amendment has been brought with the full knowledge that it
failed in the other body with no prospects of success, either now or in
the foreseeable future, in this body. This is a partisan exercise to
distract the American people from the Republicans' record of failure.
And it is unworthy of a party that claims to be associated with
President Lincoln, one of the greatest Presidents of the United States.
The consideration of this amendment does not call upon the better
angels of our nature that President Lincoln spoke of in his first
inaugural address. It calls upon the worst impulses of politics by
attempting to enshrine discrimination into the Constitution and to
single out a group of American citizens. And it is unworthy of a party
that claims to be associated with President Lincoln once again who said
in his second inaugural address, which I consider to be Lincoln's
greatest speech, ``With malice toward none, with charity for all, with
firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive
to finish the work we are in, to bind up the Nation's wounds.''
This amendment is malicious and is not charitable toward anyone. It
is motivated by animus towards lesbians and gays. It is a sad moment
that those clinging to power want to use to divide the American people
for what they perceive to be an electoral advantage. I will vote
against this amendment because it is counter to the noble ideals of our
Nation.
On substance, the amendment is far reaching to deny all matters of
rights, even beyond marriage. The proponents have disingenuously
claimed that this amendment would not preclude civil unions or domestic
partnerships. At the same time, organizations supporting this amendment
are now using similarly worded State laws to challenge recognition of
domestic partnerships in several States. And we know these
organizations, which the Republican leadership is beholden to, will not
stop there. Because this amendment is not limited to governmental
action and would apply to all private contracts, existing rights
enjoyed by same-sex couples, such as hospital visitation, inheritance
rights and health care benefits would be at risk if this amendment were
to pass. This amendment is dangerous, and it does not belong in our
Constitution.
Throughout our careers, many of us in Congress on both sides of the
aisle have fought against discrimination in every form and sought to
bring people together. I will vote again against this amendment because
again it is counter to the noble ideals of our Nation and of the
principle of ending discrimination and unifying our country. Whatever
one's view of same-sex marriage, and I know that that is a difficult
issue for some, I understand that, amending the Constitution is not the
place to address this issue. Let us not defile our Constitution with an
amendment designed to demean a group of American citizens. Let us not
use our Constitution as a political tool to divide us. We are a better
country than that and that is why this amendment will fail today.
The American people will see through the motivations behind this
amendment. It is to distract the American people from the record of
failure of this Republican Congress, a record that has been, according
to editorials today, marked by ``shambling to the end of one of the
lightest workloads in decades without a hint of embarrassment'' and
``failing at the most demanding obligations of government.''
Mr. Speaker, let us strive to unite people, to seek the best in
ourselves, and to attend to the grave and great issues now before us.
Let us honor our Constitution, let us honor our children, let us honor
all God's children. Let us follow our better angels and reject this
amendment.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I know some wanted to pick a fight here today, trying to
get us to talk about same-sex marriage, about homosexuality and all
those kinds of things. We did not talk about them because that is not
what this is about. What this is about is the family and the definition
of family, so I will define it for you: a family is a man and a woman
that can create children. Peter and Paul cannot create children. Mary
and Jane cannot create children. It is about regenerating and re-
energizing our population by being able to create children.
But more than that, it is about responsibility. A family is a man and
a woman that can create children and rear them. It is how we create
communities. It is how we transfer our values to our children, because
if you destroy marriage and people do not get married, several things
happen: first of all, men are let off the hook. Men can have the sex
but not the responsibility of raising the children. That has happened
in our society and societies in Europe and others. If you take away the
responsibility, why should a man get married? But if he has a
commitment with the woman, the mother of his child, then he realizes
the responsibility of trying to raise that child. He also provides
something more than Mary and Jane can provide. Mary and Jane can be
great mothers and there are many of them that are great mothers. Peter
and Paul can be great fathers. But Peter and Paul cannot be a mother.
And Mary and Jane cannot be a father. The reason that one man and one
woman is necessary to rear children is so that they can receive the
benefits that a man can give them and that a woman can give them. They
can see the commitment between a man and a woman, the trust that is
committed between the two, the love. But more important than that, it
is how that man and that woman transfer their values to their children.
It is also how each family can transfer its values by families coming
together as communities and transferring those values to those
communities. So when you ask the question, what harm is it, the harm is
if nobody gets married and they are having children out of wedlock,
which has already been said, children born out of wedlock are more
likely to have all the maladies of societal ills, whether it be quicker
on drugs, dropouts. We know. Every social ill can come down on these
children. If that happens, then we are not transferring our values to
communities and from communities to States. Our values as a Nation
start with one man, one woman having children. That is what is at stake
here. That is what is harmful.
You say, well, I am married. I am married for 37 years. I am very
proud to be married. I have a daughter and a grandson. The point is
that these breakups of marriage, and it is showing in the Netherlands
and in Scandinavia, it is showing right here with all the pressures
against marriage over the last 40 or 50 years, whether it be welfare or
divorce. Divorce is a pressure against marriage. And when we take the
responsibility for a marriage and do no-fault divorces, you are
undermining marriage and making it easy to undermine marriage.
All the results of that we have seen. The welfare system was a great
experiment. What we saw was fathers not marrying the mothers of their
children, just having many children by many mothers and not responsible
for raising these children, leaving these children to mothers and
grandmothers and aunts to raise. And then we see the deterioration of
their lives because they are raising themselves because their mothers
and aunts and grandmothers have to work in order to raise

[[Page H7924]]

them to pay for the family, so they are raising themselves, no values,
nothing. Gangs form because of that. Gangs become the substitute for
families. Everybody knows that. If you get busted by a gang or mugged
by a gang, that is the result of undermining marriage.
That is the problem. It is nothing about same-sex marriage, or single
moms or any other kind of marriage. Those are wonderful. There are
wonderful families being raised by gay people. There are wonderful
families by single moms. But they are not the ideal. The ideal is
established in our Constitution and in our society. We want the ideal.
So when the Massachusetts Supreme Court redefines marriage based upon
not law, based on thin air, because we have these activist judges
coming in to impose their definition of marriage on our society, we get
a little concerned, because we have seen it before.
We did not stand up before and there have been 45 million children
killed, unborn children killed, because we did not stand up to activist
judges responding to a strategy of using the courts to legislate. Every
leader of the groups that are opposing this legislation has announced
to the world that they are going to take this to the U.S. Supreme
Court. They are already doing it. There are 11 court cases right now.
Nebraska has been overturned, Washington State, Massachusetts. There is
a huge, huge effort in every State in this Union, even though 44 States
in this Union have protected the definition of marriage.
They are after those State constitutions; and when they get at those,
or using the full faith and credit clause, they can go to the Federal
courts and then it begins. Then DOMA comes down. Then the United States
Supreme Court, who has already signaled that they are going to, through
Lawrence v. Texas, redefine marriage in this country, will amend the
Constitution and redefine marriage.
We are starting the effort today. Yes, it may not pass today. I wish
it would. It may not pass today. This is only the beginning, I am
telling you, because this Nation will protect marriage.

{time} 1700

This Nation knows, this Nation knows, that, if you destroy marriage
as the definition of one man and one woman creating children so that we
can transfer our values to those children and they can be raised in an
ideal home, this country will go down.
So, believe me, everybody in this country is going to know how you
voted today. And they are going to know how you stood on the
fundamental protection of marriage and the definition of marriage. And
we will take it from here, and we will be back. And we will be back.
And we will be back. We will never give up. We will protect marriage in
this country.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
I am opposed to a constitutional amendment that would discriminate
against any American. In more than 200 years of American history, the
U.S. Constitution has been amended only 17 times since the Bill of
Rights--and in each instance, it was to extend the rights and liberties
of the American people, not restrict them.
The Federal Marriage Amendment could deny gay and lesbian couples and
their children basic rights, protections, and benefits like hospital
visitations and inheritance. It could also overturn civil unions and
domestic partnership rights already enacted by some state and local
governments. This amendment runs counter to my strong belief that all
people should be entitled to equal protection under the law, regardless
of ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.
I urge my colleagues to let this debate unfold where it should: in
our homes, in our synagogues and churches, in our courts, and in our
hearts. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, oil prices are approaching $50 a barrel,
more than 1,000 young American men and women dead in Iraq, 6,000
wounded.
What are we debating here on the floor of Congress? We are talking up
a bill to inject discrimination into the Constitution of the United
States of America. Apparently, the Republican Congress believes that
the fact that some States want to recognize the loving relationships of
gay and lesbian couples is such a threat to our country that they are
prepared to take the extreme measure of amending the Constitution.
Conservative activist Paul Weyrich shed some light on the current
thinking in Republican circles which explains why this bill is really
on the floor today. Here is what Mr. Weyrich had to say:

The President has bet the farm on Iraq. Right or wrong, he
has done it. Even if you disagree with the decision, you have
to admire the President for putting it on the line and
staying the course despite overwhelmingly bad news for months
now.
Therefore, Iraq will be an unavoidable topic of discussion
in this campaign. The problem is that events in Iraq are out
of the control of the President.

