[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 94 (Tuesday, July 18, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H5287-H5321]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 918 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 918
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 88)
proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States relating to marriage. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour and 30 minutes of
debate equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader
and the Minority Leader or their designees; and (2) one
motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.J. Res. 88 pursuant to
this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the
previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the joint resolution to a time designated by
the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 30
minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 918 is a closed rule. It provides 1
hour and 30 minutes of debate in the House equally divided and
controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their
designees. This resolution waives all points of order against
consideration of the joint resolution, it provides one motion to
recommit, and it provides that during consideration of the joint
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the
Chair may postpone further consideration of the joint resolution to a
time designated by the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 918 and the
underlying joint resolution, H.J. Res. 88, the Marriage Protection Act.
First, I would like to thank Representative Marilyn Musgrave, the
author and lead sponsor of this constitutional amendment, for her
steadfast commitment to the preservation of traditional marriage.
As the manager of this rule and an original cosponsor of the
underlying joint resolution, I am very pleased the House will have an
opportunity today to consider and debate this very important amendment
to our Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, the proceeding debate, both on the rule and the
underlying resolution, either can be divisive and disrespectful, or it
can be respectful and productive. This amendment has nothing whatsoever
to do with exclusion, but it has everything to do with protecting the
traditional and historical definition of marriage as a union between
one man and one woman.
Contrary to what the opponents of this resolution might say today,
this amendment will simply preserve the
[[Page H5288]]
traditional definition of marriage as it has existed for millennia.
I anticipate there will be those on the other side who will say this
amendment was concocted for political purposes. To the contrary, Mr.
Speaker. This amendment is in response to a few activist judges who are
trying to throw out the definition of marriage, along with over 200
years of American judicial precedent.
{time} 1030
These judges, and these judges alone, made this matter an issue, and
they did so without one vote cast in either a legislature or at the
ballot box. These activist judges substituted legal precedent and the
will of the American people with their own personal desires and
political beliefs. Their decision to scrap the traditional definition
of marriage has forced us, forced us, to now consider enshrining the
definition of marriage into our Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, like most of my colleagues, I would prefer to not have
to address this issue in this manner. But, unfortunately, I know my
constituents and a strong majority of the American people want us to
defend the traditional definition of marriage. A poll by the New York
Times, not exactly a bastion of right-wing conservatism, they found
that 59 percent, I repeat, 59 percent, of Americans favor an amendment
to the Constitution stating that marriage is a union between one man
and one woman.
I also, sadly, realize this amendment will probably not have the
necessary two-thirds majority to pass and opponents will cite this as a
reason to not even consider the underlying resolution. We heard it in a
couple of the 1-minute speeches from the other side just a few moments
ago. Well, this vote will serve as an opportunity for each and every
Member of this body to go on record in support or in opposition to
protecting the traditional definition of marriage. And after this vote
each of us will be judged accordingly by our constituents, and I can
say with a clear conscience and without hesitation that I will support
this rule, I will support the underlying resolution for the sake of the
sacred institution of traditional marriage and for the sake of our
precious children.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to encourage my colleagues to support the
rule and this underlying resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I
yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I very much regret that the Republican majority in this
House has brought this bill to the floor. This bill, to put it simply
and bluntly, is about adding discrimination and intolerance to the
United States Constitution. This is about the Republican majority's
once again trying to divide and polarize the Nation. It is about the
Republican leadership's taking something that should be about love and
turning it into a weapon of hate.
I am proud, Mr. Speaker, to be from Massachusetts, the home of the
Nation's first State Constitution. In Massachusetts over 8,000 same-sex
couples have been married since May of 2004, when it became legal. I
should advise my colleagues that Massachusetts has not fallen off the
map into the Atlantic Ocean. The sun still rises and sets in the
Commonwealth. The Red Sox still play at Fenway, and life goes on. The
only thing that is different is that couples of the same sex who love
each other, want to spend the rest of their lives together, and want to
get married can do so. It means that men and women who happen to be gay
are able to enjoy the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as
men and women who happen to be straight. And, Mr. Speaker, that is how
it should be.
Those who have continued to advocate a ban on same-sex marriage are
on the wrong side of history. There are some here who claim that they
are on some sort of moral crusade to protect the institution of
marriage. To them I say worry about your own marriage. I do not need
you to protect mine. I have been happily married to the same woman for
17 years without the help or interference of Congress. What we should
be protecting are the civil and human rights of all Americans.
The fact that same-sex marriage is legal in my home State has had no
impact on my marriage except that we were invited to more weddings.
Same-sex marriage is a threat to no institution, to no individual.
The underlying bill before us would not only add discrimination to
the Constitution for the first time in our history. It would repeal, it
would actually take away, the rights of thousands of Americans. What do
the supporters of this bill say to the gay couples in Massachusetts who
are now legally married; our family members, our neighbors, our
coworkers, the people who sit next to us in church? Do you say your
marriage is now meaningless and we are going to take away your rights?
Do you say we are sending you back to second-class citizenship? Do you
say that we have so much hatred for who you are that we are willing to
tarnish the United States Constitution?
Marriage law in this country has traditionally been left to the
States. Indeed, even in Massachusetts the same supreme judicial court
that the proponents of this bill decry recently ruled that a referendum
banning same-sex marriage can go forward. That referendum is currently
working its way through the process. And I believe, of course, that the
referendum should and will fail, that the citizens of Massachusetts
would not vote to turn back the clock. But that should be up to us, Mr.
Speaker, not to the people of Colorado or Georgia or anywhere else.
In addition, this bill jeopardizes not just same-sex marriage in
Massachusetts but domestic partnership and civil union laws in other
parts of the country. The proposal before us is so poorly drafted that
legal experts disagree on exactly what effect it will have on those
laws. That means, of course, that the issue will end up back in the
courts, which is ironic given the concept of court-bashing by the
bill's supporters.
Mr. Speaker, the impact of this debate goes far beyond constitutional
arguments. The proponents of this bill are contributing to a climate of
intolerance. We will hear protests from the other side today that they
have no problem with gay people. Yet here they are arguing that gay
people do not deserve the same rights as everybody else.
Mr. Speaker, I am also terribly troubled by the hate spewing from
some of the outside groups using the same-sex marriage issue to whip up
emotions and raise money. Mr. Speaker, some of the rhetoric is just
deplorable. But I doubt that we will hear any of the bill's supporters
denouncing it here today on the floor.
My colleagues, discrimination is discrimination, and it should find
no sanctuary in our Constitution or in our hearts. It should find no
sanctuary on the floor of the people's House.
We all know why this proposal is before us. It is an election year,
and if it is an election year, the Republican leadership will find a
place on the agenda for gay-bashing.
This proposal is worse than a distraction. It is not an assault on
our fellow citizens. It is an attack on a piece of their humanity, and
I urge you to stand on the right side of history and to defeat this
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In response to a couple of things that my good friend said, Mr.
Speaker, nowadays lots of people are claiming that marriage is a
discriminatory institution. Same-sex couples say marriage discriminates
against them. Believe it or not, single people are now complaining that
marriage discriminates also against them. After all, say the singles,
why should the State give special benefits to married parents but not
to us?
It gets worse. Even polygamists and believers in group marriage, who
call themselves polyamorists, are saying that marriage discriminates
against them.
Now, if the support society gives the men and women who have the
potential to create children is going to be called discrimination,
pretty soon there is not going to be such a thing as a marriage at all.
When one group can call marriage discrimination, then any group can
make the same claim.
And, also, Mr. Speaker, there was a comment about a couple loving
each
[[Page H5289]]
other. But this is not a civil rights issue. Love, of course, is a
great thing. But in my humble opinion, marriage is not just any kind of
love. It is a love that can bear children, and it is a love that
involves both a mom and a dad. Two men might be a good father. But
neither one is a mom. The ideal for children is the love of both a mom
and a dad. No same-sex couple can provide that. The ideal for marriage
is about bringing together moms and dads so children have a mother and
a father to learn from.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from North Carolina, Representative Virginia Foxx.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding me time.
I also want to thank my colleagues for seeing the great need for this
debate, a need which is no longer on the horizon but has reached the
forefront as it has begun to affect American families.
It is the right time to discuss a marriage protection amendment. As
Members of this Congress, we have a responsibility to look at this
critical situation for marriage and the real possibility that the
courts are going to redefine marriage.
This constitutional amendment would concretely define marriage as we
always have: as the union between one man and one woman. The
disintegration of the family is the force behind so many of our most
serious social problems. We cannot turn a blind eye to the social
trends that are doing the most damage to America's children. The health
of American families is built upon marriage, and it affects us all.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and other local courts have
ruled in favor of same-sex marriages. These unsound decisions set a
dangerous precedent, and that is why a constitutional amendment is
necessary. If enacted, it will effectively ban these illegitimate
marriages nationwide.
This definition of marriage is not intended to be discriminatory but
rather to uphold the sanctity of marriage as an institution. The
Marriage Protection Amendment removes the definition of marriage from
the hands of the courts and returns this decision to the American
people, where it belongs. The Massachusetts decision represents the
beginning of what could be a dangerous erosion of this sacred tradition
that we must protect.
Will we put our faith in a few unelected activist judges seated on a
bench to define marriage, or will we use the most democratic process we
have to affirmatively define marriage as it is intended? We must
protect the sanctity of marriage now.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and support the
Marriage Protection Amendment.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my beloved
colleagues, what if a man and a woman have a partnership which does not
produce children? Is their marriage invalid? Is it less sacred? And the
use of the word ``illegitimate'' here is a little troubling because I
thought we dispensed with those kinds of references as we became more
enlightened.
It is easy to take a stand for the institution of marriage in the
abstract, but try doing it in your own life and that becomes a little
more complex. It is far easier to tell others how they should live and
whom they should be permitted to marry. The science of human relations
requires humility. Whether in the heights of unity or the depths of
divorce, our relationships, our companionships, our partnerships, are
our greatest teachers. Our relationships are also a sphere of influence
which should be free from government interest or interference.
Government does not belong in the bedroom or secretly listening on
your phone, reading your books, reviewing your e-mails. Government does
not have a rightful role in determining who you should love, who should
love whom, and therefore enter into the formalization of a civil
marriage contract.
We do not often quote from the Declaration of Independence here, but
I think it would be useful if I recited some words that are instructive
at this moment:
``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men,'' and we
know now all people, ``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.''
Thomas Jefferson went on to write that governments are created to
secure these rights. I might add that this government was not created
to crush those rights.
Today, with a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage, we
would establish a law which would be at odds with the 14th amendment,
which guarantees equal protection of the law. What is next? Amend the
Pledge of Allegiance to take out the words ``with liberty and justice
for all''? What is next? Recarve the dais in front of us here, which
has words carved into wood, and I will read them for those who are not
able to see them: words carved below the Speaker: ``Tolerance,''
``Justice,'' ``Union,'' ``Liberty''? Do we just take that apart?
{time} 1045
Move it? Leave it blank?
You wonder why this Congress is not held in higher regard. I will
tell you why. In Iraq, our troops are caught in a crossfire of a civil
war which grows more deadly every day. The administration has no exit
strategy. Congress does nothing.
In Iran, the Department of Defense is actively preparing for war
while the administration sets the stage for negotiations that they
intend to fail. Congress does nothing.
In the Middle East, the region stands on the brink of a full-blown
war in which there will be no winners. Congress does nothing.
In North Korea, the administration won't negotiate with North Korea,
while North Korea is thumbing its nose at the international community.
Congress does nothing.
Here at home, you want to talk about a threat to the institution of
marriage? 45 to 50 million people are without health insurance;
bankruptcies at a record level; people in home foreclosures. Let's talk
about a threat to the institution of marriage. Congress is doing
nothing about any of that.
Today, in a shameless attempt to divert, distract, and distort from
the lackluster performance of this Congress, the House is set to write
discrimination into the U.S. Constitution. Iraq, Iran, the Middle East,
North Korea, health care, gas prices, the minimum wage? No, the most
pressing issue in America is gay marriage.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
The gentleman from Ohio is concerned and says, what next? Is the
Congress going to take out from the Pledge of Allegiance ``with liberty
and justice for all''? I say to my friend from Ohio, no. Later on this
week we will have the opportunity to defend ``one Nation under God''
and keep the Federal judiciary from taking that out.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to defend traditional marriage. It is hard
to believe that we have come to such a time in our country that we must
even debate this basic American value.
Marriage is defined as the union between one man and one woman. Some
may question whether or not this issue warrants a Federal debate and
Federal action. Unfortunately, certain courts in this land have
answered that question as ideological judges threaten to undo the very
fabric of our families by imposing their opinions and policies as the
final say on what marriage means.
Mr. Speaker, families matter, because fathers and mothers matter.
They are not interchangeable. Literally hundreds of studies point to
the crucial nature of mothers and fathers rearing children within the
bonds of traditional marriage. Every deviation from the ideal model of
enduring monogamous marriage between a man and a woman expands those
boundaries; and when we push these limits, who is to say where the
definition of marriage will end?
Government and societies have granted certain institutional benefits
and privileges to heterosexual marriage because these unions have the
biological potential to provide societies with a tangible benefit,
children.
[[Page H5290]]
Mr. Speaker, redefining marriage to include same-sex unions not only
devalues marriage, but it diminishes the rights of children. Nature
itself gave children this right.
I wish that this fight here today was not necessary. We did not ask
for it. But failure to enact a constitutional amendment will mean that
the decisions made by the American people at the ballot box and through
their elected representatives regarding marriage will continue to be
overruled, bit by bit, by a few renegade judges and local officials.
Unfortunately, when judges distort the Constitution to overrule the
express will of the people, only constitutional amendments can overturn
the judges.
Mr. Speaker, the people in the Eighth District of North Carolina have
clearly and repeatedly asked me to defend traditional marriage, to do
whatever it takes to ensure that the people have the final say. That is
why I rise here today, convinced that this constitutional amendment is
the right thing to do.
The time is now. Let's give American moms and dads the chance to
protect marriage. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the Marriage
Protection Amendment.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the 14th amendment, section 1, says that
no one shall be denied equal protection of the laws. Now, if this would
pass, would this legislation, this constitutional amendment, supersede
that provision of the 14th amendment and make that provision of the
14th amendment null and void?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is not the province of the Chair to
interpret the pending measure or to construe its relationship to the
Constitution. Those are matters to be elucidated by Members in debate.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record at this time an
article that appeared in the Economist magazine entitled ``The Case For
Gay Marriage.''
I will insert into the Record an executive summary of the Cato
Institute's policy analysis entitled: ``The Federal Marriage Amendment:
Unnecessary, Anti-federalist and Antidemocratic.''
I would also like to insert into the Record a letter from the Human
Rights Campaign in opposition to the bill before us, a letter from the
American Jewish Committee in opposition to the bill before us, a letter
from the National Council of Jewish Women in opposition to the bill
before us, and a letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
in opposition to the bill before us.
[From the Economist print edition, Feb. 26, 2004]
The Case for Gay Marriage
It rests on equality, liberty and even society
So at last it is official: George Bush is in favour of
unequal rights, big-government intrusiveness and federal
power rather than devolution to the states. That is the
implication of his announcement this week that he will
support efforts to pass a constitutional amendment in America
banning gay marriage. Some have sought to explain this action
away simply as cynical politics, an effort to motivate his
core conservative supporters to turn out to vote for him in
November or to put his likely ``Massachusetts liberal''
opponent, John Kerry, in an awkward spot. Yet to call for a
constitutional amendment is such a difficult, drastic and
draconian move that cynicism is too weak an explanation. No,
it must be worse than that: Mr. Bush must actually believe in
what he is doing.
Mr. Bush says that he is acting to protect ``the most
fundamental institution of civilisation'' from what he sees
as ``activist judges'' who in Massachusetts early this month
confirmed an earlier ruling that banning gay marriage is
contrary to their state constitution. The city of San
Francisco, gay capital of America, has been issuing thousands
of marriage licences to homosexual couples, in apparent
contradiction to state and even federal laws. It can only be
a matter of time before this issue arrives at the federal
Supreme Court. An those ``activist judges'', who, by the way,
gave Mr. Bush his job in 2000, might well take the same view
of the federal constitution as their Massachusetts
equivalents did of their state code: that the constitution
demands equality of treatment. Last June, in Lawrence v.
Texas, they ruled that state anti-sodomy laws violated the
constitutional right of adults to choose how to conduct their
private lives with regard to sex, saying further that ``the
Court's obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to
mandate its own moral code''. That obligation could well lead
the justices to uphold the right of gays to marry.
Let them wed
That idea remains shocking to many people. So far, only two
countries--Belgium and the Netherlands--have given full legal
status to same-sex unions, though Canada has backed the idea
in principle and others have conferred almost-equal rights on
such partnerships. The sight of homosexual men and women
having wedding days just like those enjoyed for thousands of
years by heterosexuals is unsettling, just as, for some
people, is the sight of them holding hands or kissing. When
The Economist first argued in favour of legalising gay
marriage eight years ago (``Let them wed'', January 6th 1996)
it shocked many of our readers, though fewer than it would
have shocked eight years earlier and more than it will shock
today. That is why we argued that such a radical change
should not be pushed along precipitously. But nor should it
be blocked precipitously.
The case for allowing gays to marry begins with equality,
pure and simple. Why should one set of loving, consenting
adults be denied a right that other such adults have and
which, if exercised, will do no damage to anyone else? Not
just because they have always lacked that right in the past,
for sure: until the late 1960s, in some American states it
was illegal for black adults to marry white ones, but
precious few would defend that ban now on grounds that it was
``traditional''. Another argument is rooted in semantics:
marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and so cannot be
extended to same-sex couples. They may live together and love
one another, but cannot, on this argument, be ``married''.
But that is to dodge the real question--why not?--and to
obscure the real nature of marriage, which is a binding
commitment, at once legal, social and personal, between two
people to take on special obligations to one another. If
homosexuals want to make such marital commitments to one
another, and to society, then why should they be prevented
from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other
ways, are allowed to do so?
Civil unions are not enough
The reason, according to Mr. Bush, is that this would
damage an important social institution. Yet the reverse is
surely true. Gays want to marry precisely because they see
marriage as important: they want the symbolism that marriage
brings, the extra sense of obligation and commitment, as well
as the social recognition. Allowing gays to marry would, if
anything, add to social stability, for it would increase the
number of couples that take on real, rather than simply
passing, commitments. The weakening of marriage has been
heterosexuals' doing, not gays', for it is their infidelity,
divorce rates and single-parent families that have wrought
social damage.
But marriage is about children, say some: to which the
answer is, it often is, but not always, and permitting gay
marriage would not alter that. Or it is a religious act, say
others: to which the answer is, yes, you may believe that,
but if so it is no business of the state to impose a
religious choice. Indeed, in America the constitution
expressly bans the involvement of the state in religious
matters, so it would be especially outrageous if the
constitution were now to be used for religious ends.
The importance of marriage for society's general health and
stability also explains why the commonly mooted alternative
to gay marriage--a so-called civil union--is not enough.
Vermont has created this notion, of a legally registered
contract between a couple that cannot, however, be called a
``marriage''. Some European countries, by legislating for
equal legal rights for gay partnerships, have moved in the
same direction (Britain is contemplating just such a move,
and even the opposition Conservative leader, Michael Howard,
says he would support it). Some gays think it would be better
to limit their ambitions to that, rather than seeking full
social equality, for fear of provoking a backlash--of the
sort perhaps epitomised by Mr. Bush this week.
Yet that would be both wrong in principle and damaging for
society. Marriage, as it is commonly viewed in society, is
more than just a legal contract. Moreover, to establish
something short of real marriage for some adults would tend
to undermine the notion for all. Why shouldn't everyone, in
time, downgrade to civil unions? Now that really would
threaten a fundamental institution of civilisation.
[From Policy Analysis, June 1, 2006]
The Federal Marriage Amendment Unnecessary, Anti-Federalist, and Anti-
Democratic
(By Dale Carpenter)
Executive Summary
Members of Congress have proposed a constitutional
amendment preventing states from recognizing same-sex
marriages. Proponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment claim
that an amendment is needed immediately to prevent same-sex
marriages from being forced on the nation. That fear is even
more unfounded today than it was in 2004, when Congress last
considered the FMA. The better view is that the policy debate
on
[[Page H5291]]
same-sex marriage should proceed in the 50 states, without
being cut off by a single national policy imposed from
Washington and enshrined in the Constitution.
A person who opposes same-sex marriage on policy grounds
can and should also oppose a constitutional amendment
foreclosing it, on grounds of federalism, confidence that
opponents will prevail without an amendment, or a belief that
public policy issues should only rarely be determined at the
constitutional level.
There are four main arguments against the FMA. First, a
constitutional amendment is unnecessary because federal and
state laws, combined with the present state of the relevant
constitutional doctrines, already make court-ordered
nationwide same-sex marriage unlikely for the foreseeable
future. An amendment banning same-sex marriage is a solution
in search of a problem.
Second, a constitutional amendment defining marriage would
be a radical intrusion on the nation's founding commitment to
federalism in an area traditionally reserved for state
regulation, family law. There has been no showing that
federalism has been unworkable in the area of family law.
Third, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage
would be an unprecedented form of amendment, cutting short an
ongoing national debate over what privileges and benefits, if
any, ought to be conferred on same-sex couples and preventing
democratic processes from recognizing more individual rights.
Fourth, the amendment as proposed is constitutional
overkill that reaches well beyond the stated concerns of its
proponents, foreclosing not just courts but also state
legislatures from recognizing same-sex marriages and perhaps
other forms of legal support for same-sex relationships.
Whatever one thinks of same-sex marriage as a matter of
policy, no person who cares about our Constitution and public
policy should support this unnecessary, radical,
unprecedented, and overly broad departure from the nation's
traditions and history.
____
Human Rights Campaign,
Washington, DC, July 17, 2006.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the Human Rights Campaign
(``HRC''), our nation's largest civil rights organization
promoting equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender
(``GLBT'') Americans, I write to urge you to vote no on H.J.
Res. 88, a proposed amendment to the United States
Constitution that would write discrimination into our
Constitution and brand lesbian and gay families as second-
class citizens in every state in our nation.
Our Constitution was written to promote liberty, equality,
and fairness. ``We, the people'' means all of the people. By
singling out a group of Americans for unequal treatment, the
federal marriage amendment (``FMA'') would undermine the
guiding principles of our Constitution. Constitutional
amendments have expanded rights for Americans, including
voting rights, religious liberty, and equal protection.
Discrimination has no place in our nation's founding
document.
The proposed amendment's supporters and drafters disagree
over whether it would ban the civil union and domestic
partnership protections that several states and cities have
extended to same-sex couples. Sixty percent of Americans
agree that all families should be able to protect one other
in times of crisis, whether to take care of a sick family
member, share retirement savings, of make important decisions
on the death of a partner. The FMA could render laws that
provide these protections unconstitutional, hurting real
American families.
Americans prioritize fairness over discrimination. Congress
should focus on fairness, and abandon the divisive politics
behind the FMA. With gas prices rising and issues related to
health care and education on the minds of Americans, Congress
should not be spending its time seeking to discriminate
against a group of Americans and treating them differently
under the law in our Constitution.
Your ``no'' vote on the FMA is a vote against
discrimination and for the values that belong in our
Constitution: liberty, equality, and fairness.
Thank you for your consideration. If you have any
questions, or need more information, please contact David
Stacy at 202.572.8959 or Lara Schwartz at 202.216.1578.
Sincerely,
Joe Solmonese,
President.
____
The American Jewish Committee,
Washington, DC, July 17, 2006.
Re: Marriage Protection Amendment (H.J. Res. 88)
Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Jewish
Committee, the nation's oldest human relations organization
with over 150,000 members and supporters represented by 33
regional offices nationwide, I urge you to oppose the
Marriage Protection Amendment (H.J. Res. 88). If passed, this
legislation would amend the U.S. Constitution to provide that
marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union
between a man and a woman. The amendment would also prevent
both the federal and state constitutions from being
interpreted to require that marriage or the legal incidents
thereof shall be conferred upon any union other than the
union of a man and a woman.
The Marriage Protection Amendment would mark the first time
the Constitution has been amended to include discrimination.
It is a threat to the fundamental rights of many Americans
and would only serve to enshrine discrimination in our social
fabric.
Moreover, the Marriage Protection Amendment would imperil
civil union and similar provisions that have been adopted in
some states. While AJC takes no position on state recognition
of same-sex marriage per se, AJC believes that same-sex
couples who choose to enter into domestic arrangements such
as civil unions should be afforded the same legal rights,
benefits, protections and obligations conferred upon
heterosexual couples who enter into civil marriage.
We therefore urge you to oppose H.J. Res. 88 in order to
protect against enshrining discrimination in the
Constitution.
Thank you for considering our views on this important
matter.
Respectfully,
Richard T. Foltin,
Legislative Director and Counsel.
____
National Council of Jewish Women,
July 17, 2006.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 90,000 members and
supporters of the National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW), I
am writing in opposition to the federal marriage amendment
(H.J. Res 39). The federal marriage amendment also threatens
fundamental constitutional rights such as religious liberty
and domestic violence protections.
A ban on same-sex marriage would set a dangerous precedent
by amending the Constitution to restrict the rights of a
specific class of people. Furthermore, the proposed language
is vague and would consequently jeopardize existing state
recognized civil unions. To deny couples in committed
relationships the same legal benefits accorded spouses in
heterosexual marriages is prejudicial, morally offensive, and
goes against the spirit of a free democracy.
Passage of the vague language within H.J. Res. 39 would
also have broader consequences for all unmarried Americans.
