[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 20076-20113]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT

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

[[Page 20077]]

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

                              {time}  1400

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

[[Page 20078]]

very much believe in marriage, who very much want to marry, who may not 
marry under the laws of the various States of this country, but whose 
fellow citizens may conceivably one day permit them to do so; and that 
we must prevent.
  I have been searching in vain for some indication of what might 
happen to my marriage or to the marriage of anyone in this room if 
loving couples, including couples who have had children for years, are 
permitted to enjoy the blessings of matrimony. If there is a Member of 
this House who believes that his or her own marriage would be 
destabilized or destroyed by a same-sex marriage somewhere in America, 
I would welcome an explanation as to what you think would happen to 
your marriage and why. Any takers?
  The overheated rhetoric we have been hearing is reminiscent of the 
bellicose fearmongering that followed the Supreme Court's 1967 Loving 
v. Virginia, which struck down State prohibitions against interracial 
marriage. The Supreme Court had overstepped its authority, we were 
told. The Supreme Court had overridden the democratic will of the 
majority. The Supreme Court had signed a death warrant for all that is 
good and pure in this Nation.
  Fortunately, we have survived as a Nation; and we are the better for 
it.
  In the not-too-distant future, people will look back on these debates 
with the same incredulity we now view the segregationist debates of 
years past.
  This amendment does more than it purports to do. It would preempt any 
State law or legislature from passing a law allowing people of the same 
gender to marry, even if that law was approved by the legislature or, 
for that matter, by referendum of the people. This is not to protect 
the States; this is to protect a notion against the democratic will of 
the majority of the people in the States. Read the first sentence: any 
such marriage would be unconstitutional.
  Proponents of this amendment have already tried to use a similar 
prohibition against same-sex marriage to attack domestic partner 
benefits in courts. So do not tell me this is only about marriage. I do 
not believe it. It says nothing in this amendment about recognition of 
marriages from one State to another. If you want to allow democratic 
majorities to have their way within their own borders, this amendment 
will do the exact opposite.
  There are many loving families who deserve the benefits and 
protections of the law. They do not live just in New York or San 
Francisco or Boston. They live in every one of the 435 congressional 
districts in the United States. They are not from outer space, they are 
not a public menace, and they do not threaten anyone. They are our 
neighbors, our coworkers, our friends, our siblings, our parents, and 
our children. They deserve to be treated fairly. They deserve to have 
the rights of any other family.
  I regret that this House is being so demeaned by this debate. It 
saddens me that this great institution would sink to these depths even 
on the eve of an election. We know this is not going anywhere. We know 
it is merely a political exercise. Shame on this House for playing 
politics with bigotry.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Feeney), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished majority leader 
for his leadership on this issue, especially, along with the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) and her brave leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, the Constitution is going to 
be amended. Either radical, unelected judges are going to amend the 
Constitution from the bench to redefine the traditional view of 
marriage, or the people's Representatives here in this House and across 
in the other body are going to act to amend the Constitution to 
preserve the traditional, historic definition of marriage. I notice 
that none of the opponents yet of this amendment have said that he or 
she will do whatever it takes to defend marriage when the time comes, 
but the action is unnecessary. If they are willing to commit to do 
whatever it takes to defend marriage, that is another matter; but that 
is not what they are saying.
  Mr. Speaker, we have already seen the Massachusetts Supreme Court 
undo over 400 years of history in Massachusetts, undo a Constitution 
which is older than the United States Constitution, and find some new 
right. In doing so, in establishing same-sex marriage, what the 
Massachusetts court did is to belittle the traditional definition of 
marriage and all of the States that actually believe that. They said 
that there was no logical reason to preserve the benefits of a marriage 
between a man and a woman.
  Even the liberal Washington Post Editorial Board was shocked by the 
Massachusetts judge's decision, stating in their editorial, ``We are 
skeptical that American society will come to formally recognize gay 
relationships as a result of judicial fiats.'' That is exactly what we 
are here to prevent, the judicial fiat that will undo the traditional 
definition of marriage which has protected and been the building block 
of this country forever. None of the States, not one of the State 
legislatures has ever tried to redefine marriage, but we have had 
courts in Vermont, in Hawaii, and in Massachusetts now attempt to do 
that very thing.
  What we are here to do is to remind people that under the fourth 
article to the United States Constitution full faith and credit clause, 
when one State establishes a marriage as something other than a man and 
a woman, eventually all other 49 States will be forced, despite DOMA, 
which we have heard is going to be struck as unconstitutional, both 
liberal and conservative scholars agree, 49 States will have the 
definition that Massachusetts has imposed by the bench on their people 
imposed on us unless we act today.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), a gentleman who has followed the 
civil rights struggle and the struggle for women in this country for 
many years.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the 14th amendment of the U.S. 
Constitution guarantees the same rights to all people under the law, 
all people. It is what keeps us a United States. We call ourselves one 
Nation under God. Surely we know from the Bible that a city, a house, 
or a nation divided against itself cannot stand.
  This amendment divides our Nation. This amendment creates two classes 
of people based on sexual orientation. It creates a second-class 
citizenship. In America, every individual is entitled to equal 
protection of the law. We could not remain a United States, half slave, 
half free. We could not remain a United States if a woman's right to 
vote or to choice were denied, and we cannot remain united if our 
brothers and sisters are denied equal protection of the law because of 
their sexual orientation.
  In America, we work to eradicate discrimination. In America, we work 
to create a more just and equal society. In America, our Constitution 
should further that goal. In America, our Constitution should give 
rights, not take them away. In America, we must continue to fight for 
equality and justice. Here we must always be the land of the free, the 
home of the brave, where the rights of all people are protected, 
regardless of race, color, creed, or sexual orientation.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is not about discrimination. It is about marriage and judicial 
activism, but the timing is really important. I would just quote, since 
we are doing a lot of quoting around here, Paul Kates, director of 
Public Education for the American Civil Liberties Union's Lesbian and 
Gay Rights project, who said, ``Once more States agree with 
Massachusetts. We think it is more likely that we will win in the 
Federal courts,'' in which case same-sex marriage policies can be 
imposed across multiple States and even nationwide. It is a concerted 
strategy to go this route.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment, and I

[[Page 20079]]

would like to highlight two basic principles in support of the 
amendment.
  The first is this, and everyone should understand this, including my 
friend, the gentleman from Ohio who preceded me in the well of this 
House. Same-sex couples have the right to live as they choose, but 
neither they nor a handful of activist judges have the right to 
redefine marriage for our entire Nation.

                              {time}  1415

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

[[Page 20080]]

  Each hour this Congress spends on a constitutional amendment that 
will divide America, we are not working to help provide health care to 
the 45 million Americans who have no health insurance. Each hour this 
Congress spends on a constitutional amendment that will divide America, 
we are not working to help the millions of unemployed and underemployed 
Americans.
  These must be our priorities, not writing discrimination into the 
Constitution of the United States.
  I implore my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address this 
issue.
  Is it a blatant attempt by Republicans to score political points in a 
political season? I am sorry, but it was not the Republicans who 
brought up the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision on May 17. We have 
very little influence in that particular matter.
  From my friends on the other side of the aisle who declare to us that 
amending the Constitution is just the extension of rights, I would 
remind them that the Dred Scott decision that said that slavery is 
correct and proper for these United States was, in fact, turned around 
in a very similar situation that we are facing today.
  A Supreme Court is positioning itself to declare a certain thing 
which is in opposition to the will of the majority of the people, and 
we are simply going to turn that around with a constitutional 
amendment, the same as the Thirteenth Amendment turned around the Dred 
Scott decision of the Supreme Court.
  Now for the discussion about what this is really about. Once we leave 
the discussion of what is right for children as the heart of the 
discussion, we begin to get confused about what is right. When we talk 
about the fact that there are loving, gay couples who would like to 
raise their children, we seem to depart from the facts because only one 
out of three lesbians living in the same household are actually raising 
children, and among gay men, only one out of five.
  This issue is not about the right to raise children. This issue is 
about their rights to redefine marriage for the entire Nation, and I 
will disagree with my friends on the other side of the aisle that it is 
worth fighting for right now. It is worth fighting for in this House, 
and it is worth fighting for on the streets of America so that we have 
this national public discussion to determine what is most effective for 
our children.
  If we want examples, we can look to Scandinavia where more than 60 
percent now of the children are born out of wedlock, just a few short 
years after they have taken the same step that we are taking here.
  This discussion is about what is right for children. It has nothing 
to do with what is right for adults. How can we say that the rights of 
adults to choose their desire is more important than what is necessary 
to correctly and properly raise our children? What is right for our 
children is a discussion.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren) who has been of immeasurable assistance on 
constitutional questions in our committee.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, the Republican leadership has put us on 
notice that Congress will probably adjourn next week until after the 
November elections. We should have done so much more this year. Yet, 
this week, Republican leaders have decided to bring to the floor a 
constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and a bill to repeal gun 
laws in the District of Columbia. Are these really the most important 
issues facing the Nation?
  Earlier this month, the Republican leader, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay), said that he would not allow a vote to continue the 
assault weapons ban because it did not have the votes. When asked about 
scheduling a vote, he said the following, ``If the President asked me, 
it would still be no . . . because we don't have the votes to pass an 
assault weapons ban, and it will expire Monday and that's that.''
  Despite the overwhelming support of Americans everywhere, he let the 
assault weapons ban expire.
  Apparently, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) only brings things 
to a vote when he has the votes. But wait, this week the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay) has taken a different position on what he brings to 
the floor.
  In Roll Call, he acknowledged he does not have the votes to pass the 
marriage amendment. This amendment will not pass the House, and it did 
not even a get a simple majority in the Senate earlier this year. This 
amendment is going nowhere.
  Let us be clear. The only reason this bill is being considered today 
is to score political points a month before the election. I am not 
surprised in the least that the Republicans would put politics before 
solutions. What is shocking is that we would waste time on these 
political games when they have accomplished so very little this year.
  Earlier this month, the CBO released its update and confirmed that 
the 2004 deficit will be the largest in history, $422 billion. This 
$818 billion deterioration from the $397 billion surplus that they 
inherited when President Bush took office is just a shame.

                              {time}  1430

  And what have the Republicans done to bring the deficit under 
control? Absolutely nothing. As a result of their policies, and for the 
third time in 3 years, Republicans need to increase the debt limit once 
again. What have Republicans done about this, the national debt? 
Nothing. The list goes on and on.
  The Republicans never passed a 2004 budget. The fiscal year ends 
tomorrow, yet we have only done one of our 13 appropriation bills. The 
9/11 Commission report was released in July. It has been 71 days, and 
the House and Senate have still not voted on its recommendations.
  We have not passed a transportation reauthorization bill since 
January 2001. We have lost 1.7 million private-sector jobs. And for the 
third year in a row, the number of Americans without health insurance 
has gone up. Medicare premiums are as high as they have ever been. We 
have more people in poverty this year than we did when Bush assumed the 
Presidency.
  The Republicans control the White House, they control the House of 
Representatives, and they control the Senate. They control everything 
in Washington. Despite all these advantages, all of this power, they 
have no accomplishments. All they can do is play political games to 
hide their truly abysmal record and hope that the American people do 
not notice.
  The House Republicans have controlled Congress for a decade. On 
January 4, 1995, the day I was first sworn in, moments before being 
sworn in, then Speaker Newt Gingrich told the Members of the House that 
we were hired to do a job, and we have to start today to prove we will 
do it. Well, the Republicans have had 10 years, and just look at the 
dismal record. They have proven they just cannot do this job. It is 
time for a change. House Democrats are ready to get to work.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay) has 55 minutes remaining and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) has 53 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Carter), a former judge.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, today, we gather in this honorable chamber, 
and as we gather, there is an attack taking place on the basic building 
blocks of our society, the traditional family. Since the dawn of 
civilization, a family has consisted of a union between a man and a 
woman. In a civilized society, that union has historically been joined 
through a legal process we call marriage.
  Mr. Speaker, you can go anywhere on this earth or here in the United 
States and wake somebody up from a dead sleep and ask them to define 
marriage, and they will tell you that it is a union between a man and a 
woman. Yet, today, we are dealing with living with a court ruling by 
the Supreme Judicial

[[Page 20081]]

Court of Massachusetts which tosses aside the history of traditional 
marriage.
  This judicial activism, better called social engineering, flies in 
the face of legal precedent, and as The Washington Post shockingly 
stated, ``is done by judicial fiat.'' Not a single State of the 50 
States in this union have any legislation or a constitutional amendment 
which changes the definition of marriage. This assault on traditional 
marriage continues as legal challenges are joined in most all the 
States of this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I have had the dubious distinction of having presided 
over the dissolution of 20,000 marriages in my career of public 
service. I would venture to say that is more than anyone else in this 
House. I have listened to thousands of hours of testimony about the 
damage that can be done by the breakup of marriage to the children of 
our Nation. It is a shame that we have to go through this attack on 
marriage, but to add a further attack on marriage by redefining the 
definition of marriage would be an abomination to our children.
  For those who say, let the States choose, I would point out that the 
amendment will be required to pass three-fourths of the States, so it 
is up for debate in the States of this union. The Bill of Rights 
amendments were ratified precisely to make sure that fundamental 
principles were explicitly laid out in our constitution. The marriage 
protection amendment would explicitly protect the institution of 
marriage before the courts so that we will not be socially engineered 
out of our rights as American citizens and to destroy traditional 
marriage.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Weiner), the honorable Member who serves on the Committee on 
the Judiciary with great skill and distinction.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WEINER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the previous 
speaker, who said he had presided over the dissolution of 20,000 
marriages, I just wonder, in how many of those was the cause of the 
dissolution some gay relationship?
  I mean, I am prepared to own up when I am at fault. Am I responsible, 
as a gay man, for any of those 20,000 dissolutions? The gentleman said 
there were 20,000 dissolutions. Would he tell us in how many of those 
20,000 dissolutions was the existence of a gay marriage or gay civil 
union the cause?
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WEINER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas for a response.
  Mr. CARTER. About a half a dozen. But that was not the issue I was 
talking about.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. A half a dozen out of 20,000.
  Mr. CARTER. If I have the floor, and I might speak, my point was the 
damage that the dissolution of marriage causes to the children of this 
marriage. I said nothing about gay marriages in my speech whatsoever.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I apologize. If the gentleman would 
continue to yield briefly.
  Mr. WEINER. I continue to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I apologize for assuming that the 
gentleman was referring to gay marriage. This is a debate about gay 
marriage. So when the gentleman talked about the dissolution of 20,000 
marriages, I made, apparently, the incorrect inference that there was 
some relationship between what the gentleman was saying and the subject 
under suggestion. I withdraw the inference.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I am going to reclaim my time, since the 
gentleman is not referring to gay marriage, and that is what this very 
important debate is about.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard a great deal on this floor about the 
message we send our children, and we have different interpretations 
about what this debate means to our children. One thing I would urge my 
colleagues on the other side not to do is not to tell your children you 
are being conservative by supporting this. Conservative values, as I 
understand them, means not taking government and sticking it into every 
relationship and into every corner of someone's personal life, like you 
seek to do with a woman's right to reproductive freedom and like you 
seek to do with the most intimate of relationships today.
  Certainly, do not tell them that you are passing laws in this body to 
protect them. That you should not tell the children when you have 
passed laws to weaken water standards, weaken clean-air standards and 
to underfund education. So when you are talking to your children, do 
not tell them that.
  Certainly, do not tell them that you are being consistent, because 
many of the folks on the floor here are the strongest supporters of the 
Defense of Marriage Act, yet in the Committee on the Judiciary and on 
this floor over and over, when challenged as to its constitutionality, 
say, oh, absolutely; absolutely, it is constitutional. It has not even 
been struck down and already you are running away from your 
interpretation of DOMA. So do not tell them you are being consistent.
  And certainly, do not tell them that you are being honest, because if 
you were being honest, you would not lie to them and tell them that you 
are doing anything to amend the Constitution today. The Senate has 
already defeated this. If you are going to be honest with them, you are 
going to have to tell them what you are doing is simply posturing. So, 
certainly, do not tell them you are being honest.
  What you are doing is teaching them to hate. You are teaching them 
that the Constitution is the place you remove rights, not protect them. 
That, I think, has been a consistent theme of this year's session. So, 
perhaps, in that case, you are being consistent in using the 
Constitution that way.
  And I have to tell my colleagues, there are so many people who hang 
their heads today when talking about their grandparents who served in 
this august body. They hang their heads when they talk about their 
grandfather who stood up on the floor of the well and argued in favor 
of slavery. They are embarrassed by that.
  There are so many who hang their head when they talk about their 
grandfather who served in this august body and fought for denying the 
rights of women. They are embarrassed by that.
  Why is it that you think your grandchildren will not some day grow up 
and be telling their children about granddad or grandmom and have to be 
embarrassed about this debate; have to be embarrassed and ashamed by 
the idea that you, their grandparents, God willing, they are able to 
tell the story and how embarrassed they will be? Will they be 
embarrassed like those who have to talk about their grandparents who 
voted to support slavery or voted in support of rounding up Americans 
and putting them in internment camps?
  I hope that that is not the case. If you are concerned about what you 
will tell your grandkids, be more concerned about what they will tell 
their grandkids about you.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
just mention that we are talking about marriage. I know some think this 
is a debate or a constitutional amendment on gay marriage and same-sex 
marriage. No, we are talking about marriage and the definition of 
marriage. That is what this debate is about.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am not embarrassed to say I stand 
here on behalf of tens of thousands of families in the Eighth 
Congressional District in strong support of the marriage protection 
amendment.
  I believe the institution of marriage is a sacred union. It predates 
Congress and the constitution. Marriage is not simply a legal contract. 
For all its flaws, it is a covenant that truly binds individuals and 
families to each other and has, for centuries, provided social 
stability, not only for our country but for our culture.
  Marriage matters. It matters to the American people. It matters to 
our