Mr. Weyrich writes, ``There is only one alternative to this
situation: Change the subject.'' He dismisses the option of taking up
oil prices or the economy. Apparently, even he does not think those are
winners for the President.
``No,'' he concludes, ``what I have in mind to change the subject is
a winner for the President. The Federal Marriage Amendment.'' The gay
marriage issue, he gleefully advises, ``will cause Senator Kerry no end
of problems.''
So that is what it is really all about. Republican leaders in
Washington are running scared. They look at the polls on Iraq, on the
economy, on jobs and they fear that the voters are going to rise up in
November and toss them out of office, and as a result they bring up a
resolution to alter the most sacred document in the land.
The Constitution was written to ensure that all Americans are treated
equally. This provision will undermine that principle and tarnish the
Constitution. I believe that any State should have the right, if it so
chooses, to grant same-sex couples or unmarried couples the same legal
rights as those conferred to heterosexual couples. This is the same
policy supported by Vice President Dick Cheney who stated during the
2000 Presidential election that same-sex marriages should remain a
State issue and the Federal Government should recognize those State
laws.
Vote ``no'' on this bill. It is a disgrace against the United States
Constitution.
Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, this amendment would not only ban same-sex
marriages but also civil unions, and I cannot support such a divisive
and extreme measure. A majority of Americans rightfully recognize that
same-sex couples who are committed to a lifelong relationship should
enjoy all of the civil benefits that come with marriage. Being able to
make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner, inherit property
without large tax penalties and receive Social Security survivor
benefits are examples of the civil aspect of marriage that are denied
to same sex couples but are wholly unrelated to religious concerns.
Not only does this amendment completely disregard these basic
liberties but it actually erodes the religious freedom upon which our
great nation was founded. I am not alone in this grave concern. A
coalition of 25 national religious groups--from the American Jewish
Committee to the Alliance of Baptists, from the Episcopal Church to the
Conference of American Rabbis--all believe that this amendment does
more to erode religious freedom than preserve it.
An amendment restricting marriage to certain couples would be the
first time in history that rights were denied solely to one group of
Americans. Mandating discrimination in the Constitution would set a
terrible precedent. Everyone in America should be concerned about who
will be next.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today shame looms over this body. Today
you place legislation before us to amend the Constitution to ensure
that same sex marriages can never occur in any State in this country.
This legislation is all about politics. You know that you do not have
the votes to pass this proposal. You have said so publicly. This
proposal already failed in the Senate earlier this year. You know you
do not have the time to spend on this proposal: the new fiscal year
begins tomorrow and the Republican leadership has only managed to get 1
of 13 required appropriations bills passed. But you're going to make
time for one reason: to get material for TV commercials.
You want TV commercials to run against Democrats. You think that
they'll go nicely alongside the Republican National Committee's
mailings saying Democrats want to ban the Bible and the ads that say
that decorated war veterans are un-American traitors if they oppose the
policies of the present occupant of the White House.
This vote is about hurting Democrats running for reelection. You want
to hurt those of us opposed to amending the Constitution to deny gays
and lesbians the rights that the rest of us enjoy, but the real hurt is
unleashed on some of our nation's families: the millions of gay couples
and lesbian couples, and their children.
People on both sides of this issue have sincere and deep feelings
that deserve to be taken seriously. But today's vote mocks their
concerns: they think you are out here on the floor to discuss who will
be allowed to be a family in America, when you are really out here to
work on who will be a Member of Congress after the election.
Today's vote is about Republicans toying with the emotions of a
nation that genuinely

[[Page H7925]]

cares about commitment, about families, and about the institution of
marriage. To the Republicans, our Nation's emotions--our fear and our
worries--are to be employed and manipulated for their reelection
campaigns.
The House of Representatives's rules are governed by the Jefferson
Manual, and the majority has the right under our rules to bring this
measure to the floor. But Jefferson's greatest manual was the
Declaration of Independence, which reads in part, ``We hold these
truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that
among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'' Exactly
how that part of our Nation's creed will play out as our citizens
grapple with notions of domestic partnerships, civil unions and same
sex marriages is yet to be seen. It will certainly not be decided
today.
Nowhere in the Declaration does it say that these rights are only for
white, heterosexual men.
Jefferson opened the doors of liberty to all of us, Mr. Speaker. It's
a disgrace that this body is using Jefferson rules to attempt to undo
Jefferson's and the Western World's most profound achievement--
acknowledge that we are all equal.
Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.J. Res. 106,
``the Marriage Protection Amendment,'' which would amend the United
States Constitution, regarding the issue of gay marriage. As someone
who has consistently revered the United States Constitution, I am very
cautious of any efforts to amend this precious document and hold a high
standard on what is worthy of this extensive process.
H.J. Res. 106 defines marriage within the United States as ``the
union of a man and a woman,'' and I believe in this core philosophy.
However, it is imperative that we preserve the integrity of the United
States Constitution and do not dilute it with our political agendas and
preferences. Although I do not support gay marriage, I do not feel that
this issue renders the need to amend the United States Constitution.
Neither would I support an amendment to the constitution that would
give gay couples the right to be married.
Moreover, if enacted, the Marriage Protection Amendment would
severely limit State rights. It precludes States from granting marital
status or the ``legal incidents thereof'' to unmarried couples. The
Federal Government should respect the rights of individual States, and
should not be in the business of deciding whether States may grant the
benefits of marriage to unmarried couples. It is the prerogative of
States to make their own decision on whether to take on the burden of
providing such benefits.
For all these reasons, I oppose this constitutional amendment.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that we are
here today to debate this amendment.
As a strong supporter of civil rights protections, I am extremely
concerned about the devastating implications of this legislation.
I am concerned because I believe that every individual deserves to be
treated with respect, and our Nation's laws should be used to promote
civil rights, not limit them.
In addition, the United States Constitution should be modified only
in the most rare and necessary of circumstances, and those
circumstances simply do not exist here today.
Amending this sacred document that has governed us for centuries has
only been done 17 times in our Nation's history--and those changes have
served to protect our rights as Americans.
Now is not the time to depart from that tradition by threatening the
basic principle of equal treatment under the law.
And speaking of tradition, Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot today
about the value we should place only upon ``traditional'' marriage.
I would ask those who support this amendment so strongly to talk to
the countless special needs children of this country, who have been
adopted by caring and nurturing same-sex couples, what ``traditional''
means to them.
Although special needs children are a special gift to this world and
to any family, it is often same-sex couples who are most willing to
welcome these children into their homes.
If not for these couples, many of these children would never
experience the value of a loving, stable home and the unconditional
support of a family.
I am willing to venture that if any one of us asked any one of these
special needs children if they would prefer two mothers--or two
fathers--or no family at all, that choice would be simple.
And that is because there is no exact formula for creating a loving
family. The only thing you need for certain is love.
Are we really challenging whether or not that love can exist in a
home with two mothers or two fathers? I certainly hope not.
Mr. Speaker, we are still trying to bring peace and stability to Iraq
and are losing more and more American lives in this process every day.
Our economy is struggling under a $400 billion deficit. And we have a
long way to go to get American workers back into meaningful work and to
continue improving the education of our children.
It is regrettable that we have decided to overlook these pressing
national needs to take up an amendment that I believe threatens healthy
American families in our country today.
If it is truly our hope to protect the best interests of our
children, we will join together to oppose this dangerous and
unnecessary amendment.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, the question facing this Congress today
is simple and straightforward. Should we amend the Constitution of this
great Nation to restrict the rights and limit the freedoms of citizens
of the United States. Our Constitution has been used to protect the
rights of the minority against the sometimes discriminatory impulses of
the majority. We must not today write discrimination into the very
Constitution that has stood as a bulwark against discrimination. We
must not enshrine injustice into a document meant to serve justice.
I don't often agree with Vice President Cheney, but on this issue he
is right. This issue should be left to our State legislatures.
This Nation confronts many pressing challenges--the war on terrorism,
jobs and the economy, and the many other issues that demand our
attention. We should not be spending our time on a divisive,
politically motivated issue that responds to a non-existent problem.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong opposition to H.J.
Res. 106, the Marriage Protection Amendment.
Fredom. Equality. Inalienable rights. These notions are so enshrined
in our national psyche that it becomes easy to think that they are just
words, that we have attained these ideals, that there is no need for
action, that all the battles for freedom and against discrimination
have been fought and won.
But measures like the one we are considering today bring us back to
reality and remind us how far we must go to achieve acceptance and
fully equality under the law. Some in this Nation refuse to view this
amendment as a blight on our democracy or as a measure that is in
direct opposition to the ideals put forth by our Founders. They ignore
that this amendment denies a minority population certain basic freedoms
and continue to purport that our Nation's values and the institution of
marriage is being threatened.
I certainly agree that the institution of marriage and a cohesive
family unit are vital to the health of our communities and the success
of our society. I strongly support initiatives such as TANF, which
assist families and better our communities. Unfortunately, the
amendment we are debating today does nothing to strengthen the bonds of
matrimony, nor does it strengthen families or enhance or communities.
In fact, it divides our communities, and sends a message of hate and
contempt to a minority population and informs them that their
government considers them to be second class citizens.
No one should be denied the opportunity to choose his or her life
partner. It is a basic human right. It is a deeply personal decision.
Throughout history, we have only moved forward when society has
distinguished between traditional values and valueless traditions.
Attacking gay couples who want to share lifelong obligations and
responsibilities undermines the spirit of love and commitment and sends
the wrong message to society.
In addition to the misguided policy of legislating a sensitive moral
issue, this amendment is a misuse of the Constitution. The Constitution
has been amended only 27 times in its more than 200 years. With the
exception of the Eighteenth Amendment, which was later repealed, these
amendments have reaffirmed and expanded individual freedoms and the
specific mechanisms that allow our self-government to function. The
amendment that we are considering today opposes this spirit of progress
and reverses our movement towards extinguishing institutional
discrimination that has harmed minority populations throughout our
history.
I hope my colleagues will consider the cost this amendment will have
on our democracy and more importantly the message it sends to those
that are being judged by their government. I urge my colleagues to vote
against this amendment.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res.
106, the Marriage Protection Amendment under consideration by the
House, and stand in support of the Constitution.
My opposition to this amendment is based on my fundamental support
for the Constitution, which has been amended only 17 times to broaden
as opposed to limiting the rights of Americans. When I took my oath of
office, I committed to uphold the Constitution. Today's debate and
consideration of this bill is a concerted and direct assault on the
beloved Constitution. We are in effect debating and voting