For instance, in Ohio, the media reports that some people are
losing the protection of domestic violence laws based on that
state's marriage amendment. The federal marriage amendment,
which has almost identical language, would create similar
ambiguities that would endanger protections for non-married
victims, potentially reduce criminal penalties, and
invalidate many state and local statues. This law would
inadvertently help those who hurt others by complicating
established laws in place to protect victims of violence.
In addition, the passage of H.J. Res. 39 would jeopardize
religious liberty. To date, no administrative or judicial
decision in any state or locale requires a religious group to
perform any marriage against its will. The proposed
amendment, on the other hand, would impose a single,
religious definition of marriage upon the entire nation.
Central to religious autonomy is the ability to choose who
can take part in important religious rituals or services,
including marriage. For the government to interfere in this
process and show preference to one particular religion's
point of view would significantly undermine the separation of
religion and state.
NCJW is a volunteer organization, inspired by Jewish
values, that works to improve the quality of life for women,
children, and families and to ensure individual rights and
freedoms for all. As such, we believe that gay and lesbian
individuals should have the constitutional right to affirm
and protect their relationships through marriage. We endorse
laws that would provide equal rights for same-sex couples.
Enshrining discrimination in a document whose purpose is to
safeguard rights and freedoms is wrong. I urge you to vote to
defeat this bill.
Sincerely,
Phyllis Snyder,
NCJW President.
____
Leadership Conference on
Civil Rights,
Washington, DC, July 14, 2006.
Oppose the ``Federal Marriage Amendment'' (H.J. Res. 88)
Don't Write Discrimination into the Constitution
Dear Representative: On behalf of the Leadership Conference
on Civil Rights (LCCR), the nation's oldest, largest, and
most diverse civil and human rights coalition, we strongly
urge you to oppose the ``Federal Marriage Amendment'' (H.J.
Res. 88), a radical proposal that would permanently write
discrimination into the United States Constitution. LCCR
believes that this highly divisive amendment is a dangerous
and unnecessary approach to resolving the ongoing debate over
same-sex marriage, and that it would turn 225 years of
constitutional history on its head by requiring that states
actually restrict the civil rights of their own citizens.
As a diverse coalition, LCCR does not take a position for
or against same-sex marriage. The issue of same-sex marriage
is an extremely difficult and sensitive one, and people of
good will can and do have heartfelt differences of opinion on
the matter. However, LCCR strongly believes that there are
right and wrong ways to address the issue as a matter of
public policy, and is extremely concerned about any proposal
that would alter our nation's most important document for the
direct purpose of excluding any individuals from its
guarantees of equal protection.
The proposed amendment is antithetical to one of the
Constitution's most fundamental guiding principles, that of
the guarantee of equal protection for all. For the first time
in
[[Page H5292]]
history, the Constitution would be altered to be used as a
tool of exclusion, restricting the rights of a group of
Americans. It is so far-reaching that it would not only
prohibit states from granting equal marriage rights to same-
sex couples, but also may deprive same-sex couples and their
families of fundamental protections such as hospital
visitation, inheritance rights, and health care benefits,
whether conveyed through marriage or other legally recognized
relationships. Such a proposal runs afoul of basic principles
of fairness and will do little but harm real children and
real families in the process.
Constitutional amendments are extremely rare, and are only
done to address great public policy needs. Since the Bill of
Rights' adoption in 1791, the Constitution has only been
amended seventeen times. LCCR believes that the Bill of
Rights and subsequent amendments were designed largely to
protect and expand individual liberties, and certainly not to
deliberately take away or restrict them.
LCCR is particularly troubled by the virulent rhetoric of
some organizations working to enact the proposed amendment,
and their animus towards gays and lesbians. The attacks made
by many of the most vocal proponents, such as the Traditional
Values Coalition and the American Family Association, are
disturbingly similar to the sorts of attacks that have
been made upon other communities as the have attempted to
assert their right to equal protection of the laws. This
is, of course, an element of the debate that the civil
rights community finds deeply disturbing, as should all
fair-minded Americans.
In addition, supporters of the Federal Marriage Amendment
cite ``judicial activism'' as a reason to enact it. Terms
like ``judicial activism'' are alarming to LCCR and the civil
rights community because such labels have routinely been used
in the past to attack judges who made courageous decisions on
civil rights matters. When Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote
the unanimous Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of
Education (1954), for example, defenders of segregation cried
``judicial activism'' across the South and across the
country. Many groups and individuals demanded that Congress
``impeach Earl Warren.'' The Supreme Court's ruling in Loving
v. Virginia (1967), which invalidated a state anti-
miscegenation law, resulted in similar attacks. Fortunately,
our nation avoided taking any radical measures against the
so-called ``judicial activists'' or their decisions, and we
believe a similar level of caution is warranted in this case.
At a time when our nation has many great and pressing
issues, Congress can ill afford to exert time and energy on
such a divisive and discriminatory constitutional amendment.
We implore you to focus on the critical needs facing our
nation, and to publicly oppose this amendment. If you have
any questions or need further information, please contact Rob
Randhava, LCCR Counsel, at (202) 466-6058, or Nancy Zirkin,
LCCR Deputy Director, at (202) 263-2880. Thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
A. Philip Randolph Institute, American Association of
People with Disabilities, American Civil Liberties Union,
American Humanist Association, American Jewish Committee,
Americans for Democratic Action, Americans United for
Separation of Church and State, Anti-Defamation League, Asian
American Justice Center (formerly known as NAPALC), Asian
Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO, Association of
Humanistic Rabbis, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law,
Central Conference of American Rabbis, Citizens' Commission
on Civil Rights, Disability Rights Education & Defense
Fund, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Global
Rights, Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of
America, Human Rights Campaign, Jewish Labor Committee.
Korean American Resource & Cultural Center (KRCC), Korean
Resource Center (KRC), Lambda Legal, League of United Latin
American Citizens, League of Women Voters of the United
States, Legal Momentum, Metropolitan Washington Employment
Lawyers Association, Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, National Alliance of Postal and Federal
Employees, National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP), National Association of Human Rights
Workers, National Association of Social Workers, National
Council of Jewish Women, National Council of La Raza,
National Disability Rights Network, National Education
Association, National Employment Lawyers Association,
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, National Jewish
Democratic Council, National Korean American Service &
Education Consortium (NAKASEC).
National Partnership for Women & Families, National Urban
League, National Women's Law Center, People For the American
Way, PFLAG National (Parents, Families and Friends of
Lesbians and Gays), Planned Parenthood Federation of America,
Project Equality, Inc., Retail, Wholesale and Department
Store Union, UFCW, Service Employees International Union
(SEIU), Society for Humanistic Judaism, The Interfaith
Alliance, Union for Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalist
Association of Congregations, United Church of Christ Justice
and Witness Ministries, United Food and Commercial Workers
International Union, United States Student Association, Women
Employed, Workmen's Circle/Arbeter Ring, YWCA USA.
Mr. Speaker, let me also just say in response to some of the speakers
who have come before us who have talked about gay marriage as somehow
going against the will of the people, I will tell you that in
Massachusetts, where gay marriage has been legal now for over 2 years,
I think the majority of the people are absolutely fine with it. Over
8,000 gay couples have been married, and life goes on. Nothing has
changed. The only thing that has changed is that people in gay
relationships can enjoy the same rights and privileges and
responsibilities as those who are in heterosexual relationships.
I would also say to my colleagues that if you are so worried about
defending the institution of marriage, then I think we should all worry
about our own marriages. In Massachusetts, I should point out for the
record that we have the lowest divorce rate in the country. So maybe we
know something about marriage that maybe you don't.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
The gentleman from Massachusetts I am sure is aware of the fact that
in his State, opponents have gathered 170,000 signatures supporting a
constitutional amendment they hope would end gay marriage, despite what
their supreme court did.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, we must defend traditional marriage.
Marriage, family and community are not catch phrases. They are the
backbone of our American society. Sadly, however, there is an organized
effort by judicial activists and the radical left in this country to
destroy our traditional American culture.
The Federal Marriage Amendment provides a national definition of
marriage and leaves marriage laws to the State legislatures. It adds a
layer of protection against court-imposed arrangements other than
marriage and protects States from being forced to recognize same-sex
unions created by other States.
Years of social science evidence confirms that children respond best
when their mom and dad are married and live in the home. That is why it
is important that we defend traditional marriage and this traditional
notion of family law that emphasizes the importance of the foundational
principle of family and to address the needs of children in the most
positive and effective way.
We must defend what is sacred in our Nation against reckless actions
of a dangerous few who seek to impose their liberal lunacy on our
society. That is why we must fight for families, and this is a war
worth fighting.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me say that I used to think that what was sacred in
this country was defending civil rights and civil liberties and
fighting against discrimination. Apparently I am mistaken, based on the
comments that I have just heard.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms.
Baldwin).
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and rise this morning
in strong opposition to the rule before us. I hope later today to
return to the floor and address the substance of Federal Marriage
Amendment. But now I want to speak to this process, because by bringing
up this unnecessary and divisive amendment to write discrimination into
the Constitution, the leadership of this House once again illustrates
just how out of step Congress is with the rest of America.
With the defeat of the amendment in the Senate a mere 5 weeks ago,
this legislation should have never reached the floor of the House. Yet,
unsurprisingly, politics is prevailing over common sense, and today we
are going to be hearing a lot of hurtful political rhetoric targeting
gay and lesbian families, all for the purpose of pandering to a narrow
political base.
Mr. Speaker, America faces great challenges, both at home and abroad.
We are confronted with record high gas prices, an endless and expensive
war in Iraq, skyrocketing health care costs, and a growing
international crisis in the Middle East and North Korea. But the
Federal Marriage Amendment allowed under this rule, of course, does
nothing to address these very pressing challenges.
[[Page H5293]]
At a time of such great tests confronting our Nation, America's
leaders should be uniting, rather than dividing, our country. But the
FMA does exactly the opposite of that, and it certainly puts politics
ahead of real progress.
The Federal Marriage Amendment is also unnecessary. Since 2004,
States around the country have been addressing the issue of gay
marriage through the normal legislative and governmental process.
Today, Massachusetts remains the only State that allows gay marriage.
But several other States, including Vermont, Connecticut and
California, have passed laws granting civil union protections for same-
sex couples. Those laws would certainly be threatened if this amendment
were to pass.
The proposed FMA limits the ability of States to confer protections
such as important rights like hospital visitation rights, health
insurance and broader civil union or domestic partnership protections
on unmarried couples, and it undermines our federalist tradition of
deferring to the States to regulate the institution of marriage.
Mr. Speaker, many Americans are struggling with the issue of same-sex
marriage on a personal level today. There is a vibrant debate going on
across our Nation, in church basements, in break rooms, in dining
rooms. This debate would be completely shutdown and stifled if this
amendment were to pass.
Our Constitution, the most cherished document embodying the American
Dream of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, should not be
amended to single out and deny the rights of any one group of
Americans. This divisive, hateful, and unnecessary amendment is
unworthy of our great Constitution that has been the foundation of our
great Nation.
I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and to vote against the
amendment.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin
that 45 States currently define marriage as a union of one man and one
woman or expressly prohibit same-sex marriages; and those 45 States we
are talking about, Mr. Speaker, include 88 percent of the population of
this country. We are not just talking about Georgia. The fact is in a
constitutional amendment, three-fourths of the States will have to
ratify it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. If all these States are doing what you want them to do,
why do we need a Federal constitutional amendment?
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is because of these
activist judges who are chipping away at the will of the people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
definition of a marriage as between one man and one woman. I think
really what we are doing on the floor today is determining how America
will define itself. Thousands of years and many civilizations have
defined a marriage as the union between one man and one woman. With few
exceptions, those civilizations that did not follow that perished.
Forty-five States, as the gentleman just said, have determined by
people that were elected by the people of that State that marriage is
the definition of one man and one woman. So, today, we are really on
the floor to debate whether America will continue to define itself and
the definition of marriage on a godly institution that was established
thousands and thousands of years ago that one man and one woman would
come together and become one and produce families, families that all
across America have said that the definition of marriage is between one
man and one woman.
I urge my colleagues today to define America as a moral country.
{time} 1100
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from
Massachusetts for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, you know we have a conflagration in the Middle East
today as we speak. We have raised the debt ceiling four times to over
$9 trillion, and we are going to pass it all on to our kids. And yet
this is how the Republican congressional leadership chooses to spend
its time.
Nobody's marriage is endangered. What this is really about and what
this amendment should be entitled is the ``Gay Discrimination Act.''
That is all it is. And what is its motivation? It is a crass political
attempt to divide America in an election year. That is what this is all
about. We know it. And I suspect a lot of the American people know it
as well.
What every American should find most objectionable is that you are
using the Constitution to do this. Our Founding Fathers put together
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in order to protect and enhance
individual rights and liberties. And this goes directly counter to what
our Constitution is all about by prohibiting individual rights and
limiting States rights.
They talked about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And,
yet, all you can think about is ways to make life more difficult for
people who do not fall into the mainstream of America. That is not what
America is about. This amendment needs to be defeated and we need to
stand up for human rights, for civil rights, and for States rights.
We know it is never going to get enacted. But we should not be
spending our time talking about it. We should not be spending our time
trying to seek political gain at the expense of people who want to live
committed lives with each other. That is not endangering anybody.
Defeating this amendment is what our Founding Fathers wanted America to
be about.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Federal Marriage
Amendment, and I do so for one simple reason--the United States
Constitution must never be allowed to expressly authorize, indeed to
expressly direct, discrimination against a group of individuals that is
based upon their shared personal characteristics
Mr. Speaker, this amendment shouldn't be called the Marriage
Protection Amendment. It isn't needed to strengthen or enhance the
institution or traditional marriage in this country.
Call it what it is--it's the Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment, for it is
intended to deny gay and lesbian Americans, solely on the basis of
their orientation, the ability to maintain the same kind of committed
relationships that every other adult in the country is entitled to.
This is discrimination in its rankest form.
The amendment is the first of its kind, for it seeks to change the
Constitution, not to prohibit, but to authorize a specific form of
discrimination.
And it does this by forever preventing the states from extending the
rights and protections of marriage to a certain class of citizens.
States would be denied the right to recognize and afford same sex
couples the legal rights and protection that heterosexual couples
receive from government, such as the right to receive health benefits
and hospital visitations.
Furthermore, those states that have already seen fit to recognize and
enact domestic partnership state laws would be preempted by this
amendment.
Never, however, has the Constitution, on its face, been amended to
deny a specific set of rights to a specific class of citizens.
By approving this measure, the House would be party to act that would
stand as an extraordinary affront to the Constitution and, especially,
to the Bill of Rights and the fundamental principles and protections it
enshrines.
This is not what the Constitution is about; this is not what our
country is about. The amendment should be seen for what it is--a crass
attempt to politically divide the American public in an election year.
It must be soundly defeated, and I urge my colleagues to do so.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the gentleman from Virginia that
it is not all about money and how we spend it that we are in this
Congress, but it is also about values and how this great country
represents them to the world, not the least of which is the Middle
East.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Stearns).
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague also for his point
that values are important here in Congress. That is why we are here. So
I rise in support of the rule and support of the amendment.
[[Page H5294]]
In 1996, we passed in Congress the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, so
this is not a new issue, back in 1996 to protect the institution of
marriage.
Unfortunately, DOMA does not go far enough to protect States from
courts that choose to drastically alter marriage laws. This amendment
is greatly supported, greatly supported by the majority of Americans.
As pointed out earlier, 20 States, 20 States voted and elected to
define marriage as between a man and a woman by overwhelming
majorities.
On average, these States have approved constitutional amendments with
70 percent approval ratings. Additionally, 23 other States have enacted
laws that similarly limit marriage to unions between a man and a woman,
and my State is among them, Florida. Yet, not one State, I say to my
colleagues over there, not one State has chosen by popular vote to
permit marriages between homosexuals. Explain that to me. Why, if there
is so much concern over there, why a State has not permitted it?
Without this amendment, activist judges would be able to force
recognition of same-sex marriage upon States that have democratically
voted not to sanction these unions. This is a miscarriage of judicial
power. I urge my colleagues to support the democratic process and
support the Federal marriage amendment.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, just for the record, there is no Federal
challenge at this time in any Federal court to DOMA. So that not is not
even an issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Cleaver).
Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, I probably perform more marriages than all
of the other Members in this body, collected. When I perform a wedding
in Los Angeles in August, it will push me over the 400 mark for my
career as an ordained United Methodist pastor.
I am baffled over what is taking place on this floor. When Rome ruled
the world, every now and then Roman soldiers had to go back to Rome and
pledge loyalty to the Emperor. It was called sacramentum. In my
tradition, the Christian tradition, we took that word to use as our
word sacrament, our pledge of loyalty to God.
The generic marriage ceremony, which almost every denomination uses,
begins by saying, marriage is an honorable estate instituted by God and
signifies to all the uniting of this man and this woman in His church.
The point, Mr. Speaker, is that the domain of the church is the place
where definitions should be made with regard to marriage. Every
denomination has struggled or is struggling with this issue. The United
Methodist Church voted last year not to allow same-sex marriages. The
Episcopalian Church voted to do the same.
I resent a body of legislators telling me, a member of a
denomination, that they will decide who can and who cannot get married.
It is the responsibility of the church not the Government. If the
Government is going to become involved in this sacrament, then why not
communion? Why does the Congress not then begin to deal with how many
times a month a church should do communion?
Friends, this is the saddest day for me since I have been here,
because I can see clearly that this body is willing to trespass on the
domain of God. Marriage is a holy institution. It was created by God.
And we say in my tradition that Jesus ordained and beautified marriage
when he performed his first miracle at the wedding in Cana of Galilee,
not on the floor of Congress.
The church controls this issue. If this body would like to move to
have the civil marriages restricted, that is fine. People who want to
go to the courthouse, or want to get married on a ship, that is fine.
But in terms of the church, keep your hands out of the church.
The church is a sacred institution. I did not come to this floor to
make enemies but to make a point. And my point is this. This is off
base. This is wrong. I wish we had time to debate the theology of this
issue, because I would do it with anybody in this place.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I could debate theology with the
gentleman from Missouri, as an ordained minister, but I do know a
little bit about the sacrament of marriage, Mr. Speaker, as one of
about 200 Catholic Members of the United States Congress.
I think God has spoken very clearly, very clearly on this issue. And
I would refer the gentleman to Holy Scripture, and what the word says
in regard to marriage and the sanctity of marriage. I think it is
pretty clear.
The gentleman wants to talk about the fact that this should be a
church issue. I agree with you. I wish it were, if it were not for
these activist Federal judges and these public officials. I will remind
the gentleman from Missouri, the good Reverend, that they will be the
one that would be performing these marriages and they would do it to a
fare-thee-well.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Daniel E. Lungren).
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, the argument on the
floor that somehow this is a church issue misses this point entirely.
We are talking about the legal implications, and whether or not the
Government of the United States can recognize a preferential status for
marriage between one man and one woman.
Now, is this unprecedented? No, it is not. Read your American
history. The State of Utah was not allowed to become a State until they
recognized marriage as being only between one man and one woman. That
had to do with whether you could have multiple partners.
This is a different aspect of that question, but essentially the
legal basis is the same. And that is what we are talking about here.
Those who wish to change this, as these activist judges do, carry the
burden of arguing why we should change an institution which has stood
the test of time for thousands of years.
There are reasons for this in terms of it being the most stable unit
of society upon which our society has found itself in need. That is
what we are talking about. It is not discrimination. It is allowing the
existence of a definition of the most fundamental unit of society. That
is it simply. We are not intruding in the province of churches.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to clarify
something about the activist judges. Since 1953, since Eisenhower was
sworn into office, there have been 23 Federal judges appointed to the
U.S. Supreme Court. Of that amount, 17 have been Republicans, 6 have
been Democrats. The Court today has 7 Republicans, and 2 Democrats.
I do not know who they are blaming. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of this
amendment. And I rise today with some serious concerns. First, I am
concerned about the use of faith and marriage to score political
points. I am also concerned about the scope of the amendment.
First, I will talk about the amendment's scope. In my opinion, the
amendment limits its ability to truly protect marriage. As written, the
amendment defines marriage between a man and a woman. Sounds good, but
I do not think that alone will be good enough to fully protect
marriage.
Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that the amendment does not go far
enough. If we truly want to protect marriage, we should look and do all
the things we must to go after the evils that threaten each and
everyone of our marriages. These are the evils of divorce, adultery and
abuse.
The amount of divorce that has occurred in this country has become a
threat to marriage. What do our children learn when they see their
parents getting divorced left and right, only to remarry and get
divorced again? What kind of example does it set?
This occurrence clearly undermine the values that are the foundation
of every marriage. Of course I am speaking of the commonly recited
tenet, ``Till death do us part.'' Marriage is for life. This amendment
needs to include that basic tenet.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think we should expand the scope of the
amendment to outlaw divorce in this country. Going further, Mr.
Speaker, I believe infidelity, adultery, is an evil that threatens the
marriage and the heart
[[Page H5295]]
of every marriage, which is commitment.
How can we as a country allow adulterers to go unpunished and
continue to make a mockery of marriage? Again, by doing so, what
lessons are we teaching our children about marriage? I certainly think
that it shows we are not serious about protecting the institution and
this is why I think the amendment should outlaw adultery and make it a
felony.
Additionally, Mr. Speaker, we must address spousal abuse and child
abuse. Think of how many marriages end in divorce or permanent
separation because one spouse is abusive. And, Mr. Speaker, I
personally think child abuse may be the most despicable act one can
commit.
This is why if we are truly serious about protecting marriage to the
point where we will amend the Constitution, we should extend the
punishment of abuse to prevent those who do such a heinous act from
ever running for an elected position anywhere.
We should also prevent those who commit adultery or get a divorce
from running for office. Mr. Speaker, this House must lead by example.
If we want those watching on C-SPAN to actually believe we are serious
about protecting marriage, then we should go after the other major
threats to the institution, not just the threats that homosexuals may
some day be allowed to marry in a State other than Massachusetts, and
elected officials should certainly lead by example.
Now for my second concern, Mr. Speaker. As a person of faith who has
been blessed with a wonderful marriage of 42 years, I am deeply
troubled that some may be using this amendment to score political
points with their base.
Why else would we be voting for an amendment that has no chance of
becoming law since the Senate has already rejected it? Why else would
we vote on an amendment that may not be necessary, when you consider
that 45 States have enacted either constitutional or statutory bans on
gay marriage? And other States, like my home State of Tennessee, have
put such bans on the ballot in November.
Why, too, would Congressional Quarterly in their July 17, 2006 issue,
report this amendment is a part of the legislative values agenda rolled
out to rally the GOP base in the run-up to the November elections?
Just as one should not take the Lord's name in vain, I also believe a
good value for folks is to never undermine religion or marriage by
using them to score political points with the base in order to win
elections.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for both parties to stop
pandering to the bases that live on the political fringes and instead
remember that there is one more true base: the American people. The
people I represent would be more motivated if we could address the cost
of $3 a gallon gasoline, and cut it in half, reduce the cost of health
care for a family of four from $1,000 it currently costs for a family,
increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour, address the
illegal immigration, reduce budget deficits and balance our budget.
{time} 1115
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
My good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee, decried politics, and
then he started his remarks about politics. He talked about whether
these judges were Republican judges and Democratic judges and gave
numbers.
In response to him, we are blaming activist judges, whether they are
Democratically appointed or Republican appointees, who are attempting
by judicial fiat to redefine our constitutional definition of marriage
which has stood for 223 years.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to my good friend from Texas, who
has been married to his lovely wife for 37 years, Judge John Carter.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Georgia.
We have now made 38.
Mr. Speaker, anywhere in the world today you can wake somebody up in
the middle of the night, you pick them, and you say, excuse me, wake up
just a second. What is a marriage? They will say a union between a man
and a woman.
This is a confused world that we are trying to define here. The
reality is marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman.
Now, in China they might say a civil union. In Rome they might say a
church union, but it has always been a union between a man and a woman.
In my faith, I believe it is part of God's plan for the future of
mankind. The sacredness of a marriage is based, to this Nation, and,
quite frankly, every Nation on Earth, it is how the base governing we
have in our lives starts.
Mr. Speaker, that is why this should be a part of the United States
Constitution. When activist judges would go try to change the real
world, it is our job to step up and stand up for the moral values of
this Nation.
This is why I support this rule, and I support the legislation and
the constitutional amendment to follow.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I honor the long-term marriages of my
colleagues, all, in this Congress, but this so-called Marriage
Protection Amendment isn't about trying to reduce the divorce rate, or
it is not about helping married couples work through their problems.
This bill is about keeping two adults from making a life-long
commitment to each other. With everything that is happening in this
world, it seems like this should be the least of our worries.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for the majority party to quit intruding on
our private lives and start working on the issues that really matter to
the American people and to their families. The American public wants us
to work together, to bring our soldiers home from Iraq, to address the
rising cost of gas, to raise the minimum wage.
Faced with such important issues, amending the Constitution to decide
what we should do in our private lives is nothing more than a cheap
stunt.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I proudly yield 2 minutes now to the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), who has been married 37\1/2\ years.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
rule and the underlying legislation, House Joint Resolution 88, the
Marriage Protection Amendment.
It is on behalf of the many families of the Second District of Kansas
that I urge my colleagues to give our State legislators the opportunity
to ratify the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one
woman.
Mr. Speaker, we have reached a point in history where some have
forgotten that it is the family, not the government, that is the
fundamental building block of our society. This constitutional
amendment would be entirely unnecessary were it not for the activist
judges who are recklessly imposing their creative definitions of
marriage upon citizens within their jurisdiction.