[[Page 20082]]

children, and it matters to our Nation's future. Because strong 
families foster strong morals and a strong Nation to go with it.
  As for those who say this is no business of Congress, I strongly 
disagree. Our Founding Fathers and mothers may never have imagined this 
debate today, but they created the thoughtful process for the American 
people to decide such matters of importance.
  And make no mistake, the definition of marriage will be defined. The 
only question today we are debating is by whom, the unelected justices 
of the Federal courts or the American people? So you decide, who do you 
trust to decide this nation-changing decision? I have faith in the 
American people.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Oakland, California (Ms. Lee), who replaced our good 
colleague Ron Dellums, an activist in domestic and international 
matters.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time and for his tireless efforts on behalf of civil liberties and 
civil rights for all Americans.
  This is a very mean-spirited and divisive constitutional amendment, 
and it is just plain wrong. It would take everything this Nation stands 
for, as a beacon of hope, as a land of opportunity and a tolerant 
Democratic society, and really just turn it all on its head. Government 
should not be in the business of passing constitutional amendments to 
discriminate against anyone.
  In an election year, with so much at stake, this amendment is clearly 
a ploy to divide the country's focus from the real issues, and I say, 
do not be fooled. There are far more important issues facing our Nation 
this year that this administration and Republican-controlled Congress 
refuse to debate and which have far greater impact on our country than 
this issue of a constitutional amendment.
  In my district, the Ninth Congressional District of California, six 
members of the clergy, six members of the African-American clergy, led 
by a great religious leader, the Reverend J. Alfred Smith, Sr., Senior 
Pastor of the Allen Temple Baptist Church, addressed this very issue. 
In this open letter, published in the Oakland Tribune, they 
characterized the intent of this amendment to disrupt the peace and 
good will of many in both the secular and religious communities.
  They continued, ``whatever your personal opinion is regarding same-
sex marriages, ask yourself this litany of questions.'' They said: 
``Can America survive if she continues unilateral war-making in a time 
that calls for international peace-seeking collaboration?'' ``Can the 
American common people, whom we serve as clergy, survive the 
diminishing resources for public education and health care?'' They ask 
the question: ``Can the American image survive the rejection of global 
treaties and environmental controls?'' They said: ``Is it liberty and 
justice for all Americans when preferential treatment is given to the 
wealthy and select corporations?''
  Mr. Speaker, the answer to all of these questions is no. So I 
strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this cynical and divisive 
attempt to legitimize discrimination in our most important secular, 
mind you, our most important secular, not religious, document, the 
Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the open letter published in the 
Oakland Tribune, which I earlier referred to:

                              Here We Stand

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

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

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

                              {time}  1445

  However, with the recent onslaught against the traditional family in 
the courts, I believe it is now time for the Federal Government to act 
decisively as well.
  Mr. Speaker, 44 out of 50 United States have already enacted laws 
that identify marriage as a union of a man and a woman, mother and 
father. Yet activist judges who look to enforce their own personal 
views continue to strike down laws passed by State legislatures and 
approved by our constituents. In fact, over 60 percent of the American 
people agree we need a Federal constitutional amendment. The citizens 
of the United States, our constituents, want us to support traditional 
marriage between one man and one woman. They do not want a court to 
decide the definition of marriage.
  Therefore, if we do not pass a constitutional amendment on the 
Federal level, federally appointed judges will make their own 
definition without a single vote by the American people or their 
representatives. I believe this body has an important decision to

[[Page 20083]]

make, a decision that is obviously a major concern to the majority of 
the American public.
  To illustrate this, as of this morning, over 2,600 constituents from 
Georgia's 11th Congressional District have written to me in favor of 
this amendment. They have voiced their concerns to me, and I believe 
they are right, and I strongly urge Congress to pass the marriage 
protection amendment.
  As far as the gentleman from the other side of the aisle who 
questioned what our grandchildren will think of their grandparents some 
day, my four grandchildren will say thank God their granddad stood up 
for their moms and dads for the passage of this constitutional 
amendment.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would admonish 
guests in the gallery that they are here as guests of the House, and 
are not to show approval or disapproval for remarks on the floor.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) who has worked on civil rights and 
constitutional matters with great skill ever since she has come to this 
Congress
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
ranking member for his continued service to America.
  I thought I would take just a moment to move this debate to the 
document which we are attempting to amend, and that is the 
Constitution. As I arrived on the floor of the House, I was listening 
to one of the speakers mention that the concept of marriage is embedded 
in the Constitution of the United States. I took a moment, as I 
listened and reflected on the various voices that have been raised, 
because this is a constitutional debate that heretofore would take 
numbers of days because we would be serious about amending the 
Constitution.
  But I came upon article IV that talks about full faith and credit 
shall be given in each State by the public acts, records, and the 
judicial proceedings of every other State, and so I do not understand 
the argument that is being made by my friends on the other side of the 
aisle, and I take issue in that because there will be different voices 
raised from both sides of the aisle. This is a constitutional question. 
This is a debate for all America, no matter what political hat one may 
be wearing.
  But I come upon the first amendment that clearly distinguishes and 
says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
  I stand before Members to respect and acknowledge the faith community 
and the definitions they may give to unions of human beings and people 
in the United States. But I again remind my colleagues that this again 
is a secular Nation. Embedded in the Constitution is our right to 
freedom of religion, but it indicates very specifically that we are to 
designate no particular religion for this Nation.
  As a southerner coming from the State of Texas, I stand before you 
with great jeopardy because the predominant individuals in my community 
do speak as others have already spoken; however, I would be incensed if 
anyone was to define the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) or 
any of us who hold this Constitution dear, as someone who would fall 
over to the comfort zone where you would be patted on the back and 
praised and given all kinds of accolades because you decided to stand 
against a justice system that allows people to be human and dignified 
and equal in this country. I refuse to do that.
  I might offer to Members that I spent some time finding myself on the 
wrong side of the majority of the people of the United States of 
America. The good news is that those of us who have done that wake up 
every morning feeling good because we have slept well. The impeachment 
we went through in 1998, I am reminded of that room when everybody 
thought this was the way we should go, and I frankly believed, as many 
of my colleagues who joined us believed, that the Constitution at the 
time must prevail.
  So let me share some words during a very difficult time in America, 
and that was the civil rights movement first, but the Civil War in the 
1800s when this country was divided both in terms of individual family 
members and States. It was a time when people were trying to find some 
way to preserve the Union. Daniel Webster stood on the floor of the 
United States Senate and stated, ``Mr. President, I wish to speak today 
not as a Massachusetts man, not as a northern man, but as an American 
and a Member of the Senate of the United States. I speak today for the 
preservation of the Union.''
  So I speak today for the preservation of the Constitution of the 
United States of America. It troubles me that even though we can find 
ways to divide over many, many issues, it troubles me that we do not 
embrace the respect and the understanding of the freedom of the 
religion.
  I also offer to say that Daniel Webster made it very clear that we 
must work in order to preserve not only this Union, and he said 
``Instead of dwelling in those caverns of darkness, let us enjoy the 
fresh air of liberty and union.''
  Let us enjoy the fresh air of liberty and the understanding that this 
constitutional document would protect any American who would fall on 
the minority side of a cause. If it is not you today, it may be you 
tomorrow.
  For us to have a constitutional amendment that takes this document 
and make mockery of it, it has served us well. There is not a page or 
line or sentence in this document that undermines the human dignity of 
anyone. I welcome the clergy, and I would go to pray and sit with them 
and discuss with them their beliefs as I respect them, as I respect all 
of our beliefs. But who are we as a Nation if we are promoting 
democracy in the very bottom of the insurgency of Iraq and Baghdad, and 
we would stand today to deny the constitutional understanding that says 
we all are created equal. This document stands to the living testament 
that whoever you are in this Nation, you have freedom under this 
Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to defeat this amendment because it 
is unjust and it is not befitting of these United States of America and 
those of us who desire to preserve the Union and the Constitution, 
realize that this amendment does not promote freedom of religion or the 
sanctity of our Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution is the symbol of misplaced priorities. 
As my colleague from California eloquently enunciated during a 
Judiciary Committee markup of the ``9/11 Recommendations Implementation 
Act,'' H.R. 10 yesterday, it is unfathomable that we rushed through the 
consideration of that very important legislation so that we could 
debate this unnecessary proposal. Whether same-sex unions negatively 
affect our traditional notions of marriage will not make a difference 
to the families of 9/11 victims. Our first responders will not get the 
needed funding to prepare for imminent attacks as a result of swift 
passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment. This debate is ridiculous 
and will not help the American people.
  I oppose this bill. H.J. Res. 106, the ``Federal Marriage 
Amendment,'' proposes to assert Congress' opinion on the lives of all 
Americans on matters that concern their personal lives, their family 
relations, and their very identity.
  This Constitutional amendment is not necessary and therefore should 
not be transmitted to the Committee of the Whole with a rule that 
restricts the voices of the members who function as one of the few 
voices that the Nation will have on its future.


                            Tenth Amendment

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

[[Page 20084]]




                         Full Faith and Credit

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


                      equal protection of the law

  Gay and lesbian Americans are American citizens who pay taxes and 
protect our communities as fire fighters, police officers, and by 
serving in the military, and therefore desire the same rights and 
protections as other Americans.
  Denying gay and lesbian couples the right to engage in a union equals 
a federal taking--legal rights in pensions, health insurance, hospital 
visitations, and inheritance that other long-term committed couples 
enjoy.
  As Members of Congress with the authorities vested in us as a body, 
we have a responsibility to deal with issues that need attention. There 
is no emergent need relating to individual well-being, national 
security, or any other government interest that warrants a 
constitutional amendment for this purpose. This is a waste of the 
taxpayer's dollars. This amendment takes away existing legal 
protections, under State and local laws, for committed, long-term 
couples, such as hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, 
pension benefits, and health insurance coverage among others.
  Under current law, marriage is a decision of the State. As marriage 
was initially tied to property rights, this has historically always 
been a local issue. The State gives us a marriage license, determines a 
couples' tax bracket and authorizes its divorce. It does not need 
additional control over the situation. Religious conceptions of 
marriage are sacrosanct and should remain so, but how a State decides 
to dole out hospital visitation rights or insurance benefits should be 
a matter of State law. As legal relationships change, laws adapt 
accordingly.
  Matters of great importance, such as marriage, need to reflect the 
will of the people and be resolved within the democratic process. By 
having Congress give the States restrictions initially, we are denying 
them the chance to let their constituents decide what is best for them. 
We cannot use the Constitution as a bullhorn to dictate social policy 
from Washington.
  We are fighting global war on terrorism, we are still recovering from 
the greatest attack on American soil and we are working to create 
alliances around the world. We have men and women overseas who are 
giving their lives to see freedom in Iraq. We have troops in 
Afghanistan that are still trying to set up a functioning democracy in 
Kabul. Why are we wasting time on the house floor, in our legislative 
offices and with our valuable staff to handle this ludicrous amendment?
  This proposed amendment will forever write discrimination into the 
U.S. Constitution rather than focusing on the crucial problems and 
challenges that affect the lives of all of us. At a time of record high 
unemployment, diminishing job prospects, a ballooning budget deficit 
that is choking our economy and crucial social service programs, a 
public school system that is in great need of attention and a health 
care system that is failing over 43 million Americans that remain 
uninsured over the past 3 years. This discriminatory constitutional 
amendment is nothing more than a political distraction for the country 
to divert attention from the overabundance of real problems and our 
tremendous lack of effective solutions.


                          Violation of Privacy

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


            There is no valid need to amend the Constitution

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


                 defense of marriage act already exists

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


             fma will not change views on same sex marriage

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


                   this will clog the judicial system

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


                         this is likely to fail

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


                       fma does not help families

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


           the legal incident of marriage warrants a license

  There are a multitude of critical protections needed for same sex 
couples and their children. These legal incidents include rights 
related to group insurance, victim's compensation, worker's 
compensation, durable powers of attorney, family leave benefits and a 
joint tax return. These benefits are necessary for families to 
function. Legal status is truly a license that extends rights, it 
should not be denied to one group of people--otherwise, this body will 
be guilty of legislating in violation of the Equal Protections Clause 
of the Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution, 
and I urge this body to preserve the Constitution for the document of 
equality that it is--vote ``no.''
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Neugebauer).
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
marriage protection amendment. This

[[Page 20085]]

bill could also be called the family protection amendment. It could be 
called the child protection amendment because it is the best 
environment for our children's future. It is one that arises out of a 
marriage between one man and one woman.
  It is unfortunate that we have come to this point where Congress must 
step up and amend the United States Constitution in order to protect 
marriage in our country. However, the circumstances presented to us 
today leave us no choice but to do so. I want to ensure that the 
citizens of our Nation make this decision directly through their 
elected officials and their vote, and not by unelected Federal judges. 
I want my fellow Texans, not a Federal court, to decide what marriage 
is in our State.
  In 2003, the Texas legislature passed a law defining marriage as a 
union between a man and a woman. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act does 
not compel Texas to recognize same-sex marriages authorized by other 
States, and I support that law. However, the law does not keep same-sex 
couples with marriage licenses issued in other States from moving to 
Texas and suing to have their union recognized as a marriage in Texas.
  Would a Federal court or a Supreme Court uphold DOMA in this case? We 
do not know that. But what we do know based on recent history, the 
indication is that it is a safe bet that appointed judges and not the 
American people may make that decision. The situation I just described 
is not an imagined one. It is a reality in 11 States that are currently 
facing legal challenges in their States. Judges in these cases, not the 
people, will be able to define marriage. Mr. Speaker, this is not how 
our system of government was designed to work.
  To date, people across 44 States have spoken. They have sent the 
message that they believe marriage should consist of a union of a man 
and a woman. This represents 88 percent of our States.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, it is not just what I am saying, but the 
children also know what the definition of marriage is.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), a longtime civil rights and human rights 
advocate.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, let me say that I support the traditional 
definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I voted 
for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, but I believe, like Vice 
President Cheney, that this is an issue that should be regulated by the 
States, as it has been throughout the history of this great Nation.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, the chair of the House Republican Policy 
Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) stated on Tuesday in 
the Wall Street Journal and I quote, ``The Federal marriage amendment 
would do more harm than good were it to be enshrined in our charter.'' 
That is the statement of the chairman of their policy committee.
  Through their legislatures and courts, the States have proven quite 
capable of determining the legal definition of marriage. I believe the 
proper venue to consider decisions affecting this issue is in State 
courts and legislatures, and yes, with the people of the individual 
States. Thus, I oppose this constitutional amendment which is, at its 
core, based on intolerance and is a patently obvious effort to energize 
a part of the Republican Party's base and inflame the passions of 
others.
  None of us should ignore the Republican majority's real intent here 
today. This constitutional amendment represents the perfect marriage of 
raw political cynicism and distraction. Everyone in this Chamber 
understands that this amendment is not going to pass. In fact, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) said again in the Wall Street 
Journal, ``The Federal marriage amendment is more symbol than substance 
given the near impossibility of a two-thirds vote.''
  Even the majority leader himself acknowledged as much this week, 
telling Congress Daily, ``I think it is really important to put Members 
on the record, particularly before an election.'' Orval Faubus would 
have agreed with that; George Wallace would have agreed with that; 
Lester Maddox would have agreed with that.
  The majority leader's decision to move this amendment to the floor 
just 7 months after stating that it was unlikely to be considered this 
year is more than ironic, it is patently political. The purpose in 
bringing this amendment to the floor today, just 4 weeks before the 
election, is to create the fodder for a demagogic political ad that 
appeals to voters' worst fears and prejudices rather than, as we should 
do, to their best instincts.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, given that this amendment is not going to pass, 
it is nothing short of amazing and irresponsible that we are spending 
time debating this issue on the floor today.

                              {time}  1500

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

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

  Mr. Speaker, there is an emotional appeal to their arguments, but we 
are not here to legislate on emotion, and this is not comparable to the 
civil rights movement. We are here today, Mr. Speaker, because logic, 
because reason, because experience tell us that marriage is something 
that is worth preserving and protecting. Despite what some of my 
colleagues will say, we are not here for malicious purposes. We are 
here to ensure that our marriage laws protect an institution that is 
part of the bedrock fiber of our society.