[[Page H7926]]

on a bill that will do absolutely nothing to promote the institution of
marriage. Our deliberation will not ensure that our most precious
resource, children, the fruit of marriages between men and women, will
be protected by passing this legislation.
Our efforts today are nothing more than a symbolic act that will not
result in any appreciable change in current law. The Republican
majority knows that this House will not pass this measure with the two-
thirds majority vote necessary for it to be enacted. Previously, the
Senate defeated a similar measure. Finally, there is absolutely no
change that three-quarters of the states would pass a law to support
amending the Constitution on this subject.
A federal amendment would intrude on the jurisdiction of state courts
to establish rules for marriage. States rights are the philosophical
and procedural cornerstone of the judicial framework utilized by state
courts. If we pass this amendment in the House, we will be undermining
the authority of state courts, and enabling the federal government to
override the jurisdiction of those states.
This measure will not ensure that marriage couples will protect our
children from abuse or ensure that marriages between men and women will
endure and not end in divorce. It is for the reasons outlined, that I
cast a no vote against this amendment, and a vote to continue to
support the Constitution.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the ``Marriage
Protection'' Constitutional amendment.
In the past, I have supported legislation that defines marriage, and
keeps the control of the institution of marriage within each State in
the Union. I don't believe in gay marriage, and supported the Federal
statute Congress passed in 1996 making sure one State does not have to
accept a marriage license not issued in their State.
Amending the Constitution is a grave matter, given it's only been
amended 27 times in the history of this Republic, actually, 17 times
excluding the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the
Constitution were adopted along with the original Constitution.
I am opposed to amending the Constitution generally, and remain
concerned about the repercussions of opening up our precious founding
document to amendments about social issues.
But I have heard from thousands of my constituents in south Texas who
believe the matter of marriage raises to the importance of including
this definition as the 28th Amendment of the Constitution. I have heard
the voices of south Texans on this matter.
We can never legislate the way people are born or the way they will
live their lives. But we can make a statement today on the importance
of marriage by passing this amendment and urging the Senate and three-
fifths of the States to do the same.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment as well.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this proposed
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Marriage is designed to be between a man and a woman, period. It is
not for two women, nor for two men. It was for this reason that I
authored the Marriage Protection Act, which passed in the House in
July.
Nevertheless, I cannot in good conscience support this amendment.
I have two primary concerns.
The first is the potential this amendment has to federalize domestic
relations law, that is the law of families, parents, custody, etc., all
of which are now handled in the States.
Let me say at the outset that I am not among those who believe that
marriage cannot be defined in our Constitution under principles of
federalism.
But I am deeply concerned that we may unintentionally be doing far
more than simply defining marriage.
By setting forth marriage in the Constitution will we also set forth
the basis upon which some future Federal court claims the ability to
enter into all forms of domestic relations law now reserved to the
States? I say it is very plausible.
In fact, I thought it so plausible that I offered an amendment in the
Committee on Rules this week to address this issue. My amendment would
have added the following new section to all text:

Nothing in this amendment grants any new legislative
authority to the Congress of the United States or any new
judicial power to the Supreme Court of the United States or
any court created by Congress.

This amendment was not made in order.
Without some limitation, I fear a future where the entire realm of
domestic relations law, be it marriage, divorce, child custody,
paternity determination, adoption--you name it--will become fair game
for a future Supreme Court.
Without some limitation on Federal power to assume all family law, I
simply cannot support the present text.
The second problem with the current amendment arises out of my
concern over the nature of marriage and what we are truly trying to
protect in this amendment.
The supporters of this amendment contend that they have three goals:
prohibit same-sex marriage; stop courts from granting the benefits of
marriage to same-sex couples; and, allow State legislatures to enact
civil unions or domestic partnerships if they so desire.
Regarding the second goal, that is prohibiting the courts from
granting the incidents of marriage to unmarried couples, presumably
those in civil unions or domestic partnerships, I contend that here
they have simply failed.
They have failed because in introducing H.J. Res. 106, they have only
restricted the courts from improperly construing State or Federal
constitutions.
Unlike the original H.J. Res. 56, they have dropped the requirement
that courts refrain from construing State or Federal law in the
granting of the incidents of marriage to same-sex couples.
Hence, under this amendment any court, for any reason short of a
constitutional one, may simply grant the incidents of marriage to
unmarried couples and this amendment will not stop them.
At this point, one might say, shouldn't we match our amendment to
that voted upon in the Senate in July? I say why? That amendment did
not even obtain a majority of votes for cloture. My friends, it is
dead.
As I said, the authors of this Amendment had three goals concerning
the incidents of marriage. The third goal was to allow, yes allow, the
legislatures in the States to enact civil unions or domestic
partnership laws.
I ask those of you from California or Vermont what this Amendment
does for you? The answer is nothing. Your domestic partner law in
California and your civil union law in Vermont are unaffected.
This Amendment may actually, by restricting the courts' ability to
grant the incidents of marriage but remaining silent as to the
legislatures, provide a constitutional basis for civil unions. I cannot
support this result.
I offered amendments to the Committee on Rules to address both these
issues. Again, my amendments were not made in order.
I have not yet addressed the first goal of this amendment, that is to
protect marriage.
I suppose that to the extent that marriage is not a mere word, I will
concede that the authors met their goal.
But is the goal sufficient?
Let me conclude.
Simply protecting the term ``marriage'' is not enough. Marriage by
any name is marriage, whether we call it ``civil unions,'' ``domestic
partnerships'' or any other label that may be conjured up.
Marriage is too important to be only about semantics.
We must also be cognizant that while we may today be talking about
same-sex marriage, someday in the future we may be laying the
groundwork for all marriage issues to become federal.
I submit that given the makeup of the House this Amendment cannot
pass. I suggest that if we really care about marriage, that we focus on
the other constitutional tools that our founders gave to Congress. Let
us remove the federal courts' jurisdiction in this area. Let us cut off
the funding of the enforcement of unconstitutional decisions.
All of these means are sufficient to control the judiciary. In fact,
by specifically addressing the power of the courts to construe
constitutions we are actually giving support to the myth that the
courts are already the final arbiters of the constitutions.
We must now allow this to happen. I respectfully urge my colleagues
to consider what they are doing here today, including all of the
ramifications of this Amendment.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to oppose
this blatant attempt to hijack the Constitution of the United States
for political gains.
On July 12, 1996 this House of Representatives voted for, and I
supported the Defense of Marriage Act. On September 21, 1996 this bill
became the Law of the Land as Public Law 104-199.
The Defense of Marriage Act states that ``No State, territory, or
possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to
give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any
other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship
between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the
laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right
or claim arising fro such relationship''.
I do not support a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage.
Historically, amendments to the Constitution have been utilized as a
tool to protect or defend the rights and liberties of American
citizens. Two prominent examples include the 13th Amendment abolishing
slavery and the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote.
Marriage has historically been in the domain of the States to
regulate.
There is no Federal marriage certificate or license needed to be
married; however, the

[[Page H7927]]