They have assailed the very anchor of family, the marriage between
one man and one woman. It seems obvious to me and to 70 percent of
Kansans who voted for a State constitutional amendment, that when we
have strong families rooted in a marriage between one man and one
woman, we give the next generation the best chance for the American
Dream. When we have strong families, we have strong schools, stronger
communities, and a stronger Nation.
Some would say that my beliefs are simplistic and old-fashioned. But
the facts are in, and the facts say there are real consequences when
society does not protect marriage and the family. But don't take my
word for it. Just ask former President Clinton's own domestic policy
adviser, Bill Galston, who wrote, from the standpoint of economic well-
being and sound psychological development, the evidence indicates that
the intact two-parent family is generally preferable to the available
alternatives. It follows that a prime purpose of a sound family policy
is to strengthen such families by promoting their formation and
retarding their breakdown whenever possible.
Dr. Galston's research indicates what many of us, what we already
know through studies, that kids are better off in an intact family that
begins with a marriage between one man and one woman. I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting the rule and the underlying
legislation.
[[Page H5296]]
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, as I listen, I am struck
anew by the ability of preprogrammed rhetoric to resist the facts. We
have heard talk about activist judges, Federal judges. No Federal judge
has been involved here. There is not a pending decision that is now in
force by a single Federal judge. That doesn't stop people from invoking
it, because facts are irrelevant to this kind of rhetoric.
In fact, this amendment is being described in ways that are not
accurate. It is not an amendment to prevent judges, activist judges,
pacifist judges, any kind of judges, from deciding. It is an amendment
to prevent anybody from deciding.
In the State of Massachusetts, we have had same-sex marriage for over
2 years. None of the negative consequences that people have predicted
came true.
In consequence, I believe the political community of Massachusetts is
prepared to say, if two men love each other and are prepared to be
committed to each other legally as well as emotionally, that is rather
a good thing and we will say it's okay.
If the voters of Massachusetts, in a referendum in 2008, which we
might have, were to ratify same-sex marriage, this amendment would
cancel it out. It has nothing to do with activist judges. It has to do
with a decision that says no State by any political process can make
that decision. The legislature of California, not judges in California,
voted to allow two women who love each other to be legally responsible
for each other.
That, if it were to be ratified by a Governor after the next
election, would be cancelled out. So this is not an amendment about
activist judges. This is an amendment that says no State by whatever
process, including a referendum, can make this decision.
Why? I also feel strengthened in my advocacy of a cause when people
won't tell me their real arguments against it. I think this is
motivated, frankly, by a dislike of those of us who are gay and lesbian
on the part of those who are the main motivators.
You know, we are told don't take things personally, but I take this
personally. I take it personally when people decide to take political
batting practice with my life, when people decide that they would
demonize, not just me, I am old, I am over it, but young people who are
just starting out, who find themselves, for reasons they can't explain,
attracted to someone of the same sex, and they are demonized in this
House of Representatives as if they are a threat to marriage.
That is the biggest nonsensical statement of all. Yes, marriage
between a man and woman who are in love is a good thing. How does
allowing two men who love each other to become legally committed
endanger these marriages of 37 or 38 years? Let me tell you the logical
structure, or the illogical structure, of the argument on the other
side.
People will remember the commercial for V8 juice years ago in which a
cartoon character who was feeling poorly drank various juices to see if
he or she could be energized. None of them worked. Tomato juice didn't
work. Apple juice didn't work. Pineapple juice didn't work, and then
someone gives him a V8. The cartoon character gets pumped up,
literally, and steam comes out of his ears. He is literally now raring
to go, because he had a V8.
He says to himself, wow, I could have had a V8. Note for the record,
I just smacked myself in the forehead to represent what happened in the
commercial. Now, that is apparently the logical structure of same-sex
marriages. Apparently there were these 37-, 38-, 42-year-long marriages
all over the place.
There are happily married men all over America, and they are content
with their wives. They are heterosexual, and they feel this physical
and emotional attraction to each other. Then they read in the paper
that in the State of Massachusetts it is now possible for there to be a
same-sex marriage.
How is a marriage endangered? Apparently, people happily married in
Indiana, Nebraska, Kansas, and Mississippi read that we have had same-
sex marriage quite successfully in Massachusetts, and they look in the
mirror and they say, wow, I could have married a guy.
So, apparently, same-sex marriage is the V8 juice of America. And
apparently there are people who fear that knowing that two men who love
each other, want to be committed to each other, somehow will dissolve
the bonds of matrimony between two heterosexuals, it is, of course,
nonsense. I will do my friends the credit of acknowledging that they
don't believe it. There is a political motive here. Now, there are
people who are genuinely concerned that there would be negative social
consequences.
I understand that. I have heard that every time we deal with
discrimination, when we dealt with the Americans with Disabilities Act,
with gender, with race, with ethnicity, with age. I understand their
fears. We have had same-sex marriage in Massachusetts for over 2 years.
Thousands of loving men and women have been able to come together and
express their commitment to each other, and no one, not even the most
dedicated opponent, has been able to point to a single negative
consequence.
So I understand the people who are afraid. We have disproven the
fears, and what is left is only dislike of many of us. It simply is not
appropriate to score political points by demonizing or seeking to
minimize the lives of your fellow citizens.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers on my side. While
I am going to reserve the balance of my time for closing, I want to
respond and give myself as much time as I might consume to the
gentleman from Massachusetts, for whom, and whose intellect, I have a
deep respect. I think he knows that.
Let me just say that Americans are a good and tolerant people. The
people of this country believe in equality and freedom, and we respect
the rights of individuals to conduct their personal lives as they see
fit.
Reasonable people can differ in their views on homosexuality or its
causes, consequences, and moral significance. Personally, I think it is
a good thing that American citizens who happen to be gay are accorded
more tolerance and respect today than was the case 50 years ago.
But I honestly believe that the issue facing us today is not the
issue of homosexuality. Most fundamentally, the issue we face today is
marriage, the meaning of marriage as an institution and how best to
support it. I favor the Federal Marriage Amendment because I want to
support the institutution of marriage and keep it strong.
This issue is not, in my humble opinion, about homosexuality.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. This is a question, and I appreciate the
civil spirit in which he discusses it. Would the gentleman explain to
me does how the fact that two women in Massachusetts who are allowed to
be legally committed to each other in any way endanger or threaten
marriages between heterosexuals elsewhere?
Mr. GINGREY. Well, in response to the gentleman, again, as I said, it
is not an issue of same-sex union.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. But how does it hurt?
Mr. GINGREY. And benefits that are afforded them by many States. The
States certainly have the right to prescribe that in regard to issues
of consanguinity and the age of consent and benefits for same-sex
unions.
But they don't, in my opinion, have the right to redefine the
definition of marriage.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. How does it hurt? How does the existence
of a same-sex marriage in any way threaten a happy heterosexual
marriage?
Mr. GINGREY. Reclaiming my time, I think that the gentlewoman from
Colorado and those of us who support this constitutional amendment feel
that this is all about marriage that results, or potentially can
result, in the procreation of children. This is what our Constitution
has implied for 223 years and, indeed, what the word of God has implied
for 2,000 years.
With that, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time for the
purpose of closing.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left.
[[Page H5297]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonner). The gentleman from
Massachusetts has 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to agree with my colleague from
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) when he says that the American people are a good
and tolerant people. He is absolutely right. Unfortunately, that
doesn't extend in terms of the tolerance part of it to a lot of Members
of this Chamber.
I mean, we have listened to this debate for nearly an hour now, and
we have heard the words from the other side, and they are words of
exclusion, and even hate.
{time} 1130
We have heard talk about family values. Well, hate is not a family
value. Discrimination is not a family value. Exclusion and denying
people's rights are not family values.
In Massachusetts, my home State, same-sex marriage is legal. It is
legal. Gay couples can go to the town hall, city hall, fill out the
forms, pay the application fee and legally get married; 8,000 couples
have done so, and everything has stayed the same in Massachusetts. Life
goes on.
But what you want to do here today with this amendment is not only
prevent other States from acting as Massachusetts has done, but what
you are saying to those 8,000 couples is that we want to affirmatively
go and take away your rights; we want to null and void your legal
rights.
That is shameful. It is insulting. It is discrimination. If your
State wants to ban gay marriage, that is your State's right to do so,
but the people of Massachusetts have a different opinion, and if the
people of Massachusetts want to respect and honor same-sex marriages,
that is our business. It should not be the business of the House of
Representatives or the United States Senate to go in there and to go
against and to void the will of the people of Massachusetts.
Mr. Speaker, this is all about politics here today. The Senate has
already defeated this. This is appalling that we are here today. This
is about gay-bashing. It is about winning political points. Quite
frankly, this is disgraceful.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise again in support of this rule and in full support
of and recognition of the importance of this underlying amendment to
our Constitution.
I appreciate each and every one of my colleagues who spoke during the
debate on this rule. I fully recognize that many of us will have to
simply, yet respectfully, as I said, disagree.
However, Mr. Speaker, I know that I stand today with the citizens of
Georgia's 11th Congressional District, as well as the vast majority of
Georgia and the Nation's citizens who continue to be outraged by the
ability of a few judges to overturn our legal precedent and our
traditional family values.
In 2004, the people of Georgia affirmed with a vote of 76 percent to
24 percent that marriage is an institution between one man and one
woman, and I proudly count myself among that 76 percent.
I want to close this debate by reminding my colleagues that we have
an opportunity today to stem the tide of this judicial activism and to
restore the ability of the American people to establish policies that
affect them and their lives through their elected Representatives.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues, please support
this rule, and upon the conclusion of general debate, I ask my
colleagues to affirm legal and historical precedent and defend our
traditions about supporting the underlying amendment to restore the
definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 918, I call
up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 88) proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States relating to marriage, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 88
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds
of each House concurring therein), That the following article
is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as
part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of
three-fourths of the several States:
``Article --
``Section 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage
Protection Amendment'.
``Section 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist
only of the 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.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Nadler) each will control 45 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in 1996, the United States Congress passed DOMA, Defense
of Marriage Act, and the idea behind that was that marriage would be
recognized in this Nation as the union of one man and one woman. It was
not the first time that the United States Congress had gotten involved
in the definition of marriage. Indeed, Mr. Lungren had reminded us
earlier today that the State of Utah and Arizona and I believe one
other Western State, in order to join the Union, needed to define in
their State constitution marriage as a union between one man and one
woman in order to become States in the United States.
But unfortunately, since 1986, activist courts have eroded the intent
of Congress, and so we come today on the House floor with H.J. Res. 88,
which reads: ``Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the
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.''
The purpose of this is to say that no governmental entity,
legislative, executive or judicial, shall be allowed to alter the
definition of marriage from one man and one woman, and it also prevents
Federal courts from construing the Constitution or a State constitution
to change that definition as well.
This, indeed, is the desire of the American people at this point. A
recent poll shows that 69 percent of Americans strongly agree that
marriage should exist between one man and one woman. The State
Constitution amendments on the States that have passed them, which now
numbers 45, average by passing 71.5 percent. Forty-five States, Mr.
Speaker, have enacted laws about this.
Why is this necessary, then, to come back to the floor if the States
are handling it? The fact is that there are great and deliberate
challenges to DOMA in the United States Constitution. We can go back to
1965. The Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut discovered a
constitutional right to contraceptive noted in marital privacy, and the
Court in Roe v. Wade in 1973 decided that the right to reproductive
privacy was applied to abortion, wholly outside the context of a
marriage.
In 1996, the Court in Bowers v. Hardwick refused to create a right of
sexual privacy for same-sex couples, but then, in 2003, the Court
reversed itself in the Lawrence v. Texas case. In the Lawrence case,
the Court claimed not to have gone so far as to establish a right to
same-sex marriage, but then the State of Massachusetts and the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court prominently used the Lawrence
decision just a few months later to do exactly that.
That is why we are here today, Mr. Speaker. This is not, as we have
been charged, political pandering. This is not a frivolous exercise.
Indeed, I certainly think this Congress, under the leadership of the
Speaker and under the leadership of the President of the United States,
has worked hard to address the issues of the day. We have worked hard
in the war on terrorism.
[[Page H5298]]
We have worked hard in the situation in the Middle East. Indeed, as
the President attended the G-8, the number one topic right now is, of
course, Lebanon and Israel.
We have worked hard on balancing the budget. This House recently
passed the line-item veto. This House has passed earmark reform. The
Appropriations Committee, which has passed 10 out of its 11
appropriations bills, has reduced spending $4 billion by cutting out 95
different programs. We are engaged in addressing the fuel situation. We
have passed tax reform which has created 5.3 million jobs since 2003.
We are very involved in the issues of today, and I will say to you
that marriage is certainly one of the top-tier issues that it is the
right and the obligation of the United States Congress to address, and
again, not a battle that we have chosen to have but one that has been
thrown back to us by the courts.
That is why we are here today, and we will have this debate, and I
look forward to hearing from my friend from New York.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of marriage, in support of
families, and in support of national unity. I rise against this
proposed constitutional amendment, against the drumbeat of election-
year political demagoguery.
This amendment does not belong in our Constitution. It is unworthy of
our great Nation. 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, the
first 10 of them, the Bill of Rights, in 1791. Constitutional
amendments have always been used to enhance and expand the rights of
citizens, not to restrict them.
The Bill of Rights, which was added in 1791, protected freedom of
speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, the right to be
secure in our homes. Ten amendments protecting individual rights and
liberties. We amended the Constitution to permanently wipe away the
stain of slavery, to expand the right to vote, to expand the rights of
citizenship and to allow for the direct election of senators.
Now we are being asked to amend the Constitution again, to single out
a single group and to say to them for all time, you cannot even attempt
to win the right to marry.
This amendment was introduced last month. We have never held hearings
on it. The Judiciary Committee has never considered it. Never. Don't
let anyone tell you that the Judiciary Committee considered it in 2003.
We did not. That was a different amendment we considered.
But what is the Constitution between friends when there is an
election coming up? From what precisely would this amendment protect
marriage? From divorce? From adultery? No. Evidently, the threat to
marriage is the fact that there are millions of people in this country
who very much believe in marriage, who very much want to marry but who
are not permitted to marry.
{time} 1145
This amendment, contrary to what we have heard, doesn't block
activist courts from allowing people of the same sex to marry. It would
also prevent their fellow citizens from deciding democratically to
permit them to do so, whether through the legislative process or even
through a referendum of the people.
And why is it requisite on Congress to tell any State that the people
of that State may not make up their minds for themselves on this
question? Why is it necessary for the Federal Government to amend our
Constitution to say to Massachusetts, which is going to hold a
referendum on this subject in 2008, you may not do so because we have
decided this for you?
Mr. Speaker, 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, including couples with custody of children,
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 destroyed by someone else's same-sex marriage
somewhere in America, I would welcome an explanation of what he or she
thinks would happen to his or her marriage and why.
Are there any takers? Anyone here who wants to get up and say why
they believe their marriage would be threatened if two other people are
permitted to marry?
I didn't think so.
The overheated rhetoric we have been hearing is reminiscent of the
bellicose fear-mongering that followed the Supreme Court's decision
almost 40 years ago in 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 survived as a Nation and we are better for that Supreme
Court decision.
I believe firmly that in the not-too-distant future people will look
back on these debates with the incredulity with which we now view the
segregationist debates of years past. I think the public opinion polls
are indicative: Opposition to gay marriage is a direct function of age.
The older people are, the more set in the ways of the old
discriminatory practices of this country they are, the more they oppose
gay marriage. If you take a poll of people under 35 years old, 70 to 75
percent are in favor of allowing gay marriage. That is the trend for
the future because demographics is destiny.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment actually does more than it purports to
do. It would not only preempt any State law allowing people of the same
gender to marry, even if that law was approved by the legislature or by
referendum, it would preclude any State from extending medical
visitation privileges or inheritance rights, for example, to same-sex
couples. That is what ``the incidents thereof'' in the amendment means.
Proponents of this amendment have already tried to use a similar
prohibition against same-sex marriage to attack in court domestic-
partner benefits. So when they tell you this is only about marriage,
don't believe it. No court has required that a marriage in one State be
recognized in another, so don't believe anyone who tells you that this
amendment is meant to protect your own State laws.
The Defense of Marriage Act which passed this Congress and which the
President signed in 1996 says no State can impose its marriage laws on
another.
There are many loving families, Mr. Speaker, who deserve the benefits
and protections of the law. They don't live just in New York or San
Francisco or Boston, they live in every one of the 435 congressional
districts of this great country. 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 the same
rights as 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 to
have what we have already heard on this floor and to what we will hear
that amounts to pure bigotry against a minority population, even on the
eve of an election.
We know this amendment is not going anywhere. We know this is merely
a political exercise. Shame on this House for playing politics with
bigotry.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out to my good friend
from New York that 16 States have recently passed marriage protection
amendments, and on an average they have passed by 71.5 percent.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the primary
author of H.J. Res. 88, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Speaker Hastert and Mr. Leader
Boehner for bringing this bill to the floor. Letters and e-mails and
phone calls continue to pour into my office urging me to continue in
this effort. We know that polls show that the overwhelming majority of
the American people support traditional marriage, marriage between a
man and a woman.
[[Page H5299]]
The people have a right to know whether their elected Representatives
agree with them about protecting traditional marriage.
I cannot think of a better good that this body may pursue than to
promote and defend the idea that every child deserves both a father and
a mother. Studies demonstrate the utmost importance of the presence of
a child's biological parents in a child's happiness, health and future
achievements. If we chip away at the institution which binds these
parents and the family together, the institution of marriage, you begin
to chip away at the future success of that child.
I would not want to negate the heroic job that many single parents do
every day in providing the necessary support to a child's happiness.
But today we are discussing what social policy is best for our
children, and I am convinced that the best is found in promoting and
defending traditional marriage.
Are there other important issues? Of course there are, but preserving
the institution of marriage, which, as the Supreme Court said many
years ago, is ``the foundation of the family and of society, without
which there would be neither civilization nor progress,'' certainly
warrants a few hours of our time. And even if there are other issues we
need to address, as a former Member, one of my favorites, J.C. Watts
said, ``Members of Congress are capable of walking and chewing gum at
the same time.''
And where are those who say we are wasting time when we were renaming
post offices and Federal buildings earlier this year? Mr. Speaker, if
we have enough time to rename post offices and Federal buildings,
surely we can spend one afternoon debating whether or not the
traditional definition of marriage is worth preserving.
Others have asked why we need this amendment given that courts in New
York, Georgia, and Nebraska have recently turned back challenges to
traditional marriage. I just would like to say these decisions simply
do not settle the issues. Cases in New Jersey and Washington, to name
only two of many, remain pending.
Additionally, the Massachusetts Supreme Court's Goodridge decision
legalizing same-sex marriage in that State continues to stand. Just
last week, legislators in Massachusetts put off a measure to give the
people the opportunity to decide this issue for themselves. While the
Goodridge case remains on the books, court dockets all over the country
will continue to be ensnarled with same-sex marriage litigation as
opponents of traditional marriage continue to fight to expand their
agenda to the rest of the country.
While recent court victories are not unimportant, the ultimate court
test, the test in the United States Supreme Court, is still on the
horizon. And legal experts agree at least four and probably five of the
members of that court will act to overturn traditional marriage across
America. That is why most legal experts expect DOMA to fall once a
challenge finally reaches the high Court, which is why it would be the
very height of foolishness to rely on the Supreme Court to protect
marriage. Sadly, that august tribunal is part of the problem. Justice
Scalia has already warned us that the Court's 2003 Lawrence decision
was only the beginning of a road at the end of which is a radical
redefinition of marriage at the hands of the Court.
Does anyone else see the irony in the opponents of this bill calling
on us to wait until the Supreme Court rules before deciding this issue?
Many of those who protested the loudest that DOMA was unconstitutional
when it was enacted in 1996 are today the ones who say we ought to
presume DOMA is constitutional until the high Court tells us otherwise.
The American people want us to settle this issue now. They don't want
us to wait to see how much havoc the courts will wreak on the
definition of marriage before we act to protect it.
Our marriage laws represent centuries of cumulative wisdom regarding
the best way to address public concerns about property, inheritance,
legal liability and raising children. The last matter is especially
important because we now know beyond any reasonable doubt that children
thrive best when they are raised in a traditional family. And
statistically speaking, the further we go from this ideal, the more we
can expect to see increases in measures as a whole host of social
problems.
Again, this is not to say that children raised in nontraditional
families will necessarily fall prey to these problems, but public
policy is based on cumulative, not individual experience. Facts, as it
has been said, are stubborn things. And one sad but stubborn fact is
that the statistical dice are loaded against children who are raised
without a father and a mother.
Some oppose the Marriage Protection Amendment on the grounds that the
institution of marriage is already in trouble. Why be concerned, they
say, about same-sex marriage when the divorce rate among couples in
traditional marriages is so high? But can't you see this is a non
sequitur? It is like saying to a doctor, The patient already has
pneumonia, so why are you taking precautions to prevent him from
getting a staph infection? Yes, traditional marriage has its problems,
we all know that, and the high divorce rate is a national scandal. But
far from undermining my point, this reinforces it. We are dismayed by
the breakup of families because we know broken families lead to more
and more children being deprived of the tremendous benefit of having
both their mom and dad around to raise them.
Other opponents of this amendment argue that the existence of same-
sex marriage in Massachusetts has not caused the earth to stop spinning
on its axis, so they ask what is all this fuss about. After only 2
years of experience, it is absurd to suggest that we can even begin to
guess how the redefinition of marriage in that State will ramify in the
future. And the fact that same-sex marriages in Massachusetts do not
directly affect my marriage or your marriage means nothing in regard to
the public policy debate. The breakup of the family next door does not
directly affect your marriage or my marriage either, but we all
recognize that every family that comes apart is a tragedy, and that is
why our laws have always sought to encourage, not undermine,
traditional families.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, you are the Republican Party in America and
what do you do? You have had control of the House of Representatives,
you control the Supreme Court, you control the United States Senate,
you control the White House. What are you going to do?
Seven million people in America are unemployed.
There are 46 million Americans that don't have health insurance.
The minimum wage hasn't been increased in nearly a decade. The gap
between people who are wealthy and people who are poor is getting wider
and wider.
We have a war in Iraq that has killed 2,500 Americans, 20,000
Americans have been seriously injured, and a policy going in the wrong
direction.
You have a failed prescription drug plan, written by the prescription
drug industry behind closed doors, that is confusing seniors. It is
going to cost taxpayers $700 billion.
Gasoline is $3 a gallon at the pump.
{time} 1200
Global warming is threatening our environment and our health. What
are you going to do? Let's have a debate about gay marriage again on
the floor of the House.
We are not going to debate an exit strategy in Iraq. We don't have a
plan to lower the cost of gasoline. We don't have a plan to provide
health care or to give American seniors the ability to buy prescription
drugs at a low cost in bulk. Oh, no. Oh no, this is Tuesday in
Washington in the House of Representatives, and we are going to debate
gay marriage.
This debate is meant to do nothing more than get the American people
to look at other issues, ignore gas prices, ignore the unemployment
rate. Let's talk about gay marriage.
I am proud to be from Massachusetts and represent 8,000 couples who
have been married. And let me tell you about one of the couples in my
district, Bonnie Winokar and her partner Mary McCarthy. They have been
together for 19 years. But for 17 of those years, Bonnie was unable to
provide Mary with the health care benefits that she
[[Page H5300]]
was afforded as a high school math teacher. Two years ago they got
married and now this happy couple has health insurance. They have
coverage. They have family visitation and inheritance rights that every
other married couple in America has.
I ask my colleagues, how do Bonnie and Mary threaten other marriages?
I don't feel threatened by the 8,000 couples in Massachusetts who have
been married. As a matter of fact, I want to tell you something. People
in Massachusetts overwhelmingly now realize that approving gay marriage
has not in any way negatively impacted heterosexual couples. That is
why, overwhelmingly, people in Massachusetts support the SJC decision.
But we ought to keep clear and keep in mind that this debate today is
not really about gay marriage. It is about the failure of this
administration and this Congress to do the right thing by the American
people.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the former attorney
general of California, the distinguished Dan Lungren.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, where to begin? We
have heard the argument that somehow we shouldn't bring constitutional
amendments to the floor; we shouldn't amend the Constitution.
It is a very interesting argument when you realize there are two ways
to amend the Constitution, one is the formal process that is contained
in the Constitution itself, which we are embarking upon today, and the
other one is by activist judges.
People don't like to hear that. They seem to say judges have the
right to amend the Constitution, to give new meaning to the words of
the Constitution, to actually give the opposite meaning to the words of
the Constitution and we have to accept that forever, because if we do
anything opposed to that, we are somehow changing the Constitution,
even though we are following the exact requirements of the Constitution
itself.
The second thing that is said is wait a second, no court has declared
marriage to be unconstitutional in the traditional sense, so we should
wait until that happens. In other words, if we take an anticipatory
action, somehow we are unconstitutional.
How have we changed the terms of the debate when we are talking about
a traditional definition of marriage that has stood the test of time
for thousands of years, has been understood by every single one of our
Founding Fathers at the time of the formation of this country, that
somehow we are the ones that are upsetting the apple cart; when, in
fact, it is those who wish to change this traditional definition in a
radical way?
They say, well, the Federal Government should not be involved in it.
And yet we pointed out historically the Federal Government has been
involved in defining marriage, refusing to allow at least the State of
Utah to become a State until they accepted that definition of marriage.