[[Page 20086]]

  To determine whether or not a law is discriminatory, you have got to 
have an understanding about something of the purposes of that law. Is 
Social Security age discrimination because only people of retirement 
age are affected by that? Of course not. Similarly, common sense, 
experience, and social science will tell us that the purposes of our 
marriage laws are neither ugly nor invidious.
  Marriage is a social institution. Individuals freely decide to enter 
marriage, but they do not have a right to redefine its basic nature 
because they disagree with our shared American understanding of what 
marriage is. They do not have that right any more than an individual 
can privately redefine the meaning of other basic social terms like 
``property'' or ``democracy'' or ``church'' or ``corporation.''
  A vote for this amendment is a vote to preserve and protect an 
institution that is critical to the well-being of American families and 
children. Mr. Speaker, today we are going to stand with a basic element 
of our society. We have an obligation to preserve it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), a distinguished member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary now on leave.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, consistently proponents of 
this amendment have tried to hide what it does. Yes, there is a 
question about what one State could be compelled to do by the Federal 
courts to respect another. If that were the problem, an amendment could 
come forward aimed narrowly at that. I would not support it. But an 
amendment that said the full faith and credit clause does not apply 
could have come forward. This amendment goes far beyond that. But the 
proponents of it apparently understand how indefensible it is in the 
very democratic terms which they use, and therefore they conceal it 
from the people, speaker after speaker after speaker.
  I hope the majority leader will tell us why he will not be 
straightforward about this element of it and here is what it is: this 
does not simply say that judges cannot decide the question. And it does 
not say that one State cannot compel another. It also says, and its 
major impact, if it were to pass, would be to say to the voters of 
Massachusetts, no matter what you say in a referendum, no matter how 
you, the democratic electorate of Massachusetts, choose to define 
marriage, we the Federal Government overrule you.
  What justification have you for that? You say the people of Texas, 
the people of Tennessee want to decide. Why not the people of 
Massachusetts? Why did you not draft an amendment that would have 
honored the right of a State's electorate to make a decision? Our 
legislature is now in charge of this issue. The legislature will decide 
and the referendum will decide; and this amendment undeniably, but 
silently, says that no matter what any State does, it will be 
overruled. Vermont's civil union law originally came from the courts, 
but it has since been accepted by the political electorate. There have 
been votes in Vermont over this. Elections. This would also be 
overturned.
  But now let me turn to the merits. We heard one gentleman say that he 
was not talking about same-sex marriage. He just noted that he had 
presided over the dissolution of 20,000 marriages. I am a gay man and I 
have presided over the dissolution of none. So I guess I do not feel 
quite as guilty about assaulting marriage as some of you would like me 
to feel. I am sorry Rush Limbaugh has been divorced three times, but it 
ain't my fault; and it is not the fault of any of my friends. That is 
the issue.
  We are not assaulting marriage. Since when is it an assault on 
something for people to say, you know what, we have been excluded from 
this institution. We are also human beings and we feel love. We feel it 
in a way different than you. We feel it for someone of the same sex, 
male or female. And we look at your institution of marriage, and we see 
the joy it brings. We see the stability it brings to society. How does 
it hurt you if we share in it? That is the core issue I have not heard 
understood. What is it about the fact that two women in love in 
Massachusetts want to be legally as well as morally responsible for 
each other and live together and keep their home? Why is that an 
assault on you?
  What a case of blaming the victim. You are defending yourselves 
against two loving people whose failure is to love each other and to 
want not simply to be free floating but to be committed? What is it you 
are protecting yourselves against? How do we threaten you? What about 
the love of two men so disturbs you that it would dissolve marriages? 
There are apparently, what, men and women happily married all over the 
country and they will learn that in Massachusetts the legislature 
allowed same-sex marriage to continue and they will get a divorce, they 
will call the gentleman from Texas and he can make it 20,001.
  The gentleman from Texas, the majority leader, says this is not about 
gay marriage. Yes. And God didn't make little green apples and it don't 
rain in Indianapolis in the summertime. This is a political effort and 
it comes up a month before the election when it has been an issue since 
May of this year at least and before, a month before the election, an 
amendment that has no chance to pass, demonizes same-sex couples.
  I say demonize for this reason. You say, we do not have anything 
against these people. Then why do you change my love into a weapon? Why 
if I have the same feelings that you do towards another human being 
does that somehow become the only weapon of mass destruction you have 
ever been able to find?
  I urge the House to turn this down, let the people of Massachusetts 
make their own choices, and let loving men and loving women live in 
peace.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have the utmost respect for the gentleman from Massachusetts. I 
respect his feelings. No one is attacking his feelings or his 
relationships. There are many loving relationships between adults. But, 
Mr. Speaker, what we are saying and what this amendment is about is 
children, having children, raising children, and the ideal of marriage 
between one man and one woman raising those children.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Forbes).
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, one thing that both sides of the aisle, I 
think, can agree on today is that we should not be here today debating 
this amendment. I was thinking as I was sitting here, if we could go 
back in time to the days when they were laying the very foundation of 
this building that we are in today and we could ask the individuals 
laying that foundation, people walking the streets in D.C., what is the 
definition in America of marriage, they would have looked at us in 
bewilderment and they would have said without question, it is the 
relationship between one man and one woman.
  Mr. Speaker, if I had dared to tell them that there would come a day 
when I would stand in this Chamber and people would point their finger 
at me and they would yell and they would scream and they would call me 
names because I dared to stand up here to defend that definition of 
marriage, they would have been just awestruck.
  Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle always talk 
about representing the people in this country; but when their 
definition of marriage was challenged, 78 percent of them in Louisiana 
stood up and said that they believed that marriage should be between a 
man and a woman; 71 percent of them stood up in Missouri; 70 percent in 
Nebraska; 69 percent in Hawaii; 61 percent in California.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are facing today is an assault by a few 
individuals on that basic traditional definition of marriage between a 
man and a woman. The problem we had is that when this Congress stood up 
with the people in this country and said we want to protect that 
definition for you and they passed the Defense of Marriage Act, they 
realized that that act is currently under attack in Nebraska alone 
where 70 percent of the voters amended the Nebraska constitution to 
define marriage as the union of one man and one

[[Page 20087]]

woman, that is being attacked and trying to be overturned now.
  Mr. Speaker, before our subcommittees we have heard testimony after 
testimony by leading scholars of the courts that tell us that when that 
act comes before the courts, it will be declared unconstitutional, not 
because that was the original Constitution but because of the way a few 
handful of judges are interpreting that Constitution today.
  Mr. Speaker, the question for us is very simple. There are some of 
our friends who say that the protection of marriage is not worth 
amending the Constitution. I think it is worth that, Mr. Speaker; and I 
hope we will pass this amendment so we can stand with all the people 
across this country who believe very strongly that marriage should be 
between a man and a woman for the protection of the children in that 
marriage.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to reach across the aisle 
and yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the distinguished majority leader said that this 
amendment is about protecting children. With all due respect, it has 
nothing to do with protecting children. Gay people, lesbian people 
raise children today. They have children. They raise them. The laws of 
many States permit them to adopt children and they do. What this 
amendment is aimed at doing is aimed at preventing any State from 
bringing some stability to the lives of those children by allowing 
their lesbian or gay couples who have legal custody of those children, 
who are raising those children, to be able to get married. And this 
amendment says never mind what the electorate says, never mind what the 
legislature says, we do no want those parents to be able to be married.
  So do not tell us this is about protecting children. Whatever it is 
about, it is not about that.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I 
thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time. I wish I 
could seek time from my side of the aisle to speak today for basic 
human rights.

                              {time}  1515

  Unfortunately, the misguided effort to enshrine family law into the 
Constitution of the United States comes from this side of the aisle. So 
I am grateful to the minority for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the very process by which this bill is brought before us 
today is an affront to this institution. It was not considered by any 
committee of the House. It is not brought to the floor by the chairman 
of that committee. Rather, it is brought by the Republican leadership, 
who decided to take upon themselves to do the work of the committees 
and their chairmen. Moreover, this very same legislation was considered 
in the Senate and did not even achieve a majority vote, much less the 
required two-thirds for a constitutional amendment. Why then are we 
rushing to judgment here today? What is the compelling reason to 
consider this now?
  Eleven States have proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot 
this November which would define marriage in their own States as being 
between a man and a woman. While I might disagree with the actions of 
the voters in my State or any State considering such an amendment to 
their constitution, that is their prerogative. For better than 200 
years, family law has exclusively been the domain of the States. And 
that is where it should remain. Vice President Cheney said exactly 
this, and I agree with him. The chief crafter of the Defense of 
Marriage Act in 1996, former Representative Bob Barr, has said as much. 
And I agree with him. Marriage and divorce, inheritance and adoption, 
child custody, these are matters which correctly belong with our 
States. It certainly does not belong in the Constitution of the United 
States.
  Many of the States considering amendments to their own constitutions 
would permit their legislatures to enact provisions for civil unions 
between two people of the same sex. This amendment would prohibit that. 
But that is the genius of our federal system. To allow States to find 
solutions to issues such as family law which work uniquely for them.
  Amending the Constitution is, thankfully, a difficult task. That 
cumbersome process has saved us from making ill-advised changes during 
these past 215 years. It will save us from ourselves again this day.
  Never in our history have we used the amending process to limit the 
rights of citizens. From the first amendment to the fourteenth, the 
framers and the Congresses which followed have sought to expand and 
protect the rights of citizens. This would be a unique amendment in 
that it takes away rights from one group while specifically conferring 
it upon another. Try to find another provision in the Constitution that 
does this. They will look in vain.
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress and those before it should be about 
protecting rights and expanding rights. This proposed amendment to our 
Constitution is about discrimination. It is unnecessary. It is 
unwarranted. It should be soundly defeated.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have been here before. Abortion was up to the States, 
and it was supposed to be up to the States. Unfortunately, those who 
wanted more abortions in the States and the States were not doing what 
they wanted had a concerted strategy to use the courts to get abortion. 
And they worked over the years, went to the Supreme Court, and they got 
their abortions. And we have abortions.
  The same thing is happening now on marriage. They are trying to get 
marriage redefined in this country, so we know that we will end up in 
the Supreme Court.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that Congress has moved 
this important legislation to the floor of the House for a vote today. 
My office has received literally thousands of letters and e-mails, 
personal visits and phone calls from constituents urging me to support 
the institution of traditional marriage. And I want them to know today 
that I have heard them.
  I realize that reasonable men can differ on whether to allow 
nontraditional marriages in the United States. But I am clear on this 
issue because the values I share with the people of the Second 
Congressional District of Georgia are deeply held for God, country, 
work, and family. Moreover, these families' values are those of the 
traditional family based in our Judeo-Christian principles. That is why 
I have cosponsored and will vote for this important constitutional 
amendment, H.J. Res. 106, in order to protect the institution of 
marriage by defining marriage in the United States as the union between 
a man and a woman.
  I also voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which prohibits 
federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows individual States 
to refuse to recognize such marriages.
  Mr. Speaker, only by having a uniform definition of marriage 
established in the Constitution and interpreted by the federal courts 
can this most basic unit of society be protected.
  God, country, work, family, marriage between one man and one woman, 
to these we must pledge our sacred honor.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey), who has worked with us on civil rights, human 
rights and international issues throughout her career.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. With all the important 
legislation we should be working on with just 1 week left in our 
session, we are writing discrimination into the Constitution for the 
first time in our country's history.
  Whether one supports or opposes gay marriages, there is no reason to 
threaten the democratic values set forth in our Constitution. Not now, 
not ever.

[[Page 20088]]

  Of course, Republicans are getting a lot of political mileage out of 
this debate today from their right-wing fundamental supporters. And 
they get a lot of mileage out of being on the side of what we they call 
``family values.'' They have offered programs like their Marriage 
Initiative, where $1.5 billion has been funded to help the poor acquire 
interpersonal and conflict management skills to promote and strengthen 
marriage.
  The people I talk with, however, do not want the government to be 
their family therapist. They do not want the government to be in their 
bedroom. They want a government that helps create good jobs with good 
benefits, flexible workplaces, universal health coverage, affordable 
child care, safe after-school programs and much more. They know what 
real family values are.
  And let me read a letter I just received from a family that knows 
about family values. The woman writing, her name is Casey. She is from 
Santa Rosa, California. She writes: ``I was in a very long relationship 
with my partner until her death on April 17, 2000. Although I wanted 
very badly to, we could not legally marry, and my partner refused to 
marry me until our marriage would be legal. Hence, we were never able 
to marry even though we raised two children, who, by the way, are both 
heterosexual.
  ``Shortly after her terminal diagnosis after 18 months of a valiant 
fight against cancer, she asked me to marry her brother. This would 
accomplish three goals: I would be afforded health insurance through 
his work. As I have several debilitating chronic conditions, it is 
vital that I have health coverage.'' Second, ``if and when he becomes 
ill from his HIV or Hepatitis C, he will have someone to care for 
him.'' And, third, ``our youngest child would have two parents for the 
rest of her childhood, another 3 years.
  ``Three weeks to the day after her brother and I were married, the 
love of my life died in my arms at the age of 37. If we had been 
allowed to marry, we would have felt that we were full citizens in our 
State and in our country. As it was, she died a second-class citizen. 
Please do not let any more Americans die as second-class citizens. 
Sincerely Casey McChesney.''
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Berman).
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called 
Marriage Protection Amendment.
  During the Civil Rights movement there was great public turmoil over 
whether or not white and black children should go to the same schools; 
whether people of different races should eat in the same areas of 
restaurants, drink from the same water fountains, sleep in the same 
hotels; even whether consenting adults of different races should be 
allowed to marry each other. After years of struggle and public 
discourse, the minority went to our country's highest court and to its 
elected representatives in Congress, and at long last, in their quest 
for equality, our government realized that Black Americans are 
Americans.
  Today, only 40 years later, these questions seem preposterous. To 
children learning about that time in school, it seem unreal. Listening 
to the debate today, I have to wonder if we will ever learn from the 
lessons of our history. Today we're talking about an amendment to the 
Constitution--the document that assures all Americans that they are 
equal. We're asked to amend the Constitution in a way that will say all 
Americans are equal, except for this one group. What we're really 
talking about today is one question. Are Gay and Lesbian Americans, 
Americans?
  I hear those who support this amendment saying we have to amend the 
Constitution to protect us from activist judges who are not upholding 
the notions of family that existed when the country was founded. If the 
authors of this amendment had served in Congress during the Civil 
Rights movement, we could have heard them argue to defend segregation 
with an ``Education Protection Amendment'' after the Supreme Court's 
activist decision in the Brown v. Board decision. After the Loving v. 
Virginia decision they would have reacted to the judicial activism with 
a ``Racial Purity Protection Amendment.''
  I don't believe that the proponents of this amendment, or for that 
matter the majority of the American people, truly believe that a gay 
couple living down the street in a committed relationship is a threat 
to their own marriages or to other marriages in their community. I 
don't think they really believe it because such a belief would be 
completely nonsensical.
  The proponents of this amendment argue that two women who fall in 
love and want to marry will eventually be the downfall of all families 
in the United States. They say it will lead to the breakdown of the 
family. I want the people in favor of this amendment to look at the 
more than one million children of gay and lesbian parents in this 
country today one million children of gay and lesbian parents in this 
country today and tell them that you're here fighting to protect the 
rest of the country from their family.
  The Members who support this amendment claim they want to protect 
marriage. Open your eyes and look around. There are plenty of threats 
to marriages today--adultery, divorce, just the challenge of two adults 
making it through life's struggle together. Two people falling in love 
is not a threat to marriage--it's the basis of marriage.
  If the other side were sincere about wanting to protect marriage, 
we'd have an amendment on the floor today constitutionally banning 
divorce. If they really wanted to protect children from the dangers of 
being raised without a father and mother, we'd be banning single 
parenthood. But we aren't.
  Each Member of this Congress took a vow to defend the Constitution 
when we took office. The Marriage Protection Act would defile our 
Constitution, and we should uphold our duty today by opposing it.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for 
yielding me this time.
  A lot has been said about this Constitution. I will just take my 
colleagues to article I, section 1. It says ``All legislative powers 
herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.'' That is what the courts 
have taken over from us, legislative powers.
  So I want to say this about families: There is only one institution 
that is as old as humanity itself. There is only one institution that 
we know is right for raising children. There is only one institution 
that we know is best to teach our children our values of faith, our 
moral values; only one proven institution to transfer our work ethic to 
the next generation. There is only one institution that transfers all 
that we are as a people to our children and grandchildren and only one 
relationship between people that ensures the survival of the human 
race.
  All of human history, all that we were, all that we are and all that 
we are ever going to be is built upon one institution, the cornerstone 
of civilization. And that institution, Mr. Speaker, is marriage.
  Mr. Speaker, we owe too much to our Creator, too much to posterity 
and too much to our children to throw away marriage, redefine marriage 
for no more reason than to demonstrate tolerance.
  The active effort on the part of four unelected Massachusetts judges 
to impose same-sex marriage on all of America without the consent of 
the people is judicial tyranny. And if we believe in ourselves, and we 
do, and if we believe the Constitution is a sacred covenant that 
provides the best hope for all of humanity, then we have no other 
alternative but to amend the Constitution to protect our posterity from 
those who would forever alter or abolish our way of life and to do so 
without thought given to the price that would be paid by all future 
generations.
  We cannot put the Genie or the Gina or the Jimmy or the Joey back in 
the bottle. If same-sex marriage were something that was an experiment 
that, if it did not pan out, we could simply change it back, I would 
not be so emphatic here today. Mr. Speaker, we will not get a ``do-
over'' on marriage. We will not get a second chance to get it right 
again; not in this country, not in this civilization and not in this 
generation of man.
  I support the constitutional amendment.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Smith), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and 
subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, 
majority leader, for yielding me this time.

