[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 175 (Tuesday, November 13, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2398]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3685, EMPLOYMENT NON-DISCRIMINATION 
                              ACT OF 2007

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. TODD TIAHRT

                               of kansas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 7, 2007

  Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3685, 
the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). H.R. 3685 would extend 
existing employment-discrimination provisions of Federal law, including 
those in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to establish ``a 
comprehensive Federal prohibition of employment discrimination on the 
basis of sexual orientation.''
  Although I join with all my colleagues in abhorrence to bigotry and 
discrimination, this disingenuous and vaguely-constructed overhaul of 
labor law is inconsistent with the free exercise of religion and weaken 
the fundamental Defense of Marriage Act.
  The right to the free exercise of religion found in the Constitution, 
and as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 
(RFRA), must be firmly upheld. It is a cornerstone of our Nation's 
founding and our future. Our Government must not take any action that 
unduly burdens the free exercise of religion. Unfortunately, the ENDA 
does not live up to this constitutional standard. America's churches, 
synagogues, and religious non-profit organizations must maintain the 
right to employ those that share their particular religious or moral 
worldview. Although the sponsors of this act claim that the religious 
exemptions found in the legislation are adequate, they are simply not 
strong enough to pass constitutional muster or fulfill legislative 
intent in the RFRA.
  Madam Speaker, ENDA would also weaken the landmark Defense of 
Marriage Act (DOMA) by giving Federal statutory significance to same-
sex marriage rights under State law. Federal law states that marriage 
is between one man and one woman. Maintaining DOMA is essential in 
defending the sanctity of marriage. However, the passage of ENDA will 
provide activist judges around the country the legal ammunition to 
undermine state and federal marriage laws. Courts in New Jersey, 
Vermont, and Massachusetts have all used state legislation similar to 
ENDA as a springboard for mandating same-sex marriage or civil unions. 
In 2005 Kansas overwhelmingly passed the Traditional Marriage Amendment 
by 70 percent. The people of Kansas have spoken. With the path is so 
clearly defined in history, it would be irresponsible for Congress to 
pass ENDA.
  Madam Speaker, bigotry and discrimination is clearly wrong. However, 
tampering with such bedrock legal and constitutional standards such as 
the freedom of religion and DOMA is not the right solution. I urge my 
colleagues to join with me in opposing this legislation.

                          ____________________