What we are talking about is changing the fundamental vision of
marriage that is in our civil structure, a preferential treatment that
is allowed under our laws for marriage, understood traditionally. And
they say, well, we passed DOMA so you don't have to worry. Yet, many
who are saying that argued on the floor of the House that DOMA was
unconstitutional. Professor Lawrence Tribe has said it is
unconstitutional. Many of the organizations who are against this
particular amendment have argued in court that it is unconstitutional
and believe it is only inevitable until they overturn it by way of
their particular lawsuits brought against it.
So the question here is really, do you believe there is reason to
maintain the traditional definition of marriage, allowing it to be the
essential unit of our society, not that there aren't other units of
society, but the essential unit of our society that has withstood the
test of time? That is the simple question before us.
We never asked for this debate. This debate began with, yes, activist
judges who said, wait a second, times have changed and, therefore, the
traditional notion of marriage is out the window.
Why? Who said so? Because of what?
This is not a question of discrimination as some have argued on the
other side, unless they are saying we are discriminating against bigamy
and polygamy, because the United States has spoken, as I said before,
in saying the traditional definition of marriage is enshrined in our
institutions and in our law.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my
colleagues to oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment. The Republican
leadership clearly doesn't get it. Our country is grappling with
skyrocketing gas prices, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the constant
threat of terrorism, concerns about pension security, and the rising
cost of health care insurance.
But instead of addressing these priorities, what does the Republican
leadership decide we need to focus on? Gay marriage, of course. As if
passing the Federal Marriage Amendment would magically make all of our
country's biggest challenges go away.
This resolution is not only a waste of time; it is completely
unnecessary. The Senate has already rejected this amendment, so we know
that even if the House passes this, the bill is not going anywhere.
Furthermore, 45 States already ban same-sex marriage, either by
statute or by their State constitution.
Even more important, passage of this amendment would mark the first
time that our Constitution has been amended to take rights away from
people. Amending our Constitution to force States to discriminate
against a targeted group of Americans would tarnish our history of
protecting everybody's equal rights under the law.
I therefore strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote against the
Federal Marriage Amendment.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, the proposed constitutional amendment before
us today illustrates exactly why those who wrote the Constitution of
the United States went to such extraordinary lengths to ensure that it
was a long and arduous task to amend it.
The procedure to pass a constitutional amendment was designed
specifically to compel the Nation and its leaders to carefully consider
the significant and profound implications such a change could bring.
This issue simply fails to meet the threshold of what the Framers
called a ``great and extraordinary occasion.'' But of even greater
significance is the issue of individual rights. This proposed amendment
would be the first time we would amend that document to restrict human
freedoms, rather than to protect and expand them.
Let's be honest. This bill has been brought to the House floor by the
leadership solely because of election-year politics. The very process
by which this bill comes up is an affront to this institution. Like
previous attempts, it was not considered by any committee of the House,
it was not brought to the floor by the chairman of that committee,
rather it was brought by the leadership, who decided to take it upon
themselves to do the work of the committees and their chairmen.
Moreover, this same legislation was considered in the Senate, where
it didn't even receive 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?
Sixteen States have passed constitutional amendments that would
define marriage in their own States as being between a man and a woman.
Others, including my own State, are considering such amendments this
year. While I may disagree with the voters in my State or any State in
adopting such an amendment to their constitution, that is their
prerogative, and State constitutions are where they should be
considered.
For better than 200 years, family law has been exclusively the domain
of the States. 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 of 1996, former Representative Bob
[[Page H5301]]
Barr, said as much, and I agree with him. Marriage and divorce,
inheritance and adoption, child custody, these are matters correctly
left to the States. It does not belong in the Constitution of the
United States.
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.
The States can pass their own laws, and many have. We should not be in
the business of passing a constitutional amendment to make this point.
And we certainly should not be tampering with the Constitution to
address an ongoing societal dialogue on, admittedly, a very difficult
subject.
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 now from this ill-advised action.
We have not used the amending process to limit the rights of
citizens. From the first amendment to the 14th, the original Framers
and the Congress that followed have sought to expand, to protect the
rights of citizens. This would be a unique amendment in that it takes
away rights from one group while specifically conferring them upon
another. Try to find another provision in the Constitution that does
this. You will look in vain.
Mr. Speaker, this Congress and those after should be about protecting
and expanding freedoms. This proposed amendment to our Constitution is
about discrimination. It is about fear. It is unnecessary. It is
unwarranted, and it should be soundly defeated.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support
of H.J. Res. 88, the Marriage Protection Amendment.
The debate before us today is about ensuring that the will of the
people of the United States is protected.
My home State of South Carolina is one of 45 States that has already
enacted laws defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Our message is clear: marriage matters, and it should be limited to
that of a man and a woman.
So I stand here today wondering why we are faced with the fact that a
handful of judges have taken it upon themselves to hand down rulings
that redefine marriage for moms and dads and most importantly children
across this Nation.
Mr. Speaker, some in this country, elected by no one, believe they
have the right to supersede the wishes of my constituents and the
constituents of other Members here today.
I urge my colleagues to join me today in supporting the Marriage
Protection Amendment ensuring constituents' voices are heard.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the
Constitution Subcommittee, Mr. Nadler, for his fine work in this area.
He hasn't had all that much to do because the bill never came to the
Constitution Committee. We never had hearings. We never had a markup.
We didn't even have supporters of this amendment yesterday at the Rules
Committee which set the rules that allowed it to come to the floor
today.
And so I am happy to join in opposition with a number of friends that
I would like to indicate. First, the NAACP, which is in convention here
in Washington this week, is strongly opposed to this amendment. So is
the AFL-CIO and the American Civil Liberties Union, the Jewish
Committee, the Human Rights Campaign, the National Council of La Raza,
the National Urban League, Planned Parenthood, and countless religious
organizations. They are all telling us to leave the Constitution alone.
The other consideration that I would bring to the Members' attention
is the far-reaching scope of this amendment that has never been heard
in the Judiciary Committee. Not only would it ban same-sex marriages,
but it would also deprive same-sex couples and their families of
fundamental protections such as hospital visitation, inheritance
rights, and health care benefits.
Ladies and gentlemen, this amendment is divisive. It is unnecessary.
It is constitutionally extreme. And I must point out that the amendment
has already been debated in the other body and did not prevail. What we
are doing, as has been widely recognized, is a political act. It is
getting near election time. Let's whip up the forces of conservatism.
Let's deal with this subject to energize the political base 4 months
before the election.
{time} 1215
Ladies and gentlemen, please, the amendment is unnecessary because
our Constitution has been amended only 27 times in 219 years and to
preserve our right to free speech was one of the objectives, to protect
the right to assemble was another objective of a constitutional
amendment, the right to vote was subject to constitutional amendment.
The right to be free of discrimination was subject to constitutional
amendment. They all ensured the integrity and continuity of our
government.
So I urge a ``no'' vote on the Musgrave same-sex marriage amendment.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that, in fact, under
H.J. Res. 88, State legislatures can allow same-sex benefits in the
unions.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the marriage
amendment and offer heartfelt thanks and congratulations to the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) for her principled,
compassionate, and courageous leadership on this issue from her very
first term in Congress.
Mr. Speaker, in the wake of ominous decisions by activist courts
across the land, I come to the well today to defend that institution
that forms the backbone of our society: traditional marriage. Like
millions of Americans, I believe that marriage matters, that it was
ordained by God, instituted among men, that it is the glue of the
American family and the safest harbor to raise children.
I believe first, though, marriage should be protected, because it
wasn't our idea. Several millennia ago the words were written that a
man should leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and the
two shall become one flesh. It was not our idea; it was God's idea. And
I say that unashamedly on the floor where the words ``In God We Trust''
appear above your chair, Mr. Speaker.
And let me say emphatically that this debate today is not about
discrimination. I believe that if someone chooses another life-style
than I have chosen, that that is their right in a free society. But
tolerance does not require that we permit our courts to redefine an
institution upon which our society depends. Marriage matters, according
to the researchers. Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that
throughout history, societal collapse was always brought about
following an advent of the deterioration of marriage and family.
And marriage matters to kids. As my Hoosier colleague and friend Vice
President Dan Quayle first accurately observed, Mr. Speaker, marriage
is the safest harbor to raise children. Sociologists tell us that
children raised by married parents experience lower rates of premarital
childbearing, illicit drug use, arrest, health, emotional and
behavioral problems, school dropout rate, and poverty.
And marriage even matters to adults. A recent 5-year study in 1998
found that continuously married husbands and wives experience
significantly better emotional health and less depression than people
of other marital status.
Let us say ``yes'' very humbly today to the marriage as traditionally
defined. Let us say ``no'' to activist courts bent on redefining it.
Marriage matters, Mr. Speaker. It was ordained by God, instituted in
the law. It is the glue of the American family and the safest harbor to
raise children. Let us put in that most sacred of documents an
affirmation of that institution upon which our society demands.
I urge my colleagues to embrace H.J. Res. 88, the Marriage Protection
Amendment.
[[Page H5302]]
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Two years ago this May, people in Massachusetts, my home State, woke
up thinking and talking about same-sex marriage like everyone else. You
could not avoid it. It was on the cover of every newspaper. It was a
national issue.
Now, since then, 9,000 gay and lesbian couples have been married in
Massachusetts. And you know what the news flash is? The news flash is
that there is not a news flash. The sky has not fallen. The tsunamis
have not come. Everyone is going through their daily lives.
Mr. Speaker, the average American family does not wake up every
morning worrying about same-sex marriage. Instead, they are worried
about the price of gas that they have to put in their vehicle to take
their kids to school. They worry about whether their kids are getting a
decent education. They worry about health care. They worry about
mortgage rates and whether they will ever be able to retire.
And if they are worried about any marriage, I would suggest it is
their own. There are plenty of threats to marriage out there today. We
are all aware of them. Trying to find time to spend with their
families, the pressures of making ends meet, all the challenges that we
all know exist. But what is not a threat is gay marriage.
In Massachusetts gay couples are not masterminding acts of terrorism.
They are not cutting Medicaid. They are not putting a hole in the
Medicare prescription drug program. They are not running up the Federal
deficit. They are doing what everyone else does. They are getting
through life.
Others have alluded to the constitutional issues. There are States
everywhere, Mr. Speaker, that are addressing this through the
constitutional means available to them as States, and that is fine. A
recent ruling in Massachusetts from the Supreme Judicial Court that
entered the famous decision that has provoked some controversy said
that if the people of Massachusetts want to overrule the decision of
the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, they can via their own State
constitutional mechanism. Let them do it if they want to. As others
have said, this is an area that has been reserved continually through
our jurisprudence to our States.
But, no, it is an election year. We know it is an election year and
we know you have to do it. You have got to energize the base. But the
American people are not stupid. They see through this. They know what
is going to happen.
I remember when the President came to office pledging that he would
be a uniter, not a divider. And what we are doing here today is
divisive and dividing Americans. Let us experience a sense of
tolerance.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, marriage has been under attack for years in
America. Regardless of where we look, we have seen a gradual weakening
of the institution that historically we have relied on to nurture
America's kids.
And while marriage has taken a beating from divorce and other
factors, the statistics still show that the best home for kids is still
with a mom and dad who are married and love each other. That is the
ideal we are talking about here: the best home for kids. By protecting
marriage, this amendment promotes such an environment for our kids.
Statistics show children living with their mom and dad are safer,
that they are less likely to be abused or neglected, that they have
fewer health problems, that they engage in fewer risky behaviors than
their peers, that they are more likely to do well in school, that they
are better off economically, that they display increased ability to
adapt to changing circumstances. Study after study shows us this, Mr.
Speaker.
But most Americans do not need a scientific study to tell them that
marriage is important for our children and our families. When given the
chance to have their voices heard on this issue, they have
overwhelmingly come down on the side of protecting marriage. Twenty
States have now passed voter referendums to amend their constitution to
protect marriage. Six more will have it on the ballot this November.
Six more next year. There is a pattern here. Every time the people are
actually given a chance to vote on this, they choose to protect
marriage overwhelmingly. In more than half of the 20 States, they have
amended their constitution with over 70 percent of the vote or more.
These numbers should tell us something, Mr. Speaker. They should tell
us that people understand intuitively what studies show us empirically:
Marriage is important, it is the foundation of the family and it is the
safest harbor to raise children.
This amendment protects marriage from the whims of activist courts
that would further undermine this institution by radically redefining
its definition. It would see to it that the people have a say on an
issue of fundamental importance to our Nation.
It is the right policy, Mr. Speaker, and I urge all my colleagues to
support the Marriage Protection Amendment today.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in
permitting me to speak on this issue.
I have heard my friends on the other side talk about marriage being
under attack. Well, I think it probably is in many sectors. Marriages
are under strain today in terms of economics. There are social cross-
currents. We see failed marriages. But it is not under attack by our
gay and lesbian citizens.
The gay and lesbian citizens I know in my community are dealing with
the everyday stresses of their lives, which are actually more difficult
than most Americans. They are struggling against discrimination in the
workplace. They are struggling against discrimination and in some cases
violence directed towards gay and lesbian citizens. And every day gay
and lesbian couples in long-term committed relationships, sometimes
involving children, have to struggle with the fact that they are not
afforded the protections and the resources to be able to deal with the
everyday challenges like health care emergencies. That is what they are
dealing with. They are not assaulting my marriage or anybody else's.
They are trying to deal with a difficult hand that has been dealt to
them.
The good news is that we are seeing the changes that are going to
make a difference in the long run. The good news is that younger
Americans wonder what bizarre episode we are involved with here. They
are not peddling discrimination and hate. They have a much more
positive and healthy attitude towards their neighbors, their friends,
their relations, who happen to be gay and lesbian. The good news is
that the States are trying to figure out ways to handle it.
The bad news is that Congress is not part of the solution but is
instead pandering politically in something that has already been killed
in the other Chamber, that has no chance of passage; going through a
ritual that is actually setting us back.
I am confident that in the long run truth and justice is going to
prevail. We are not going to be having any assaults on any heterosexual
marriages, but we will be dealing with how we are going to provide the
necessary protections for our gay and lesbian citizens. That day,
sadly, is not today.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Nadler for yielding the time.
At the beginning of every session of Congress, I raise my right hand
and state the following oath: ``I, Tammy Baldwin, do solemnly swear
that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith
and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without
any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and
faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to
enter. So help me God.''
[[Page H5303]]
{time} 1230
I have felt deep pride in our country and our democracy and
particularly in the Constitution itself every time I have taken that
oath. But if we were to pass this amendment, it would put a stain on
our founding document.
In our democracy since its founding, a basic premise is that in a
government by, for and of the people, the people must have the ability
to petition their government for the redress of grievances. Americans
who wanted women to have the right to vote petitioned their government.
Americans who wanted an end to slavery petitioned their government.
Americans who wanted an end to child labor petitioned their government.
Americans who wanted to end segregation policies petitioned their
government. Americans who wanted to protect our environment petitioned
their government.
Our constitutional system, the checks and balances between the three
coequal branches of government, was created to ensure protection of
minority rights, and throughout history many groups of individuals have
sought such protection from their government. Today, Americans who want
the protection of marriage laws for their same-sex partnerships are in
the process of petitioning their government.
The Constitution is for expanding rights, opportunities and
aspirations. I want to see the day when I can protect my family, my
life partner of 10 years, through the same laws and with the same
obligations, responsibilities and rights as can straight Americans.
These are my aspirations, both as an American and as a Member of
Congress, to see the Constitution that I have sworn to support and
protect illuminating a path to justice and equality for more and more
Americans.
The amendment we are debating today would do just the opposite. Why
would we amend the U.S. Constitution to say that one group of
Americans, gay and lesbian Americans, can no longer petition their
government for redress of grievances? A healthy and a vibrant debate on
same-sex marriage is occurring throughout this Nation at this very time
in break rooms, in dining rooms, in church basements. Don't cut it off.
It is what democracy is all about.
One State in our Union allows same-sex marriages, several others have
passed civil union protections for same-sex couples, and others still
are silent on the issue or have passed laws or State constitutional
amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage. This is what happens in a
democracy when people petition their government for change.
But we also know that this really isn't about the substance. It is
about politics. Why else would we be debating and voting on a measure
that the Senate has already effectively killed?
You will get your rollcall vote, but shame on you for playing
politics with people's families and their lives.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Graves).
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, today I proudly rise in support of House
Joint Resolution 88, the Marriage Protection Amendment.
Today, Mr. Speaker, 45 out of 50 States have enacted laws defining
marriage as a union between a man and a woman. That is 90 percent of
the States, and these States contain 88 percent of the population.
In August 2004, the people of my home State of Missouri
overwhelmingly voted by a majority of 71 to 29 percent to approve a
State constitutional amendment protecting the traditional definition of
marriage. Unfortunately, this sacred institution and the will of the
people are under direct assault by an out-of-control judiciary branch.
Radical judges on the supreme court of Massachusetts have already
imposed same-sex marriage in that Commonwealth against the wishes of a
majority of citizens, and I fear the activist State and Federal judges
will soon impose same-sex marriage upon other jurisdictions in our
Nation.
What that means is the people in my home State of Missouri may have
legal recognition of same-sex marriage forced upon them, even though 71
percent of Missourians voted to adopt an amendment preventing such a
practice.
Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly apparent that our only
recourse is to amend the Constitution of the United States. This is not
a decision I take lightly, but we must act to defend the foundation of
our society. Without such an amendment, people in Missouri, and many
other States, will be disenfranchised by the courts.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Senate has dealt with this, and, no, this isn't
a political issue. The reason that the Senate has dealt with this is
exactly why the House needs to stand up and send a positive message to
the American people about what is the best married environment to raise
our children, and that is an environment that is a marriage between a
man and a woman.
Mr. Speaker, this Congress as representatives of the American people
has a duty to protect marriage from attack by the courts. I urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of the Marriage Protection Amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first, let's be very clear:
this is not an attempt to restrain judges.
There have been two sources of opposition to same-sex marriage. A
large number of people who bear those of us who are gay and lesbian no
ill will have been opposed to it because they have heard that it would
lead to social disruption. That is a common theme when we deal with
issues involving particular groups in our society against whom there
has been discrimination.
I invite people to go back and read the debates over the Americans
with Disabilities Act to read what people like Pat Robertson said in
opposition to it. I remember this debate 30 years ago in Massachusetts
when we were talking about the Equal Rights Amendment. And so, yes, I
understand that there are people who are opposed to same-sex marriage
who do not in any way feel themselves prejudiced against gay men and
lesbians, but who worry about the social consequences.
I think here we can point to the facts. We had full civil unions in
Vermont in 2000. We have had same-sex marriage in Massachusetts for
over 2 years. In no case is there the slightest evidence of social
disruption. Let me say, though, that is one wing of the opposition.
There is another wing in the opposition, the people who are motivated
by this, who really, frankly, dislike the fact that we exist; and
disliking the fact that we exist individually, they are particularly
distraught at the notion that we will associate with each other in
various ways.
I want to address now the people who are worried about the social
consequences, because I invite people to look at the evidence. There
were no negatives.
But now let me go back to the point about the judges, because that is
relevant to Massachusetts, and the points are linked. Because in
Massachusetts what we have seen is that thousands of people have had
their lives enriched by being able to love each other in a legally
connected way, and it has been a good thing for them, and it has had
zero negative consequences. I believe the political community in
Massachusetts, through the elected legislature, maybe through a
referendum, although I hope it doesn't come to that, will support this.
Be very clear: this amendment says that even if the people of
Massachusetts, after 4 years of same-sex marriage being in existence,
vote to ratify it by a majority, their vote does not count. This
amendment cancels out a referendum.
In California, where the legislature voted for it, if a Governor
should be elected in November who would sign that bill, this amendment
says, no, legislature; no, Governor. We the Federal Government will
decide. So it is not about restraining activist judges. It is about
overruling any decision.
So then the question is, Why do it? Usually our view would be that if
people are going to benefit from something, enjoy it, we would let that
happen, in the absence of harm.
Now, clearly there is value to same-sex marriage. There are men and
women, millions of us, who, for reasons we don't understand, nobody
really does, in my judgment, feel an attraction to people of the same
sex. What many of them have said is, you know what, we would like to
have our love put into a legally connected context.
[[Page H5304]]
We want to be legally bound to each other, as we are emotionally and
morally.
Who is that hurting? Well, we are told that it hurts marriage. And
here is where the illogic comes in. People get up and say we have to be
against letting two women marry because it is very important that men
and women marry.
There is no connection. Nothing here threatens heterosexual marriage.
It is just the most illogical argument I have ever heard. If two men
are attracted to each other and want to live together legally, how does
that endanger heterosexual marriage?
So the argument that we must ban same-sex marriage to protect
heterosexual marriage literally makes no sense whatsoever. No one has
shown me what the connection is. As a matter of fact, of course, people
will have an example of people of the same sex living together, and if
that somehow destabilizes heterosexual marriage, then it is going to
happen.
If the gentleman wants me to yield, I would be glad to yield.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, what I would like
to ask is this: Does the gentleman see any problem with society
allowing preferential status in some ways to the traditional marriage
between a man and a woman? Because that, to me, is what it really comes
down to.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would say to the gentleman this: no, I
think we give preferential status to people who are married over people
who aren't. What I don't see, what no one has argued, is how does
allowing two men have that status interfere with the status. I assume
you give a preferential status because you want to give people an
incentive to marry. Okay, let's do that. Let's give people an incentive
to marry.
But if you are a heterosexual strongly attracted to someone of the
opposite sex and really not at all attracted to the idea of someone of
your same sex, how does the existence of that undermine this?
Yes, I think we should give a preference to heterosexual marriage. We
should incentivize it. How does the existence of same-sex marriage
discourage or retard heterosexual marriage? Would anyone want to answer
that for me?
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, the debate before us today, as has been
highlighted by people from both sides of the aisle, is about a
definition of marriage. I think that the point that in the subtlest way
has to be made clear, it is something that most Americans understand
logically, and that is marriage is not about love; it is about a love
that can bear children. There is a difference.
I love my parents. I love my family. I have friends that I love. But
I love my wife and we are married. Marriage is a love that bears
children and replenishes society along those lines.
I have been married personally for 31 years. We have six children and
even a grandson. The children are doing well. One is a first lieutenant
that just came back from Fallujah. The other two sons are over at the
Naval Academy. I have two daughters that have not gone off to school
yet.
All of those children, growing up with a mother and a father, have
understood the first primitive concepts of government. They have
understood what it is like to live under authority. They understand
what it is like to work hard. They have learned to walk and to talk and
to get along with each other and all of those things.
We also know that historically the people that are filling our
prisons, the people who socially get in trouble a lot are statistically
people who have not had the blessings of a loving mother and father and
a stable home. It doesn't mean that people can't get in trouble when
they come from that background, but statistically it is a lot easier
for a child to grow up with the benefit of a loving home with a mother
and a father.
So from a practical point of view, to preserve our civilization and
society, it is important for us to preserve marriage. It is not just
love; it is a love that produces children.
We ask ourselves, well, is this such a big debate? Really it
shouldn't be. We have 45 States that have passed legislation saying a
marriage is between a man and a woman. Also anybody who knows something
about the history of the human race knows that there is no civilization
which has condoned homosexual marriage widely and openly that has long
survived.
It is for the practical reason that marriage is about bringing the
next generation along, and it works best with one dad and one mom. That
is what a great majority of Americans believe.
So it is sad that we have to basically tell our courts, because of
their activist nature, the beliefs of such a great block of Americans.
I will conclude my comments by doing something that I don't know that
I have done on the floor before, and that is to call attention to my
colleague, the gentlewoman from Colorado, Marilyn Musgrave, who has had
the courage to do what seems so obvious, so obvious to at least 45
States' worth of Americans, to bring this amendment to the floor.
For her efforts to defend plain old traditional marriage, she has had
millions of dollars thrown against her, and even a television ad that I
have seen of some fat pink-dressed lady that is stealing jewelry off a
corpse. She has had to put up with that.
I say to you, Congresswoman Musgrave, we are proud of you, and we
thank you for standing up for something that is so foundational to our
society.
{time} 1245
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
minority leader of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. I thank Mr. Nadler for yielding and for his great
leadership in defending the Constitution of the United States which is,
of course, our oath of office.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank Mr. Conyers, the gentleman from
Michigan, for his leadership on this important issue, and to say to
Congresswoman Baldwin and to Congressman Frank what an honor it is to
serve with you in the Congress. It is a privilege to call you
colleague.
Mr. Speaker, the crisis in the Middle East reminds us that it is our
responsibility as a Congress to address the urgent priorities of the
American people. Yet today it is painfully obvious that instead of
tackling the challenges facing our Nation and our world, Republicans
want to persist in their agenda to distract and to divide.
That is why the American people are demanding a new direction. That
is why they say in great numbers that our country is going in the wrong
direction. The challenges that our country face are too great for the
Republican politics as usual. The constitutional amendment that we are
debating today has been brought to this floor with full knowledge that
it has no prospect for success either now or in the near future, the
foreseeable future.
This is a partisan exercise by Republicans to divide the American
people rather than forge consensus to solve our urgent problems. Our
Constitution, which we all take an oath to support and defend, is an
enduring and living document that has throughout our history expanded
rights, not diminished them.
Though the Federal marriage amendment claims to protect marriage, it
benefits no one and actually limits the rights of millions of
Americans. In September, I am happy to say, my husband and I will be
celebrating our 43rd wedding anniversary. I am a mother of five, we
have five children and five grandchildren, expecting our sixth
grandchild in October. And we certainly appreciate the value of family.