State determines how and when a license is necessary.
I am opposed to this Amendment. I do not feel that the Constitution
of the United States should ever be used to limit the rights of
citizens. States currently have jurisdiction over marriage, and can
outlaw the act of same sex marriage if they choose.
This amendment does nothing to improve the major problems facing
marriages today, particularly the Nation's extremely high divorce rate,
50 percent.
The reasons for this vote are politically motivated. At a time when
12 of the 13 appropriations bills, a budget, and transportation funding
for the states have not been passed, why are we spending valuable floor
time on a bill that has already failed in the Senate?
Do not support this amendment and let us get back to the people's
business.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support changing the
Constitution along the lines of this proposal--so I will not vote for
this resolution.
Under our federal system, there are many matters where the states
have broad latitude to shape their laws and policies in ways their
residents think fit, subject to the constitution's provisions that
protect the rights of individual citizens.
One of those areas has been family law, including the regulation of
marriage and divorce--but this amendment would change that.
Adoption of this amendment would for the first time impose a
constitutional restriction on the ability of a state to define
marriage. And it would do so in a way that would restrict, not protect,
individual rights that now are protected by at least some state
constitutions.
In my opinion, this is neither necessary nor appropriate.
Some of the resolution's supporters say it is needed so a state whose
laws ban same-sex marriages or civil unions will not be forced to
recognize such marriages or unions established under another state's
laws.
They say this could happen because Article IV of the Constitution
requires each state to give ``full faith and credit'' to another
state's ``public acts, records, and judicial proceedings.''
But my understanding is that this part of the constitution has not
required states to recognize the validity of all marriages of people
from other states. In fact, over the years various states have refused
to recognize some out-of-state marriages--and the ``full faith and
credit'' clause has not been used to validate marriages because
marriages are not ``judgments'' but ``civil contracts'' that a state
may choose to recognize as a matter of comity, not as a constitutional
requirement.
As if this were not enough, in 1996 Congress passed and President
Clinton signed into law the ``Defense of Marriage Act.'' That law says
``No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian
tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or
judicial proceeding of any State, territory, possession, or tribe
respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is
treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory,
possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such
relationship.''
Not everyone thinks this was a good thing for Congress to do--I
myself am not sure that it was. But the fact is that this law is on the
books and has not been successfully challenged.
Given this history, I am not convinced that this constitutional
amendment is necessary to prevent the ``full faith and credit'' clause
being used to compel a state to recognize a same-sex marriage.
Moreover, when you focus on the language of the proposed amendment it
becomes clear that protecting states is not its real purpose.
That purpose could be achieved by an amendment to the ``full faith
and credit'' clause--perhaps by putting language along the lines of the
``Defense of Marriage Act'' into the constitution itself. But that is
not what is being proposed here.
Instead, this amendment would restrict states, by establishing a
single definition of marriage--the only definition that any state could
recognize.
And unlike other constitutional amendments, it would not protect
individuals either. It would write into the constitution a new limit on
what legal rights they could hope to have protected by a state or the
federal government. If adopted, this amendment would restrict
individual liberties instead of expanding them. I think it is clear the
real purpose of this amendment is to lay a foundation for
discrimination against some Americans on the basis of their sexual
orientation. In good conscience, I cannot support this.
Mr. Speaker, no proposed constitutional amendment should be taken
lightly. On the contrary, I think such proposals require very careful
scrutiny and should not be adopted unless there we are convinced that a
change in our fundamental law is essential. I do not think this
resolution meets that test, and so I will vote against it.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the proposed
amendment to the Constitution of the United States that would enshrine
discrimination in one of our Nation's founding documents and insinuate
the Federal government into an area of law and policy that has
traditionally been left to the States.
Since the Bill of Rights was adopted, the Constitution has been
amended only 17 times. That demonstrates the profoundly conservative
approach the American people and their representatives in Congress have
taken to changing the Constitution. Polls show that that approach
continues today. Even among those who oppose gay marriage, a majority
oppose using a constitutional amendment to ban it.
For my part, I believe that a committed couple, regardless of gender,
should have the right to participate in a state-recognized marriage or
civil union and to enjoy the rights and responsibilities conveyed by
that legal relationship. It is in our society's interest that committed
couples, whether in ``traditional'' or same-sex unions, be not only
allowed but encouraged to form households, have families, and
contribute to the health and stability of their neighborhoods and
communities.
What religious bodies choose to recognize, sanction, or bless as
marriage should be entirely up to them.
There are much more important issues we could be spending this time
on. The American people have much higher priorities than this--the
misguided effort to bring democracy to Iraq; the faltering economy; the
loss of good jobs; the half-hearted, underfunded war on terrorism; the
high price of gas; the millions of Americans without health insurance;
and so on.
Mr. Speaker, this waste of an afternoon in an effort to pollute our
Constitution with language requiring discrimination against a
particular group of people, in violation of basic principles of
federalism, is just wrong, and I urge my colleagues to show they share
my disdain for this charade by voting ``no.''
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, today, I stand in support of H.J. Res. 106,
the Marriage Protection Amendment. I believe there are strong cultural,
historic, and societal reasons for reaffirming the definition of
marriage. For centuries, our society has been built upon the tradition
that marriage consists of one man and one woman. The institution of
marriage is not one made to discriminate, but was created to advocate
an ideal home for children. This enduring and cherished institution is
the healthiest way to raise strong families. We have to ask ourselves
why we would want to change the institution of marriage after it has
served human civilization so well over the course of time.
My home state of Ohio has spoken very strongly on this. The state
legislature has passed its own Defense of Marriage Act, and I have
received hundreds of letters on the issue from my constituents in the
Fourth District. I believe there is a strong majority consensus in Ohio
for the traditional definition of marriage. It now appears that
proponents have received enough signatures through petitions to put
this issue on the ballot on Election Day.
I do not take amending the U.S. Constitution lightly. But because of
the decision made by activist judges in states like Massachusetts,
there is no assurance that existing federal and state defense of
marriage acts can remain intact. The American people deserve to be
heard through their elected representatives, and that is why it is
proper for the House to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J.
Res. 106 before the House of Representatives today.
The Constitution has never been amended to mandate discrimination. It
is historically served to expand liberty and equality. This proposed
constitutional amendment, if passed, would set a precedent at odds with
the values and freedoms upon which the nation was founded. Further, it
is an attack on the United States Constitution and the system of
government that has made this country so great and has served us so
well. Supporters of this resolution complain loudly about the decisions
of ``unelected judges,'' but it is important to remember that those
very unelected judges are a key part of our system of government--it is
how the authors of the Constitution saw fit to protect the rights of
minorities.
By trying to amend the Constitution, conservatives are trying to cut
off the emerging national debate on same-sex marriage. Amending the
Constitution has only been done 27 times before in our history. It is
something that is traditionally done only when there are no other
options, but the country has only just begun to try to work through
this issue.
Even for people who, like myself, believe that marriage is between a
man and a woman, this measure does nothing to strengthen or protect
those bonds. It seems to me that if a threat exists to marriage, it is
that too many of them fail. For every two marriages that occurred in
the 1990s, one ended in divorce.

[[Page H7928]]

The stresses on marriages today are great, but they don't have to do
with the jurisdiction of the federal courts. This bill does nothing to
deal with problems like affordable housing, quality education and
training, daycare for young children, high costs of gasoline,
electricity and food, high unemployment rates and underemployment, and
the lack of health care coverage and other benefits that place severe
strains on many families.
Today, the very nature of the typical American family is changing.
Just as families headed by only one adult were rare only a few decades
ago but are common today, non-traditional couples are now a widespread
fact of American society. Nearly 200 Fortune-500 companies and numerous
municipalities and organizations have already recognized this fact on
their own and provide benefits to same sex couples. In addition,
several municipalities have adopted local ordinances prohibiting
discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing and employment.
This proposed constitutional amendment is heavy-handed and
unnecessary. The companion amendment in the United States Senate not
only failed to meet the required two-thirds vote for adoption, but it
failed to even receive a simple majority of the membership, failing 48-
50. At best, it is bad policy that does not get to the core of the
problems that face American families today. At worst, it is a ruinous
attack at the very foundation of this great country--A Constitution
that protects the rights of the individual over the tyranny of the
majority.
No matter one's individual beliefs, there can be no excuse to putting
limitations on one person's rights for another person's beliefs in a
document under which we all live--the Constitution of the United States
of America. I hope that my colleagues will join me in opposing this
ill-advised, unnecessary, and bad precedent-setting amendment.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res.
106, the so called federal marriage amendment. This bill would turn
over 200 years of state jurisprudence on its head, attempting to
federalize marriage.
This resolution is another attempt to mandate one definition of
marriage upon the states. I ask my colleagues if we take away this
right from the states, what's next? Where does it stop? Take away local
decisions for education or child custody issues. Between the
consideration of this bill and the court stripping bills that have
passed this House, it leads me to believe, Mr. Speaker, this is just
another cynical political ploy by the majority during an election year.
Like Vice President Cheney and former Representative Bob Barr, I
believe the voters of each state should decide for themselves who can
and cannot marry. It has always been a state function. It should remain
so. To take away that right of the state to decide this issue, we
endanger basic principles of the federal system in which we live. As
our Constitution so eloquently states in the Tenth Amendment of our
federal Constitution, ``The powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people.''
Mr. Speaker, amendment of our Constitution has happened only 17 times
since the Bill of Rights was passed. Some of those amendments do not
look so good today. Many of those not adopted now look worse. We should
not lightly tamper with the perfection, beauty and majesty of our great
Constitution. This bill was filed only last Friday, rushed through the
Rules Committee on Tuesday night, and voted on today.
There have been no Committee hearings, no time to look at different
amendment proposals, and no opportunity to have the important
deliberations that should take place when amending the Constitution. We
have heard nothing from our concerned citizens and from our
Constitutional scholars.
The issue before us today is not whether you are for or against gay
marriage. It is whether or not we should federalize marriage and take
away the right of the states to define marriage.
Now Mr. Speaker, I supported the Defense of Marriage Act and continue
to do so. At this point, the Defense of Marriage Act remains the law of
the land. It works. Nothing yet threatens this law.
Those proposing this amendment rely on hypothetical dangers to try
and push through a dramatic, but mischievous change to our
Constitution. I am opposed to taking away the right of each state to
have its citizenry decide how to define marriage. It seems to me too
many people are meddling in this matter for political reasons. Let the
states continue to decide sound public policy on this subject.
We must never rush to amend our Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I oppose
this bill and ask for my colleagues to vote against this iniquitous,
politically inspired, and destructive legislation.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine
marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman,
I do not believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or
proper way to defend marriage.
While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states,
government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the
institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of
government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state
recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private
individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their
wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their
faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church and their creator,
not with receiving their marriage license, thus being joined in the
eyes of the state.
If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of
Marriage Act, which used Congress's constitutional authority to define
what official state documents other states have to recognize under the
Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced
to recognize a ``same sex'' marriage license issued in another state.
This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection
Act. H.R. 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act
from federal courts' jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas
legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue
judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my
state.
Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars,
including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts
to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I
am convinced that both the Defense or Marriage Act and the Marriage
Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is
forced by a federal court's or another state's actions to recognize
same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel
only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I
respectfully disagree. I am also concerned that the proposed amendment,
by telling the people of the individual states how their state
constitutions are to be interpreted, is a major usurpation of the
states' power. The division of power between the federal government and
the states is one of the virtues of the American political system.
Altering that balance endangers self-government and individual liberty.
However, if federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a
state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would
be proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional
approaches.
Conservatives, in particular, should be leery of anything that
increases federal power, since centralized government power is
traditionally the enemy of conservative values. I agree with the
assessment of former Congressman Bob Barr, who authored the Defense of
Marriage Act:
``The very fact that the FMA [Federal Marriage Amendment] was
introduced said that conservatives believed it was okay to amend the
Constitution to take power from the states and give it to Washington.
That is hardly a basic principle of conservatism as we used to know it.
It is entirely likely the left will boomerang that assertion into a
future proposed amendment that would weaken gun rights or mandate
income redistribution.''
Passing a constitutional amendment is a long, drawn-out process. The
fact that the marriage amendment already failed to gather the necessary
two-thirds support in the Senate means that, even if two-thirds of
House members support the amendment, it will not be sent to states for
ratification this year. Even if the amendment gathers the necessary
two-thirds support in both Houses of Congress, it still must go through
the time-consuming process of state ratification. This process requires
three-quarters of the states' legislatures to approve the amendment
before it can become effective. Those who believe that immediate action
to protect the traditional definition of marriage is necessary should
consider that the Equal Rights Amendment easily passed both Houses of
Congress and was quickly ratified by a number of states. Yet, that
amendment remains unratified today. Proponents of this marriage
amendment should also consider that efforts to amend the Constitution
to address flag burning and require the federal government to balance
the budget have been ongoing for years, without any success.
Ironically, social engineers who wish to use federal government power
to redefine marriage will be able to point to the defense of
traditional marriage through a constitutional amendment as proof that
they have the legitimate authority to redefine marriage. I am unwilling
either to cede to the federal courts the authority to redefine marriage
or to deny a state's ability to preserve the traditional definition of
marriage. Instead, I believe it is time for Congress and state
legislatures to reassert their authority as a co-equal branch of
government by refusing to enforce judicial usurpations of power.