[[Page 20089]]

  Mr. Speaker, however we feel about the subject of marriage, we can 
still support the Marriage Protection Amendment. That is because 
judicial activism in America has reached a crisis.
  Judges routinely overrule the will of the people, invent so-called 
rights and ignore traditional values. Recently, judges have even 
changed the definition of marriage. Most Americans simply do not want 
judges to dictate a new kind of marriage that is so different from the 
one that has served so many so well for so long. They want to protect 
marriage as we know it.
  Eleven States have proposed to alter their constitutions or statutes 
to protect traditional marriage through ballot initiatives. Five States 
have already done so, with an average of over 70 percent of the voters 
wanting to protect marriage.
  To prevent judges from overruling these popular initiatives, we must 
pass the Marriage Protection Amendment. Either we act in Congress or a 
few judges will redefine marriage and impose their personal views on 
the country.
  The constitutional amendment process is an integral part of our 
democratic system, requiring approval from two-thirds of each House of 
Congress and three-quarters of the States by votes of their State 
legislatures. Passing a constitutional amendment places this debate 
back where it belongs, and that is with the American people. It is the 
American people and their representatives who should determine how 
marriage is defined. That is why we should support the Marriage 
Protection Amendment.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say, we have heard two arguments time 
and time again today by the opposition that they have used to cite to 
oppose the Marriage Protection Amendment. The first is some variation 
of ``all people are created equal,'' that somehow this is about equal 
rights. But, Mr. Speaker, just because all people are created equal 
does not mean that all kinds of marriages are equal, just like it does 
not mean that all kinds of flags are equal or all kinds of governments 
are equal.
  The second argument we have heard today over and over again is that 
somehow this is a political issue being used to win elections. I do not 
mind that argument, Mr. Speaker, because that concedes that a majority 
of the American people agree with us that we want to protect marriage 
as we know it.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Akin).
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of the 
Marriage Protection Amendment.
  There have been references to the Constitution. Mine starts out ``we 
the people,'' not ``we the judges.'' We did not ask for this debate. It 
has been brought on us by activist judges who have chosen to ignore the 
will of the people and instead redefine marriage for all Americans.
  Sociologists, psychologists, and other experts can give us all sorts 
of technical explanations, but we all know from experience that kids 
are best off when they have a mom and a dad.
  And kids is what this debate is all about. It is not about civil 
rights or the rights of same-sex couples. Same-sex couples are free to 
live as they choose. This amendment does not change that. Instead, this 
amendment simply defines what marriage is, the union of one man and one 
woman.
  Now, some have used the word ``discrimination'' or 
``discriminating.'' You know, 342 Members of this House, along with the 
President, signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Does that mean they were 
discriminating? How about the 70 percent of the voters in of my State 
of Missouri or 80 percent in the State of Louisiana? Are they 
discriminating? I think not.
  Activist judges are trying to institutionalize a lie that marriage is 
just about big people relationships, but they forget the little people, 
the whole generation of kids who will struggle with this terrible 
precedent.
  We do not have to look very far to see the results of family 
deterioration. Whole cities have suffered terrible poverty and crime 
because the model of traditional families has been weakened. Should we 
now stand idly by while a mere handful of activist judges seek to 
institutionalize the lie that marriage is disconnected from child 
rearing?
  It has been tried before. It has been tried in the Netherlands, and 
the result is a tremendous increase in the number of little children 
who are born without any families.
  The other night I went to a dinner, there was a 16-year-old little 
girl, and she said that ever since she could remember being alive she 
had only one wish: She wished that she had a family.
  Do you know what it is like to be lonely, to be really lonely, to 
have no mom and to have no dad? Do you realize what you miss when you 
do not have a family, about the love and the affection? When you wake 
up in a bed and dream at night and there is someone there to give you a 
hug? The self-sacrifice and self-discipline and grace, forgiveness, all 
these things that families teach us?
  I remember when I was a little kid trying to learn to ride a bicycle. 
I finally got it going and ran it smack into a bush. I was all bruised 
and scratched and in tears; and my dad, my big strong dad, came over 
and he picked it up and he said to me, ``It is time to get back and try 
again.'' See, those are the kinds of things that moms and dads provide.
  So this thing is about the little people. It is whether kids are 
going to have a mom and a dad. The real discrimination here is by 
activist judges who are trying to deny children the advantages of a 
simple family. If this Congress does not act, then it is a gross 
dereliction of duty if we do not protect our children and protect our 
marriages.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Marriage Protection 
Amendment. This amendment is about recognizing a simple, important, and 
fundamental truth, and that is just that the marriage of one man and 
one woman is a unique, special and, in fact, an indispensable 
relationship that deserves the special recognition we have given it for 
millennia.
  We have got many kinds of important relationships in life. We all 
know those. Siblings, friends, cousins, in-laws, neighbors, there are 
lots of important relationships. But only one relationship, the 
marriage of one man and one woman, can provide the optimal environment 
for raising children. And that is why the family with a married husband 
and wife at the center has always been the most important building 
block of society. And that is why we are here today, to ensure that 
that unique and vital and important relationship be recognized, 
preserved, and protected.
  Let me reaffirm something that the majority leader said earlier. The 
fact is the definition of marriage is going to be written at the 
Federal level. The question here today is whether that is going to be 
done by nine men and women wearing black robes or whether it is going 
to be done by the American people through their elected Representatives 
in Congress and the 50 States through a very democratic process. Put me 
squarely on the side of those who believe that the American people 
should make this decision.
  We in Congress have stood by and watched the courts usurp more and 
more power from the American people for decades, and I think we have 
abrogated our responsibility to the American people by tolerating 
judicial activists for too long. It is finally time to draw the line 
and let the American people affirm the definition of marriage by 
passing this amendment.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Marriage 
Protection Amendment. I am proud to be counted among the cosponsors of 
this constitutional amendment this afternoon.

[[Page 20090]]

  In the history of our country, I do not believe anyone has ever said 
that our system of democracy would be easy. Our Constitution was 
designed to set us on a path, but it also gave us the ability to change 
that path when it became necessary. Our Founding Fathers wanted to 
ensure that we took that process very seriously. They set the bar very 
high.
  Today, many of us here in this body believe that the time has come to 
change paths, and many people in our country agree. It is time that 
their voices are heard in this debate.
  Today on the floor we have heard a litany of questions about why we 
are considering this issue. Yes, there are important bills that need to 
be considered: health care, homeland security, education, jobs. All of 
them need to be addressed, and no one would argue with that.
  But how could anyone say that protecting marriage and the future of 
the American family is not a top priority? Marriage and the family is 
the very foundation of our society. It is the activist judges in 
Massachusetts and Oregon that have compelled the Congress to act, not 
the other way around.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation this 
afternoon as we support the marriage between a man and a woman.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, why are we standing here today, wasting taxpayer dollars 
in an attempt to, for the first time in our history, amend our 
Constitution to deny a specific group equal rights? Why do we not leave 
it to the States, as our Constitution provides?
  Frankly, I fail to understand why gay marriage threatens my wife's 
and my 24 years of marriage, or anybody else's marriage, or why it 
would undermine the Republic.
  Gay and lesbian Americans want their secular government to legally 
recognize their committed relationships. They want their secular 
government to provide equal benefits in tax law, access to health care, 
Social Security, and death benefits. They want the same benefits as 
other Americans.
  Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle are being 
disingenuous by saying they simply only want to define the institution 
of marriage. If that is their only motive, then why do they also oppose 
domestic partnerships and civil unions, which would give gays and 
lesbians the same rights as other Americans?
  Why are we even dealing with this now? The Senate has defeated it. 
Could it be an attempt to divert attention from the failings of the 
Congress to do its work on appropriations and transportation; to divert 
attention from the war in Iraq, from a poor economy or from 
skyrocketing deficits; to force a blatantly political vote in this 
House; to whip up a frenzy in a specific group of voters one month 
before an election?
  Let us stop playing political games. Vote down this amendment. We 
should not be dealing with something that is best being left to the 
States.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, marriage is a universal human institution. It 
always has been in all societies. But marriage in the United States has 
been under attack in recent years. And the future of marriage really 
does matter.
  Regardless of where we look, we have seen a gradual weakening of the 
institution of family that historically we have relied on to raise 
kids. And while marriage has taken a beating from divorce and other 
factors, the statistics still show that the best home for kids is still 
with a mom and a dad who are married.
  This debate is really about what is best for our children. Children 
living with their mom and dad are safer, children living with their mom 
and dad are less likely to be abused or neglected, and children living 
with their mom and dad have fewer health problems and engage in fewer 
risky behaviors than their peers. These children are more likely to do 
well in school. They are better off economically and display increased 
ability to adapt to changing circumstances than peers not living with 
their mom and dad.
  Data shows children who do not have the benefit of mom and dad have 
unique challenges they would not face if their parents were married and 
living at home.
  And do not try to tell me that people who believe children need moms 
and dads are bigots. Do not try to tell me that people who believe in 
moral absolutes are guilty of moral bigotry. We are here to protect our 
kids. We are here because marriage is healthy for our children.
  When marriage ceases to be seen as a means to bring people together 
for the sake of children, marriage suffers; and when marriage suffers, 
children pay the price.
  Marriage is important because kids need a mom and a dad. History 
shows that when one aspect of marriage is damaged, the entire 
institution suffers.
  We need to protect marriage by passing this amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the leader of the equal 
rights amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the United States is 
the single greatest foundation of law in history. It serves as a model 
for democracies around the world. Therefore, we should approach 
amending it with great caution and reverence.
  For 215 years the U.S. Constitution has protected the rights of the 
American people; the right to assemble, the right to worship, the right 
to speak freely, and we ought to pass a constitutional amendment that 
gives equal rights to women. Instead, today we are debating a 
constitutional amendment that would curtail a right. Our predecessors 
tried this once in the 20th century. Fourteen years later they had to 
unamend the Constitution by rolling back prohibition.
  Our Constitution is silent on marriage, and that is good, because the 
American people's definition of what is an acceptable marriage has 
evolved over the years. A marriage once signified that a woman had no 
legal identity apart from her husband. Within the last 100 years, over 
a dozen States prohibited marriages between those of a European and 
Asian decent, and the Supreme Court overruled laws barring interracial 
marriage less than four decades ago.
  No constitutional amendment stood in the way of those changes. Laws 
governing families and marriage have always been determined by State 
governments. Dozens of States are already dealing with this issue. It 
is federalism in action. Many of this constitutional amendment's 
supporters have preached the virtues of federalism on other issues. You 
cannot be a federalist except when federalism is inconvenient.
  This is not governing on principle, it is practicing the politics of 
expedience and divisiveness right before a major election, and we 
should know better than to play politics with the United States 
Constitution.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. 
More to the point, I thank the majority leader, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay), for his extraordinary moral courage in leading this 
critical issue to the floor of this Congress and leading the debate 
today.
  I also congratulate the original author of this legislation (Mrs. 
Musgrave), who even as a freshman has left already an indelible imprint 
on the national debate in this legislation.
  I rise today in support of the Marriage Protection Act because I 
believe, as the overwhelming majority of the American people have ever 
believed, that marriage matters; that it was ordained by God, 
established in the law; that it is the glue of the American family and 
the safest harbor to raise children.
  We have heard again and again throughout this afternoon that marriage 
is under attack by judicial advocates. But I rise today to say that 
marriage matters to children. And we need

[[Page 20091]]

not look to the theoretical. Marriage in Scandinavia and in Holland is 
dying since the advent of same-sex marriage over the last decade in 
those countries.

                              {time}  1545

  As a result, a majority of children in Sweden and Norway are now born 
out of wedlock. In some parts of Norway, as many as 80 percent of 
first-born children and two-thirds of subsequent children are now born 
out of wedlock. And we know ever since my colleague from Indiana, Dan 
Quayle, first said it, marriage matters to children. Children born out 
of wedlock have statistically been proven to be more than twice as 
likely to be poor, to give birth outside of marriage themselves, to 
have behavioral or psychological problems, and fall into every form of 
social malady that besets our children.
  Marriage matters to children.
  I rise today to say against this extraordinary phalanx of legal 
attacks in virtually every jurisdiction of the country that I commend 
the leadership of this Congress and, to no less extent, the President 
of the United States of America for saying that marriage matters enough 
to find space in the Supreme Court of our land to defend it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette), a distinguished lawyer in her own right.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, one of the most glaringly absurd aspects of 
this debate is that marriage has never been and should not be now a 
Federal issue. Marriage is quintessentially a State issue. States have 
always had the ability to determine what constitutes marriage and the 
protections that it affords the will of the citizens.
  Not only does this proposed amendment turn the notion of Federalism 
on its head, though. It is antithetical to the spirit of our 
Constitution. This amendment would enshrine discrimination in our 
Constitution and be the only amendment that actually takes away a 
group's rights. It would not only take away the right to marriage, but 
also the right to provide basic fundamental rights, such as the right 
to visit a partner or child in the hospital.
  And to those who say it will help children, I have this question: Why 
should we not instead ban divorce? Approximately 1 million children, 
the product of heterosexual marriages, are living in single-parent 
homes in this country. Fifty percent of heterosexual marriages will end 
in divorce. If a State allowed same-sex marriage, I do not think it 
would affect my own heterosexual marriage. We are proud of the fact 
that this body represents America.
  So I would ask those who are divorced or those who have committed 
adultery, search in your soul and ask yourself, are you really ready to 
stand here today, today in this body, and cast the first stone?
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want everyone to keep 
in mind in the midst of this debate that a primary benefit of marriage 
is that it provides children with a mother and father from whom they 
can learn and be protected. What we are talking about today is whether 
or not we as a Nation will work to reaffirm an institution that 
provides profound benefits for children.
  It is correct that there are millions of men and women in this 
country who bravely raise children as single parents, and I applaud 
them for that. But there is an ideal for our children. Social science 
and everyday experiences teach us that children raised without the 
presence of both a mother and a father experience more poverty, more 
substance abuse, a higher rate of educational failure, and much more. 
Given the importance of marriage in the presence of a mother and father 
for our children's general welfare, this institution must remain 
strong.
  As a wife and a mother of two sons, I know the importance of children 
having both a mother and father. When our boys were growing up, my 
presence was important and irreplaceable. Studies have shown that young 
men raised by both a mother and father have more positive attitudes 
toward women, children, and family life. This is exceedingly important, 
as our society benefits when boys grow up to be men who take raising 
children seriously. My husband also played an equally important role in 
the lives of our boys, the role of father, a role that I could never 
play.
  It is true the future of marriage as a strong institution goes far 
beyond whether or not the Constitution is amended to reaffirm the 
definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. This does 
not mean that the Marriage Protection Amendment is unimportant. As a 
society, we will have no hope of strengthening the bonds of marriage 
without a unified, national definition of marriage that promotes the 
ideal for our children, that of being raised by both a mother and a 
father.
  As an original cosponsor of this amendment for the last 3 years, I 
stand in strong support of the Marriage Protection Amendment, and I 
urge its passage.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank) for the purpose of making a unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record 
answers I gave to the Committee on the Judiciary and some further 
material which rebut the preposterous conclusion of Stanley Krutz, 
which was quoted here, that somehow, same-sex marriage resulted in a 
decline in heterosexual marriages elsewhere.

     Judiciary Committee, Constitution Subcommittee,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Answers to the questions from Jerrold Nadler:
       When I was asked about Stanley Kurtz's research by 
     Congresswoman Hart at the hearing, I had not read any of his 
     work. I now have and I can say that I believe his 
     interpretation is entirely without intellectual merit.
       As I recall Ms. Hart's question, she asked me to accept Mr. 
     Kurtz's factual assertion that a recognition of same-sex 
     marriage had been followed in various European countries by a 
     decline in heterosexual marriage, and asked if I could think 
     of any possible explanation other than that the former had 
     caused the latter.
       I was reluctant to answer the question before reading the 
     data lest I be validating premises and assumptions which I 
     would later find to be invalid. This turns out to be the 
     case. In fact, Mr. Kurtz does not himself argue that same-sex 
     marriage recognition preceded a decline in heterosexual 
     marriage. In every country he discusses, and his selection is 
     surprisingly sparse, a point to which I'll return, a decline 
     in heterosexual marriage and childrearing in heterosexual 
     marriages preceded by a significant period of years any 
     recognition of same-sex marriages.
       But even on the narrow--and inaccurate--statement of Mr. 
     Kurtz's position that Ms. Hart put forward, the alternative 
     explanation to the assertion that same-sex marriage causes a 
     deterioration in heterosexual marriage is a simple one: They 
     may both be effects of the same or similar social causes. 
     Indeed, as Ms. Hart put the question to me, it can serve as a 
     dictionary example of the logical fallacy known as ``post hoc 
     ergo propterhoc.'' That is, the fallacy that believes that if 
     something happened after something else, it must necessarily 
     have been caused by it.
       The key point again to stress is that Mr. Kurtz himself 
     does not argue that same-sex marriage recognition preceded 
     the deterioration in opposite-sex marriage.
       In fact, Mr. Kurtz himself argues essentially that the 
     primary relationship of same-sex marriage and a decline in 
     heterosexual marriage is that they are both cause by the same 
     set of social phenomena. A fundamental flaw in his reasoning 
     of course is that he does virtually no analysis of any of the 
     European countries in which there has not been some form of 
     recognition of same-sex relationships. In other words, there 
     is zero comparative analysis in his work. Have significant 
     deteriorations in the incidence of heterosexual marriages 
     happened in other European countries which have not in fact 
     recognized same-sex relationships. The answer is almost 
     certainly yes but we will never know that from reading Mr. 
     Kurtz, who carefully avoids even posing that question, 
     obviously lest his hypothesis be endangered. He does refer to 
     England as a country where there has been a significant 
     deterioration in the number of heterosexual marriages, but 
     fails to note that this undercuts his argument about the 
     relationship between this and recognizing same-sex 
     relationships since England had not done that at the time of 
     his analysis.
       The second point to be stressed is that Mr. Kurtz is not 
     talking about same-sex marriage in most cases, but rather of 
     various forms of recognition of same-sex relationships, akin 
     to domestic partnerships or civil