We see family in our community as a source of strength and a source
of comfort to people. What constitutes that family is an individual and
personal decision. But for all, it is a place where people find love,
comfort and support. As we consider this amendment, we must understand
we are talking about our fellow citizens, equal under the law, who are
lesbian and gay, and what it means to them. They are members of our
communities with dreams and aspirations, including their right to find
comfort, love and support on equal terms.
They have every right and every expectation of any American that they
are entitled to the very purposes for which this country was founded,
that
[[Page H5305]]
we are all created equal by our Creator, and endowed with inalienable
rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Let me tell you about two extraordinary constituents of mine, I have
talked about them on the floor before. Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin,
both in their eighties, and they have lived together for more than 50
years. They are grandparents, by the way, they are grandmothers. Their
commitment, their love and their happiness are a source of strength to
all who know them.
They are leaders in our community and are held in high esteem by all
who know them. Why should they not have the full protection of the law
to be able to share each other's health and bereavement benefits, to be
able to share all of the protections and rights accruing to financial
relationships, inheritance and immigration?
Why should Phyllis and Del and millions of gay and lesbian citizens
not be treated equally and not be afforded the legal protections
conferred by marriage? I will again vote against this amendment, as I
have in the past, because it is counter to the noble ideas of liberty,
freedom and equality for which this Nation stands.
This amendment defiles our cherished Constitution by saying that some
members of our society are not equal under the law. This is blatant
discrimination. It is wrong. It does not belong in our Constitution. It
is contrary again to the noble purpose for which this Nation was
founded, and it is contrary to the principle of ending discrimination,
unifying our country, and fostering equality for all.
The American people demand that this Congress address their
priorities: creation of jobs, creating a minimum wage that has not been
raised in 9 years, gas prices that are over $3 a gallon, and the
skyrocketing cost of higher education. That is what they want us to be
doing here.
Mr. Speaker, let us strive to do the work of the American people. Let
us strive to unite our country, take our country in a whole new
direction, let us honor our Constitution, let us honor all of God's
children and let us reject this amendment.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Marriage
Protection Amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs.
Musgrave).
Mr. Speaker, over the past few days some people have asked me, Why
are we having this debate and this vote? I think this is an issue that
the American people want their Representatives to debate and to vote
on. And that is why it is part of the American Values Agenda that we
released last month.
It has been front-page news all across the country, sparking intense
debate amongst our fellow citizens. Many people that we represent
believe the Congress needs to act. While 45 of the 50 States have
either a State constitutional amendment or a statute that preserves the
current definition of marriage, left-wing activist judges and officials
at the local levels have struck down State laws protecting marriage.
The American people should decide this issue, not out-of-touch judges
who are bent on redefining what marriage is for America's moms and
dads. Poll after poll shows that the American people don't want
marriage to be redefined by judges today and for our children tomorrow.
And protecting the institution of marriage safeguards, I believe, the
American family. Studies show that children best flourish when one mom
and one dad are there to raise them. And 30 years of social science
evidence confirms that children respond best when their mom or dad are
married and live at home. And that is why marriage and family law has
emphasized the importance of marriage as the foundation of family,
addressing the needs of children in the most positive way.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to send a strong message to
America's moms and dads rather than allowing judges to redefine
marriage. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman).
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, how ironic that we consider this
discriminatory, so-called marriage protection measure just one week
after successfully renewing by a strong bipartisan margin a landmark
piece of civil rights legislation, the Voting Rights Act.
The Voting Rights Act brought millions of Americans into the heart of
American democracy. It has been a critical milestone in our Nation's
ongoing quest to live up to the ideals of equality and freedom embodied
in the Constitution. In contrast, today's legislation, if passed, would
be a tragic step backwards. Amending the Constitution to limit the
rights of a specific group amounts to government-sanctioned
discrimination, and tramples on the prerogative of the State to define
community values.
Regulation of marriage is historically a State-sanctioned enterprise.
How hypocritical it is for those who often invoke States rights to
claim this is a Federal issue. I believe I understand something about
the cruel effects of discrimination on the individual and society at
large.
You see, my father was a refugee from Nazi Germany. His medical
school class was the last to graduate before the Nazi purges of Jewish
students began. He and some of my family fled Germany a year later.
Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest joys of my life occurred recently. I
became a grandmother for the first time.
I urge this House to carefully assess how our action today will
impact future generations. And I wish for little Lucy a world in which
prejudice and discrimination are mere footnotes in her high school
history book. Vote ``no.''
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I think we can
probably agree on today is the opponents of this legislation have
questioned why we are even here. Mr. Speaker, I agree with them on that
and disagree with them on almost everything else, because it just
baffles me, as we think about our Founding Fathers dreaming that we
would ever stand here and have to debate the definition of marriage and
whether or not that was between a man and a woman.
Earlier today I stood where you are now standing and I listened to
some of the words that were used against this legislation. I wrote some
of them down. And one of the words was ``hateful.'' And as I wrote that
down, all I could think about is if you want a definition of hateful,
look at the attacks that have been brought against the sponsor of this
piece of legislation across the country for daring to bring it to the
floor for debate. That defines hateful.
And then they raised the word ``unimportant.'' And they list all of
the other things that they think are important. And that frightens me,
because they do not recognize the difference and the importance of the
connection between strong marriages in this country and the strength of
our Nation.
And then they call it divisive. Divisive to dare to stand against
activist judges who will try to redefine literally hundreds of years of
historical sanctioning of the institution of marriage. And then they
say it is intolerant.
They couch themselves with love, and all they want to do is have
love. Well, Mr. Speaker, suppose you have a teacher who loves her 13-
year-old student, and just says, all we want to do is love each other
and be together. We would never think of sanctioning that. Suppose you
have a situation where a husband came in and said I love three wives.
Just let me love them. How is that harming society?
I think, Mr. Speaker, you could use every argument you hear on this
floor today against this legislation to justify both of those two
situations. But, Mr. Speaker, I think one of the things that bothers me
most is when we hear the argument that we shouldn't try because this
legislation just won't pass.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we try because we believe that values are still
important in America. We try because we believe marriage between a man
and a woman is a cornerstone of those values. We try
[[Page H5306]]
because we believe the only way to protect the rights of States to
define marriage for themselves is to pass this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand with those who support this
legislation and those who understand that this historic relationship
between a man and a woman is worth defending, even if we do not
succeed.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Gene Green) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J.
Res. 88.
I believe that the institution of marriage should consist of one man
and one woman and I voted for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, but I
cannot support this bill.
The Defense of Marriage Act has never been challenged in the Supreme
Court and it seems like we are putting the cart before the horse.
We should allow our system of checks and balances to work as it has
for over 200 years. Our founding fathers created three branches of
government to work independently, but equally.
In Texas, we already have a law that states that the institution of
marriage is between one man and one woman. We also have a law that
states that Texas does not have to recognize marriages that were
performed outside of the state of Texas.
Even if other states decide to change their standards for issuing
marriage licenses. It will not change how marriage licenses are issued
in Texas.
The Defense of Marriage Act supports our state laws. Marriage is a
state issue and it should remain so. When my wife and I married 36
years ago we went to our county courthouse, not our federal courthouse.
We do not seek marriage licenses from the federal government.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri.
Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, in 1974, I was ordained as an elder in the
United Methodist Church after having completed 3 years of seminary, 4
years of undergraduate work. I have been pastoring for 32 years. As of
today, I have never, ever been asked to perform a wedding between same-
sex partners. I do not even know of a minister who has ever been made
that request.
And so I am not sure how significant this is, except for the fact
that I am not here to defend anything except the church. We have people
sitting in the gallery and people looking at this broadcast all across
America. And the chances are really high that almost 100 percent of
them have marriage licenses signed by a member of the clergy, and not a
Member of Congress.
Marriage was ordained by God, and in all of the weddings the words
are read, ``Marriage is an institution by God signifying the uniting of
this man and this woman in holy matrimony''.
And then we go on to say that, in my tradition, ``Christ adorned and
beautified marriage when he performed his first miracle at the wedding
in Cana of Galilee.
{time} 1300
Marriage is sacred. It is holy. It is an institution created by the
church. Now, the United States Congress is going to trespass on the
property of the church?
I am concerned that we have gone too far. Every judicatory or
denomination in the world is debating this issue, and it should remain
in that domain, not on the floor of Congress. I don't want Congress to
approve or disapprove how we perform marriages in my church.
I sat on the front row in December, and I thought about Exodus: For 6
days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a
sabbath of rest for the Lord. Whoever does any work on it must be put
to death.
As I thought about that, we were sitting here on a Sunday morning
debating the defense bill.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out to my friend from
Missouri that in order to become States in the United States of
America, Arizona and Utah had to change their own State constitutions
to recognize marriage as a union between one man and one woman in order
to do away with polygamy.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).
Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and thank him for
bringing this amendment to the floor and managing the time. I also
would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the leadership of my colleague
from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) on this issue. She has been a true
champion, not only a champion inside this Chamber, but a champion for
the values that I think a vast majority of Americans hold dear. For
that she has paid what has already been recognized as a significant
personal price. Again, I applaud her and I certainly admire her
character and her tenacity.
Mr. Speaker, this debate seems to be framed by talking about what we
are against. I think what we ought to be talking about, frankly, is
what we are for. Too often in society, especially these days, it seems
like we are against the very institutions that made this Nation great.
I see above your head, Mr. Speaker, the words ``in God we trust,''
and directly opposite you over my left shoulder is the medallion of the
very first law giver, Moses. We all know where those laws came from,
the very hand of God.
I think very often about the fact that we proudly profess that we are
founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I think it is indisputable where
those principles come from and what the origin of those principles is.
I believe that in the very beginning He created us, yes, all equal.
The distinguished minority leader mentioned that a little bit ago, that
we celebrate the fact that we were all created equal by our Creator,
equal but different, and for a purpose. He showed us that purpose in
the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve. He showed us once again, and blessed
that difference, at Cana, as my friend and colleague from Missouri just
referenced, by Jesus performing his first miracle by blessing that
wedding feast between a man and a woman.
I think there is a reason why marriage has always been such a sacred
institution. I believe some things, some definitions in our society are
absolute. Up isn't down, dark isn't daylight, black isn't white, fish
isn't fowl, and marriage, since the beginning of time, as close as I
can tell, has been between a man and a woman. If it was, indeed, good
enough for our Creator, and it was indeed our Creator's plan, that we
were created different for an absolute divine purpose, I think we best
not be messing with His plan today.
It is important, I will disagree with my colleague from Missouri in
this regard, it is very important that when a nation is, indeed,
founded upon Judeo-Christian principles that we are willing to stand
and define what we are for, lest we forget what we are about.
I strongly encourage the adoption of this amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the
constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage. If this
amendment were to pass, it would mean the first time in history that
the Constitution has been amended to include discrimination. I believe
in marriage as a stabilizing force in our society, as a nurturing
environment for our children, as a public expression of the most
profound love and devotion of a commitment between two people to take
responsibility for one another, in a legal and a personal sense, in
sickness and in health.
The vast majority of marriages are, and, of course always will be,
between one man and one woman. But the same virtues of couplehood apply
to any loving adults.
Surely the 27-year relationship of my dear friends Michael and Roger
does not threaten my marriage in any way. The loving family that Ann
and Jackie expanded when they adopted David, giving him two adoring
parents, is a good thing, regardless what anyone may say to the
contrary, although they are free to say it.
But nothing in the Constitution should be established to exclude them
from the rights that they deserve. There are so many pressing issues
right now that are working, that undermine families.
Same-sex couples embrace the positive values of families. Let's spend
our
[[Page H5307]]
limited time here as lawmakers helping all American families, and not
discriminating against any.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that if this amendment
does, in fact, make marriage, well, discriminate, and the opponents
want to make marriage more inclusive, then is it not also true that we
should and will broaden the definition of marriage, so that as Mr.
Forbes from Virginia pointed out it is not merely a matter of one same-
sex couple.
But why are we tripping over the word ``couple''? Why can't marriage
be three people or four people? Why can't it be a combination, if that
is what we are talking about.
I want to point that out to my friends, that this doesn't just end
with being one definition or the other if you don't want to go with
this definition.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to say amen to everything my colleagues
who have just spoken before me, Mr. Forbes and Mr. Beauprez, said. They
made very eloquent arguments.
Mr. Speaker, if Members of the House vote as their States have voted
on this amendment, the amendment will pass. Forty-five States have
defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. As a sociologist, I
taught, and I believe, that marriage is the foundational institution of
every culture. It is under attack by the courts. It needs to be
defended in this way by defining it as the union of a man and a woman.
If it is going to be defined otherwise, it must be done by the
legislatures and not by the courts. Today we are going to vote on a
constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of a man and a
woman. This is about who is going to determine the definition, whether
it is the courts or the legislative bodies.
The amendment is about how we are going to raise the next generation.
How are they going to be raised? It is a fundamental issue for our
families and for our future. It is an issue for the people. It is not
an issue that the courts should resolve.
Those of us who support this amendment are doing so in an effort to
let the people decide. We are making progress in America on defining
marriage as the union of a man and a woman and will not stop until it
is defined and protected as that union. Marriage is about our future. I
continue to be struck by the opponents of this amendment, who say it is
an effort to promote discrimination. The amendment is about promoting
our future, our families, about how we raise the next generation and
about allowing a definition of marriage that is as old as the creation
of human beings.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the Marriage Protection
Amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his
leadership. Of course, I stand in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 88.
This amendment seeks to enshrine, and it does seek to enshrine,
discrimination into our Constitution. As an African American woman, and
as a person of faith, there is no way that I can support discriminating
against anybody. The history of our Nation has been a long process of
bringing people of different backgrounds together.
This amendment would take everything that this Nation stands for as a
beacon of hope, a land of opportunity, and a tolerant, democratic
society and turn it all on its head. Government should not be in the
business of discriminating against its people, pure and simple.
Government should not get into the personal lives of individuals.
We must reject this, and it is a hateful and discriminatory
amendment. It takes an extraordinary step that previous amendments have
not taken. It bars States from granting pretty much any legal
partnership such as civil unions or domestic partnerships.
Congress is supposed to work to promote a better life for all
Americans. That means improving our Nation's education system, working
to provide health care for the 47 million uninsured, ensuring that
people have a roof over their heads.
We must see this amendment for what it is. It is clearly election-
year pandering. It is an attempt to create a diversion from the real
issues that this Congress should be dealing with.
This is clear election year pandering. This is simply an attempt to
create a diversion from the real issues this Congress should be dealing
with.
It's also an amendment once again enshrouded in an attempt to cloud
the public's image of same-gender couples. They want to fill everyone's
head with images of gay couples marching into churches and demanding
marriage equality. This has nothing, nothing at all to do with churches
and marriage.
The Republican Leadership wants to rile up the religious right with
the idea that this has to do with an attempt to force religious
institutions to sanctify same-sex couples.
Same-sex couples merely want the same rights that many take for
granted; hospital visitation rights, health care benefits, inheritance
rights, and joint tax-filing. These all come with civil ceremonies,
through a license granted by a local county or city, not through an
order signed by a church or any religious institution. We must make
clear, this is about equal rights.
I urge my colleagues, and the public, to see this amendment for what
it is really for. A mere political diversion tactic and an attempt to
write hate into the Constitution.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I would invite the previous speaker, my
friend, to watch one of the 527 ads that are being run against Mrs.
Musgrave. If she wants to see hateful speech, and one of the most
hideous hateful acts that I have witnessed on any Member of Congress, I
would invite anybody who is talking about hate to watch the ads that
are run against our colleague for sponsorship of this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Inglis).
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. I will be voting for the amendment. I have got questions,
though. Why now? Why this amendment? Why now?
No court has ordered the State of South Carolina to recognize a
Massachusetts marriage. In fact, it is all within any given State. If a
court had ordered South Carolina to recognize a Massachusetts marriage,
this amendment would not be failing today on the House floor, as we all
know it will. It would be passing with a significant margin.
I also have a question about why this amendment. Why not a federalism
amendment? Why not an amendment that honors the 10th amendment to the
Constitution that says that all powers not delegated to the Federal
Government are reserved to the States?
As it is, this amendment is not what it should be. It should be a
federalism amendment. It should be an amendment that says States have
the prerogative to define marriage within their boundaries. As it is,
we are providing a Federal definition of marriage, or attempting to do
so, in this amendment that will fail.
I think it is also important to ask why this amendment, and to point
out that no one should be under the misimpression that we are here
mandating, let's say, a biblical definition of marriage. If we were, we
would be directing the States only to grant divorces on the biblical
basis of infidelity. But nobody is proposing such an amendment.
Why? Because we have avoided the dangers of a theocracy. I agree with
what my colleague from Missouri said earlier, Mr. Cleaver: this is the
church's business. This is the synagogue's business. This is the
business of the mosque to figure out what is marriage within their
definition.
Now, when a State gets involved, it is really just about children and
the result of divorce. Why now? Why this amendment? But yet the
question is simply brought up, so we vote for it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle, I do believe in the separation of church
and State, as one asked the question that we should be talking about
what we believe in.
{time} 1315
I believe in the 10th amendment and its constitutional premise: ``The
powers not delegated to the United States
[[Page H5308]]
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people.''
My good friend who just spoke from South Carolina made a very valid
point, that we are now tampering with constitutional privileges that we
have yielded to the States, and more importantly, the Bill of Rights
and the Constitution have made it very clear that it is a document of
enhancement, of affirmation of rights.
My concern is that we are now standing on the floor of this sacred
body denying rights to human beings and Americans. We are denying the
rights, the privacy rights, civil liberties rights. We are even going
so far as to deny visitation rights at hospitals and the ability to
mourn your loved one.
Might I say that this past week a dear, beloved friend of mine
mourned his partner, mourned his partner, and all of the community came
to acknowledge the leadership of his partner. Is his grief or his loss
to be degraded on this floor, to be denied, to ask the question whether
it was not a special and sacred relationship?
So I ask my colleagues, as we corrected the enslavement of those of
us who came here first in the bottom of the belly of a slave boat with
the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment, affirmation of rights, creating
rights, not denying rights, I will not stand here on the floor today
and accept the responsibility of denying rights. Might I say, the
Senate, the other body, has already spoken. They could not get a simple
majority. Why? It is wrong to deny rights to Americans.
I will not allow the flag to be desecrated by this amendment. Defeat
this constitutional offering and bring back freedom to America.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is the symbol of the misplaced
priorities of the Republican leadership in the House. It is clear that
this amendment is being addressed not for the policy involved but
simply for floor debate. We have considered this issue in Congress
before, and doing so again is simply a waste of taxpayers' money. This
debate is ill-advised and will not help the American people. Issues we
could be addressing here today are: the global war on terrorism we are
fighting, from which we have been distracted by the war in Iraq, and a
war that has resulted in a devastating toll on American lives and our
budget; the crisis in the Middle East; increasing gas prices; a
ballooning budget deficit of over $5 trillion that is choking our
economy and crucial social service programs; and a health care system
that is failing the millions of Americans that remain uninsured.
Why are we wasting time on the House floor, in our legislative
offices and with our valuable staff to handle this imprudent amendment?
I oppose this bill because, for the first time in America's rich and
long democratic history, the Constitution will be used not as a beacon
of liberation but an instrument of deprivation. On the 230-year
anniversary of our Constitution, let us not desecrate it by enacting
this act. H.J. Res. 88, the ``Marriage Protection Amendment,'' proposes
to impose the opinion of a minority of the members of this Congress on
the lives of all Americans on matters that concern their personal
lives, their family relations, and their very identity.
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.'' 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.
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 marry amounts to a
federal taking--legal rights in pensions, health insurance, hospital
visitations, and inheritance that other long-term committed couples
enjoy. It should never be our job to restrict the rights of the
American people--only to extend them. This amendment would write
discrimination into our Constitution.
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
taxpayers' 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.
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.
Furthermore, any law determining who may or may not marry denies
religious institutions the right to decide this amongst themselves and
is therefore a denial of the religious freedoms that we treasure so
dearly.
Leading civil rights and religious organizations across the Nation
have expressed their opposition to this amendment. Among them are: the
Anti-Defamation League; the Alliance of Baptists; the American Civil
Liberties Union; the League of Women Voters of the United States; the
American Jewish Committee; the NAACP; and many more.
I have here in my hand a letter to Representatives Hastert and
Pelosi, signed by over 2,500 members of the clergy in our Nation. They
come from different faiths and backgrounds, and may disagree on many
things, but they all oppose this 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. It 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 Marriage
Protection 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.
mpa 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 when 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 MPA is a lawyer's dream and a judge's nightmare. The number of
cases that will flood
[[Page H5309]]
the system will be outlandish. Does the MPA retroactively invalidate
all marriages that have occurred in the interim? If a spouse has died,
how does the retroactive annulment effect custody of the children, or
property rights? There will be a litany of case law brought out to deal
with these questions, and our judicial system will be filled with cases
trying to sort out the lasting effects of the MPA.
this is likely to fail
Amending the constitution is not a simple thing, and should be done
with care and caution over a longer period of time. Our haste in this
matter will be the tragic flaw of the MPA's journey. Recent polls show
that a majority of people who oppose gay marriage also oppose amending
the constitution to ban them. In addition, this amendment has already
been considered in the Senate and was rejected.
MPA does not help families
Many of my colleagues are arguing that the MPA 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 MPA 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 to all.
the legal incident of marriage warrants a license
Marriage provides a multitude of critical protections to 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. If
``marriage'' 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.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, if I could just
respond to the question of federalism.
There is a mistake on this floor when people are talking about this
being a violation of federalism. Federalism, properly understood, is a
check on the power of the Federal Government by the State government
and vice versa.
The reason why the federalism issue does not apply here is because
marriage and the family is likewise an institution, although a private
one, which provides a countervailing source of power vis-a-vis the
government, and there are lot of arguments on the floor. It is too bad
we do not have a lot more time to talk about it.
The simple question, though, is are we going to fundamentally change
the definition of marriage, understood in this country since its
founding, and allow a preferential status for marriage properly
understood? That is what we are really talking about. It is not
discrimination. It is the question of whether you allow the traditional
form of marriage to be given preferential status.
Those that argue against this amendment do not want that to be the
case anymore. They are the ones that are overturning history and
overturning the way things have been done for several hundred years in
this country and thousands of years in this culture.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Federalism is the division of power between the Federal Government
and the States. Family law, marriage, divorce have always been a matter
for the States. This amendment attempts to seize it for the Federal
Government. That is a major change in federalism, whatever the
gentleman from California may say.
It is most certainly an issue of federalism because the Federal
Government has never before gotten into the definition of marriage or
divorce or any of those things. It has always been left to the States
until this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from New York (Mr. Israel).
Mr. ISRAEL. I thank my friend from New York, and Mr. Speaker, I rise
to oppose this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the grave crisis that a constitutional
amendment demands. I will tell you what the grave crises are that we
should be spending our time on.
North Korea tested a ballistic missile last week. We are still
waiting for a strategy for success in Iraq. Gas prices are
skyrocketing. War is erupting in the Middle East. And Congress wants
the American people to believe that same-sex marriages are the gravest
threat to their security.
We need to be focusing on issues of true security and safety for the
American people and not on rhetorical devices that have no substantive
meaning, because the other body already defeated it.
Mr. Speaker, I spent all morning this morning at the National Defense
University participating in a military exercise with respect to Iran's
development of nuclear weapons. I spent my time trying to figure out
how we are going to protect the American people from that threat, and
then I come to the floor of the House, and we waste time debating how
we are going to protect the American people from same-sex marriages
when we cannot even amend the Constitution in this session of Congress.
If we spent more time trying to hunt down Osama bin Laden and less
time trying to hunt down people in marriages that we find
objectionable, we would all be safer.
Now, I have a deep respect for my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle and on the other side of this issue, but I would suggest that the
American people want us focused on real security and real safety.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if I can ask the gentleman from New York,
I have one more speaker. Then we are ready to close.
Mr. NADLER. I will yield to Ms. Jackson-Lee for a unanimous consent
request, and then you have your speaker, and I will close for my side
and you close for yours. Let me ask how much time we have left at this
point.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from New York
(Mr. Nadler) has 3 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Kingston) has 4\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee) for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record at
this point the Clergy for Fairness, Religious Leaders Opposed to the
Federal Marriage Amendment, that shows the standing of the religious
community of America. It is entitled: ``We, the People.''
Clergy for Fairness,
Washington, DC, July 7, 2006.
Rep. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House,
Washington, DC.
Rep Nancy Pelosi,
House Minority Leader,
Washington, DC.
Dear Rep. Hastert and Rep. Pelosi: As clergy from a broad
spectrum of religious traditions we hold diverse views
regarding marriage. However, we are united in our opposition
to amending the U.S. Constitution to define marriage.
The Marriage Protection Amendment raises alarming
constitutional concerns. We do not favor using the
constitutional amendment process to resolve the divisive
issues of the moment. Loading down the Constitution with such
amendments weakens the enormous influence it holds as the key
document that binds our nation together.
We are concerned that the Marriage Protection Amendment
would mark the first time in history that an amendment to the
Constitution would restrict the civil rights of an entire
group of Americans. Misusing our nation's most cherished
document for this purpose would tarnish our proud tradition
of expanding citizens' rights by Constitutional amendment, a
tradition long supported by America's faith communities.
These concerns alone merit rejection of the Marriage
Protection Amendment.
We also share a serious concern that the proposed Marriage
Protection Amendment would infringe on religious liberty.
Thoughtful people of faith can and do disagree on the issue
of marriage. America's many religious traditions reflect this
diversity of opinion, as do we who sign this letter.
[[Page H5310]]
But we respect the right of each religious group to decide,
based on its own religious teachings, whether or not to
sanction marriage of same-sex couples. It is surely not the
federal government's role to prefer one religious definition
of marriage over another, much less to codify such a
preference in the Constitution. To the contrary: the great
contribution of our Constitution is to ensure religious
liberty for all.