[[Page H7929]]

In contrast to a constitutional amendment, the Marriage Protection
Act requires only a majority vote of both Houses of Congress and the
President's signature to become law. The bill has already passed the
House of Representatives; at least 51 Senators would vote for it; and
the President would sign this legislation given his commitment to
protecting the traditional definition of marriage. Therefore, those who
believe Congress needs to take immediate action to protect marriage
this year should be focusing on passing the Marriage Protection Act.
Because of the dangers to liberty and traditional values posed by the
unexpected consequences of amending the Constitution to strip power
from the states and the people and further empower Washington, I cannot
in good conscience support the marriage amendment to the United States
Constitution. Instead, I plan to continue to work to enact the Marriage
Protection Act and protect each state's right not to be forced to
recognize a same sex marriage.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my disappointment that this
body has brought the Federal Marriage Protection to the Floor at a time
when only one of the thirteen appropriations bills has been passed into
law and other important legislation, such as the transportation
reauthorization bill and intelligence reform have not yet become law.
This is not to say that I believe the issue of gay marriage to be
unworthy of discussion. I understand that some people firmly regard gay
marriage as a civil right while others find it antithetical to their
religious or moral beliefs. Reasonable people can disagree on this
issue, and it is a subject which our country must continue to discuss.
In America, however, the authority to grant legal status to a marriage
has been a function reserved for the states, and different states have
different laws regarding issues ranging from blood-testing to waiting
periods before marriage.
Some, including the proponents of this bill, will argue that an
amendment to the U.S. Constitution is necessary to keep one state from
forcing another to accept same-sex marriages. In fact, this is not
necessary because of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Law, which provides
that states, U.S. territories, or Indian tribes do not have to
recognize same-sex marriages granted by other states. Further, the Act
defines marriage, for the purpose of federal benefits and rules, as the
legal union between one man and one woman. Therefore, the Wisconsin law
which recognizes marriage as a relationship between a husband and wife
is protected.
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to amending the United States
Constitution, I am very conservative. Like Republican Senator Chuck
Hagel, conservative columnist George F. Will, and the Republican author
of the Defense of Marriage Act, Bob Barr, I am opposed to amending the
Constitution for the purpose of outlawing gay marriage. In its 215-year
history, the Constitution has been amended only 27 times, and we must
not add amendments limiting rights rather than expanding them.
Dick Cheney has stated ``With respect to my views on the issue, I
stated those during the course of the 2000 campaign, that I thought
when it came to the question of whether or not some sort of legal
status or legal sanction were granted to a same-sex relationship that
that was a matter best left to the states. That was my view then.
That's my view now.'' (Scripps Howard New Service, January 9, 2004). As
recently as August, 2004, Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking of gay
marriage, affirmed that, ``marriage has historically been a
relationship that has been handled by the states.'' Like Vice President
Cheney, I do not believe the U.S. Congress needs to intrude on this
state issue. Because of my great respect for the Constitution, and for
the federal nature of the government which the document dictates, I
will vote against this resolution, and I urge my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to do the same.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 106, a
constitutional amendment regarding marriage.
I personally believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
In 1996, I voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which
became law with President Clinton's signature. The Act defined marriage
for federal purposes as a legal union between one man and one woman.
The bill also protected states from being compelled to honor another
state's law or judicial proceeding that recognizes marriage between
persons of the same sex. DOMA is current federal law.
I am therefore puzzled as to why the House leadership has chosen to
schedule this matter for a vote in such a hasty manner, without the
benefit of a markup in the Judiciary Committee, just one month before
Election Day. In July of this year, the Senate rejected this amendment
by a vote of 48-50, short of even a majority vote, and much less than
the two-thirds vote required to send the amendment to the states for
ratification.
This amendment is unnecessary. DOMA is the law of the land which both
defines marriage at the federal level and protects states from having
to change their own definitions of marriage by recognizing other
states' same-sex marriage licenses. DOMA has never been invalidated by
any court, and many states have properly used DOMA to refuse to
recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The decision of
the citizens of Massachusetts to authorize same-sex marriages in their
state in no way requires the citizens of the state of Maryland to do
so.
I am also concerned about the unnecessarily broad scope of the
amendment, which states that Federal or State constitutions shall not
be construed ``to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof
be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and woman.''
(emphasis supplied). Many State, county and local governments currently
provide either domestic partner benefits or civil union benefits to
gays and lesbians in their jurisdictions. Such benefits include
visiting each other in the hospital, sharing health insurance plans,
and rights of inheritance. These benefits--again, decided by local
governments and citizens--could be called into question by this Federal
constitutional amendment if they are considered ``legal incidents'' of
marriage. As compared to a Federal statute, a constitutional amendment
limits the ability of Congress to make future changes.
The first sentence of the amendment does not even require State
action, which means that private parties--such as religious
institutions and private businesses--could be bound by the Federal
Government's definition of ``marriage.'' The amendment could therefore
call into question the benefits that many companies provide to same-sex
partners. I note that a broad array of both civil rights, religious,
and business organizations are opposed to the amendment.
Finally, Congress should only adopt a constitutional amendment as a
matter of last resort when a statutory approach is ineffective. In this
case, that standard has not been met. We have only amended our
Constitution seventeen times since the adoption of the Bill of Rights
in 1791.
I have consistently supported legislation to protect the civil rights
of all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation. For example,
I believe that Congress should make it illegal to terminate an employee
solely on the basis of sexual orientation. I believe this amendment is
inconsistent with the civil rights currently enjoyed by many gays and
lesbians as a result of State and local laws. This constitutional
amendment could inadvertently sanction discrimination based on sexual
orientation beyond the legal status of marriage.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, the institution of marriage is a sacred union
between a man and a woman, and with God and the community. That is why
I voted for and strongly supported the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA), which was passed by Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan
margin and signed into law by President Clinton. The Defense of
Marriage Act defines marriage as being between one man and one woman,
and also provides that no State shall be required to accept a same-sex
marriage license granted in another State.
Opponents of this amendment say we are voting too early on this
amendment. They say that traditional marriage is protected by DOMA.
However, I know that unless this amendment passes, State and Federal
judges will overturn laws protecting traditional marriage after this
year's election, just as I know tonight the sun will set.
Left-wing activists in at least twelve other States have filed
lawsuits like the one that imposed same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.
Without a constitutional amendment, judges and local officials will
continue to attempt to redefine marriages in their States. A handful of
judges are doing the work of a liberal few and forcing us to act to
protect what should be a settled matter of law. These judges can strike
down the Defense of Marriage Act just as four judges in Massachusetts
did earlier this year.
The only way to ensure that the people's voice to be heard is an
amendment to the Constitution--the only law a court cannot overturn.
The future of marriage in America should be decided through the
democratic constitutional amendment process. By passing the Marriage
Protection Amendment, the American people will have the final say on
marriage in the United States, not a group of judges.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to trust the judgment of the
American people and allow them to make the final decision on marriage
by voting for the Marriage Protection Amendment.
Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Speaker, here's the choice. On one hand, a rich
constitutional tradition. On the other hand, the politics of
divisiveness. What a despicable choice it is.
With just days left before hitting the campaign trail, this Congress
sets a remarkable record today. Since January of this year, the
Republicans had the House in session for 93