[[Page 20092]]

     unions. This is relevant because some of those who questioned 
     me who are supporters of a Constitutional amendment asserted 
     that they were talking only about the unique nature of 
     marriage, and seemed to think that Mr. Kurtz supported them. 
     Of course he does not since he conflates marriage and other 
     forms of recognition throughout his analysis. Thus, the 
     distinction that one Constitutional amendment draws between 
     marriage and other forms of same-sex relationships does not 
     appear to be at all supported by Mr. Kurtz's analysis.
       I have read both his testimony and his article in the 
     Weekly Standard carefully and I am unable to find any 
     coherent argument that says that recognizing same-sex 
     relationships reinforced--he does not claim that they are the 
     primary cause--a decline in heterosexual marriage. His exact 
     statement is ``there is good reason to believe that same-sex 
     marriage and marriage-like same-sex registered partnerships 
     are both an effect and a reinforcing cause of the 
     Scandinavian trend towards unmarried parenthood.'' The 
     primary cause of the ``marital decline in Scandinavia'' 
     according to Mr. Kurtz, incidentally, are ``contraception, 
     abortion, women in the workforce, cultural individualism, 
     secularism and the welfare state.'' That is, all of these 
     have by Mr. Kurtz's own analysis more of a responsibility for 
     the decline of heterosexual marriage and same-sex-marriage. 
     This of course reinforces my earlier point--namely that Mr. 
     Kurtz scrupulously in his analysis avoids looking at the 
     statistics in countries which have not recognized same-sex 
     marriage, since virtually all of them in Western Europe are 
     affected by these other factors. And it does appear that to 
     Mr. Kurtz, even if we abolish same-sex relationship 
     recognition, we would have to ban or severely restrict 
     contraception, abortion, women in the workforce, cultural 
     individualism, secularism and the welfare state if we were to 
     save marriage. I recognize that there are members of the 
     Judiciary Committee who are attracted by the notion of 
     restricting some or all of these, and I commend their 
     discretion in not being more explicit about this wish.
       When it comes to causality, the only effort to establish a 
     causal relationship between recognizing same-sex unions and 
     the decline in heterosexual marriage comes in his testimony 
     when Mr. Kurtz says that ``same-sex partnerships in 
     Scandinavia have furthered the cultural separation of 
     marriage and parenthood in at least two ways.'' He then says 
     that ``first, the debate over same-sex partnerships has split 
     the Norwegian Church,'' and he argues that this weakening of 
     the traditionals within the Norwegian Lutheran Church is a 
     cause of an increase in same-sex relationships. I have tried 
     very hard to find the second causal factor but a very close 
     reading of the text produces no second. So we are left with 
     one assertion of causality--namely that the fact that 
     ``clergy who preach against homosexual behavior are banned'' 
     from preaching in parts of Norway means that their advocacy 
     of heterosexual marriage is no longer heard. This reinforces 
     my view that whatever is or is not happening in Scandinavia 
     in this regard has virtually no relevance to the United 
     States.
       I am aware of no religious denomination that has banned 
     clergy from the pulpit if they are against same-sex 
     marriages. There are some denominations that allow this to be 
     performed, but there should be no analogy between the United 
     States, where the great majority of religious groups do not 
     recognize same-sex marriages, and Mr. Kurtz's view of parts 
     of Norway where virtually all clergy who oppose same-sex 
     marriage are banned. To be explicit, if the causality that 
     links a recognition of same-sex relationships to a decline in 
     heterosexual marriage rests entirely on the fact that anti-
     same-sex relationship clergy are being marginalized and in 
     some cases silenced, it has no relevance to the United States 
     where nothing of that sort has happened or is likely to 
     happen.
       This leads me to my final point--namely that reading Mr. 
     Kurtz makes it even clearer than it was to me before that the 
     most relevant experience to draw on in predicting what impact 
     recognizing same-sex relationships will have on American 
     society comes from Vermont. Some have argued that the Vermont 
     experience is not relevant because it has only been in effect 
     for four years or so. But Mr. Kurtz himself has an important 
     section in his testimony on the Netherlands, where ``formal 
     same-sex marriage . . . took effect in 2001,'' and 
     ``marriage-like registered partnerships'' dates from 1998. In 
     other words, the Vermont experience is roughly comparable in 
     time to that of the Netherlands, and if Mr. Kurtz is right in 
     judging an impact based on the Netherlands, Vermont should be 
     equally relevant from the chronological standpoint--and, as a 
     part of the United States, far more relevant culturally.
       We have one set of experiences with legal recognition of 
     same-sex relationships in the United States--that of Vermont. 
     It shows none of the negative effects that opponents of same-
     sex marriage have predicted. Mr. Kurtz advances a correlation 
     in the contin-ued decline of marriage in various European 
     countries--where that decline long predated any recognition 
     of same-sex relationships--and the recognition of same-sex 
     relationships. But he carefully confines his analysis only to 
     those countries where same-sex relationships have been 
     recognized, so we have no way of telling whether or not the 
     decline in marriage that he attributes to same-sex 
     relationships has been equally great in countries where there 
     is no such recognition. And the only specific causal point he 
     advances is that this silencing or intimidation of Norwegian 
     Lutheran clergy who oppose same-sex marriage has diminished 
     their ability to preach in favor of heterosexual marriage. I 
     am very certain in my view that the experience in Vermont is 
     far more relevant to gauging the impact of a recognition of 
     same-sex relationships in the United States than is the 
     experience in a couple of Norwegian counties where the clergy 
     opposed to same-sex relationships have been silenced.

     Barney Frank.
                                  ____


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

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


         Married parents are still the majority in Scandinavia

       Marriage and child-bearing have become less directly 
     connected over time in many European countries, including 
     Scandinavia. But as we shall see, this separation hardly 
     qualifies as the death of marriage, and it cannot be blamed 
     on the passage of same-sex partner laws.
       In fact, Denmark's longterm decline in marriage rates 
     turned around in the early 1980's, and the upward trend has 
     continued since the 1989 passage of the registered partner 
     law. Now the Danish heterosexual marriage rates are now the 
     highest they have been since the early 1970's. The most 
     recent marriage rates in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are also 
     higher today than they were in

[[Page 20093]]

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


                         The impact on children

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


   Did gay marriage widen the split between parenthood and marriage?

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

[[Page 20094]]

     they did so only for same-sex couples. Despite some loosening 
     of those prohibitions over time, registered partners who want 
     to have children still face legal hurdles that heterosexual 
     married couples do not.


                 the impact of gay marriage in the u.s.

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


                               conclusion

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

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our ranking member for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this constitutional amendment because it would 
write discrimination against gays and lesbians into our Nation's 
Constitution. This amendment not only prevents gays and lesbians from 
marrying; it also restricts civil unions. Over the last couple of 
years, polls in New Jersey have shown the majority of the State's 
residents strongly support civil unions.
  This amendment is nothing more than red meat for the conservative 
right 1 month before an election. They know it is not going anywhere. 
The Senate could not even get a simple majority to bring an amendment 
to the floor. Here in the House, the majority leader, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay), recently admitted that he did not believe the 
amendment would pass. Yet here we are today spending 2\1/2\ hours 
debating an amendment that we all know is going nowhere.
  There was a lot of talk on the Republican side today about the 
Founding Fathers. Well, since our Nation's infancy, family law has been 
left to the States. It was our Founding Fathers' belief that issues of 
intense local concern should be debated and resolved at the local 
level. We should keep it that way and defeat this amendment.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I am here to speak in favor of the Marriage 
Protection Amendment, in favor of limiting marriage to the union of a 
man and a woman, in favor of the overwhelming opinion of the American 
people, and against the unelected judges that want to reshape our 
country, even if they destroy democracy in the process.
  Families and children deserve the protection of the Marriage 
Protection Amendment; the best home for kids is one with a mom and a 
dad. Single parents work valiantly to raise their children, but it is a 
struggle whenever a child does not have both a mom and a dad at home.
  Our laws should recognize and promote stability in our homes.
  But when judges usurp the work of legislators, when they twist State 
and Federal constitutions, as they have on this issue, then they are 
attacking more than marriage. They are attacking the principles of 
democracy and undermining our republican form of government. They are 
attacking the people's ability to govern ourselves. No wonder it is 
hard to raise children to respect and obey the law when our judges do 
not.
  Those who do not respect the law should never be appointed as judges, 
and judges who do not respect the law should be impeached.
  But today, we have the opportunity to stand up, both for marriage and 
for the people's right to govern themselves. It is sad that a 
constitutional amendment is necessary; but without it, we will be under 
endless assault by those who want to destroy traditional marriage even 
if they destroy the rule of law in the process.
  Even if you do not respect the institution of marriage, I hope the 
Members of this body will respect the principle of government of the 
people, for the people, and by the people. This amendment preserves 
what has always been the law of this land, and it preserves the 
principle of government by elected representatives, not by unelected 
activist judges. I urge every Member to vote for the Marriage 
Protection Amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, as some of my colleagues have said, this is 
about protecting our children.
  Do my colleagues know what I want my children to be protected from? 
From Osama bin Laden. We still do not know whether he is dead or alive. 
From the anthrax mailer, whom we still have not found. From the 6 
million containers that come into our country every year, of which only 
5 percent are inspected. From missiles that are being developed in 
Iran. From missiles that are being developed in North Korea. I want to 
protect children of parents who today are fighting in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, some of whom still do not have the protective gear that 
they need.
  Mr. Speaker, I will go home tonight and say to my two children, thank 
God, we have kept you safe from same-sex marriages; but we have not 
kept you safe from other threats in the world.
  Mr. Speaker, some of us want to make the world safe for democracy; 
others want to make this world safe for hypocrisy. This resolution is 
not an act of Congress. It is an act of hypocrisy. It is divisive and 
should be defeated.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support 
of this body's effort to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.
  Children are best served when they are raised and influenced by a mom 
and a dad, and marriage must continue to be the institution to best 
raise children and not simply for the desires of adults.
  Mr. Speaker, I am the youngest of four boys who feel we were blessed 
to have a mom that we could look to for her loving and nurturing ways, 
and a dad to be there, well, when boys will be boys, to know that we 
had a dad.
  And now I am a dad today with a wife and two young girls of my own, 
two young girls who are blessed to know that they can look to their mom 
when they need a mom, and they know that they can look to have a dad 
there when they need a male influence in their lives.
  Marriage exists for the well-being of children. It is the only 
institution that gives kids a mom and a dad. Where do grownups get the 
right to give their own desires higher priority?
  If we redefine marriage, it will harm everyone, especially the 
children. It will legally repudiate the idea that marriage has anything 
to do with a family, and will legally embrace the idea that marriage is 
just an arrangement for the convenience of the grownups.
  Now, I am here today to support what is best for the kids. The ideal 
situation for a child is to grow up with a mom and a dad in a loving, 
committed marriage. Mothers are better able to

[[Page 20095]]

provide certain lessons than fathers can, and fathers in turn can 
provide role models in ways that moms simply cannot.
  I think it is time that we rip away all the rhetoric that we have 
heard and know that this debate comes down to this: it is a choice of 
being what is in the best interests of our children over the choice of 
what is in the best interests of a select few adults. The choice is 
clear. I urge all Members to support our children by supporting the 
Marriage Protection Amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Inslee), a very distinguished supporter of civil 
rights and human rights.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, have my colleagues ever noticed how 
reverential, how worshipful people are when they go over to the 
archives and they file in front of the Constitution? Have my colleagues 
seen what is in their eyes? Absolute worship of the U.S. Constitution. 
I think there is one reason for that, because they understand the 
Constitution does not belong just to us; it belongs to the ages. They 
realize for that reason they want us to be cautious and conservative 
about locking into the Constitution something for a fluid America. 
There are some lessons in history that show that is the right attitude.
  In 1912, Jack Johnson, an African American heavyweight boxing 
champion, had the temerity to marry a white woman. That offended the 
vast majority of Americans at the time. And as a result, a Congressman 
came down to this Chamber, and he introduced a constitutional amendment 
to make it illegal for States to allow an African American to marry a 
white person. And Congressman Seaborn Anderson Roddenbery stood where I 
am standing and said in 1912: ``Intermarriage between whites and blacks 
is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It 
is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of a pure Saxon 
government.''
  Now that statement seems a bit unbelievable in 2004, but it was the 
majority opinion in 1912.
  Now, I am not suggesting that these issues are equivalent, but I am 
suggesting that we ought to be real slow before we put discrimination 
to prevent States to make their own decisions about employment and 
retirement benefits for themselves into the Constitution. Where would 
this country have been if majority sentiment had prevailed in 1912 and 
discrimination had been put permanently in the United States 
Constitution?
  But there is a more commonsense reason for rejecting this amendment. 
Anybody who is thinking about voting for this amendment, I would ask 
you to come down to the well and look at the five words that are carved 
on the rostrum of the House of Representatives.

                              {time}  1600

  There are five words that are carved here, and of all the words that 
we could have chosen to carve on to the rostrum, do my colleagues know 
what those five words are? Union, liberty, peace, justice, and the 
fifth one may surprise some of my colleagues.
  The fifth value is tolerance. Tolerance is the value that was 
selected to put on here, and tolerance is as American as apple pie. 
Tolerance is carved into the rostrum of the U.S. House of 
Representatives and intolerance should not be carved into the U.S. 
Constitution.
  Reject this injury to the Constitution. Reject this amendment.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sam Johnson).
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
the marriage protection amendment. It is sad even having this debate. 
Amending the Constitution, we all agree, should only be considered in 
the rarest of circumstances. However, we are being forced to.
  What makes America strong is the American family. What makes American 
families strong is marriage.
  This bill reinforces what marriage has meant since our country's 
founding. Simply stated, marriage consists of one man and one woman.
  The primary responsibility of marriage in the family is parenting. 
Children need a father. They need a mother for healthy and proper 
development. Men and women were created to complement each other, and 
that is most obvious in successful parenting.
  Congress cannot allow unelected judges to redefine marriage and the 
American family, and that is why we are here today. We have got to put 
the decision about marriage back into the hands of the American people.
  The people of Texas have spoken loud and clear. Texas passed a law 
which recognizes marriage between a man and a woman, regardless of what 
the other States might do. Citizens of the Lone Star State do not want 
people from other States telling them how to live, and they definitely 
do not want some judge telling them what marriage is.
  Back home, we have a popular slogan, ``Don't mess with Texas.'' Well, 
I have got one for this debate, ``Don't mess with marriage.''
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this proposed 
constitutional amendment. As lawmakers, our responsibility is to 
preserve the rights and dignity of all Americans. That leaves me to 
oppose this constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.
  I support the right of a State or local jurisdiction to give gay and 
lesbian couples equal marriage rights under the law. This proposal is 
an unnecessary and divisive attack on the gay and lesbian community. It 
would dictate that communities deny the equal provision of rights, 
benefits and responsibilities of partnership for gay and lesbian 
couples.
  This is an unparalleled attempt to force discrimination against a 
group of Americans. It is antithetical to other constitutional 
amendments that expand rights for women and African-Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, the Constitution exists to protect our rights, not to 
take them away. This amendment would be the first, and only, amendment 
to set aside one group of Americans, giving them fewer rights than 
other Americans. Additionally, it would strip them of rights currently 
given them by several States.
  Gay and lesbian couples deserve to have their commitment honored with 
the same rights to insurance, health care authority and visitation, 
adoption and other benefits granted to committed couples.
  I thought the days of enshrining discrimination in our laws were long 
behind us. A century ago, women were unable to file for divorce and 
could not have owned property. What if we had enshrined that 
discrimination for all time? Within the last 40 years, interracial 
marriages were outlawed. Imagine if that had been formalized in the 
Constitution.
  This complete disregard for human rights is not necessary to protect 
religious freedom in our country either. No church or other house of 
worship is required to marry couples of the same gender.
  The role of the Federal Government in defining the institution of 
marriage has historically been a limited one, deferring to States and 
religious organizations. So this is a cruel and callous attempt to 
disenfranchise a group of Americans for political gain. It calls for 
the discrimination of a group in a document almost exclusively devoted 
to protecting and expanding the rights of Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and this attempt to 
insert bigotry into our Constitution.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just point out that I have here hundreds of letters from 
Hispanic pastors, churches, leaders, civil rights leaders; African-
Americans, civil rights leaders, pastors, from all over the country. 
They do not say that the marriage protection amendment is 
discrimination. In fact, they say just the