Some argue that a constitutional amendment is necessary to
ensure that clergy and faith groups will never be forced to
recognize marriages of same-sex couples against their will.
This argument is unfounded. Such coercion is already
expressly forbidden by the First Amendment's
``establishment'' clause, its guarantee of the right to
``free exercise'' of religion, and the Supreme Court's
doctrine of religious autonomy that is rooted in both
religion clauses. These, and only these, are all the
protection of religious autonomy--and of religious
marriage--our nation needs.
Our nation's founders adopted the First Amendment precisely
because they understood the dangers of allowing government to
have control over religious doctrine and decisions. It is
this commitment to religious freedom that has allowed
religious practice and pluralism to flourish in America as
nowhere else. If this freedom is to be maintained, we must
respect the rights of faith communities to apply their own
religious teachings and values to the issue of same-sex
relationships. It is surely not the business of politicians
to assert control over the doctrine and practice of our faith
communities.
The Marriage Protection Amendment would dignify
discrimination and undermine religious liberty. America's
religious communities do not support this amendment. As
leaders of these communities, we urge you to vote against any
attempt to pass this Amendment.
Respectfully,
Rev. Richard K. Heacock, Jr., United Methodist, Fairbanks,
AK.
Rev. Janice A. Hotze, Episcopal, St. Michael and All
Angels, Haines, AK.
Rev. Dale Kelley, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ),
Unalaska, AK.
Rev. Robert Thomas, Jr., Episcopal, St. Peter's, Seward,
AK.
Rev. Diana Jordan Allende, Unitarian Universalist, Auburn
UU Fellowship, Auburn, AL.
Rabbi Jeffrey Ballon, Jewish, Bnai Shalom, Huntsville, AL.
The Rev. James Creasy, Episcopal, Opelika, AL.
Rev. Peter M. Horn, Episcopal, Vestavia Hills, AL.
Mr. Steven T. Karnes, Jewish, Kingdom Of Yahwey Assembly,
Phenix City, AL.
Rev. Ruth B. LaMonte, Episcopal, Trinity Church,
Birmingham, AL.
Rev. Lynette Lanphere, Episcopalian, Leeds, AL.
Rev. Elizabeth L. O'Neill, Presbyterian, Immanuel PCUSA,
Montgomery, AL.
Rev. Marjorie F. Ragona, Metropolitan Community Churches,
Bethel, Birmingham, AL.
Rev. Mary C. Robert, Episcopal, All Saints, Mobile, AL.
Rev. Alice I. Syltie, Unitarian Universalist, UU Church of
Huntsville Alabama, Huntsville, AL.
Rev. Jack Zylman, Unitarian Universalist Church of
Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
Pastor Robert Anderson, Lutheran, Hot Springs Village, AR.
Rev. Alma T. Beck, Episcopal, St. Michael's Episcopal
Church, Little Rock, AR.
Rev. Sharon M. Coote, Christian Church (Disciples of
Christ), Pulaski Heights Christian Church, Little Rock, AR.
Rev. Stephen J. Copley, Mr. United Methodist Church, North
Little Rock, AR.
Rev. Gerald G. Crawford, II, Episcopal, St. Mark's,
Crossett, AR.
Rev. Marc Fredette, Unitarian Universalist, Unitarian
Universalist Fellowship of Fayetteville, Fayetteville, AR.
Rev. Dr. Raymond Hearn, Presbyterian, Hot Springs Village,
AR.
Rev. Robert Klein, Unitarian Universalist, Unitarian
Universalist Church of Little Rock, Little Rock, AR.
Rabbi Eugene H. Levy, Jewish, B'nai Israel, Little Rock,
AR.
Rev. Samuel C. Loudenslager, Episcopalian, St. Michael's
Episcopal Church, Bigelow, AR.
Rev. Betty Grace McCollum, Unitarian Universalist, Emerson,
AR.
Rev. Phillip R. Plunkett, Episcopal, Little Rock, AR.
Rev. Donna L. Rountree, Christian Church (Disciples of
Christ), Scott, AR.
Rev. Anne Russ, PCUSA, Grace Presbyterian, Little Rock, AR.
Rev. Dan R. Thornhill, Christian Church (Disciples of
Christ), Parkview Christian Church (Disciples of Christ),
Little Rock, AR.
Rev. Kenneth Reuel Ahlstrand, Evangelical Lutheran Church
in America, Beautiful Savior, Oro Valley, AZ.
Rev. Rosemary G. Anderson, United Methodist, Apache
Junction, AZ.
The Rev. Susan Anderson-Smith, Episcopal, St. Philip's In
the Hills, Tucson, AZ.
Rev. Leslie S. Argueta-Vogel, Presbyterian (USA), Phoenix,
AZ.
Rev. Curtis A. Beardsley, Independant Catholic, Reyna del
Tepeya, Apostolic Catholic Church of Antioch, Phoenix, AZ.
Rev. Franklyn Bergen, Episcopalian, St.Andrew's Tucson, AZ,
Tucson, AZ.
Rabbi Alan Berlin, Jewish, Scottsdale, AZ.
Rev. Andre R. Boulanger, MA, STL, Roman Catholic, Phoenix,
AZ.
Rev. Larry David Bridge, Christian Church (Disciples of
Christ) & United Church of Christ, Scottsdale Congregational
United Church of Christ, Scottsdale, AZ.
Rabbi Mari Chernow, Jewish, Temple Chai, Phoenix, AZ.
Rev. Rula Colvin, Methodist, Gilbert, AZ.
Rev. James Dew, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America,
Santa Cruz Lutheran Church, Tucson, AZ.
Rev. Barbara D. Doerrer-Peacock, United Church of Christ,
South Mountain Community Church, Tempe, AZ.
Rev. Richard Doerrer-Peacock, United Church of Christ,
South Mountain Community Church, Tempe, AZ.
Rev. Dr. Eric Elnes, United Church of Christ, Scottsdale
Congregational United Church of Christ, Scottsdale, AZ.
Rev. Barbara M. Farwell, Presbyterian, Serving as chaplain
in lifecare community, Sun City, AZ.
Rev. Mary S. Harris, Presbyterian, Tucson, AZ.
The Rev. Robert Harvey, Episcopal, Tucson, AZ.
Rev. William H. Jacobs, Disciples of Christ, First
Christian Church of Mesa, AZ, Tempe, AZ.
Rev. Dawn E. Keller, ELCA, Tucson, AZ.
Rev. Steve J. Keplinger, Episcopalian, St. David's, Page,
AZ.
Rev. Delores J. Kropf, Ecumenical Catholic, St. Mihael's
Ecumenical Catholic Church, Tucson, AZ.
Fr. Gordon K. McBride, Episcopal, Grace St. Paul's, Tucson,
AZ.
Rev. Gary N. McCluskey, Lutheran (ELCA), University
Lutheran, Tempe, AZ.
Rev. Marc E. McDonald, United Methodist, Hope UMC, Bullhead
City, AZ.
Fr. Brian H. O. A. McHugh, Episcopal, Coolidge, AZ.
Rev. Lee J. Milligan, United Church of Christ, Church of
the Painted Hills, Tucson, AZ.
Rev. Kimberly Murman, Presbyterian Church (USA), Mesa, AZ.
Rev. Briget Nicholson, United Church of Christ, First,
Tucson, AZ.
Rev. James Parkhurst, United Methodist, Phoenix, AZ.
Rev. David W. Ragan, United Church of Christ, Phoenix, AZ.
Rev. Rod Richards, Unitarian Universalist, UU Church of SE
Arizona, Bisbee, AZ.
Rev. Ann Rogers-Witte, United Church of Christ, Shadow Rock
UCC, Phoenix, AZ.
Rev. Liana Rowe, UCC, Phoenix, AZ.
Rev. Ron Rude, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America,
Tucson, AZ.
Rev. Anne Sawyer, Episcopal, St. Andrew's, Tucson, AZ.
Rev. Kelli M. Shepard, Lutheran, Faith Lutheran, Tempe, AZ.
Rev. Gerry Straatemeier, MSW, Religious Science, Tucson,
AZ.
Rev. James Strader, Episcopal, University of Arizona
Episcopal Campus Ministry, Tucson, AZ.
Rabbi Andrew Straus, Jewish, Temple Emanuel of Tempe,
Tempe, AZ.
Rev. Charlotte Strayhorne, Independent, Casa de Cristo
Evangelical Church, Phoenix, AZ.
Rabbi Lisa Tzur, Jewish, Temple Gan Elohim, Scottsdale, AZ.
Rev. Dr. Stephen Wayles, United Church of Christ, 1st
Congregational UCC, Phoenix, AZ, Phoenix, AZ.
Rev. Fletch Wideman, United Church of Christ, Shadow Rock
UCC, Glendale, AZ.
Rev. Susan K. Wintz, MDiv, BCC, Presbyterian Church (USA),
Mesa, AZ.
Deborah J. Davis, Jewish, Humanistic Jewish Congregation,
San Diego, CA.
Rev. Luke Adams, Independent Catholic Churches
International, Order of St. Luke the Healer, Oakland, CA.
Rev. Joseph M. Amico, United Church of Christ, Sunland, CA.
Rev. John Anderson, Presbyterian, San Francisco, CA.
Rev. Charlotte L. Asher, United Church of Christ, Redwood
City, Redwood City, CA.
Rev. Joy Atkinson, Unitarian Universalist, Berkeley, CA.
Susan J. Averbach, Jewish Humanist, Kol Hadash, San
Francisco, CA.
Fr. Michael A. Backlund, PhD, The Episcopal Church, St.
Paul's Church, Sacramento, Angels Camp, CA.
Rev. Connie Zekas Bailey, RSI International, Vista, San
Marcos, CA.
Rev. Keith G. Banwart, Jr., Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America, St. Matthew's Church, Glendale, CA.
Rev. Erwin C. Barron, PCUSA, Old First Presbyterian Church,
San Francisco, CA.
Rev. Hank Bates, Independent Religious Science, Palm
Springs, CA.
Rabbi Haim Beliak, Jewish, Beth Shalom of Whittier, Los
Angeles, CA.
Fr. John A. Bell, New Church Inclusive Anglican Reform, St.
Savior--San Francisco, Oakland, CA.
Rabbi Elissa Ben-Naim, Reform Jewish, Los Angeles, CA.
Rev. David L. Bennett, United Methodist, Central United
Methodist, Stockton, CA.
Fr. William S. Bennett, OHC, Episcopal, Santa Barbara, CA.
Rev. Dr. Gaye G. Benson, United Methodist, El Sobrante, CA,
Richmond, CA.
Rev. Susan Bergmans, Episcopal, San Pablo, CA.
Rabbi Michael Berk, Reform Jewish, San Francisco, CA.
Rabbi Linda Bertenthal, Jewish, Union for Reform Judaism,
Los Angeles, CA.
Fr. Robert L. Bettinger, PHD, Episcopalian, San Diego, CA.
Rev. Elizabeth A. Brick, United Methodist, St. Andrew's
United Methodist Church, Sacramento, Sacramento, CA.
[[Page H5311]]
Rev. David Brickman, Interfaith Temple, Hollywood, CA.
Rabbi Rick Brody, Jewish, Temple Ami Shalom, Los Angeles,
CA.
Rev. Mary Sue Brookshire, Baptist/UCC, UCC La Mesa, La
Mesa, CA.
Rev. Clark. M. Brown, Lutheran (ELCA), St. Timothy
Lutheran, Monterey, CA.
Rabbi Jeffrey Brown, Reform Judaism, Temple Solel, Cardiff,
CA.
Ms. Eileen O. Brownell, Religious Science, Chico, Chico, CA
.
Rev. Richard E. Bruner, United Methodist, Claremont UMC,
Hesperia, CA.
Paul A. Buch, Jewish, Temple Beth Israel, Pomona, CA.
Rev. Donna Byrns, Church of Truth, Pasadena, CA.
Rev. Jolene J. Cadenbach, United Church of Christ, Arcadia
Congregational, Arcadia, CA.
Rev. Anite J. Cadonau-Huseby, Christian Church (Disciples
of Christ), Danville, CA.
Br. Richard Jonathan Cardarelli, SSF, Anglican, San
Francisco, CA.
Rev. Helen Carroll, Unitarian Universalist, Atascadero, CA.
Rev. Jan Chase, Unity, Unity of Pomona, Pomona, CA.
Rev. Marilyn Chilcote, Presbyterian, First Presbyterian,
Oakland Oakland, CA.
Rev. Kelly Dahlgren Childress, United Church of Christ,
Oakland, CA.
Rev. Abbot Neil V. Christensen, c.s.e.f., Th.D., Catholic,
Community of Sts. Elizabeth of Hungary & Farancis de Sales,
Interdenominational, Sacramento, CA.
Rev. Jan Christian, Unitarian Universalist, UU Church of
Ventura, Ventura, CA.
Rev. Maureen Christopher, Religious Science, Hospice
Chaplain, Oxnard, CA.
Rev. William M. Clyma, III, New Church-Inclusive Anglican
Reform, Church of St. Savior, San Francisco, CA.
Rev. Kenneth W. Collier, PhD, Unitarian Universalist,
Unitarian Society of Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA.
Rabbi Neil Comess-Daniels, Jewish, Beth Shir Sholom, Santa
Monica, CA.
Rev. Catherine Costas, Episcopalian, Good Shepherd
Episcopal Church, Mountain View, CA.
Rev. Lyn Cox, Unitarian Universaiist, UU Society of
Sacramento, Sacramento, CA.
Rev. Stuart P. Coxhead, Jr., Episcopal, Burlingame, CA.
Rev. Susan H. Craig, Presbyterian Church (USA), Pasadena,
CA.
Fr. Norman L. Cram, Episcopal, Sonoma, CA.
Rev. Robert Warren Cromey, Episcopalian, Trinity, SF, San
Francisco, CA.
Rev. Sandra R. Decker, Interfaith, Kensington, CA.
Rev. Nancy S. DeNero, UCC, Mount Hollywood Congregational
UCC, Pasadena, CA.
Rev. Kristi L. Denham, United Church of Christ,
Congregational Church of Belmont, San Mateo, CA.
Rabbi Lavey Derby, Jewish, Kol Shofar, Mill Valley, CA.
Rev. Brian K. Dixon, Alliance of Baptists, Dolores Street
Baptist Church, San Francisco. CA.
Rabbi Joel C. Dobin, D.D., Reform, Walnut Creek, CA.
Rev. James Dollins, United Methodist, San Dieguito UMC,
Vista, CA.
Rev. Richard F. Drasen, Religious Science, Palm Springs
Church for Today, Palm Springs, CA.
Rev. Michael G. Dresbach, Episcopal, San Cristbal, Panama,
San Jose, CA.
Rev. Doris L. Dunn, United Church of Christ, Citrus
Heights, CA.
Rev. Dale K. Edmondson, American Baptist, San Leandro, CA.
Br. Kenneth Ehrnman, EACA, Laguna Woods, CA.
Rev. Michael Ellard, Metropolian Community Churches, MCC
San Jose, San Jose, CA.
Rev. Brian Elster, Evangelical Lutheran (ELCA), Lutheran
Church of Our Redeemer, Oxnard, CA.
Rev. Richard K. Ernst, United Methodist, Loomis, CA.
Rev. Alejandro Escoto, MCCLA's Latino Congregation, West
Hollywood, CA.
Rev. Stefanie Etzbach-Dale, Unitarian Universalist,
Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Kern County,
Bakersfield, CA, Santa Monica, CA.
Rev. Martha Fahncke, Christian, Temple City, CA.
Rev. John Fanestil, United Methodist, La Mesa, CA.
Rev. Carol C. Faust, Protestant--Universal Life, Oakdale,
CA.
Rev. Robert H. Fernandez, Presbyterian (USA), San
Francisco, CA.
Rev. Lydia Ferrante-Roseberry, Unitarian Universalist,
Oakland, CA.
Rev. Marylee Fithian, United Methodist, Guerneville, CA.
Rabbi Joel R. Fleekop, Jewish, Shir Hadash, Los Gatos, CA.
Msr. Carlos A. Florido, OSF, Orthodox Catholic, San
Francisco, CA.
Rev. John C. Forney, Episcopal, Progressive Christians
Uniting, Chino, CA.
Rev. Ernest M. Fowler, United Church of Christ, 1st
Congregational Church, Long Beach, CA, Laguna Woods, CA.
Rev. Jerry Fox, United Methodist, San Jose, CA.
Rabbi Karen L. Fox, Jewish, Los Angeles, CA.
Rev. David French, United Methodist, Temecula, CA.
Rev. Mary M. Gaines, Episcopal, St. James, SF, San
Francisco, CA.
Rev. Bruce R. Gililland, Alliance of Christian Churches,
Sunnyvale, CA.
Rev. Deborah Beach Giordano, Independent Methodist,
inklings, Castro Valley, CA.
Rabbi Eva Goldfinger, Humanistic Judaism, Adat Chaverim
Valley Congregation for Humanistic Judaism, Valley Glen, CA.
Rabbi Evan Goodman, Jewish, Congregation Beth Israel-Judea,
San Francisco, CA.
Rev. Thomas H. Griffith, United Methodist, Woodland Hills
United Methodist Church, Woodland Hills, CA.
Rev. Anthony Guillen, Episcopal, Ventura, CA.
Rev. Caroline J. Hall, Episcopalian, St Benedicts Los Osos,
Los Osos, CA.
Rev. Jim Hamilton, United Methodist, Redondo Beach, CA.
Dr. Frank S. Hamilton, Presbyterian Church (USA), Santa
Rosa, CA.
Rev. Sally Hamini, Unitarian Universalist, UU Church of
Buffalo, Berkeley, CA.
Rev. M. Elisabet Hannon, United Church of Christ, Wesley
United Methodist Church, Fresno, CA.
Rev. Pharis Harvey, United Methodist, Corralitos, CA.
Dr. Kathy Hearn, United Church of Religious Science, La
Jolla, CA.
Rev. Patricia D. Hendrickson, Episcopal Thousand Oaks, CA.
Rev. Carol C. Hilton, Unitarian Universalist, Palomar U.U.
Fellowship, Vista, CA, Oceanside, CA.
Rev. Daniel M. Hooper, Evangelical Lutheran, Hollywood
Lutheran Church, Los Angeles, CA.
Rev. H. James Hopkins, American Baptist, Lakeshore Avenue
Baptist Church, Oakland, CA.
Rev. Ricky Hoyt, Unitarian Universalist, Santa Clarita, Los
Angeles, CA.
Rev. Thomas B. Hubbard, Episcopal, Claremont, CA.
Rev. Joan G. Huff, Presbyterian Church (USA), 7th Avenue
Presbyterian Church, San Francisco, CA.
Rev. Bill Hutchinson, United Church of Christ, Sonoma, CA.
Rev. Scott T. Imler, United Methodist Church, Crescent
Heights UMC, West Hollywood, CA.
Rev. Rebecca Irelan, United Methodist, Novato UMC, Novato,
CA.
Rev. Steve C. Islander, United Methodist, Estero Bay UMC,
Atascadero, CA.
Rabbi Steven Jacobs, Jewish, Woodland Hills, CA.
Rev. Mark J. Jaufmann, Ecumenical Catholic, St. Andrew &
St. Paul Ecumenical Catholic, Community, Woodland Hills, CA.
Rev. Bryan Jessup, Unitarian Universalist, Fresno
California, Fresno, CA.
Rev. Beth A. Johnson, Unitarian Universalist, Palomar
Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, Vista, CA.
Rev. Jay E. Johnson, PhD, Episcopal, Church of the Good
Shepherd, Berkeley, Richmond, CA.
Rev. Kevin A. Johnson, UCC and Methodist, Bloom in the
Desert Ministries, Palm Springs, CA.
Rev. Allan B. Jones, United Methodist, Christ Church United
Methodist, Santa Rosa, CA.
Rev. Nancy Palmer Jones, Unitarian Universalist, First
Unitarian Church of San Jose, San Jose, CA.
Rev. Robert Angus Jones, Methodist, Oakland, CA.
Rev. Sally J. Juarez, PCUSA, Oakland, CA.
Rabbi Yoel Kahn, Jewish, JCCSF, San Francisco, CA,
Rev. Sheila M. Kane, United Methodist, Riverside, CA.
Evan Kent, Jewish, Temple Isaiah, Los Angeles, CA.
Rev. David L. Klingensmith, United Church of Christ,
Fresno, CA.
Rev. Patricia L. Klink, Religious Science, Fillmore Church
of Religious Science, Fillmore, CA.
Rev. Peter D. Krey, PhD., E.L.C.A., Christ Lutheran,
Albany, CA
Rabbi Brett Krichiver, Jewish, Stephen S. Wise Temple, Los
Angeles, CA.
Rev. Kathleen F. La Point-Collup, United Methodist, Elk
Grove UMC, Elk Grove, CA.
Rev. Peter Laarman, United Church of Christ, Los Angeles,
CA.
Rabbi Gail Labovitz, Jewish-Conservative, University of
Judaism, Los Angeles, CA.
Rabbi Howard Laibson, Jewish, Seal Beach, CA.
Rev. Darcey Laine, Unitarian Universalist, Unitarian
Universalist Church of Palo Alto, Palo Alto, CA.
Rev. Jeffrey P. Lambkin, Sr., Unitarian Universalist,
Unitarian Universalist Church in Idaho Falls, Richmond, CA.
Rev. Scott Landis, United Church of Christ, Mission Hills,
San Diego, CA.
Rev. Joseph A. Lane, Episcopal, Good Shepherd Episcopal
Church, Belmont, CA.
Rev. Peter R Lawson, Episcopalian, St. James', San
Francisco, Valley Ford, CA.
Rabbi Steven Z. Leder, Jewish, Wilshire Boulevard Temple,
Los Angeles, CA.
Rabbi Michael Lerner, Jewish, Beyt Tikkun Synagogue,
Berkeley, CA.
Rev. John L Levy, Religious Science, Palm Springs, CA.
Rev. Kirsten M. Linford, Disciples of Christ/United Church
of Christ, Westwood Hills Congregational UCC, Los Angeles,
CA.
Rev. Harriet B. Linville, Episcopal, Morro Bay, CA.
Rev. Dr. Robert Lodwick, Presbyterian Church (USA),
Pasadena Presbyterian Church, Pasadena, CA.
Rabbi Michael Lotker, Jewish, Temple Ner Ami, Northridge,
CA.
Rev. Petra Malleis-Sternberg, United Church of Christ,
First Congregational United Church of Christ, San Bernardino,
CA.
[[Page H5312]]
Rev. Tessie Mandeville, Universal Fellowship of
Metropolitan Community Churches, MCC San Francisco, San
Francisco, CA.
Rev. Dr. Robert Mattheis, Lutheran (ELCA), Our Savior,
Lafayette, CA, Lodi, CA.
Rev. Patricia E. McClellan, OMC, Celtic Christian, St.
Columba's Celtic Christian Church, Pinole, CA.
Rev. David Elwood McCracken, United Church of Christ,
Sonoma, CA.
Rev. Gregory W. McGonigle, Unitarian Universalist, Davis,
CA.
Rev. Steven E Meineke, UCC, Solana Beach, CA.
Rabbi Norman Mendel, Jewish, San Luis Obispo, CA.
Rev. Barbara Meyers, Unitarian Universalist, Mission Peak
Unitarian Universalist Congregation, Fremont, CA.
Rev. Eleanor Meyers, United Church of Christ, Claremont,
CA.
Rev. Ralph Midtlyng, ELCA, All Saints Ev. Lutheran, Granada
Hills, CA.
Rev. Rosamonde Miller, Gnostic, Palo Alto, CA.
Rev. John S Millspaugh, Unitarian Universalist, Tapestry, a
Unitarian Universalist Congregation, Mission Viejo, CA.
Rev. Clair E Mitchell, United Methodist, Westwood--LA, CA,
Los Angeles, CA.
Rev. Dr. Rick Mitchell, Disciples of Christ, Concord, CA.
Rev. Douglas J. Monroe, United Methodist, 1st UMC of Napa,
Napa, CA.
Rev. Richard O. Moore, United Church of Christ, Claremont,
CA.
Rev. Ronald S. Moore, Lutheran, San Leandro, CA.
Rev. Amy Zucker Morgenstern, Unitarian Universalist,
Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto, Palo Alto, CA.
Rev. Keith Mozingo, Metropolitan Community Churches,
Metropolitan Community Church Los Angeles, West Hollywood,
CA.
Rev. Paul Mullins, ELCA, Grace, San Francisco, CA.
Rabbi Leonard Z Muroff, Jewish, Temple Beth Zion-Sinai,
Agoura Hills, CA.
Rabbi Tracy Nathan, Jewish, Congregation Beth Sholom, San
Francisco, CA.
Rev. Arlene K. Nehring, United Church of Christ, Eden
United Church of Christ, Hayward, CA.
Rev. Penny Nixon, Metropolitan Community Churches, San
Francisco, CA.
Rev. Julia H. Older, Unitarian Universalist, UUFRC, Redwood
City, CA.
Rev. Kathleen France O'Leary, United Methodist, Arcata UMC,
McKinleyville, CA.
Rev. G. Kathleen Owens, Unitarian Universalist, Pasadena,
CA.
Rev. Susan Parsley, Christian, Disciples of Christ, San
Francisco, CA.
Rev. Larry Patten, United Methodist, Wesley United
Methodist, Fresno, CA.
Rev. Fhyre Phoenix, Universal Life Church, Arcata, CA.