[[Page H7930]]

days. Fewer days than any other single Session since 1948.
The Republicans control the House, the Senate and the White House.
Here's the tally: No votes on energy reform. No action on the assault
weapons ban. No criminal justice reform. No Homeland Security bill. And
no action on minimum wage and unemployment benefits.
We can't pass a budget. Only one of 13 annual appropriations bills
got done on time this year. And in Iraq, the violence continues.
Yesterday, a car bomb explosion killed over 30 people--injuring over
100. We have lost over one thousand American soldiers in this war.
So which of these enormous challenges do we take on today? None of
them. Instead, we're debating a constitutional amendment on marriage
that is not going anywhere--it has already failed miserably in the
Senate. We are just going through the motions here. The Majority is
placating its base. For partisan advantage and with total disregard for
our constitutional history and the core conservative value of
federalism and defense to the State.
Just last month the Vice President said: ``people ought to be able to
be free.'' Well, Mr. Vice President, to my surprise, we actually agree
on something. People should be free to love who they want. And free to
marry who they love. And live in a state where they have equal rights
and opportunities, and equal access to government.
But State rights are under attack--from the self-styled conservatives
no less, the same folks who are crusading to preempt State gun safety
laws, get rid of consumer protection provisions, to eliminate fair
lending laws. Why not abolish the 10th Amendment too?
I agree with our former colleague Bob Barr--one of the stronget
supporters of States' rights ever to serve in this body. There are
three reasons why a constitutional amendment is the wrong choice.
First, marriage is a state issue. Each state should be able to decide
on its own how to define marriage for its citizens. Federalism means
state sovereignty. We hear a lot of talk about my home state. Let me
tell you something--Massachusetts is not forcing other states to take
up this issue. Marriage is a matter that has always been left to the
states. And each state should be allowed to address this issue in its
own due course.
Second, once we start messing with the Constitution, where will it
end? With this precedent, the Republicans show a willingness to change
the Constitution for ideology. What's next? A Constitutional Amendment
on tax cuts? Corporate welfare? The draft?
Finally, Federal constitutional amendment on marriage is unnecessary,
irresponsible and irrational. It is wrong.
The House Majority is pitting the Constitution against a craven
political calculus. This is election year pandering at its worst. This
is a meaningless and demeaning gesture, and insult to those holding
sincere beliefs on this issue, all at the expense of our constitutional
heritage.
I urge my colleagues to reject this despicable posturing.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 106, the
Marriage Protection Amendment.
This amendment should be more rightfully called the Republican
Incumbency Protection Amendment. Like the bill we debated on this floor
yesterday to abrogate gun laws in the District of Columbia, this
amendment is nothing more than an election year wedge issue. Already
defeated in the Senate last July, it is another attempt to create a
campaign issue to use against Democrats. It is a shame that the
People's House should be diminished in this way.
Even more so, this is an affront to our great Constitution. It
reverses the constitutional tradition of protecting individual freedoms
by attempting to limit those rights to millions of people. This is a
cynical and dangerous violation of everything we have come to expect
from that great document. This is no time to start rolling back
freedom.
What a great contradiction we are witnessing today at that party,
which professes the sanctity of individual rights and privacy of the
individual, seeks a blanket intrusion into the lives of a group of
people under the guise of protecting marriage, the most private of
institutions.
While it was President Bush who initiated this bill with his call for
a Constitutional amendment last February, I would hope that some
members of his party would agree with the position of Vice President
Cheney that this issue should be left to the states and not enshrined
in our national constitution.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House Joint
Resolution 106, the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment, which
proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex couples
from getting married or receiving any of the rights of marriage. The
right-wing political machine is churning out divisive legislation at a
record pace as we get close to the election, but this is a new low.
They would, for the first time ever, target a specific group of
Americans in our most sacred document, and permanently ban them from
having equal rights under the law. This proposed amendment not only
bans marriage, but any of the ``legal incidents thereof,'' meaning that
the supporter of this amendment think our founding document should keep
gay and lesbian couples from filing a joint tax return, inheriting
property, or visiting their partners in the hospital.
It's one thing for the Republicans to claim that banning flag burning
will make us more patriotic or to propose a balanced budget amendment
when they're running the highest deficits in history, but to play their
political games with millions of Americans is beneath contempt.
Apparently, there are a lot of things the supporters of this amendment
don't understand about our government:
The Constitution has always defined the limitations of government and
liberties of people, not the other way around.
Citizens of the United States are guaranteed equal treatment under
the law, even if they aren't popular.
For people who choose a religion, there are two separate marriages: a
civil contract and a religious ceremony. That religious ceremony has
nothing to do with our laws. A church can marry whomever it wants and
refuse to marry whomever it wants. For example, Churches in
Massachusetts don't have to marry gay people even though the State
does.
The civil contract part of marriage is enforced by a set of laws that
affect property, children, health care and other responsibilities and
rights. In the U.S. we are required by the Constitution to divorce
these laws from any religious influence.
Passing this amendment would take us down a dangerous path of trying
to make civil and religious marriage one in the same. If we're going to
bring our civil marriage system in line with religious marriage, then
we also need to pass an amendment banning Catholics from getting
divorced.
The fact that Massachusetts is marrying same-sex couples doesn't mean
that other States have to do the same. Already, 44 States have
specifically banned gay marriage, and the Constitution guarantees their
right to set their own policies on State issues.
Constitutional amendments have to be passed by two-thirds of both the
House and Senate before being submitted to the States for ratification.
This amendment has already failed in the Senate, so today's vote is all
a cynical, hateful political game.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Marriage
Protection Amendment and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this
important legislation.
Marriage as the union of one man and one woman is our most basic and
fundamental social institution. It is so central to the well-being of
our society that, until recently, it was difficult to imagine that
marriage itself would need explicit constitutional protection.
However, recent court rulings and the actions of some local officials
have forced the debate upon us. In an ongoing effort to redefine
marriage for all of American society, the judgment of the American
people is in danger of being overruled by a handful of activist judges.
The Marriage Protection Amendment will protect marriage as the union
of one man and one woman and ensure that the democratic process is
followed on questions relating to this fundamental social institution.
Some will question the need for a constitutional amendment, but let's
be realistic. The U.S. Constitution will be changed whether the
Marriage Protection Amendment is approved or not.
Either activist judges will impose a new definition of marriage on
the entire country, or the American people, through their elected
representatives, will have the opportunity to determine what marriage
will be.
There is a broad consensus among the American people that marriage is
uniquely and essentially the union of one man and one woman. Congress
needs to act today and give voice to the majority of Americans who want
traditional marriage protected.
The record is clear. Whenever the American people have had the
opportunity to vote directly on the issue, they have overwhelmingly
voted in favor of traditional marriage.
The state of marriage and the American family is a matter of crucial
importance, and I trust the judgment of the American people on this
matter.
The future of marriage should be decided by the American people, not
by activist courts. Vote in favor of the Marriage Protection Act,
protect traditional marriage and ensure that the American people will
have a say in the future of marriage.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Federal
Marriage Amendment.
Today in America: 8 million people are out of work--2.7 million have
exhausted their unemployment benefits; 45 million people don't have
access to health care; our classrooms

[[Page H7931]]

are underfunded by $25 billion; gasoline prices have reached $50 per
barrel one-third of the intercepts from al Qaeda have not been
translated into English; and, more than 1,000 Americans have been
killed in a foreign quagmire with no end in sight.
It's time for bold and honest leadership, and for all Americans to
unite in confronting these urgent challenges. Yet with precious few
days left in the legislative session, the leadership in Congress has
decided that our time is best spent trying to divide Americans for
political reasons. And the device they are using to divide us is the
most sacred document of all--the Constitution of the United States.
The Constitution has always united Americans behind a shared set of
ideals. In our history, the Constitution has been amended only to
protect and expand our rights. Since the Bill of Rights, our Nation has
passed constitutional amendments to abolish slavery, to give all
Americans equal protection under the laws, and to extend the right to
vote to former slaves, women, and young Americans.
Never in our history has a constitutional amendment been used to take
rights away. The Federal Marriage Amendment destroys that tradition
simply to pander to the political base of the Republican Party 5 weeks
before an election. This amendment has little to do with defending the
institution of marriage.
With the strains on today's families and the incidence of divorce and
broken homes, I fail to see how we strengthen the institution of
marriage by forever excluding couples willing to enter into a lifelong
commitment.

