[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 102 (Wednesday, June 24, 2015)]
[House]
[Page H4599]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   UPCOMING SUPREME COURT DECISION IN OBERGEFELL V. HODGES, TANCO V. 
            HASLAM, DeBOER V. SNYDER, AND BOURKE V. BESHEAR

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express the profound hope that, in 
its upcoming decision, the Supreme Court will strike down laws that 
prohibit same-sex couples from marrying and to ensure that all States 
recognize lawful marriages performed elsewhere.
  These four cases--Obergefell v. Hodges, Tanco v. Haslam, DeBoer v. 
Snyder, and Bourke v. Beshear--are an opportunity for the Court to end 
legal discrimination against committed gay and lesbian couples and 
their children and to reestablish marriage as a civil right, one that 
is ``fundamental to our very existence and survival,'' as it was called 
by Justice Warren in Loving v. Virginia in 1967. As a country, we can 
no longer allow State governments to burden their citizens by refusing 
to grant marriage licenses based on whom they love.
  Since my earliest days in the New York State Assembly, I have fought 
alongside the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community for 
equality under the law. I spoke out in opposition when, in 1996, 
Congress, for the first time, created a Federal definition of marriage 
with the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, solely for the purpose of 
excluding gays and lesbians from receiving Federal marriage benefits; 
and I have long carried legislation to repeal this insidious law, from 
offering the Respect for Marriage Act to leading the congressional 
amicus briefs in both Windsor and the current marriage equality cases 
before the Court. Yet even a full repeal of DOMA would still leave 
individuals vulnerable to continued State discrimination, which is why 
there must be a guaranteed right to access to benefits of marriage 
regardless of where a couple may reside.
  When my constituent and friend Edith Windsor began dating Thea Spyer 
in 1965 and accepted her proposal in 1967, she was not thinking about 
how the government would view her relationship. She was thinking about 
the joy and happiness that comes from beginning to shape a life with a 
partner she loved. Forty years after that proposal, they were able to 
legally marry in Canada, outside of the country and State they called 
home.
  No one in a free and just country should be forced to leave their 
home, traveling away from friends and family across State lines, in 
order to get married. Nor should anyone be faced with the humiliation 
of being denied government benefits, the tragedy of being barred from a 
partner's hospital bedside, or the indignity of being refused any of 
the other thousands of benefits that come with marriage that millions 
of Americans access every day because a State refuses to recognize 
their otherwise lawful marriage.
  Denying recognition of same-sex relationships signals to the couple, 
their family, and all others that their bond in love is less deserving 
of respect, harming the individuals and creating divisions within the 
fabric of our society.
  After Thea's death, Edith bravely fought all the way to the Supreme 
Court, in the United States v. Windsor, to establish what so many of us 
have known for decades: that laws that deny recognition of legal same-
sex marriages serve no legitimate purpose, stigmatize and shame 
American families, and are a deprivation of the equal liberty guarantee 
of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment.
  It is time for the long arc of history to continue to bend towards 
justice and for similarly discriminatory State laws to be struck down 
once and for all.
  Should the Court rule for equality, there will be no losers. No one 
will be harmed by the granting and recognition of same-sex marriages. 
Those claiming otherwise are either promoting discredited claims about 
the dangers of gays and lesbians or falsely believe they have the right 
to involve themselves in the private affairs of others.
  More than 70 percent of Americans already live in jurisdictions that 
provide for same-sex marriages. It is unconscionable that anyone would 
propose to continue to deny universal access and recognition, as well 
as the associated safety and security, to these families.
  The Court has the immediate responsibility to expand upon its 
decision in Windsor to ensure that State laws comply with established 
basic constitutional protections and that all Americans are given the 
equal respect and support they deserve.
  Much as in Loving v. Virginia, which also rolled back government-
enforced marriage discrimination based on race, outdated prejudices and 
intolerance cannot be allowed to rule the day. It is time that we make 
the Constitution's promise of equality a reality for gay and lesbian 
couples throughout the Nation.
  Regardless of the forthcoming decision, we have a long way to go to 
ensure full equality for LGBT Americans who can still be fired from 
their jobs, denied housing, and turned away from stores simply for 
being who they are. We must work together to pass comprehensive 
nondiscrimination legislation to protect these vulnerable Americans.

                          ____________________