Rev. Giovanna Piazza, Ecumenical Catholic, Sophia Spirit,
Santa Ana, CA.
Rev. Gayle Pickrell, United Methodist, Christ Church UMC,
Santa Rosa, CA.
Rev. Fred Rabidoux, Unitarian Universalist, San Francisco,
CA.
Rabbi Sanford Ragins, Jewish, Leo Baeck Temple, Los
Angeles, CA.
Rev. Lindi Ramsden, Unitarian Universalist, Unitarian
Universalist Legislative Ministry, CA, Sacramento, CA.
Rev. Chris Rankin-Williams, Episcopal, Ross, CA.
Rev. Dr. George Regas, Episcopal, All Saints Church,
Pasadena, CA, Pasadena, CA.
Fr. John B. Reid, Eastern Orthodox, St. Michael's Church,
West Covina, CA.
Rev. Holly Reinhart-Marean, United Methodist, Sierra Madre
United Methodist Church, Sierra Madre, CA.
Rev. Thomas Reinhart-Marean, United Methodist, Sierra Madre
UMC, Sierra Madre, CA.
Rev. Dr. Mark Richardson, United Methodist, Trinity UMC,
Los Osos California, Los Osos, CA.
Rabbi Dorothy Richman, Jewish, Berkeley, CA.
Mrs. Maria Riter Wilson, The Contemporary Catholic Church,
San Dimas, CA.
Rev. Philip H. Robb, Episcopal, St. John's, San Bernardino,
Grand Terrace, CA.
Br. Stuart G. Robertson, Presbyterian Church (USA), Grace
Sacramento, Carmichael, CA.
Rev. Dr. Wayne Bradley Robinson, United Church of Christ,
Pioneer UCC, Antelope, CA.
Rabbi Sanford Rosen, Jewish, Peninsula Temple Beth El,
Fullerton, CA.
Rabbi John Rosove, Judaism, Temple Israel of Hollywood, Los
Angeles, CA.
Rev. Kathleen D. Ross Bradford, Episcopal, St. Alban's,
Antioch, CA.
Rev. Carol S. Rudisill, Unitarian Universalist, Sierra
Madre, CA.
Rev. Dr. Victoria Rue, Roman Catholic, Watsonville, CA.
Rev. Diane B. Russell, Religious Science, Bonita, Chula
Vista, CA.
Rev. Susan L. Russell, Episcopal, All Saints Church,
Pasadena, Pasadena, CA.
Rev. Kenneth Ryan-King, Episcopalian, San Jorge, Oakland,
CA.
Rev. Franklin D. Sablan, United Methodist, Wilshire UMC,
Los Angeles, CA.
Rabbi Joseph Baruch Sacks, Conservative Judaism,
Congregation Beth Shalom of Corona, Los Angeles, CA.
Rev. Katherine Salinaro, Episcopal, Hercules, CA.
Rev. Blythe Sawyer, UCC, UCC Petaluma, Petaluma, CA.
Rev. Maxine S. Schiltz, Religious Science, Lancaster, CA.
Rev. David F. Schlicher, UCC, College Community
Congregational Church UCC, Fresno, CA.
Rev. Rick Schlosser, United Methodist, Clearlake Oaks
Community UMC, Sacramento, CA.
Rev. Kathryn M. Schreiber, UCC, United Church of Hayward,
UCC, Hayward, CA.
Rev. Craig Scott, Unitarian Universalist, Berkeley, CA.
Rabbi Judith A. Seid, Jewish, Tri-Valley Cultural Jews-
CSJO, Pleasanton, CA.
Rabbi Richard Shapiro, Jewish-Reform, Temple Sinai, Rancho
Mirage, CA.
Rev. Andy Shelton, Community of Christ, Novato, CA.
Rabbi John M. Sherwood, Jewish, Temple Beth Torah, Oxnard,
CA.
Rev. John L. Shriver, Presbyterian, Walnut Creek, CA.
Rev. Linda Siddall, Religious Science, San Mateo, CA.
Rev. Grace H. Simons, Unitarian Universalist, UU Fellowship
of Stanislaus County, Modesto, CA.
Fr. Duane Lynn Sisson, Episcopalian, St. Giles, Oakland,
CA.
Rev. David A. Smiley, Disciples of Christ, San Luis Obispo,
CA.
Rev. Channing Smith, Episcopal, Transfiguration Episcopal
Church, Belmont, CA.
Fr. Richard L. Smith, Ph.D., Episcopal, St. John the
Evangelist, San Francisco, CA.
Rev. Stanley A. Smith, Protestant, Carmel, CA.
Rev. Dr. Ronald Sparks, United Church of Christ, Community
Church, California City, CA.
The Rev. Jeffrey Spencer, United Church of Christ, Niles
Congregational UCC, Fremont, CA.
Rev. Terry C. Springstead, Mar Thoma Orthodox Catholic
Church, Ridgecrest, CA.
Rev. Betty R. Stapleford, Unitarian Universalist, Conejo
Valley UU Fellowship, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Rabbi David E. S. Stein, Jewish, Redondo Beach, CA.
Rabbi Stephen Julius Stein, Jewish, Wilshire Boulevd
Temple, Los Angeles, CA.
Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill, Jewish, Ohr Shekinah
Havurah, El Cerrito, CA.
Rabbi Ronald Stern, Jewish, Stephen S. Wise Temple, Los
Angeles, CA.
Rev. Robert Stewart, Presbyterian (USA), San Francisco, CA.
The Rev. B.J. Stiles, United Methodist, Cal-Nev UMC
Conference, San Francisco, CA.
Rev. Jerald Stinson, United Church of Christ, First
Congregational Church of Long Beach, CA, Long Beach, CA.
Rev. Janine C. Stock, Independent Catholic, All Saints
Parish, Carlsbad, CA.
Rev. Roger D. Straw, United Church of Christ, Benicia, CA.
Rev. Susan M. Strouse, Lutheran, First United Lutheran,
Berkeley, CA.
Rev. Rexford J. Styzens, Unitarian Universalist, Long
Beach, CA.
Rev. Gerald V. Summers, United Methodist, Chico, CA.
Rev. Neil A. Tadken, Episcopal, St. James' Church, L.A.,
West Hollywood, CA.
Msr. Suzanne Tavernetti, Episcopal, King City, CA.
Rev. Richard E. Taylor, Ph.D., American Baptist, Eureka,
CA.
Rev. Wendy J. Taylor, United Church of Christ, San Mateo,
CA.
Rev. Neil G. Thomas, Metropolitan Community Churches,
Metropolitan Community Church Los Angeles, West Hollywood,
CA.
Rev. Janelle L. Tibbetts, PCUSA, Burbank, CA.
Rev. Harold A. Tillinghast, United Methodist, Eureka, CA.
Rev. Dr. Lynn Ungat, Unitarian Universalist, Church of the
Larger Fellowship, Castro Valley, CA.
Rev. Valerie A. Valle, Ph.D., Episcopalian, St. Alban's,
Brentwood, Brentwood, CA.
Rev. Clyde Vaughn, United Methodist, Aptos, California,
Aptos, CA.
Rev. Felix C. Villanueva, UCC, UCC La Mesa, La Mesa, CA.
Rev. Joseph Walters, Christian Church (Disciples of
Christ), First Christian Church, Fremont, CA.
Rev. Mary Walton, United Methodist Church, Long Beach, CA.
Rabbi Martin Weiner, Reform Judaism, Sherith Israel, San
Francisco, CA.
Rev. S. Kay Wellington, UCC, Benicia Community, Concord,
CA.
Rev. Faith Whitmore, United Methodist, St. Mark's UMC,
Sacramento, CA.
Rev. Bets Wienecke, Unitarian Universalist, Carpinteria,
CA.
Rev. Ned Wight, Unitarian Universalist, La Mesa, CA.
Rev. Karen L. Wiklund, Universal Life Church, Lompoc, CA.
Rev. Warren R. Wilcox, United Church of Christ, Grover
Beach, CA.
Rev. Lee E. Williamson, United Methodist, California-Nevada
Conference, Hayward, CA.
Rev. Dr. Kimberly Willis, United-Methodist, Bakersfield,
CA.
Rev. Paul D. Wolkovits, Roman Catholic, Los Angeles, CA.
Rev. Mark Zangrando, Catholic, Jesuit, West Hollywood, CA.
Rev. Oberon Zell, Church of All Worlds, Cotati, CA.
Rev. David Zollars, Presbyterian, Comm. Pres. Pittsburg,
Pittsburg, CA.
Rabbi Laurie Coskey, Reform Judaism, San Diego, CA.
Pastor Janice Adams, Presbyterian, Calvary Presbyterian,
Bayfield, CO.
Rev. George C. Anastos, United Church of Christ, First
Plymouth Congregational Church, Englewood, CO.
[[Page H5313]]
Rev. Richard Baer, Buddhist, The Open Circle, Littleton,
CO.
Rabbi Eliot Baskin, Jewish, Har Shalom, Greenwood Village,
CO.
Rev. Bonnie L. Benda, United Methodist, Cameron, Denver,
CO.
Rev. Sharon A. Benton, Christian, Plymouth Congregational
Church, Fort Collins, CO.
Rev. John P. Blinn, United Methodist, Pueblo, CO.
Rev. Nelson Bock, Lutheran (ELCA), Our Savior's Lutheran,
Denver, Denver CO.
Rev. Rebecca Booher, Interfaith/Unitarian Universalist, UU
Church of Pueblo, Pueblo, CO.
Rabbi Stephen Booth-Nadav, Reconstructionist/Jewish, Bnai
Havurah:CJRF, Denver, CO.
Rev. Betty J. Bradford, United Methodist, Denver, CO.
Rev. Patrick Bruns, United Methodist, Brentwood United
Methodist Church, Denver, CO.
Rev. Russell V. Butler, United Methodist, Arvada United
Methodist, Arvada, CO.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
(Mr. KINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I also will submit into the Record at this
point some groups who want to go on the record as being in support of
this.
Coalitions for America,
Washington, DC, July 17, 2006.
Dear Representative, I want you to know that I am in fu11
support of your efforts and appreciate your leadership role
in helping to defend traditional marriage by sponsoring House
Joint Resolution 88, a constitutional amendment to define
marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
As a conservative, amending the Constitution is not
something I or others should take lightly, but with the
continuous assault from the left on traditional marriage
``day in and day out'' it is an issue that must be addressed,
I believe, by amending the Constitution.
Sincerely,
Paul M. Weyrich,
National Chairman.
____
Position Statement of Focus on the Family on the Marriage Protection
Amendment, H.J. Res. 88
Marriage is a sacred, legal, and social union ordained by
God to be a lifelong exclusive relationship between one man
and one woman. Focus on the Family holds this institution in
the highest esteem, and strongly opposes any legal sanction
of marriage counterfeits, such as the legalization of same-
sex ``marriage.'' History, nature, social science,
anthropology, religion, and theology all coalesce in vigorous
support of traditional marriage as it has always been
understood: a lifelong union of male and female for the
purpose of creating stable families.
The Marriage Protection Amendment is necessary to protect
the institution of marriage. To date, three courts have
overturned state marriage protection amendments and in one
state--Massachusetts--judicial fiat has forced the state to
issue same-sex ``marriage'' licenses. Currently, ten states
face challenges to their marriage protection laws. Just one
such lawsuit needs to reach the Supreme Court before marriage
is redefined for all Americans.
A plethora of federal and state law including tax law,
employment law, social security, wills and estates, depend on
a foundational definition of marriage for proper application.
Without a national definition of marriage upheld in the
Constitution, consistent administration of law will soon be
impossible.
Due to the foundational importance of marriage in American
society it must be defined nationally. The only question is,
Who will define marriage? Will it be tyrannical judges acting
through the courts to write a radical new definition of
marriage or the American people, acting through their elected
legislators to pass a Marriage Protection Amendment? We
believe the people should decide.
Focus on the Family calls on all Members of Congress to
cosponsor and vote in support of the Marriage Protection
Amendment, H.J. Res. 88.
____
Center for Reclaiming
America for Christ,
Fort Lauderdale, FL, July 14, 2006.
Hon. Marilyn Musgrave,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mrs. Musgrave: We firmly believe that marriage is more
than a private emotional relationship. It is for the common
good of society that marriage remains exclusively the union
of a man and a woman.
We agree that the Constitutional amendment process is a
fair and democratic way of putting this important question
back in the hands of the American people rather than in the
hands of a number of unelected judges, whose bias leads them
to redefine marriage contrary to its basic meaning and
structure.
Respectfully submitted,
Dr. Gary L. Cass,
Executive Director,
Center for Reclaiming America.
____
American Association
of Christian Schools,
Chattanooga, TN, July 14, 2006.
Dear Congressman: Multiple studies have shown that children
are healthier when they have both a mom and a dad married to
each other. Risks such as physical abuse, verbal abuse, and
poverty decrease when children live in a family with a mother
and a father. To intentionally increase a child's risk of
abuse by depriving him/her of a natural family structure is
unconscionable. A federal marriage amendment will protect
this family structure, and thereby protect the institution
that is foundational to our strong society.
Despite the overwhelming support of Americans for the
protection of marriage, a few judges are taking liberties to
change the definition of marriage through the courts. As
President Bush said, ``After more than two centuries of
American Jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a
few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the
most fundamental institution of civilization.'' The Founders
did not intend for the Judiciary to overrule the will of the
people by judicial fiat, especially when that will extends to
preserving a sacred and essential institution of our society.
The American Association of Christian Schools urges you to
join your colleagues in supporting and voting for a Federal
Constitutional Amendment that protects marriage.
Yours for the children,
Keith Wiebe,
President.
____
American Values,
Arlington, VA.
Dear Representative Musgrave: Thank you for your leadership
in defense of traditional marriage and for sponsoring House
Joint Resolution 88, a constitutional amendment to define
marriage as the union of one man and one woman. While
conservatives believe amending the Constitution should never
be taken lightly, the Constitution's framers created an
amendment process for a reason. Sometimes we must address
issues that affect us all, and marriage is just such an
issue.
I was encouraged to learn recently that New York's highest
court upheld the legislature's right to pass laws protecting
marriage, based largely on ``. . . the undisputed assumption
that marriage is important to the welfare of children.'' As
the court stated, ``. . . The Legislature could rationally
believe that it is better, other things being equal, for
children to grow up with both a mother and a father.
Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from
having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of
what both a man and woman are like.''
Today, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals re-instated
Nebraska's popularly-enacted marriage protection amendment
based on the recognition that marriage is ``rationally
related to legitimate state interests.'' While this decision
is good news, it also means that this case might be headed to
the United States Supreme Court, which raises the stakes in
the upcoming vote on House Joint Resolution 88.
I am hopeful that the House of Representatives will follow
the lead of the American people and respond decisively to the
threat posed by judicial activists to redefine traditional
marriage. I look forward to working with you in the future on
this important issue.
Sincerely,
Gary L. Bauer.
____
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern
Baptist Convention,
Nashville, TN, July 14, 2006.
Hon. Marilyn Musgrave,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congresswoman Musgrave: Recently Alabama, by the
approval of 81 percent of the people, became the 20th state
to affirm a state constitutional amendment on marriage. A
total of 45 states have now passed amendments or laws
prohibiting same-sex marriage. Clearly, Americans do not want
to see this most basic institution open to any arrangement
other than that of one man and one woman.
Unfortunately, recent court decisions have demonstrated
that state constitutional amendments can be struck down at
the whim of an overreaching judge. Last year, a federal judge
struck down Nebraska's state marriage amendment--despite its
passage by over 70 percent of voters in 2000--and more
recently, a Georgia court deemed the state's marriage
amendment unconstitutional--in the wake of 76 percent of
voters favoring the amendment in 2004. Fortunately, the
Georgia ruling has been overturned, but that case still
serves as a reminder that an amendment to the U.S.
Constitution is the only sure means to safeguard marriage
from radical judges.
Respectfully,
Richard D. Land,
President.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
marriage protection amendment, and I want to thank Congresswoman
Musgrave for her bravery and leadership on this critical issue.
Marriage is an honored institution in this country, and voters have
consistently voiced their support for protecting traditional marriage.
Many
[[Page H5314]]
State legislatures have already taken action and laws have been passed
to establish marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Unfortunately, we have seen activist courts taking the legislative
power away from elected officials and reversing important laws and, in
particular, marriage protections. Recent court decisions are
threatening traditional marriage, and I might add that there are groups
in this country who have made that their agenda. They want to redefine
the institution of marriage in the United States, and they do not want
to do it through the political process, but they want to do it through
the courts; and that is why we are here today having this debate.
Our goal is to preserve the most basic fundamental unit of our
society, of every society on the planet, the family. It has been
consistently proven that children benefit the most from being raised in
a home with a father and a mother present. Some people argue that
traditional marriages and families are failing anyway and they are not
worth protecting. I say if children are benefiting from traditional
families, we always must fight. It is always worth protecting.
This is why I stand today, urging my colleagues to support this
important amendment. This issue will not go away, and that is about
protecting the clergy so that they can marry men and women and not be
forced by courts to do something other than what they want to do.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of points made in this debate
today with doubtful validity. We are told we should pass this amendment
to protect marriage. But against what threat? If Henry and Steve want
to get married, maybe that is a good idea, maybe it is a bad idea, but
it does not threaten the marriage of anyone else, of any man or woman
who wants to get married. It does not affect them in any way. Divorce
is a threat. Some of our other threats are threats, but gay marriage is
not a threat to a straight marriage.
We are told we have to protect children, but children are already in
the custody of straight people, of gay people, of gay couples, of
individuals. If we want to protect children, we should give a legal
basis to the partnership of the two people who have custody of them.
Now, we are not saying that it might not be preferable to have a
traditional custody arrangement, maybe it is, but this does not affect
that in any way.
Nor do we say because we want to protect children that we prohibit
elderly couples from getting married or sterile couples from getting
married because procreation is the purpose of marriage. So this is a
red herring.
We had a whole religious discussion. The fact is churches can define
marriage in their point of view, any way they want. We are not telling
a church you must consider this couple married from a religious point
of view. We are not telling the church how to define the sacrament. We
are talking about civil marriage, and churches can do what they want
and regard as married whom they want, but we are talking about what the
government recognizes.
We are also told that this is to protect marriage, but the amendment
talks about not only marriage by, but the incidents thereof, to clearly
prohibit specific rights that a State may choose to give to a gay
couple, the right of inheritance, a right of visitation when one is
sick in the hospital. Why should we tell the States they cannot do that
at their wisdom?
We are told always by the other side of the aisle that we should
protect the rights of States, but as I said a few moments ago, family
law, the marriage law, divorce law, visitation law, child custody law
have always been a matter for the States. Why are we preempting those
State laws?
We are told we are preempting unelected judges, that that amendment
is an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, that it would
preempt not just judges elected or appointed. It would preempt the
State legislative action; it would preempt action by the people in a
referendum. That is not democratic, with a small D.
This, Mr. Speaker, is a political stunt. It is a political stunt at
the expense of a minority, of an unpopular minority. That is all it is.
We know it is not going to pass. We know the Senate already rejected
it. So this is just a political stunt.
I appeal to my colleagues, vote ``no'' on this amendment. Leave
family law where it always has been, with the State, and do not
desecrate our Constitution, do not desecrate our most sacred document,
our civil religion, by inserting it into an amendment to deny a basic
right to an unpopular group just because we want to make a political
point at the expense of that unpopular group in an election year.
Make no mistake, that is what this amendment is. That is all it is.
It does not protect marriage. It does not protect children. It just
makes a political point at the expense of an unpopular group, and we
should not desecrate our Constitution by so doing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to close and I just want to split
the time between Mr. Murphy and Mrs. Musgrave.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
Mr. MURPHY. I thank the Speaker and the Members on this as I speak in
favor of this amendment.
As a person who has spent my career as a child psychologist and have
dealt with many children who have struggled with many problems in
families, I have seen families ripped apart by so many things that
sometimes law has tried to deal with. Instead, I think over the years
we have cut the strength of marriage and relationships by the law and
weakened the institution. We have tried to deal with relationships with
no-fault divorce, with child custody, with so many other avenues; and
it has not helped.
What I do say is, yes, children may be resilient and they have been
able to deal with all sorts of difficulties they have faced, but the
bottom line is this: I believe very strongly children need a mother and
a father in the home. They need strong relationships with men and women
both, and they are the ones that I believe are part of what is
preserved in this amendment and why I believe we need to support this,
if anything, for the sake of those children who need this kind of
support in their lifetime.
{time} 1330
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Colorado is recognized
for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to Mr. Nadler, your
statements about hospital visits and those things, that was a
misstatement. That is not what this amendment does. There are State
legislatures that have the authority to handle all of the benefits that
you have talked about, and that is what the amendment clearly states.
I would just like to say, we can look at places like the Netherlands,
where since 1997 they have had registered partnership, and gay marriage
since 2001. In effect, that is probably the best place to look at what
gay marriage has done. The out-of-wedlock births have escalated. The
divorce rate is escalating. In fact, many people in Scandinavia don't
think that marriage is even relevant today.
I would say today if marriage can mean anything, eventually marriage
will mean nothing.
Within the institution of marriage, society offers special support
and encouragement to the men and women who together make children.
Because marriage is deeply implicated in the interest of children, it
is obviously a matter of public concern. Children depend on society to
create institutions to keep them from chaos. That is why we have the
obligation to give special support and encouragement to an institution
that is necessary to the well-being of children.
I urge my colleagues to support public policy that strengthens
marriage and vote in favor of this amendment.
Marriage is for Children:
1a) In setting up the institution of marriage, society offers special
support and encouragement to the men and women who together make
children. Because marriage is deeply implicated in the interests of
children, it is a matter of public concern. Children are helpless. They
depend upon adults. Over and above their parents, children depend upon
society to create institutions that keep them from chaos. Children
cannot articulate their needs. Children cannot vote. Yet children are
society.
[[Page H5315]]
They are us, and they are our future. That is why society has the right
to give special support and encouragement to an institution that is
necessary to the well being of children--even if that means special
benefits for some, and not for others. Single people are denied the
benefits of married couples, for example. But this is permitted because
married parenthood is essential to society. The law has always
permitted the state to give special support to critical institutions,
if those institutions serve a compelling interest of society. Marriage
is exactly such an institution. Marriage is designed to maximize the
chances that each child will be provided with a mother and a father, in
a stable family setting, during the years when children are too young
to fend for themselves. To redefine marriage in such a way as to remove
its essential connection to parenthood is to take away its very
purpose.
(1b) Only a man and a woman have the power between them to create
children. Marriage as an institution helps to turn the love of a man
and a woman into an instrument for the nurture and protection of
children. If we redefine fathers, mothers, and parenthood out of
marriage, then this precious institution will be lost.
The European Experience With Gay Marriage:
Can it be a coincidence that Scandinavia, the region with the highest
out-of-wedlock birthrates in the world, was the very first place to
recognize same-sex unions? Marriage was already in serious decline in
Sweden and Norway when same-sex partnerships arrived, and since that
time marital decline in those countries has advanced still further. But
the clearest example of the effect of same-sex marriage is the
Netherlands, where they have had registered partnerships since 1997 and
full gay marriage since 2001. In the Netherlands, out-of-wedlock
birthrates were low until the arrival of registered partnerships and
gay marriage. But since the advent of registered partnerships and same-
sex marriage, the out-of-wedlock birthrate has risen faster and longer
in the Netherlands than in any other west European country.
(1a) What is marriage? Marriage is society's way of supporting the
men and women who together make children. Children can't fend for
themselves. That's why the public has always taken an interest in
marriage. By supporting the institution of marriage, the state
encourages the rearing of children under the secure care of a mother
and father. But what would happen if we said marriage doesn't have
anything to do with mothers, fathers, and children? What would happen
if we said marriage is really just about a couple of adults who love
each other--whether they're men and women or not?
Well, just look at Scandinavia and Holland. Over in Scandinavia
they've had various forms of same-sex partnership nearly two decades.
And they've had gay marriage in Holland for several years. But marriage
in Scandinavia is dying, and marriage in Holland is growing
progressively weaker every year. A majority of children in Sweden and
Norway are now born out-of-wedlock. In some parts of Norway, as many as
eighty percent of first-born children and two-thirds of subsequent
children are now born out-of-wedlock. True, much of that decline took
place even before same-sex partnerships came into effect. But in both
Sweden and Norway, marriage continued to decline following the
introduction of same-sex partnerships. Can it be a coincidence that the
region of the world where marriage has traditionally been weakest was
the first place to experiment with something like same-sex marriage?
The negative effects of gay marriage on marriage are even clearer in
the Netherlands. Prior to the introduction of registered partnerships
and later gay marriage, Holland was known for having one of the lowest
out-of-wedlock birthrates in Northern Europe. Yet out-of-wedlock
birthrates have been rising at an unusually rapid rate in the
Netherlands ever since registered partnerships, and then formal gay
marriage, were established.
In the last decade, no other West European country has seen its out-
of-wedlock birthrate rise as fast as Holland's. And there were no other
major legal or social changes during the last decade that might explain
Holland's rising out-of-wedlock birthrate in some other way. So it
looks very likely that registered partnerships and same-sex marriage
have helped to hasten the unusually rapid decline of marriage in the
Netherlands.
Gay marriage has helped send a message to parents in Scandinavia and
Holland that being married doesn't have much of anything to do with
being a parent. Nowadays, a lot of parents in Scandinavia and Holland
put off getting married until after they've had a child or two, if they
don't break up first--which many do. Increasingly, parents in these
countries don't get married at all anymore. If marriage is disappearing
in the parts of the world that have had something like gay marriage
longer than anywhere else, I don't want to take a chance on gay
marriage here.