Our society encourages and values a commitment to long-term
monogamous relationships--and we honor that commitment through the
legal institution of marriage.
Same-sex couples are not asking for special rights or special favors.
They are asking for the opportunity to make a commitment to one
another--to share in a conservative institution and the rights and
responsibilities it entails.
I understand that this is an issue where good people may disagree,
and where many diverse faith traditions are brought to bear. But let's
be clear--if we leave the Constitution intact, every church, every
community, and every State will still be free to define marriage as
they choose.
There is simply no Federal issue here and no need for a Federal
solution. The Supreme Judicial Court of my State of Massachusetts has
found that our State law violates our State constitution. It's a State
matter, and we are handling it in Massachusetts.
I have confidence in the people of Massachusetts that we will arrive
at a solution based on our laws and our values. The outcome will have
no effect on the laws of other States.
My Republican colleagues have decried heavy-handed solutions from
Washington and defended States' rights. Vice President Cheney has
asserted that this is an issue for the States to decide. So did Texas
Governor George Bush before he came to Washington and flip-flopped.
I would plead with my colleagues who pride themselves as ardent
defenders of States' rights and local control--we don't need Federal
interference in Massachusetts.
We should be honest with our constituents that the Federal Marriage
Amendment on the House floor today has no chance of passage. It has
already been rejected by the Senate.
Today's vote is nothing more than a transparent political gimmick.
It's a shameful assault on millions of hard-working, law-abiding
Americans.
And it's a shameless attempt to divide all Americans at a time when
unity is needed like never before.
I urge my colleagues to protect the Constitution, not degrade it for
political reasons. Vote ``no'' on the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and
this amendment.
We did not seek this debate, but it was thrust upon us. A handful of
judicial activists have sought to change the traditional definition of
marriage through judicial decree.
Supporters of same-sex marriage are vocal, tireless, and well-funded.
They are eager to attack the traditional meaning of marriage through
whatever court is willing to listen. They are determined to force this
revolutionary and destructive view of marriage down the American
people's throats.
But there is hope for the millions of Americans who value the
traditional definition of marriage. Their hope is the democratic
process and this amendment. Supporters of same-sex marriage cannot win
through the democratic process. Again and again, when the issue has
been put forth in the court of public opinion, they have lost
miserably.
Mr. Speaker, this vote today is what our democracy is all about. The
response of my constituents and Americans throughout the country has
been overwhelming and impressive. The vast majority of Americans have
risen to the defense of traditional marriage. Today, the voice of the
American people will be heard.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, September 13 was an important date for
Congress. It marked the expiration of the decade-old Assault Weapons
Ban. Police Chiefs across the country strongly encouraged the extension
of this ban. President Bush even announced he would sign an extension
if Congress presented him with the opportunity. Unfortunately, the
Republican leadership did not deem the ban fit for a vote.
Instead, Congress squanders valuable time voting on matters that
either have no bearing on the real work at hand or are designed as
divisive wedge issues.
Just yesterday the House voted to repeal the District of Columbia's
28-year-old assault weapons ban and to prohibit the DC Government from
enacting such laws in the future.
That was yesterday, Mr. Speaker. Today, the House, in another profile
in courage, will devote valuable time to one of the most divisive of
wedge issues--a vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
Are these the most pressing issues of the day for Congress? For the
American people? Of course not. Al Qaeda will not stop at the borders
of Washington, DC, in fear of our newly armed city, but tourists and
other visitors might. And DC residents, Members of Congress and their
families will be at greater risk.
Nor will our ports, railways, airports, and other critical
infrastructure be more secure because we waste time on what is certain
to be a failed Federal effort to ban gay marriage.
States have long regulated marriage and I do not believe that America
has suffered from this practice. I believe State legislatures and
courts are the proper arbiters of questions of community values. On
this issue there is bipartisan agreement. Indeed, four of the featured
speakers at the recent Republican convention oppose this amendment,
including Vice President Cheney and California Governor Schwarzenegger.
We have traditionally amended the Constitution to grant a broader
range of rights to Americans. Why, in the 21st century, are we breaking
from this 200-year-old tradition? In my view, the Constitution should
be amended rarely, dispassionately, and only in the interest of
codifying or expanding rights and liberties. This proposed amendment
fails to meet that test, is divisive, and distracts from more urgent
priorities.
If America is hit by terrorists again, I fear that history will look
back at us with a scathing and sorrowful eye. There will be anger at
our misplaced priorities, and sadness that we fell victim to the
passions of those whose vision for America's future is clouded by fear
and intolerance.
I oppose H.J. Res. 106 and urge my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to oppose it. We need to put this shameful vote behind us and
focus on problems that all Americans agree need to be addressed, such
as jobs, health care and, most of all, national security.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, although I will not be present when
the House convenes on Thursday, September 30, 2004, for consideration
of the H.J. Res 106, the Marriage Protection Amendment. I oppose it,
just like Vice President Dick Cheney, because it undermines the
principles of federalism espoused by most Republicans and interferes
with the rights of States that have been recognized since the founding
of our country.
Furthermore, we should not change the Constitution for the purpose of
singling out one group for discrimination. A constitutional marriage
amendment is also unnecessary given that the Defense of Marriage Act
already defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Finally, the argument that the Marriage Protection Amendment is
needed to stop activist judges and courts from forcing the American
people to accept gay marriage is unfounded, a fact evidenced by the
numerous marriage-related bills--both in favor of and against same-sex
marriage--currently pending in more than two dozen State legislatures
around the country.
That is why, if I were present, during the vote for H.J. Res. 106, I
would have voted against the Marriage Protection Amendment. In light of
the fact that the first Presidential Debate is being held in my
congressional district on Thursday, I must remain in Florida.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J.
Res. 106, the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment. This measure
seeks to amend the United States Constitution and define marriage as
the union between a man and a woman, denying gays and lesbians the
right to marriage and the legal benefits that come with it.
In the 200-year history of this great Nation, our Constitution has
been amended a mere 17 times since our Founders drafted the original 10
amendments.
This amendment would be the first ever to strip a specific group of
constitutional rights, directly contravening our history of expanding
civil rights and liberties to the previously disenfranchised.
This amendment appeals to many Americans' deeply held belief that
marriage is a religious covenant only between a man and a woman.

[[Page H7932]]

But marriage is also a legal contract, and the fundamental principal
of equal protection dictates that all citizens have access to the
benefits of such contracts.
The legal right to marry--be it man-to-woman or same-sex--is and must
remain separate from the religious one.
This amendment will exclude some Americans from the full range of
human experience to which they are entitled under the full protection
of the law. Therefore, I believe that this measure must be defeated.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the
constitutional amendment to protect marriage as between one man and one
woman. This is a very important issue for congress to address, and I am
glad to have been part of the movement to bring this legislation to the
House floor.
Marriage is a core institution of societies throughout the world and
throughout history. It's something that has provided permanence and
stability for our very social structure. Today, statistics clearly show
that couples who are married are happier and better off economically,
and that children who are raised in homes with a traditional, two-
person married couple are better off. The societal benefits to
protecting and promoting traditional marriage are, in fact, numerous.
In my home state of Louisiana, we voted just recently on a statewide
constitutional amendment to define marriage in the traditional sense as
between one man and one woman. The amendment passed with 78 percent,
which clearly shows that an overwhelming majority of Louisianians want
to see this legislation passed today.
Some opponents of this measure claim that states should decide. I
strongly believe in letting states decide issues for themselves, and
Congress tried this approach in 1996 with the Defense of Marriage Act.
It passed and was signed into law, but today that law, and with it the
clear will of the American people, is being chiseled away by opponents.
States--and more importantly, the people--will soon have their rights
to decide this issue taken from them, by judges from some other part of
the country. Not one state has decided by either popular referendum or
legislative action to agree to anything other than marriage as between
a man and a woman.
So I encourage and implore my colleagues today to support and vote
for this measure, so that our states and our citizens can decide these
matters for themselves.
Mr SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, during debate on the Marriage
Protection Amendment, the Minority Leader referenced the ``Party of
Lincoln'' and it support for the freedom of all people, including
slaves. She made reference to Lincoln and his party in an effort to
criticize the Republican Party for its stand in support of marriage as
solely between one man and one woman.
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to insert an article into the Record that
documents the Republican Party's historical support--even at its
beginning--for the institution of marriage. The article by Robert P.
George and William L. Saunders entitled, ``Republicans and the Relics
of Barbarism: Moral Conviction made the GOP the GOP,'' discusses the
moral debates that defined the Republican Party in the 1800s. The
issues of polygamy and slavery were at the center of those debates.
Slaveholders clamored for their ``right'' to own another human being,
thereby destroying the worth of that human being, while polygamists
claimed it to be their ``religious freedom'' to engage in plural
marriage, at the expense of their children and society.
When the Supreme Court usurped congressional power in the Dred Scott
decision, claiming that the Constitution contained a ``right'' to own a
slave, the Republican Party, led by President Lincoln, steadfastly
challenged the decision. It is known that President Lincoln defeated at
least one candidate who favored a pro-choice position in regard to the
issue of slavery. In addition, the Republicans made Utah statehood
contingent upon their inclusion of a prohibition of polygamy in their
State constitution.
These ``archaic'' moral disputes are unchanged in modern debates.
Today, proponents of abortion, embryonic stem-cell research and
cloning assert their ``right'' to create and destroy another human
being at will, and thereby destroy the worth of that human being. In
addition, the pervasive philosophy of moral and sexual liberation seeks
to devalue the traditional, foundational role of marriage, at the
expense of children and society.
The defense of traditional marriage and the protection of all life as
equal and of intrinsic worth in the eyes of our Creator, are inherent,
core beliefs of the Republican Party. We would do well to recall this
truth, and to bring it to bear on our modern topics of discussion. We
must defend the sanctity of life by opposing abortion and embryo-
destructive research, and we must defend marriage as the permanent
union between one man and one women, in order to maintain the moral and
structural stability of our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in support of marriage today in
the tradition of the Party of Lincoln--the Republican Party. I urge my
colleagues of both parties to do the same and vote in support of H.J.
Res. 106, the Marriage Protection Amendment.