[[Page 20096]]

opposite: It is discriminating to undermine the definition of marriage 
by judicial fiat.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Hayes).
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today because my constituents are fearful that 
appointed judges will destroy the institution of marriage. I share 
their fear and speak with them today in strong support of H.J. Res. 
106, the Marriage Protection Amendment, and I thank my friend the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) for her outstanding 
leadership on this critical issue.
  Marriage has always been and will always be a covenant between one 
man and one woman. Marriage is a fundamental building block of society, 
and it is special. It has been from the beginning of time about 
procreation and the rearing of children.
  I wish that this fight here today was not necessary, and we did not 
ask for it, but because a handful of activist judges launched an all-
out attack on the bedrock of Western civilization, the people of the 
eighth district of North Carolina, in a completely bipartisan way, have 
overwhelmingly asked me to stand here today and defend our Constitution 
and to protect marriage.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe in the Constitution. I have read it and 
studied it. We do not amend this lightly, but with activist judges 
writing law from the bench with their so-called interpretations, I can 
think of no better reason nor venue for the American people to be heard 
on whether the institution of marriage will stand or fall.
  Do not be fooled. Same-sex marriage and this debate is not about 
hospital visitation rights, joint bank accounts or inheritance rights. 
It is about marriage and children.
  Marriage between one man and one woman is associated with a broad 
array of positive outcomes.
  Americans have spoken clearly, and it is not about politics. It is 
about their desire to protect marriage from unelected judges who are 
appointed for life. I urge my colleagues to stand with nearly 2,000 of 
my constituents who have contacted my office over the past few months 
and protect the institution of marriage.
  Mr. Speaker, I represent folks from both sides of the aisle in the 
eighth district of North Carolina. They do not see it as an issue for 
one political party. They want to defend our institution of marriage.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time. I urge my colleagues to stand and 
protect marriage today.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) for the time.
  I am standing here as living proof. I live in a district. I have been 
married for 30 years. I have two wonderful children. I now have the 
honor of representing, I do not know how many, married gay couples, and 
not once, not once has my wife and I had a discussion now that we have 
to split up because we have gay couples living near us. Not once have I 
had a single discussion by a single constituent who said, you know 
what, I am not going to get married because we can have gay marriage. 
Not once have I had a single child come to see me and say, oh, my God, 
save me, save me from having gay couples next door.
  Yet I have had people, heterosexual couples, come to me and try to 
help them bring children from around the world so that they can enjoy 
the company and the love that they can share with children. I know gay 
couples, both married and not married gay couples, who are raising 
children. Some of those children are theirs. Some of those children are 
adopted. Some of those children are the children of their family 
members who have passed away.
  I am not aware of any that are somehow being twisted; society is 
coming to an end. I am living proof; you will be okay. We will survive 
this, and all that will happen is that a few people, a few of all of 
our constituents, will have some joy in their life.
  I am not threatened. My wife is not threatened. My children are not 
threatened. My world is not threatened, and it will not be. It is not 
threatened in Canada.
  As a few points of information, these judicial activists, these 
terrible, horrendous people who have the audacity to interpret the 
Constitution of Massachusetts, happen to be appointed by Republican 
governors. Terrible.
  As a final point of information, the people of Massachusetts will 
most likely have the opportunity to vote on this in a few years. Let 
them speak as well.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time and rise 
in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment.
  There, again, needs to be the general statement that gays and 
lesbians have a right to live as they choose, and I will work to 
support that right, but they do not have the right to define marriage 
for all of us.
  As far as the question of bigotry and civil rights, 60 percent of 
African-Americans oppose same-sex marriage. Are they bigots? I do not 
think so.
  Shelby Steele, an African-American scholar, said properly, ``Gay 
marriage is simply not a civil rights issue. It is not a struggle for 
freedom. It is a struggle of already free people for complete social 
acceptance. Black leaders . . . have distanced themselves from the gay 
marriage issue.''
  We have had a little lecture on tolerance, and yet it is the side of 
the people who are arguing against this marriage act who have called 
death threats in to the original sponsor. It is those people who e-mail 
daily hateful comments. I wonder where the question of tolerance is at 
this point when someone dares to differ with them.
  There is a question of, who gets harmed from same-sex marriage? When 
we approve same-sex marriage, we are going to be required to teach that 
it is okay. In fact, it is going to be wrong to teach against it. If we 
think that that is not going to happen, look at what has happened to 
the Boy Scouts of America who dared to take a stance. The all-out 
assault on the institution of the Boy Scouts of America has been 
unending, trying to get them to change their stance, simply saying, we 
want to teach our values.
  Religious groups like Catholic Charities or Salvation Army may lose 
their non-profit status and other facilities unless they endorse gay 
marriage. Is that what we want? Do we want common, decent, God-fearing 
people to be declared as bigots, to be declared as speakers of hate 
speech?
  That is where this discussion is going, Mr. Speaker. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, no one has been closer in this Congress to 
Dr. Martin Luther King than he has, and I proudly yield 2\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for 
yielding me the time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding.
  For those of my colleagues who are so worried about unelected judges 
making the decision of marriage, I want to remind them; it was 
unelected judges that picked their President.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, over the years, this Nation has 
worked hard to take discrimination out of the Constitution, and today, 
we want to put it back in.
  I can recall just a few short years ago that there were laws 
inscribed in some State constitutions saying that blacks and whites 
could not marry. We changed that.
  Today, we look back on those days, and we laugh. There will come a 
time when generations yet unborn will look back on this Congress, look 
back on this debate, and laugh at us. This is not a good day in 
America. This is a sad day in the House of the people.
  For one who faced death, who was beaten and left bloody and 
unconscious at the Greyhound bus station in Montgomery, Alabama, in May 
of 1961; for

[[Page 20097]]

one who had a concussion at the bridge in Selma on March 7, 1965, 
demonstrating, trying to end discrimination, segregation and 
separation, this is not the way.
  This is unbelievable. It is unreal. I thought as a Nation and as a 
people we had moved so far down the road toward one family, one House, 
one America. To pass this legislation would be a step backward.
  The institution of marriage is not begging this Congress for 
protection. No one is running through the halls of Congress. No one is 
running around this building saying protect us.

                              {time}  1615

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

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

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming 
(Mrs. Cubin).
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today on behalf of the 
over 100,000 married couples in Wyoming in defense of traditional 
marriage. I do not judge those who have chosen a different life-style 
than I have chosen, but marriage is an institution cherished by the 
American people, as shown by the 44 States that have enacted laws 
defining marriage as between a man and a woman. This same institution 
is now under attack in our courtrooms, an assault we can defend only by 
passing the Marriage Protection Amendment.
  In the marriage debate, we have a case of political correctness going 
too far and costing too much. As we all work to be an inclusive 
society, we simply cannot forget the time-honored family values, the 
bedrock of our culture that have made America what it is today. These 
are the values that gave the early homesteaders in Wyoming the strength 
to brave the vast plains and the harsh winters. And these same values 
help today's families face newfound challenges in a modern society.
  Tradition gives our children roots, a base of strength from which to 
operate when facing politically correct pressures to abandon their 
values, whether it be God, their country, or, yes, even marriage.
  We know in our hearts what is right. We know logically and we know 
personally that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and we 
need to protect the traditional family structure.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask everyone's support in favor of the Marriage 
Protection Amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time. I just want to set the record straight here. Some of 
these so-called black ministers and so-called civil rights leaders 
never supported civil rights. They never marched for one day. They 
never put their bodies on the line for the cause of civil rights.
  Coretta Scott King, the widow of Martin Luther King, Jr. is opposed 
to this amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the very 
courageous gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), a distinguished 
member of this body.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. Today, we are debating a constitutional amendment drafted not to 
protect my marriage or my family, I see no reasonable way to argue it 
would, but rather to explicitly deny a portion of our society the right 
to marry and the benefits that accompany that kind of partnership.
  I do not advocate the legalization of gay marriage, but our 
constitution is simply not the proper place to set this kind of social 
policy. I believed back in 1996, when I voted for the Defense of 
Marriage Act, and I still believe today, the decision about whether to 
recognize gay marriage should be left to the States.
  I cannot help but wonder why are we doing this. What are we so afraid 
of? Gay men and women pass through our lives every day. They are 
wonderful teachers and leaders and role models who happen to be gay. 
And sometimes we do not even know they are gay.
  I would not be a Member of Congress today if it were not for an 
extraordinary teacher I had in high school, 40 years ago. I learned 
years later he was

[[Page 20098]]

gay and that he had commuted from Connecticut to Washington, D.C., 
every weekend in part to protect his privacy and his job.
  When I went to college, my understanding of gay people was impacted 
again by my wife's best friend. One day she told us she too had found 
the love of her life. We were eager to meet the boyfriend she was so 
madly in love with, but we soon learned her love was not a ``he'' but a 
``she.'' Once we got over our surprise and our way of thinking about 
relationships, we were able to sincerely rejoice in the joy they 
brought each other because we knew what a dear and good person our 
friend is.
  My perception of gay people evolved further during my first campaign 
for Congress, when I worked with a magnificent young man named Carl 
Brown. He became my friend, and he gave me another gay face to know. 
Carl has since passed away, but I remember him as a person of 
exceptional dignity and grace.
  My teacher, my wife's best friend, and Carl helped me understand 
their lives and I think helped make me a better person in the process.
  The Constitution of the United States, which established our 
government, grants us free speech, and gives all citizens the right to 
vote, should not be dishonored by this effort to write into the 
Constitution discrimination.
  I am sensitive to some of my colleagues' concerns about potential 
biblical and social implications of legalizing same-sex marriage, but I 
oppose this proposed amendment because I believe the Constitution is 
not the proper instrument to set or reject such policy. That debate 
should happen in our State legislatures.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence) to answer the gentleman from Connecticut's question 
about what is the harm, and his other question being why the harm of 
redefining marriage to include other lifestyles.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in the wake of, I think, a very important question by 
my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays): 
What are we afraid of? And the gentleman from Connecticut knows that I 
admire him and have great affection for him and the integrity with 
which he does his work, but I would like to answer that.
  My colleague, we are afraid of the decline of marriage. We are afraid 
that what has happened in the last 15 years in the Netherlands since 
the advent of same-sex marriage is going to happen in America, and that 
our children and our society will be harmed as a result. As Dan Quayle 
first said on the national stage some 14 years ago, we know that 
marriage matters to children. Children born outside of wedlock are more 
than two times more likely to fall into every form of social malady 
that besets our kids.
  The experience in the Netherlands is undeniable. Since the advent of 
same-sex marriage in the Netherlands and in Holland, the decline of 
marriage has been from 95,000 to 82,000. As Dutch academics wrote in 
their newspapers there recently: ``Over the past 15 years, the number 
of marriages has declined substantially. The same period also witnessed 
a spectacular rise in the number of out-of-wedlock births. In 1989, one 
in 10 children were born out of wedlock, roughly 11 percent; by 2003 
that number had risen to almost one in three children.''
  That is what we are afraid of, Mr. Speaker. We are afraid of the 
decline of marriage and the attendant harm to the American family that 
will undeniably follow. Marriage matters. And we come into this 
hallowed place today to stand by that institution knowing that we are 
informed by our core values that it matters and that it is central to 
our society, but also knowing the experience of our neighbors in Europe 
has been that when we change the definition of marriage, we begin the 
decline and ultimately the abolition of marriage as we know it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the previous remarks are 
drawn from the research of a man named Stanley Kurtz, research that is 
of a very low level of intellectual activity. It would make some of the 
debate here today seem scintillating.
  In fact, I have submitted information that makes it very clear that 
as far as the Netherlands are concerned, the trends involved predate 
same-sex marriage. As a matter of fact, there were same-sex civil 
unions first, then same-sex marriage. What has happened in the 
Netherlands predates that. The main author himself states that these 
are probably effects of the same cause.
  Now, let us look to the United States. Vermont has had full civil 
unions, which most of the Members over there disagree with, since 2001, 
with zero, no negative effects, the same period of time as the 
Netherlands has had.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, the men and women targeted by this 
constitutional amendment are Americans, loved and respected by their 
parents, grandparents, sisters, brothers, children and grandchildren, 
neighbors, friends, coworkers, and this Member of Congress. 
Collectively, we believe in equal justice and strive to defeat 
discrimination and absolutely reject the State-sponsored hatred before 
the Congress today.
  The Constitution belongs to all Americans to protect and extend 
equality and justice for all. Our constitution must never be soiled by 
this type of bigotry and hate-filled amendment.
  My faith teaches me to believe in a loving God, and it is in this 
spirit that I proudly stand with millions of Americans, and especially 
with my gay and lesbian friends, neighbors, colleagues, constituents, 
and coworkers to oppose this constitutional amendment.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding me 
this time, and I want to make a correction for the record.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts was talking about the predating the 
same-sex marriage. Well, in fact, when same-sex marriage was approved 
in the Netherlands, the rate of births out of wedlock doubled. So that 
information was incorrect.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment. 
It is becoming increasingly common to see activist judges legislating 
from the bench on this important issue. Today, a handful of judges are 
poised to destroy the traditional marriage definition, which is the 
cornerstone of civilization itself.
  The institution of a husband and wife, of mother and father, have 
served our society well; and it is this foundation that makes our 
families and communities strong. Passage of this amendment today is 
overwhelmingly supported by the citizens of this country. Nearly three-
fourths of Americans believe that marriage should be a union between 
one man and one woman.
  Today, 44 States have enacted laws that define marriage as between a 
man and a woman; and without action today, the will of the American 
people will be ignored with the strike of a gavel by a few activist 
judges.
  To ensure the will of the American people is done today, I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, before he leaves, because he is so certain 
about the Netherlands, and I will yield him my remaining time, when 
does he believe that same-sex marriages began in the Netherlands and 
what was the rate? What is the date?
  Would the gentleman from Pennsylvania answer me? When did the same-
sex marriages start in the Netherlands?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The time of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts has expired.

[[Page 20099]]


  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield to the 
gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, you made the statement. You do not 
know?
  Mr. SHUSTER. 1989.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, they started in 2001.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. SHUSTER. That is what the facts show.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlemen will suspend.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman gets the date wrong. He 
said since 1989. Same-sex marriage started in the Netherlands in 2001.
  When Members are giving statistics, they ought to know what they 
mean.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, when the other body defeated this amendment 
early this summer, someone one of the Senators on the majority, said 
gay marriage is ``the greatest threat to America as we know it.'' 
Coming from New York City, I think America saw what the greatest threat 
to this country is on September 11, 2001. But instead of capturing 
those responsible for that event, Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and the 
al Qaeda network, instead of passing a homeland security bill here in 
the House, instead of reforming our national intelligence system to 
prevent another 9/11, we are here talking about an issue that the 
Senate has already defeated; and because they have defeated it, it will 
not come up again. This is purely political machinations.
  This Congress and this President are pushing for a constitutional 
amendment to limit the rights of particular Americans. Why are they 
doing that? The answer is easy but it is still awful; because today in 
America, it is still okay to hate gays and lesbians in this country. 
Gays and lesbians represent the last minority group in this country 
that it is still publicly acceptable to hate. This legislation has no 
place in this body. It demeans the body, our Constitution, and the 
values of this country.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman obviously has not been watching the debate 
because no one has said anything about hate or the quotes the gentleman 
stated in this body. This is about marriage.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia said what he 
wanted to do, he wanted to establish a homosexual marriage as a 
fundamental constitutional right that the Federal Government would have 
to not only secure but to protect. That is what he wants to do. When he 
does that, here is why we are opposed to that. When he does that, he 
undermines, he not just expands marriage, he alters it to the core. He 
totally severs it from its whole purpose, and that is the relationship 
between a man, a woman, and a child.
  Marriage is one of the most fundamental institutions of a civil 
society. That would simply cripple it. We are not talking about 
expanding a right, extending rights or benefits. We are talking about 
destroying an institution which has preserved and protected us.
  Our decision today will define us as a Nation. It will define us as a 
people. It will be a predictor of our future and where our future would 
be. The only responsible thing for us to do today is to defend the 
institution of marriage and send this amendment to the States for 
ratification.
  A concerted legal and political effort, lead by activist judges, is 
attempting to affirm homosexual marriage as a fundamental civil right 
that the Federal Government has a constitutional obligation to secure 
and protect.
  In doing so, they are undermining one of the most basic and sacred 
institutions that exist in an orderly, stable civil society--marriage.
  What is happening is not a slight change in degree that merely 
extends benefit or rights to a larger class, but a substantive change 
in the essence of the institution. It does not expand marriage; it 
alters its core meaning, for to redefine marriage so that it is not 
intrinsically related to the relationship between fathers, mothers, and 
children would sever the institution from its nature and its purposes.
  In response, the most important and responsible step Congress can 
take to reserve marriage is to send a constitutional amendment that 
protects the institution of marriage to the States for ratification.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we have heard this afternoon about 
children and activist judges, because that is how the focus groups 
suggest this debate should be framed.
  My children have been raised around people in committed same-sex 
marriages, relationships in some cases which have included children. 
They, and most of us, have seen neighbors, relatives, and friends in 
dysfunctional heterosexual marriages. It is not their sexual 
orientation, it is people's behavior. My children and most American 
young people know that marriage is not under attack, and activist 
judges do not prevent citizens in States from making their own 
decisions, like we will in Oregon in November.
  It is shameful to play politics with the personal lives of millions 
of Americans who are not just gay, but elderly, and for whatever reason 
are not married but are in a committed relationship. Luckily, because 
my children and the vast majority of America's youth disagree with the 
world view of the supporters of this amendment, it will not only fail 
today, but it certainly does not represent the future.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Burns).
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation to the people of America to settle 
this debate over whether a handful of political activists are allowed 
to use the Federal courts to impose their moral view on the unwilling 
majority of the country.
  The overwhelming majority of the people of the 12th Congressional 
District of Georgia oppose legalized same-sex marriage. They do not 
want to play semantic games about the issue.
  The people in my district and State believe that legal marriage, and 
the benefits associated with the institution, should be reserved for 
those whom the benefits were intended, the union of a man and a woman, 
period.
  Georgia has placed a referendum for a State constitutional amendment 
to that effect on this November's ballot lot. That is how it should be. 
As a Georgia voter, I will support the amendment with my vote, as will 
the majority of my State.
  The Federal amendment we consider today will allow those State 
decisions to determine this issue, as they have since our Nation's 
founding, rather than allowing a small minority to dictate their 
opinions on an unwilling majority.
  We need to speak plainly here today. A vote against this legislation 
is a vote for legalized same-sex marriage to be forced on an unwilling 
America. Such a calamity would not just be morally reprehensible to the 
majority of Americans, it would provide a chilling precedent for 
undermining our system of self-government. We will pay for inaction on 
this issue with the loss of government by the people on all issues.
  I urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to support the amendment 
to restore the protections of the Constitution and self rule.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes this body is 
going to vote on this amendment. There will be women voting as well as 
men. There will be the grandsons and granddaughters of slaves; and, 
yes, there will be several gay people voting because in our diversity, 
we are representative of this great society.
  But there is one thing we all have in common, we are here to fulfill 
the spirit of our Constitution. That is a sacred,