1b) Marriage is not meant solely, or even mainly, for husbands and
wives. Marriage exists as a public institution because children need
mothers and fathers. Once marriage is treated as a mere celebration of
the love of two adults, there is no reason for it to necessarily happen
before children are born instead of after. And if marriage could just
as well happen after children are born, it doesn't really need to
happen at all. European parents have increasingly stopped marrying
because they no longer think of marriage as an institution meant to
bind children to mothers and fathers. Gay marriage helps Europeans to
see it that way, making them consider marriage nothing more than the
expression of mutual affection between two adults. But this view
translates into marrying long after children are born--if parents don't
break up first. It means rising rates of family dissolution. That's
what's happening in Europe. Do we want it to happen in America? That
the family is the bedrock of society is more than just a cliche. In
Scandinavia, where they've had de facto gay marriage for some time,
marriage is dying, and a huge welfare state has taken over for parents.
If the family goes here in America, then we will either have the social
chaos of more crime and fatherless kids, or we will have to vastly
expand our welfare state. So this issue touches on the deepest problems
of governance. America's system of limited government works because the
family does what the state does not. Weaken the family, and government
is bound to expand to take its place. That is exactly what's happened
in Scandinavia.
Responding to Critics of the Scandinavia/Holland argument:
(1) I know some folks have said that same-sex partnerships haven't
had any bad effects on marriage in Europe, but I don't find their
arguments convincing.
(a) For one thing, some of these folks actually deny that Europe's
high out-of-wedlock birthrates are a problem at all. That's just not
true. In Europe, cohabiting parents break up at two-to-three times the
rate of married parents. That level of family instability is very bad
for children. So the European experience actually proves that it's
better when parents get married.
(b) Some folks say that marriage was in trouble in Scandinavia even
before same-sex partnerships came along. Well, that's true, although in
most parts of Scandinavia marriage continued to decline after same-sex
partnerships came along. We all know that marriage has been in trouble
for some time in America, and in many other countries, for a wide
variety of reasons. But if you want to see a clear case where marriage
was relatively strong, and only went into serious decline after the
introduction of same-sex partnerships, just look at Holland. (See 1a in
the previous section for more on Holland.)
(c) Some folks claim that the Dutch example isn't a problem because
out-of-wedlock birthrates have been rising almost as rapidly in Eastern
Europe as in Holland. But the decline of marriage in Eastern Europe is
rooted in the economic chaos that followed the collapse of communism.
The amazing thing is that a prosperous Western European country like
The Netherlands is experiencing the same sort of marital decline we're
seeing in countries recovering from the collapse of their entire social
system.
(d) Some folks say that out-of-wedlock birthrates in Sweden haven't
gone up all that much since registered partnerships came along in 1994.
But they're not counting from 1987, when Sweden introduced the very
first same-sex partnerships in the world. Just because these first
same-sex partnerships didn't include all the rights of marriage doesn't
mean that they weren't a huge legal and symbolic step. Amazingly, in
1987, at the very same time that Sweden introduced the first same-sex
partnerships in the world, Sweden also granted just about all the
rights of marriage to unmarried heterosexual couples. So from 1987 on,
Sweden's parliament sent out a powerful message that married parenthood
isn't important. Same-sex partnerships were part of that message from
the start.
(e) Some folks say that marriage in Denmark hasn't suffered since
they adopted same-sex partnerships in 1989. Well, it's true that the
Danish out-of-wedlock birthrate hasn't risen since they adopted same-
sex partnerships, like it has in Sweden, Norway, and Holland. But
that's a bit misleading. Actually, the rate of unmarried parenthood has
increased among young people in Denmark, who are adopting the same
practice of cohabiting parenthood favored in other Scandinavian
countries. But the increased rate of unmarried parenthood among young
Danes has been temporarily offset by marriages among older Danes.
You see, there are virtually no housewives left in Denmark. The need
to support the huge Danish welfare state forces nearly all Danish women
to work. And it was only in the late 1980's and 1990's that Denmark
created a parental leave policy and other changes that allowed large
numbers of women to take time off of work to become mothers. That
policy
[[Page H5316]]
change unleashed huge pent-up demand among Danish women to have
children, and that led to a temporary increase in the marriage rate
among older Danes. But all that time, younger Danes have been taking up
the practice of unmarried parenthood that is already so popular in the
rest of Scandinavia.
The Slippery Slope to Polygamy, Polyamory (Group Marriage) and
Parental Cohabitation:
(1) Once we say that same-sex couples can marry, it's going to be
impossible to deny that right to polygamists and believers in group
marriage. After all, gay marriage is being advocated on grounds of
relationship equality. So if all relationships are equal, why is group
marriage forbidden? And don't think it can't happen here. We already
know that there are thousands of practicing polygamists in some Western
states. But did you also know that there are groups of ``polyamorists''
all over the country? Just go to the Internet and run a google search
on the word ``polyamory.'' The polyamorists have already had one court
case trying to gain recognition for a marriage of a woman and two men.
They're just waiting for gay marriage to pass to begin agitating for
legalized group marriage. And after granting gay marriage on equal
protection grounds, how is a court going to deny them? There are plenty
of polyamorists out there, but the problem goes further than that. We
now have an advocacy group called the ``Alternatives to Marriage
Project'' which supports polyamory and other innovations like parental
cohabitation. The Alternatives to Marriage Project is frequently quoted
in the mainstream media. And believe it or not, the most powerful
faction of family law scholars in our law schools favors legal
recognition of both polyamory and parental cohabitation. There are even
law review articles out now advocating both. And the influential
American Law Institute has even come out with proposals which would
grant nearly equal legal recognition to cohabiting and married parents.
If we allow marriage to be radically redefined now, we will not be able
to stop these further changes.
(2) Now I know that some folks scoff at the claim that same-sex
marriage could lead to polygamy. But just look at what's happened
around the world in the past year or so. In Sweden, which passed the
first same-sex partnership plan in the world, we've had a serious
proposals floated by parties on the left to abolish marriage and
legalize multi-partner unions. In the Netherlands, the first country in
the world to have full and formal same-sex marriage, a man and two
bisexual women signed a triple cohabitation contract. When a
conservative political party asked the Dutch government to withdraw
recognition from that contract, the government refused. In fact, the
Dutch Justice Minister said it was actually a good thing that the law
was beginning to provide support for multi-partner relationships. In
Canada, two out of four reports commissioned by the last government
recommended the decriminalization and regulation of polygamy. True, the
revelation of those reports helped Canada's Conservative Party win the
last election. But the fact remains that many of Canada's legal elites
want to see the abolition of traditional marriage and official
recognition for multi-partner unions.
And of course, in America we've got ``Big Love,'' a popular
television show on HBO about polygamy. Even a year ago, no-one would
have believed it if someone had said we'd soon have a television show
with polygamists as heroes. But it's happened. And next week the BRAVO
Channel is going to run a sympathetic documentary about a relationship
between a woman and two bisexual men. It's called ``Three of Hearts,''
and it's already played in movie theaters across the country.
The truth is, this is only the beginning. Advocates for multi-partner
unions are out there, but many of them are waiting for same-sex
marriage to be legalized before they make their move to gain public
acceptance. Newsweek has already said that ``polygamy activists are
emerging in the wake of the gay marriage movement.'' Well, just wait
till gay marriage is actually legalized. If that happens, you can bet
we'll see plenty more movies and television shows along the lines of
``Big Love'' and ``Three of Hearts.'' The people on the so-called
``cutting edge'' of culture in Europe and Canada have already made it
clear that multi-partner unions are their next crusade, and it's
happening in America even as we speak. The only way to put a stop to it
is to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
The Threat to Religious Freedom:
(1) It's becoming increasingly apparent that gay marriage poses a
significant threat to religious liberty. Scholars on both the left and
right agree that same-sex marriage has raised the specter of a massive
and protracted battle over religious freedom. In states that adopt
same-sex marriage, religious liberty is clearly going to lose. Gay
marriage proponents argue that sexual orientation is like race, and
that opponents of same-sex marriage are therefore like bigots who
oppose interracial marriage. Once same-sex marriage becomes law, that
understanding is likely to be controlling. Legal same-sex marriage will
be taken by courts as proof that a ``public policy'' in support of
same-sex marriage exists.
So in states with same-sex marriage, religiously affiliated schools,
adoption agencies, psychological clinics, social workers, marital
counselors, etc. will be forced to choose between going out of business
and violating their own deeply held beliefs. If a religious social
service agency refuses to offer counseling designed to preserve the
marriage of a same-sex couple, it could lose its tax-exempt status.
Religious schools would either have to tolerate conduct they believed
to be sinful, or face a cut-off of federal funds. It's already
happening, as we've seen with the recent withdrawal of Boston's
Catholic Charities from the adoption business.
Free speech could also be under threat, as sexual-harassment-in-the-
workplace principles are used by nervous corporate lawyers to draw
speech prohibitions on the marriage issue. Fear of litigation will
breed self-censorship. One expert predicts ``a concerted effort to take
same-sex marriage from a negative right to be free of state
interference to a positive entitlement to assistance by others.''
Some folks say the answer to this problem is special exemptions from
the law for religious conscience. But conscience exemptions would be
very difficult to enact. And in Europe, which has tried this in places,
conscience exemptions are breaking down and failing to provide
protection for the traditionally religious.
The lesson in all this is clear. There's a lot more at stake in the
battle over same-sex marriage than the marriage issue itself, important
as that is. The very ability of religiously affiliated organizations to
exist and operate is under threat.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the Federal Marriage
Amendment, H.J. Res. 88.
Just a few yards down the hall from where we are debating this
discriminatory constitutional amendment today, in the Rotunda of this
great Capitol, stands a bust of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Every time
I walk through the Rotunda, I remember Dr. King's struggle and what his
life meant for me and for all Americans. For too long, the inalienable
constitutional rights of all Americans were denied to many of our
neighbors. As the leader of the civil rights movement, Dr. King helped
secure equal rights for all Americans regardless of the color of their
skin.
One of the things that Dr. King fought against were the anti-
miscegenation laws that existed at some point in 49 states. These laws
prohibited interracial marriage and they were still in effect in
sixteen states when the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional in
1967 because they denied the liberty of American citizens. Legal bans
on interracial marriage were defended with all the kinds of arguments
used by proponents of bans on same sex marriage: They would say that
interracial marriages are contrary to the laws of God or contrary to
centuries of social tradition or harmful to the institution of marriage
or harmful to children. Would any Member of this body now defend those
bans? Those bans were discriminatory and took away the rights of
American citizens--in short they were what the Constitution was
designed to prohibit. No one longs for anti-miscegenation laws today.
We as a nation have learned from our mistakes.
Or have we?
We remember Dr. King for what he stood for, not just for who he was.
As he said, ``man is man because he is free to operate within the
framework of his destiny. He is free to deliberate, to make decisions,
and to choose between alternatives. He is distinguished from animals by
his freedom to do evil or to do good and to walk the high road of
beauty or tread the low road of ugly degeneracy.''
Today, I ask, will we do evil or will we do good? Will we keep the
spirit of the Founding Fathers alive? Will we respect and honor the
foundations of our constitutional government or will we chart a new
course and, in the name of protecting an institution that is under no
threat, shred the very premise of our Constitution.
Our Constitution is the source of our freedom in this great country.
For almost 220 years, the Constitution--mankind's greatest invention--
has allowed our diverse people to live together, to balance our various
interests, and to thrive. It has provided each citizen with broad,
basic rights. The inherent wisdom of the Constitution is that it
doesn't espouse a single viewpoint or ideology. Rather it protects all
individuals as equal under the law.
In more than 200 years, the Constitution has been amended on only 27
occasions. With the exception of Prohibition--which was later
repealed--these amendments have affirmed and expanded individual
freedoms and rights. Yet, this proposed amendment threatens to lead us
in a dangerous new direction. This amendment would restrict freedoms,
and codify discrimination into our guiding charter.
We must think deeply about the ramifications of allowing such an
amendment to be ratified. It would create a group of second-
[[Page H5317]]
class citizens who lack equal rights due to the private, personal
choices they and their loved one have made. It would also transfer to
the federal government the right to recognize marriages, a power that
had previously been retained by the States.
This amendment is not only discriminatory and inhumane, it is also
illogical. How does this actually protect marriage? What is it exactly
about same sex marriage that is putting heterosexual marriage at risk?
Do the proponents of the ban on same sex marriages want to annul all
childless marriages or require all newlyweds to promise to have
children? Do the proponents of this ban think for a moment that the
marriage of loving people of the same sex are the case of America's
high divorce rate among heterosexuals. It seems to me that other
factors than this are responsible for the high divorce rate.
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. Unfortunately, the amendment we are debating today does
nothing to strengthen the bonds of matrimony, nor does it strengthen
families or enhance our communities. In fact, it divides our
communities, and shows contempt to a minority population. Throughout
history, we have only moved forward when our society has come together
to build a more perfect union, not intentionally divide American
against American.
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.
Attacking gay couples who want to share lifelong obligations and
responsibilities undermines the spirit of community that this amendment
purports to strengthen.
In 50 years will we build a statue to honor the great advances for
our society that this amendment provided, as we do for the life of Dr.
King? No. In the long shadow of history, this amendment and the
philosophy behind it will be remembered alongside anti-miscegenation
laws as offending the spirit of America and our founding principles.
I hope that my colleagues will recognize the tremendous cost this
amendment will have for our freedoms and I respectfully urge them to
oppose it.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 88, the
Marriage Protection Amendment.
Last Friday, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Nebraska
constitutional amendment protecting marriage between one man and one
woman, and affirming the legal protections and benefits reserved to
this fundamental union. The amendment was approved by an overwhelming
70 percent majority in 2000.
Nationwide, 45 states have defined marriage as the union of one man
and one woman or expressly prohibited same-sex marriage. Twenty states
approved constitutional amendments upholding marriage; six states will
vote on an amendment in November; and eight states are considering
sending constitutional amendments to voters in 2006 or 2008. The 16
states that approved constitutional amendments since 2004 did so by an
average 72 percent voter majority.
Even voters in Massachusetts--the first state to have its supreme
court unilaterally declare same-sex marriage as constitutional--may
have the opportunity to uphold marriage. The state's high court ruled
last week that legislative efforts to put a same-sex marriage ban on
the 2008 ballot could move forward. Recent court rulings in New York,
Tennessee and Georgia have also upheld marriage rights.
The Federal Marriage Protection Amendment under consideration today
would prohibit any governmental entity--whether in the legislative,
executive or judicial branch at all levels of government--from altering
the definition of marriage. It does not discriminate against
homosexuals; it upholds and recognizes the importance of marriage
between a man and a woman for the well-being of children and society at
large.
Mr. Speaker, the American people want the Marriage Protection
Amendment to be approved. Their will is clearly reflected through the
overwhelming majorities voting for marriage protection initiatives in
the states. We have a responsibility to children and families
nationwide to send a clear message today that marriage will be upheld
and protected. We also have a sacred duty to future generations to
preserve marriage as the fundamental building block of society.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.J. Res. 88 today.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, 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 can't help but wonder . . . Why are we doing this? What are we so
afraid of?
Gay men and women pass through our lives every day. There are
wonderful teachers and leaders and role models who happen to be gay and
sometimes we don't even know they're gay.
I wouldn't be a Member of Congress today if it weren't 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, DC, 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 ways 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 made me a better person in the process.
The Constitution of the United Staets--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
indiscrimination.
I am sensitive to some of my colleague's concerns about potential
biblical and social implications of legalizing same-size 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 happened in our state legislatures.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, over the years, this Nation has
worked hard to take discrimination out of the Constitution, and today,
the House is voting 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.
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.
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. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House Joint
Resolution 88, 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
particular low point. We can all have a good laugh at the pandering
Republican majority when they claim that banning flag burning will make
us more patriotic or that school prayer will prevent teenage pregnancy,
but this proposal 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.
The proposed amendment not only bans marriage, but any of the ``legal
incidents thereof,'' meaning that the proponents think our founding
document should keep gay and lesbian couples from filing a joint tax
return, inheriting property, or visiting their partner in the
[[Page H5318]]
hospital. I vehemently oppose this discrimination.
Oh, and I forgot to mention that this amendment has already failed
once in the House and twice in the Senate, so today's vote is all a
terrible waste of time. What we should be doing is passing legislation
to address real problems in America today. Rather than insult a group
of people as deserving of protection under law as any other, Congress
should work to reduce domestic violence, provide high quality childcare
to all families, and make the minimum wage a living wage. These actions
would actually prevent divorce in America and strengthen our families.
Citizens of the United States are guaranteed equal treatment under
the law, even if voters in red states don't like them. I urge my
colleagues to vote against this nonsense.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res.
88, 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 we will
take up this week, 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.
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. Nothing more needs
to be done on this matter.
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.
The Constitution is not a laundry list to be amended on whim or
caprice. It is a great, noble and living document, not to be
trivialized by amendments which are unnecessary. This amendment is for
useless political purposes and should be defeated as an affront to our
great and majestic Constitution.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as a proud husband and
father, I value family above all else and strongly support the
traditional family: the union of a man and a woman. This union is the
cornerstone of our society, and plays a vital and unique role in our
children's lives and in our communities.
Today, we considered H.J. Res. 88, The Marriage Protection Amendment.
This legislation seeks to alter the United States Constitution--the
bedrock of democracy and the basis of our Republic for 217 years--to
define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The U.S.
Constitution embodies the federalist principles this country was
founded on and should be held to the highest standard. It should only
be altered in the most extreme circumstances. I believe opening this
document to allow such a narrow definition could lead to unintended
consequences in the near and far future. Our commitment to federalist
principles and to this great Republic must supersede all debates of the
day.
Furthermore, I strongly believe that one of the most important powers
reserved to the States as a result of the 10th Amendment is the act of
regulating marriage and family law. This right of States to self-
determination has protected and sustained our Republic for more than
200 years.
While serving in the Florida Senate in 1997, I voted to support a
statute stating that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
This statute became State law and was in response to action taken by
the U.S. Congress to ensure the right of the States to define marriage.
In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA,
which was subsequently signed into law. DOMA provides each State the
discretion to determine whether to recognize a same-sex marriage
license issued by another State. I strongly support DOMA because it
protects the right of States to self-determination.
On July 22, 2004, I supported the Protection of Marriage Act which
would have permitted States to reject same-sex marriages from other
States without interference by Federal courts.
Since the passage of DOMA, 45 states, such as Florida, have banned
gay marriage by statute or in their Constitutions, and numerous court
decisions have upheld these laws. Where judicial activism has
threatened traditional marriage, the people have acted to protect it,
such as in the State of Massachusetts, where a ballot initiative is
being circulated to overturn a court ruling allowing for same-sex
marriage.
Moreover, it is my belief that the U.S. Supreme Court will ensure
that States' rights and the institution of traditional marriage are
upheld. Additionally, as a result of past Supreme Court decisions,
exemptions have been made to the ``Full Faith and Credit Clause'' that
apply to DOMA. If the Supreme Court, at any point in the future, did
attempt to redefine marriage as something other than the union between
one man and one woman, I want to be clear that I would determine it an
extreme circumstance and would at that time advocate a Constitutional
Amendment.
Congress must be diligent in its efforts not to overstep and impede
on more than two centuries of a successful Republic without absolute
necessity. I strongly believe that marriage should only be the union
between one man and one woman, but I do not believe that the threshold
for constitutional change has been reached.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my disappointment that this
body has brought the Marriage Protection Act to the Floor at a time
when American families are dealing with skyrocketing health costs,
rising gas prices, and loved ones who are serving the Nation overseas.
Mr. Speaker, is the matter before us today truly the most important
subject for Congress to debate?
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 2I5-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 News Service, January 9, 2004).
As recently as August, 2004, Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking
[[Page H5319]]
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
oppose this resolution, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to do the same. Because of illness, I was unable to cast my vote
on today's amendment; had I been able to, I would have voted ``no.''
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 U.S. Constitution's provisions
protecting individual rights. And 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 in at least some states. I
think this is not necessary or 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 never been construed to require
states to recognize the validity of all marriages of people from other
states.
Instead, 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 force them to do otherwise--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 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 from such
relationship.''
Not everyone supported that bill at the time. But it did pass, and
now that 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. So, 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 that.
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 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.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 88, 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. The Tenth Amendment to 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 marriages 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 nearly 10 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, 45 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.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint
Resolution 88. Most Americans believe that marriage should be defined
as the legal union of one man and one woman. But as we have seen in the
past several years, attacks on marriage by unelected and unaccountable
judges threaten to destroy this long-standing and widely accepted
institution. I firmly believe that activist judges should not be able
to overturn the marriage laws of almost every state based on bizarre
legal theories. Although I believe we must be extremely careful in
amending the Constitution, this is a critically important issue for our
country. We must place the vital institution of marriage beyond the
reach of activist courts.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res.
88.
Instead of spending time working on the issues that really matter to
the American people, we are here debating a proposed amendment that
would write discrimination into the Constitution.
We do this even after the Senate failed to pass a similar amendment.
So let's be clear, regardless of what the vote is today, this
amendment is going nowhere.
This makes our time on this even more pointless.
What this debate really is about is dividing our country and riling
up the base for a Republican party increasingly concerned about their
election prospects this November.
And the Republican leadership is willing to trample on our
Constitution in order to do so and no issue is worth paying such a
price.
Instead of debating discrimination and dividing our country, why
don't we spend our time working to make health care more affordable,
work to lower gas prices and achieve energy independence, raise the
minimum wage, cut the cost of college or work to ensure our hardworking
constituents a dignified retirement?
Why is it that my Republican colleagues who talk so much about family
values refuse to allow our families to earn a livable wage, refuse to
fix the prescription drug program and turn their backs on our children
by raising the interest rate on all student loans?
We must resist this divisive use of this House to score a few
political points. We must reject this effort.
We need real leadership that will bring our country towards a new
direction.
There is a new direction that our country must go in that will help
American families and address the issues that impact them every single
day.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong
opposition to H.J. Res. 88, a proposed Constitutional amendment that
would prohibit same sex marriages. This proposed amendment is not
directed at any real problem, other than the apparent need of the
Republican leadership to gin up political support for their candidates.
It is sad that the Republican leadership is not as interested as they
say they are in protecting the institution of marriage as they are
[[Page H5320]]
in waging a campaign to divide and distract the American people from
the real issues that need to be addressed. The Nation is at war in
Iraq; we face crises in Iran, North Korea and Lebanon; the federal
deficit is soaring out of control as more and more U.S. debt is
controlled by countries like China; energy costs continue to rise and
Americans wait for Congress to act to increase the minimum wage. The
Republican response: wasting hours of debate on an unnecessary
Constitutional amendment that had already been defeated in the Senate.
Studies have consistently shown that financial hardship is the
biggest obstacle to heterosexual marriage, yet the Republican
leadership has done precious little to help address the financial
hardship faced by American families.
American families need job security; better child care options;
national flextime policies that allow more young parents to work from
home and to be with their families; better public schools; federal
policies to make sure college is affordable; housing policies that
promote the construction of homes that working families can afford; and
health care so that no child has to go without the medical and dental
treatment he or she needs.
Instead, today, we vote on an effort to single out one group of
Americans, in a pointless, partisan move that does nothing to address
the major challenges facing our Nation--education, the economy, energy,
homeland security and the war in Iraq.
For over 200 years, our Constitution has defined our Nation and
protected individual rights. It is a document of empowerment, not
limitation. While the Constitution has been amended, it has been done
so only to protect and expand individual liberty, not to deny it.
Americans see this amendment for what it is: a partisan waste of
time, and that is why we need a new direction in Washington that would
prioritize the needs of every-day working people.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this resolution, and I call on my colleagues to
join me in defeating it.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this constitutional amendment
to ban gay marriage. The legislation before us today is nothing more
than an attempt by the Republican leadership to exploit a wedge issue
that panders to their political base and diverts attention from their
abysmal record of non-accomplishment and rubberstamping the
incompetence of the Bush Administration.
As we get closer to the end of this Congress, we should be addressing
the urgent needs of the American people--the war in Iraq, affordable
health care, a sensible energy policy, quality education for our
children, retirement security, and a sound and fair fiscal policy.
Whatever one's view is on same sex marriage, amending the
Constitution is not the place to address this issue. The laws governing
marriage fall under the domain of the states and that is where this
issue should be addressed. Amendments to the Constitution have
historically expanded, not diminished, the rights and liberties of the
American people. We should not use the Constitution as a political tool
to divide us. The American people will see through the motivations
behind this amendment--to distract the American people from the failed
record of the Republican leadership in the Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to work to unite the American
people, address the real issues facing our Nation, and reject this
amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the joint
resolution is considered read 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236,
nays 187, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 378]
YEAS--236
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Doolittle
Drake
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hoekstra
Holden
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--187
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Costa
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Dreier
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Hobson
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rangel
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Stupak
Sweeney
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Lipinski
NOT VOTING--9
Brown (OH)
Davis (IL)
Evans
Hinojosa
Johnson, Sam
Kind
McKinney
Northup
Strickland
[[Page H5321]]
{time} 1400
So (two-thirds of those voting having not responded in the
affirmative) 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.
Stated against:
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 378 on July 18th
I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``nay.''
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, regarding the Federal marriage
amendment, I was detained coming in from the airport, missed the vote
by 4 minutes, and would have voted ``nay'' on the Federal marriage
amendment, rollcall 378.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 378, which I missed as a
result of my being detained at the airport, I indicate for the Record
that I would have voted ``nay'' had I been here for that vote.
____________________