[From National Review on Line, Aug. 30, 2004]

Republicans and the Relics of Barbarism: Moral Conviction Made the GOP
the GOP

(By Robert P. George and William L. Saunders)

In the middle of the 19th century, a new political party
emerged dedicated to two great moral struggles. The
Republican party pledged to fight the ``twin relics of
barbarism'': slavery and polygamy.
By then, slavery was deeply entrenched in the culture of
the American south. What some had regarded as ``necessary
evil'' that would gradually die out had been given a new
lease on life by technological developments, and by the
emergence of profitable overseas markets for cotton. An
entire social and economic system was built on slavery. No
longer was it reasonable to hope that the ``peculiar
institution,'' and with it the moral controversy convulsing
the nation, would quietly fade away. Powerful interests had a
stake not only in maintaining the slave system, but in
extending it into the western territories of the United
States.
So the Republicans faced a daunting challenge. Pro-slavery
Democrats condemned them as ``fanatics'' and ``zealots'' who
sought to impose their religious scruples and moral values on
others. Slaveholders demanded that they ``mind their own
business'' and stay out of the ``domestic'' and ``private''
affairs of others. Defenders of a ``right'' to own slaves
pointedly invited northern abolitionists to redirect their
moral outrage towards the ``wage slave'' system in the north.
``If you are against slavery,'' they in effect said, ``then
don't own a slave.''
By the mid-1850s, polygamy, which had originally been the
largely secret practice of the Mormon elite, had come out of
the closet. Polygamists claimed that attacks on ``plural
marriage'' were violations of their right to religious
freedom. Later, some would bring lawsuits asking judges to
invalidate laws against polygamy as unconstitutional. One of
these cases would make it all the way to the Supreme Court.
Apologists for polygamy denied that plural marriage was
harmful to children, and challenged supporters of the ban on
polygamy to prove that the existence of polygamous families
in American society harmed their own monogamous marriages.
They insisted that they merely wanted the right to be married
in their own way and left alone.
But the Republicans stood their ground, refusing to be
intimidated by the invective being hurled against them. They
knew that polygamy and slavery were morally wrong and
socially corrosive. And they were prepared to act on their
moral convictions.
For the Republicans, the idea that human beings could be
reduced to the status of mere ``objects'' to be bought and
sold and exploited for the benefit of others was a profound
violation of the intrinsic dignity of creatures made in the
image and likeness of God. Similarly, the idea that marriage
could be redefined to accommodate a man's desire for multiple
sexual partners was, as they saw it, deeply contrary to the
meaning of marriage as joining a man and a woman in a
permanent and exclusive bond.
In the great moral struggles of the 19th century, the
Republicans sought advantage in every morally legitimate and
available way. When appropriate, they would accept strategic
compromises on the road to victory; but they would not
compromise away their principles.
When in the Dred Scott decision the Supreme Court of the
United States announced its discovery of what amounted to a
constitutional right of slaveholding, Lincoln and other
leading Republicans refused to treat the case as a binding
precedent. They would not bow to judicial usurpation. When
Utah sought admission as a state, the Republican-controlled
Congress made statehood conditional upon incorporation of a
prohibition of polygamy into the state constitution.
As Republicans gather in New York this week, they would do
well to remember their moral heritage. The twin relics of
barbarism have returned in distinctively modern garb.
Abortion and embryo-destructive research are premised on the
proposition that some human beings--those in the embryonic
and fetal stages of development--may legitimately be reduced
to objects that can be created and destroyed for the benefit
of others. At the same time, the ideology of sexual
liberationism threatens to undercut the traditional
understanding of marriage as the permanent and exclusive
union of one and one woman.
A familiar mantra of ``pro-choice'' politicians is that
abortion should be ``safe, legal, and rare.'' Now, however,
they seek to validate and fund a massive industry that would
create human beings for the precise purpose of destroying
them during the embryonic stage of development in biomedical
research. What happened with slavery is now happening with
embryo-killing: The people who use to define it as a
``necessary evil'' to be resisted or lessened by means other
than legal prohibition now promote it as a social good--
something that law and government should not only tolerate
but embrace and even promote.
At the same time, the sexual-liberationist movement seeks
to undermine traditional

[[Page H7933]]

understandings of the meaning and significance of human
sexuality. The attempt to abolish the legal concept of
marriage as the one-flesh union of a man and a woman is part
of a larger effort to ``liberate'' people from what the
cultural-political Left regards as outmoded and repressive
ideas about the centrality of procreation and the moral
requirement of fidelity in human sexual relationships. Even
some leading ``conservative'' advocates of ``same-sex
marriage'' have announced their moral acceptance of
promiscuity; one has gone so far as to proclaim the
``spiritual value'' of ``anonymous sex.'' Increasingly,
critics of traditional morality are willing explicitly to
invoke the authority of ancient pagan civilizations in
which practices (including abortion, infanticide, and
homosexual conduct) condemned by the Judeo-Christian ethic
sometimes flourished.
Critics of the Republican stand in defense of marriage and
the sanctity of human life--including some within the party--
echo the arguments of 19th-century apologists for the relics
of barbarism. They accuse pro-life and pro-family Republicans
of being ``religious fanatics'' who disrespect people's
liberty and seek to ``impose their values'' on others. ``If
you are against abortion,'' they say, ``then don't have an
abortion.'' They maintain--often disingenuously--that legal
recognition of the ``marriages'' of same-sex partners will
not harm or weaken traditional marriages.
These arguments fare no better as defenses of human-embryo
killing and the redefinition of marriage than they did of
slavery and polygamy. Justice requires that all human beings
irrespective of race or color, but also irrespective of age,
or size, or stage of development, be afforded the protection
of the laws. The common good requires that the laws reflect
and promote a sound understanding of marriage as uniting one
man and one woman in a bond founded upon the bodily communion
made possible by their reproductive complementarity.
An influential minority in the Republican Party proposes
abandoning, or at least soft-pedaling, the Party's
commitments to the sanctity of human life and the dignity of
marriage and the family. They say that social issues are
``too divisive.'' They suppose that the easy road to
Republican electoral success is as the party of low taxes and
low morals. They counsel capitulation to judges who usurp the
constitutional authority of the American people and their
elected representatives.
Let Republicans be mindful of their heritage. It was moral
conviction--and the courage to act on moral conviction--that
gave birth to the Republican party and made it grand. Now it
is old, but need not be any less grand. By summoning the
moral courage that enabled their Party to stand proudly
against the twin relics of barbarism in the 19th century,
Republicans can bring honor upon themselves in the great
moral struggles of our own day.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 106, the
Marriage Protection Amendment. Passage of this resolution will not
protect marriage, and I am concerned it will create the opposite effect
of what its proponents seek to accomplish.
Let me first state that I believe that marriage is a sacred union
between one man and one woman. I strongly support the federal Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed by Congress and signed into law in 1996.
Second, marriage is an issue that our Founding Fathers wisely left to
the states. Article X of the Constitution states, ``The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by
it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people.''
No Congress ever has seen fit to amend the Constitution to address
any issue related to marriage. No Constitutional Amendment was needed
to ban polygamy or bigamy, nor was a Constitutional Amendment needed to
set a uniform age of majority to ban child marriages.
So why do proponents argue that we must take this unprecedented step
now to ban same-sex marriages?
They claim that without the Amendment, states will be forced to
recognize same-sex marriage performed in other states. Yet the Defense
of Marriage Act not only prohibits federal recognition of same-sex
marriages, it allows individual states to refuse to recognize such
unions performed in other states. And in the eight years that have
passed since its enactment, DOMA never has been invalidated in any
court in the country. The authors of DOMA took the greatest pains to
write a law that is constitutional and will withstand judicial
challenges.
Proponents also claim that amending the Constitution is the only way
to prevent so-called ``activist judges'' from legislating matters of
same-sex marriage. Yet amending the Constitution to address marriage
could invite federal judicial review not only of marriage, but of
divorce, child custody, inheritance, adoption, and other issues of
family law. Not only would this violate the principles of federalism,
it would create very bad public policy.
Mr. Speaker, no legislature in the country has established same-sex
marriage in statute. In fact, 39 states, including Illinois, have
adopted laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman.
I urge my colleagues to have faith in our system of government, keep
marriage out of the Constitution, and allow the states to continue to
exercise what is best left to them.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 801, the joint resolution is considered
read for amendment, and the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this
15-minute vote on House Joint Resolution 106 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on motions to suspend the rules on House Concurrent
Resolution 501 and House Resolution 792.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227,
nays 186, not voting 20, as follows:

[Roll No. 484]

YEAS--227

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Carter
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hoekstra
Holden
Hulshof
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
LaHood
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--186

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bass
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Case
Castle
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cox
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Dreier
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley

[[Page H7934]]

Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gephardt
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McInnis
McNulty
Meehan
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--20

Boehlert
Brown, Corrine
Cannon
Davis (IL)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dunn
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hunter
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Murtha
Nethercutt
Oberstar
Rangel
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen
Tauzin

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1725

Mr. NADLER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So (two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof) the joint
resolution was not passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________