[[Page 20100]]

generous document whose purpose was to protect and to expand the 
individual rights and liberties of its citizens. It was never intended 
to be a mean-spirited tool to punish people who happen not to be in the 
majority. To legalize committed, caring relationships between people 
who love each other is consistent with the spirit of that Constitution. 
This amendment is not, and that is why it should be defeated.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House 
Resolution 106. Today, public support for protecting marriage is 
strong. Forty-four States have enacted laws that provide that marriage 
shall consist of a union between a man and a woman. These States 
constitute more than 75 percent of States required to approve a 
constitutional amendment and they include 86 percent of the U.S. 
population.
  Today, Federal courts are being used by activist judges to redefine 
marriage for the American people, completely apart from public debate 
among those that the American people have elected to represent them.
  More than 200 years of American law and thousands of years of human 
experience should not be arbitrarily changed by a handful of unelected 
judges. The issue of marriage is too important to be decided by 
judicial fiat.
  Our society relies on strong family structure. As trends challenge 
the family, we need to do all we can to strengthen it and oppose trends 
that weaken this ideal. Redefining marriage hurts our children because 
it hurts the institution we rely on to raise our children. We certainly 
do not want judges changing the definition of marriage for us today and 
for our children tomorrow.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons to oppose this 
bill: It is a diversion from the urgent issues facing our Nation; that 
today's vote is a cheap election-year tactic of the Republican 
leadership to rally its right-wing base; and that we should respect 
States rights on the principles of federalism, which Republicans 
continue to ignore to suit their political purpose.
  Mr. Speaker, each of these concerns is a compelling reason to oppose 
this measure, but I want to make this perfectly clear: This bill should 
be defeated because it is wrong, it is discriminatory, and it is 
unAmerican.
  Mr. Speaker, how can we export democracy across the globe when we are 
abandoning its fundamental principles here at home? Writing 
discrimination into our Constitution will do nothing to protect 
marriage, but it will taint this sacred document and sacrifice State 
rights based on certain ideological beliefs, and I urge my colleagues 
to defeat this mean-spirited, misguided bill.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, the Marriage Protection Amendment would 
not prevent any State from enacting civil union laws, but would protect 
marriage in all 50 States.
  Recently, I went to a friend, Mr. Sage Brown, who is a distinguished 
attorney and civil rights leader in Savannah, Georgia. Indeed, he is 
featured at the Gilbert Civil Rights Museum as a man who was on the 
frontlines of integration and did so much for the African American 
community. I asked him, Is this a civil rights-type issue, to which he 
said no, the relationship of marriage is the most sacred building block 
of our society. Marriage is sacred and protected and has nothing to do 
with violating our civil rights.
  If we change the definition of marriage to be more inclusive, then is 
it logical to argue that we should broaden the definition so we do not 
exclude anybody? If marriage violated the civil rights of two men or 
two women who wanted to be married to each other, then it would also 
violate the civil rights of a polygamist, somebody else who wants to 
have a different marriage than that between a man and a woman.
  Mr. Brown raised a number of good points which I am going to submit 
for the Record. I wish there was more time to have debate on it, but I 
wanted to bring up something from his point of view.
  Mr. Speaker, the Marriage Protection Amendment would not prevent 
States from enacting civil union laws but would protect marriage in all 
50 States. It would state that ``marriage in the United States shall 
consist only of the union of a man and a woman.'' When I hear my 
distinguished colleagues from the other side say that marriage should 
be redefined because it is discriminatory, I respectfully disagree. 
Moreover, I believe that a great majority of Americans disagree.
  I've spoken with many minority men and women in my district who have 
experienced civil rights abuses first hand. Recently, I spoke with Mr. 
Sage Brown, a distinguished African American civil rights leader from 
my district who said and I quote:

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

  Our marriage laws--defining marriage as the union of a man and a 
woman--were designed to be a blessing to children and society. There is 
a certain element of complementarity between men and women that is 
biological by nature.
  If marriage violated the civil rights of two men and two women who 
want to be married, then it also violates the civil rights of 
polygamists, and of single adults who want to marry themselves. If our 
distinguished colleagues believe it is a civil rights issue, then do 
they also believe it discriminates against people who believe in 
polygamy. Does it also discriminate against three men who want to 
marry? What about four women? What about single people who don't want 
to marry another person? Should they be excluded?
  If we change the definition of marriage to be more inclusive, then it 
is logical to argue that we should broaden the definition so that won't 
exclude anyone.
  Marriage is an institution fits in perfect harmony with the laws of 
nature; whereas systems of slavery and segregation were designed to 
brutally oppress people and thereby violated the laws of nature. By 
contrast, marriage is designed to help children by keeping their 
mothers and fathers together. Slavery and segregation were meant to 
exploit and degrade. There is a fundamental difference.
  Skin color has nothing to do with marriage. That's why it's wrong to 
forbid interracial marriage and that's why overturning these laws was a 
legitimate civil rights issue. But whether a couple is a man and a 
woman has everything to do with the meaning of marriage. Marriage 
encourages the men and women who together create life to unite in a 
bond for the protection of children. That is not discrimination. It is 
the building block on which society is based.
  Marriege was not created to place people in bondage. It was created 
for having children, and to propagate the human race from one 
generation to the next.
  The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution--
which has been around since the origin of mankind. It is honored and 
encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith.
  Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a 
husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare 
of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be severed 
from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the 
good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting 
marriage, serves the interests of all.
  Moreover, it would prevent the judicial chaos we are beginning to see 
with recent rulings whereas gay couples are suing in States that do not 
recognize same sex marriage. Recently, Oregon conducted over 3,000 same 
sex marriages consisting of couples who live in over 30 States.
  Lawless local officials have ignored the law and issued same-sex 
licenses in California, New Jersey, New York, New Mexico, Oregon and 
Washington. This issue is Federal, not State or local. The States' 
rights issue is meaningless if judges are the ultimate rulers.
  We are headed for a proliferation of court cases in all 50 States if 
we do not act now.
  So far, 44 States, or 88 percent of the States, have enacted laws 
providing that marriage shall consist of a union between a man

[[Page 20101]]

and a woman. Only 75 percent of the States are required to approve a 
constitutional amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, 2\1/2\ hours for a debate on 
amending the Constitution. It is so important that we contemplate that 
ministers, rabbis, priests can marry anybody they choose to. They can 
deny marriage to the opposite sex. But the reality is what about 
amending the Constitution to guarantee quality education to every child 
in this country; what about amending the Constitution to guarantee 
health care to every person in this country; what about amending the 
Constitution so that our colleagues around here could not spend this 
time talking about a moral issue instead of giving people jobs and 
giving them an opportunity to protect marriage? Marriages fall apart 
because people do not have work.
  What about amending the Constitution so we can guarantee all kinds of 
rights to all people? Give me a break.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 106, the 
constitutional amendment on same sex marriage.
  African-American voters are deeply divided on the issue of gay 
marriage and increasingly suspicious of Republican motives around the 
issue. Currently, 46 percent favor the amendment, while 46 percent 
oppose. Gay marriage should not be used as a wedge issue to divide any 
community, especially the African-American community. And guess what? 
In a June Gallup poll, issues related to the gay community were cited 
by 2 percent as the most important problem facing the U.S.--compared to 
other issues, such as the war in Iraq which was cited by 27 percent of 
the public.
  The current administration's policies have devastated our 
communities. With unemployment in the African-American community double 
the national average, crime on the rise, and working families 
struggling to feed and keep their families together, we can't afford to 
lose focus and be bamboozled by Republicans who want to change the 
subject. Mr. Speaker, as of September 24 the gross Federal debt is 
$7.348 trillion. I submit to you that we cannot afford a whole host of 
things.
  The American public wants Congress to focus on real issues facing our 
Nation--the economy, health care, protecting our homeland and 
education. To date, Congress has approved only 1 of 13 appropriations 
bills, despite the fact that a new fiscal year begins tomorrow.
  We must focus our energy on good jobs--3 million lost in the last 3 
years; better education; improved healthcare since 41 million don't 
have it; sound transportation funding; and turning around our 
communities--not about gay marriage.
  Mr. Speaker, the administration has indeed captured the Nation's 
religious leaders on this issue because it does mirror concepts in 
various scriptures of their religious doctrines. Notwithstanding, it is 
precisely for that reason that we, in this august body, must resist the 
temptation to have the State engage in a religious battle. Separation 
of church and state is the basic principle of this Nation and it 
exempts us from this unnecessary action. Separation of church and state 
gives ministers, rabbis, imams, priests, reverends--you get my drift--
the freedom to practice their faith and choose to marry, or more 
importantly not marry, any two people before them.
  In these times of spreading war and hate, people of faith must reject 
politicians who say they are acting out of faith: But are they really? 
When one wears the cloak of one's faith on your sleeve, it almost 
automatically calls in question your motives. People who talk about 
right, justice, compassion and religion are in fact using those 
sentiments to contradict or undo the very teachings of their faith.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not compassionate; it is not tolerant; it is not 
charitable; it is not inclusive. This is nothing short of divisive and 
political. Instead of dividing us, our leaders should make redemption, 
understanding and love the foundation of their policies because we are 
all sinners.
  I believe it's time to start bringing people together to work on the 
real issues of faith and moral commitment that confront our communities 
like poverty and homelessness instead of changing the Constitution to 
deny equal rights to the gay community.
  With record high unemployment, crime on the rise, and working 
families struggling to keep their families together, it's time to bring 
people together to turn our communities around.
  We need to focus on real policies.
  Amending the Constitution is the most far-reaching step that 
legislators can take in governing the citizens of this country, and it 
is my belief that the Constitution should be the instrument that 
protects and guarantees the rights of individuals; it should not be 
used to limit the rights of individuals. The defeat of this legislation 
is tantamount to the preservation of human rights in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I vehemently oppose H.J. Res. 106 and I will continue to 
do so until it is defeated.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) to close.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) for yielding me this time, our distinguished ranking member on 
the Committee on the Judiciary. I thank him for his leadership in 
promoting freedom in our country and protecting our civil liberties.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been married for over 41 years. I want to hear 
some applause for that. I am glad to see my Republican colleagues 
appreciate that wonderful accomplishment. I certainly respect the 
institution of marriage. As the mother of five and the grandmother of 
five, I appreciate the value of family.

                              {time}  1645

  My husband and I value family in our community as a source of 
strength to our country and a source of comfort to the people. What 
constitutes that family is an individual and personal decision. But it 
is for all a place where people find love and support. As for me, I 
agree with Vice President Cheney when he said, ``With respect to the 
question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means 
freedom for everyone. People ought to be free to enter into any kind of 
relationship they want to.'' That would be Vice President Dick Cheney, 
August 24, 2004.
  Mr. Speaker, in the closing days of this Congress, we should be 
addressing the urgent needs of the American people, to be secure 
against the clear and present danger of terrorism, to protect our men 
and women in uniform whose lives are in the battle in Iraq, and to 
bring economic prosperity and health care to the American people. 
Instead, we are meeting here today about tarnishing our cherished 
Constitution with an amendment that purports to protect marriage but is 
one that benefits no one and actually limits the rights of millions of 
Americans.
  Our Constitution, to which we all take an oath of office, is an 
enduring and living document that throughout our history expanded 
rights, not diminished them, to live up to the ideals of our Founding 
Fathers, that all are created equal and endowed by their Creator with 
inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As 
that great defender of the Constitution, the late Congresswoman Barbara 
Jordan whose legacy graces this House, noted, ``We promised liberty, 
freedom and equality to everyone. No one was to be excluded from the 
blessings of liberty.''
  As a result, this Nation abolished slavery, established equal 
protection under the law, extended the right to vote to women and ended 
the poll tax. Today, we consider an amendment that runs counter to that 
inclusiveness that underlies our history: one Nation under God, 
indivisible; and e pluribus unum, from many, one; and in the words of 
the Constitution, to form a more perfect Union.
  This amendment has been brought with the full knowledge that it 
failed in the other body with no prospects of success, either now or in 
the foreseeable future, in this body. This is a partisan exercise to 
distract the American people from the Republicans' record of failure. 
And it is unworthy of a party that claims to be associated with 
President Lincoln, one of the greatest Presidents of the United States.
  The consideration of this amendment does not call upon the better 
angels of our nature that President Lincoln spoke of in his first 
inaugural address. It calls upon the worst impulses of politics by 
attempting to enshrine discrimination into the Constitution and to 
single out a group of American citizens. And it is unworthy of a party 
that claims to be associated with

[[Page 20102]]

President Lincoln once again who said in his second inaugural address, 
which I consider to be Lincoln's greatest speech, ``With malice toward 
none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us 
to see the right, let us strive to finish the work we are in, to bind 
up the Nation's wounds.''
  This amendment is malicious and is not charitable toward anyone. It 
is motivated by animus towards lesbians and gays. It is a sad moment 
that those clinging to power want to use to divide the American people 
for what they perceive to be an electoral advantage. I will vote 
against this amendment because it is counter to the noble ideals of our 
Nation.
  On substance, the amendment is far reaching to deny all matters of 
rights, even beyond marriage. The proponents have disingenuously 
claimed that this amendment would not preclude civil unions or domestic 
partnerships. At the same time, organizations supporting this amendment 
are now using similarly worded State laws to challenge recognition of 
domestic partnerships in several States. And we know these 
organizations, which the Republican leadership is beholden to, will not 
stop there. Because this amendment is not limited to governmental 
action and would apply to all private contracts, existing rights 
enjoyed by same-sex couples, such as hospital visitation, inheritance 
rights and health care benefits would be at risk if this amendment were 
to pass. This amendment is dangerous, and it does not belong in our 
Constitution.
  Throughout our careers, many of us in Congress on both sides of the 
aisle have fought against discrimination in every form and sought to 
bring people together. I will vote again against this amendment because 
again it is counter to the noble ideals of our Nation and of the 
principle of ending discrimination and unifying our country. Whatever 
one's view of same-sex marriage, and I know that that is a difficult 
issue for some, I understand that, amending the Constitution is not the 
place to address this issue. Let us not defile our Constitution with an 
amendment designed to demean a group of American citizens. Let us not 
use our Constitution as a political tool to divide us. We are a better 
country than that and that is why this amendment will fail today.
  The American people will see through the motivations behind this 
amendment. It is to distract the American people from the record of 
failure of this Republican Congress, a record that has been, according 
to editorials today, marked by ``shambling to the end of one of the 
lightest workloads in decades without a hint of embarrassment'' and 
``failing at the most demanding obligations of government.''
  Mr. Speaker, let us strive to unite people, to seek the best in 
ourselves, and to attend to the grave and great issues now before us. 
Let us honor our Constitution, let us honor our children, let us honor 
all God's children. Let us follow our better angels and reject this 
amendment.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I know some wanted to pick a fight here today, trying to 
get us to talk about same-sex marriage, about homosexuality and all 
those kinds of things. We did not talk about them because that is not 
what this is about. What this is about is the family and the definition 
of family, so I will define it for you: a family is a man and a woman 
that can create children. Peter and Paul cannot create children. Mary 
and Jane cannot create children. It is about regenerating and re-
energizing our population by being able to create children.
  But more than that, it is about responsibility. A family is a man and 
a woman that can create children and rear them. It is how we create 
communities. It is how we transfer our values to our children, because 
if you destroy marriage and people do not get married, several things 
happen: first of all, men are let off the hook. Men can have the sex 
but not the responsibility of raising the children. That has happened 
in our society and societies in Europe and others. If you take away the 
responsibility, why should a man get married? But if he has a 
commitment with the woman, the mother of his child, then he realizes 
the responsibility of trying to raise that child. He also provides 
something more than Mary and Jane can provide. Mary and Jane can be 
great mothers and there are many of them that are great mothers. Peter 
and Paul can be great fathers. But Peter and Paul cannot be a mother. 
And Mary and Jane cannot be a father. The reason that one man and one 
woman is necessary to rear children is so that they can receive the 
benefits that a man can give them and that a woman can give them. They 
can see the commitment between a man and a woman, the trust that is 
committed between the two, the love. But more important than that, it 
is how that man and that woman transfer their values to their children.
  It is also how each family can transfer its values by families coming 
together as communities and transferring those values to those 
communities. So when you ask the question, what harm is it, the harm is 
if nobody gets married and they are having children out of wedlock, 
which has already been said, children born out of wedlock are more 
likely to have all the maladies of societal ills, whether it be quicker 
on drugs, dropouts. We know. Every social ill can come down on these 
children. If that happens, then we are not transferring our values to 
communities and from communities to States. Our values as a Nation 
start with one man, one woman having children. That is what is at stake 
here. That is what is harmful.
  You say, well, I am married. I am married for 37 years. I am very 
proud to be married. I have a daughter and a grandson. The point is 
that these breakups of marriage, and it is showing in the Netherlands 
and in Scandinavia, it is showing right here with all the pressures 
against marriage over the last 40 or 50 years, whether it be welfare or 
divorce. Divorce is a pressure against marriage. And when we take the 
responsibility for a marriage and do no-fault divorces, you are 
undermining marriage and making it easy to undermine marriage.
  All the results of that we have seen. The welfare system was a great 
experiment. What we saw was fathers not marrying the mothers of their 
children, just having many children by many mothers and not responsible 
for raising these children, leaving these children to mothers and 
grandmothers and aunts to raise. And then we see the deterioration of 
their lives because they are raising themselves because their mothers 
and aunts and grandmothers have to work in order to raise them to pay 
for the family, so they are raising themselves, no values, nothing. 
Gangs form because of that. Gangs become the substitute for families. 
Everybody knows that. If you get busted by a gang or mugged by a gang, 
that is the result of undermining marriage.
  That is the problem. It is nothing about same-sex marriage, or single 
moms or any other kind of marriage. Those are wonderful. There are 
wonderful families being raised by gay people. There are wonderful 
families by single moms. But they are not the ideal. The ideal is 
established in our Constitution and in our society. We want the ideal.
  So when the Massachusetts Supreme Court redefines marriage based upon 
not law, based on thin air, because we have these activist judges 
coming in to impose their definition of marriage on our society, we get 
a little concerned, because we have seen it before.
  We did not stand up before and there have been 45 million children 
killed, unborn children killed, because we did not stand up to activist 
judges responding to a strategy of using the courts to legislate. Every 
leader of the groups that are opposing this legislation has announced 
to the world that they are going to take this to the U.S. Supreme 
Court. They are already doing it. There are 11 court cases right now. 
Nebraska has been overturned, Washington State, Massachusetts. There is 
a huge, huge effort in every State in this Union, even though 44 States 
in this Union have protected the definition of marriage.
  They are after those State constitutions; and when they get at those, 
or using the full faith and credit clause,

[[Page 20103]]

they can go to the Federal courts and then it begins. Then DOMA comes 
down. Then the United States Supreme Court, who has already signaled 
that they are going to, through Lawrence v. Texas, redefine marriage in 
this country, will amend the Constitution and redefine marriage.
  We are starting the effort today. Yes, it may not pass today. I wish 
it would. It may not pass today. This is only the beginning, I am 
telling you, because this Nation will protect marriage.

