[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 20825-20826]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               STRENGTHENING THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words about the 
importance of the Defense of Marriage Act.
  Recent and pending cases, before the Supreme Court and the state 
court of Massachusetts, raise serious questions regarding the future of 
the traditional definition of marriage throughout America as embodied 
in the bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act. I believe it is important 
that the Senate consider what steps, if any, are needed to safeguard 
the institution of marriage that the Defense of Marriage Act has 
expressly defined since 1996.
  In very simple and easy to read language, the Defense of Marriage Act 
stated that a marriage is the legal union between one man and one woman 
as husband and wife, and that a spouse is a husband or wife of the 
opposite sex. That declaration did not break any new ground or set any 
new precedent. It simply reaffirmed the traditional definition of 
marriage.
  The Defense of Marriage Act received overwhelming bipartisan support 
in both Houses, as you would expect. The House passed the act by a vote 
of 342-67, and the Senate passed it by a vote of 85-14.
  President Clinton signed the measure, stating that: ``I have long 
opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages, and this 
legislation is consistent with that position.'' And since that time, 37 
States have passed defense of marriage acts at their own level, 
defining marriage for purposes of State law.
  In the words of the eloquent senior Senator from West Virginia, a 
sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act

       Throughout the annals of human experience, in dozens of 
     civilizations and cultures of varying value systems, humanity 
     has discovered that the permanent relationship between men 
     and women is a keystone to the stability, strength, and 
     health of human society--a relationship worthy of legal 
     recognition and judicial protection . . .

  He went on to say:

       The suggestion that relationships between members of the 
     same gender should ever be accorded the status or the 
     designation of marriage flies in the face of the thousands of 
     years of experience about the societal stability that 
     traditional marriage has afforded human civilization.

  Senator Byrd was echoing an understanding of marriage shared by many, 
if not most, and particularly the late Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who wrote:

       Your love is your own private possession, but marriage is 
     more than something personal it is a status, an office that 
     joins you together.

  Marriage is so fundamental to our culture and to civilization itself 
that it is easy to forget how much depends on it.
  Marriage provides the basis for the family, which remains the 
strongest and most important social unit. A wealth of social science 
research and data attest to this commonsense fact.
  And as columnist Maggie Gallagher writes:

       When men and women fail to form stable marriages, the first 
     result is a vast expansion of government attempts to cope 
     with the terrible social needs that result. There is scarcely 
     a dollar that state and federal government spends on social 
     programs that is not driven in large part by family 
     fragmentation: crime, poverty, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, 
     school failure, and mental and physical health problems.

  Clearly the family is the fundamental institution of our 
civilization. It fosters successful communities, happier homes, and 
healthier lives. The

[[Page 20826]]

family provides the foundation for raising each generation of 
Americans. And when families are weakened, it is the children who 
suffer most.
  We recognized these facts in 1996, by passing the Defense of Marriage 
Act overwhelmingly, and reiterating the traditional understanding of 
what marriage is. Now, by decisions of our courts, concerns have been 
raised again, and I believe that it is the duty of the Senate to 
reexamine and, if necessary, reaffirm this important determination.
  The great Sam Houston, whose seat I am honored to hold in this body, 
once said:

       The time is fast arising when facts must be submitted in 
     their simplest dress.

  I believe that time is now. The facts deserve examination and, if 
necessary, action.
  The question before us now is whether the popular and bipartisan 
legislation known as the Defense of Marriage Act will remain the law of 
the land as the people and, most particularly, the Representatives of 
this body intend, or whether we will be undermined or overturned by the 
courts.
  As many in this body have stated in the past, the Founders could not 
have anticipated that our Nation would ever reach the point where 
marriage would ever require such definition.
  But neither could they have anticipated the method through which the 
courts would unilaterally upend our Nation's laws, reading penumbras, 
emanations, and ``sweet mysteries of life'' into the legal text as 
justification for overturning legislative acts.
  On an issue as fundamental as marriage, I believe it is the job of 
the American people, through their Representatives, to decide. We 
should not abandon this issue to the purview of the courts alone. Some 
have suggested a legislative answer. Others have suggested a 
constitutional amendment is needed. In any case, we must consider what 
steps are now needed to protect and safeguard the traditional 
understanding of marriage as defined in the Defense of Marriage Act.
  Toward that end, I will convene a hearing of the Judiciary 
Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, which I chair, in the 
first week after we return from the August recess to find out what 
steps, if any, are required to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act and 
the congressional intent as embodied in that measure. I hope my 
colleagues, including the bipartisan majority who overwhelmingly 
supported the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, will join me in these 
efforts.
  Perhaps no legislative or constitutional response is needed to 
reinforce the status quo. And if it is clear that no action is 
required, so be it. But I believe that we must take care to do whatever 
it takes to ensure that the principles defined in the Defense of 
Marriage Act remain the law of the land.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________