                              {time}  1700

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

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

  Mr. Weyrich writes, ``There is only one alternative to this 
situation: Change the subject.'' He dismisses the option of taking up 
oil prices or the economy. Apparently, even he does not think those are 
winners for the President.
  ``No,'' he concludes, ``what I have in mind to change the subject is 
a winner for the President. The Federal Marriage Amendment.'' The gay 
marriage issue, he gleefully advises, ``will cause Senator Kerry no end 
of problems.''
  So that is what it is really all about. Republican leaders in 
Washington are running scared. They look at the polls on Iraq, on the 
economy, on jobs and they fear that the voters are going to rise up in 
November and toss them out of office, and as a result they bring up a 
resolution to alter the most sacred document in the land.
  The Constitution was written to ensure that all Americans are treated 
equally. This provision will undermine that principle and tarnish the 
Constitution. I believe that any State should have the right, if it so 
chooses, to grant same-sex couples or unmarried couples the same legal 
rights as those conferred to heterosexual couples. This is the same 
policy supported by Vice President Dick Cheney who stated during the 
2000 Presidential election that same-sex marriages should remain a 
State issue and the Federal Government should recognize those State 
laws.
  Vote ``no'' on this bill. It is a disgrace against the United States 
Constitution.
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, this amendment would not only ban same-sex 
marriages but also civil unions, and I cannot support such a divisive 
and extreme measure. A majority of Americans rightfully recognize that 
same-sex couples who are committed to a lifelong relationship should 
enjoy all of the civil benefits that come with marriage. Being able to 
make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner, inherit property 
without large tax penalties and receive Social Security survivor 
benefits are examples of the civil aspect of marriage that are denied 
to same sex couples but are wholly unrelated to religious concerns.
  Not only does this amendment completely disregard these basic 
liberties but it actually erodes the religious freedom upon which our 
great nation was founded. I am not alone in this grave concern. A 
coalition of 25 national religious groups--from the American Jewish 
Committee to the Alliance of Baptists, from the Episcopal Church to the 
Conference of American Rabbis--all believe that this amendment does 
more to erode religious freedom than preserve it.
  An amendment restricting marriage to certain couples would be the 
first time in history that rights were denied solely to one group of 
Americans. Mandating discrimination in the Constitution would set a 
terrible precedent. Everyone in America should be concerned about who 
will be next.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today shame looms over this body. Today 
you place legislation before us to amend the Constitution to ensure 
that same sex marriages can never occur in any State in this country.
  This legislation is all about politics. You know that you do not have 
the votes to pass this proposal. You have said so publicly. This 
proposal already failed in the Senate earlier this year. You know you 
do not have the time to spend on this proposal: the new fiscal year 
begins tomorrow and the Republican leadership has only managed to get 1 
of 13 required appropriations bills passed. But you're going to make 
time for one reason: to get material for TV commercials.
  You want TV commercials to run against Democrats. You think that 
they'll go nicely alongside the Republican National Committee's 
mailings saying Democrats want to ban the Bible and the ads that say 
that decorated war veterans are un-American traitors if they oppose the 
policies of the present occupant of the White House.
  This vote is about hurting Democrats running for reelection. You want 
to hurt those of us opposed to amending the Constitution to deny gays 
and lesbians the rights that the rest of us enjoy, but the real hurt is 
unleashed on some of our nation's families: the millions of gay couples 
and lesbian couples, and their children.
  People on both sides of this issue have sincere and deep feelings 
that deserve to be taken seriously. But today's vote mocks their 
concerns: they think you are out here on the floor to discuss who will 
be allowed to be a family in America, when you are really out here to 
work on who will be a Member of Congress after the election.
  Today's vote is about Republicans toying with the emotions of a 
nation that genuinely cares about commitment, about families, and about 
the institution of marriage. To the Republicans, our Nation's 
emotions--our fear and our worries--are to be employed and manipulated 
for their reelection campaigns.
  The House of Representatives's rules are governed by the Jefferson 
Manual, and the majority has the right under our rules to bring this 
measure to the floor. But Jefferson's greatest manual was the 
Declaration of Independence, which reads in part, ``We hold these 
truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they 
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that 
among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'' Exactly 
how that part of our Nation's creed will play out as our citizens 
grapple with notions of domestic partnerships, civil unions and same 
sex marriages is yet to be seen. It will certainly not be decided 
today.
  Nowhere in the Declaration does it say that these rights are only for 
white, heterosexual men.
  Jefferson opened the doors of liberty to all of us, Mr. Speaker. It's 
a disgrace that this body is using Jefferson rules to attempt to undo 
Jefferson's and the Western World's most profound achievement--
acknowledge that we are all equal.
  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.J. Res. 106, 
``the Marriage Protection Amendment,'' which would amend the United 
States Constitution, regarding the issue

[[Page 20104]]

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

[[Page 20105]]

  This measure will not ensure that marriage couples will protect our 
children from abuse or ensure that marriages between men and women will 
endure and not end in divorce. It is for the reasons outlined, that I 
cast a no vote against this amendment, and a vote to continue to 
support the Constitution.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the ``Marriage 
Protection'' Constitutional amendment.
  In the past, I have supported legislation that defines marriage, and 
keeps the control of the institution of marriage within each State in 
the Union. I don't believe in gay marriage, and supported the Federal 
statute Congress passed in 1996 making sure one State does not have to 
accept a marriage license not issued in their State.
  Amending the Constitution is a grave matter, given it's only been 
amended 27 times in the history of this Republic, actually, 17 times 
excluding the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the 
Constitution were adopted along with the original Constitution.
  I am opposed to amending the Constitution generally, and remain 
concerned about the repercussions of opening up our precious founding 
document to amendments about social issues.
  But I have heard from thousands of my constituents in south Texas who 
believe the matter of marriage raises to the importance of including 
this definition as the 28th Amendment of the Constitution. I have heard 
the voices of south Texans on this matter.
  We can never legislate the way people are born or the way they will 
live their lives. But we can make a statement today on the importance 
of marriage by passing this amendment and urging the Senate and three-
fifths of the States to do the same.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment as well.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this proposed 
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
  Marriage is designed to be between a man and a woman, period. It is 
not for two women, nor for two men. It was for this reason that I 
authored the Marriage Protection Act, which passed in the House in 
July.
  Nevertheless, I cannot in good conscience support this amendment.
  I have two primary concerns.
  The first is the potential this amendment has to federalize domestic 
relations law, that is the law of families, parents, custody, etc., all 
of which are now handled in the States.
  Let me say at the outset that I am not among those who believe that 
marriage cannot be defined in our Constitution under principles of 
federalism.
  But I am deeply concerned that we may unintentionally be doing far 
more than simply defining marriage.
  By setting forth marriage in the Constitution will we also set forth 
the basis upon which some future Federal court claims the ability to 
enter into all forms of domestic relations law now reserved to the 
States? I say it is very plausible.
  In fact, I thought it so plausible that I offered an amendment in the 
Committee on Rules this week to address this issue. My amendment would 
have added the following new section to all text:

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

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

[[Page 20106]]

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

[[Page 20107]]

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

[[Page 20108]]

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

[[Page 20109]]

allow them to make the final decision on marriage by voting for the 
Marriage Protection Amendment.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, here's the choice. On one hand, a rich 
constitutional tradition. On the other hand, the politics of 
divisiveness. What a despicable choice it is.
  With just days left before hitting the campaign trail, this Congress 
sets a remarkable record today. Since January of this year, the 
Republicans had the House in session for 93 days. Fewer days than any 
other single Session since 1948.
  The Republicans control the House, the Senate and the White House. 
Here's the tally: No votes on energy reform. No action on the assault 
weapons ban. No criminal justice reform. No Homeland Security bill. And 
no action on minimum wage and unemployment benefits.
  We can't pass a budget. Only one of 13 annual appropriations bills 
got done on time this year. And in Iraq, the violence continues. 
Yesterday, a car bomb explosion killed over 30 people--injuring over 
100. We have lost over one thousand American soldiers in this war.
  So which of these enormous challenges do we take on today? None of 
them. Instead, we're debating a constitutional amendment on marriage 
that is not going anywhere--it has already failed miserably in the 
Senate. We are just going through the motions here. The Majority is 
placating its base. For partisan advantage and with total disregard for 
our constitutional history and the core conservative value of 
federalism and defense to the State.
  Just last month the Vice President said: ``people ought to be able to 
be free.'' Well, Mr. Vice President, to my surprise, we actually agree 
on something. People should be free to love who they want. And free to 
marry who they love. And live in a state where they have equal rights 
and opportunities, and equal access to government.
  But State rights are under attack--from the self-styled conservatives 
no less, the same folks who are crusading to preempt State gun safety 
laws, get rid of consumer protection provisions, to eliminate fair 
lending laws. Why not abolish the 10th Amendment too?
  I agree with our former colleague Bob Barr--one of the stronget 
supporters of States' rights ever to serve in this body. There are 
three reasons why a constitutional amendment is the wrong choice.
  First, marriage is a state issue. Each state should be able to decide 
on its own how to define marriage for its citizens. Federalism means 
state sovereignty. We hear a lot of talk about my home state. Let me 
tell you something--Massachusetts is not forcing other states to take 
up this issue. Marriage is a matter that has always been left to the 
states. And each state should be allowed to address this issue in its 
own due course.
  Second, once we start messing with the Constitution, where will it 
end? With this precedent, the Republicans show a willingness to change 
the Constitution for ideology. What's next? A Constitutional Amendment 
on tax cuts? Corporate welfare? The draft?
  Finally, Federal constitutional amendment on marriage is unnecessary, 
irresponsible and irrational. It is wrong.
  The House Majority is pitting the Constitution against a craven 
political calculus. This is election year pandering at its worst. This 
is a meaningless and demeaning gesture, and insult to those holding 
sincere beliefs on this issue, all at the expense of our constitutional 
heritage.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this despicable posturing.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 106, the 
Marriage Protection Amendment.
  This amendment should be more rightfully called the Republican 
Incumbency Protection Amendment. Like the bill we debated on this floor 
yesterday to abrogate gun laws in the District of Columbia, this 
amendment is nothing more than an election year wedge issue. Already 
defeated in the Senate last July, it is another attempt to create a 
campaign issue to use against Democrats. It is a shame that the 
People's House should be diminished in this way.
  Even more so, this is an affront to our great Constitution. It 
reverses the constitutional tradition of protecting individual freedoms 
by attempting to limit those rights to millions of people. This is a 
cynical and dangerous violation of everything we have come to expect 
from that great document. This is no time to start rolling back 
freedom.
  What a great contradiction we are witnessing today at that party, 
which professes the sanctity of individual rights and privacy of the 
individual, seeks a blanket intrusion into the lives of a group of 
people under the guise of protecting marriage, the most private of 
institutions.
  While it was President Bush who initiated this bill with his call for 
a Constitutional amendment last February, I would hope that some 
members of his party would agree with the position of Vice President 
Cheney that this issue should be left to the states and not enshrined 
in our national constitution.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House Joint 
Resolution 106, the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment, which 
proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex couples 
from getting married or receiving any of the rights of marriage. The 
right-wing political machine is churning out divisive legislation at a 
record pace as we get close to the election, but this is a new low. 
They would, for the first time ever, target a specific group of 
Americans in our most sacred document, and permanently ban them from 
having equal rights under the law. This proposed amendment not only 
bans marriage, but any of the ``legal incidents thereof,'' meaning that 
the supporter of this amendment think our founding document should keep 
gay and lesbian couples from filing a joint tax return, inheriting 
property, or visiting their partners in the hospital.
  It's one thing for the Republicans to claim that banning flag burning 
will make us more patriotic or to propose a balanced budget amendment 
when they're running the highest deficits in history, but to play their 
political games with millions of Americans is beneath contempt. 
Apparently, there are a lot of things the supporters of this amendment 
don't understand about our government:
  The Constitution has always defined the limitations of government and 
liberties of people, not the other way around.
  Citizens of the United States are guaranteed equal treatment under 
the law, even if they aren't popular.
  For people who choose a religion, there are two separate marriages: a 
civil contract and a religious ceremony. That religious ceremony has 
nothing to do with our laws. A church can marry whomever it wants and 
refuse to marry whomever it wants. For example, Churches in 
Massachusetts don't have to marry gay people even though the State 
does.
  The civil contract part of marriage is enforced by a set of laws that 
affect property, children, health care and other responsibilities and 
rights. In the U.S. we are required by the Constitution to divorce 
these laws from any religious influence.
  Passing this amendment would take us down a dangerous path of trying 
to make civil and religious marriage one in the same. If we're going to 
bring our civil marriage system in line with religious marriage, then 
we also need to pass an amendment banning Catholics from getting 
divorced.
  The fact that Massachusetts is marrying same-sex couples doesn't mean 
that other States have to do the same. Already, 44 States have 
specifically banned gay marriage, and the Constitution guarantees their 
right to set their own policies on State issues.
  Constitutional amendments have to be passed by two-thirds of both the 
House and Senate before being submitted to the States for ratification. 
This amendment has already failed in the Senate, so today's vote is all 
a cynical, hateful political game.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Marriage 
Protection Amendment and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
important legislation.
  Marriage as the union of one man and one woman is our most basic and 
fundamental social institution. It is so central to the well-being of 
our society that, until recently, it was difficult to imagine that 
marriage itself would need explicit constitutional protection.
  However, recent court rulings and the actions of some local officials 
have forced the debate upon us. In an ongoing effort to redefine 
marriage for all of American society, the judgment of the American 
people is in danger of being overruled by a handful of activist judges.
  The Marriage Protection Amendment will protect marriage as the union 
of one man and one woman and ensure that the democratic process is 
followed on questions relating to this fundamental social institution.
  Some will question the need for a constitutional amendment, but let's 
be realistic. The U.S. Constitution will be changed whether the 
Marriage Protection Amendment is approved or not.
  Either activist judges will impose a new definition of marriage on 
the entire country, or the American people, through their elected 
representatives, will have the opportunity to determine what marriage 
will be.
  There is a broad consensus among the American people that marriage is 
uniquely and essentially the union of one man and one woman. Congress 
needs to act today and give voice to the majority of Americans who want 
traditional marriage protected.

[[Page 20110]]

  The record is clear. Whenever the American people have had the 
opportunity to vote directly on the issue, they have overwhelmingly 
voted in favor of traditional marriage.
  The state of marriage and the American family is a matter of crucial 
importance, and I trust the judgment of the American people on this 
matter.
  The future of marriage should be decided by the American people, not 
by activist courts. Vote in favor of the Marriage Protection Act, 
protect traditional marriage and ensure that the American people will 
have a say in the future of marriage.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Federal 
Marriage Amendment.
  Today in America: 8 million people are out of work--2.7 million have 
exhausted their unemployment benefits; 45 million people don't have 
access to health care; our classrooms are underfunded by $25 billion; 
gasoline prices have reached $50 per barrel one-third of the intercepts 
from al Qaeda have not been translated into English; and, more than 
1,000 Americans have been killed in a foreign quagmire with no end in 
sight.
  It's time for bold and honest leadership, and for all Americans to 
unite in confronting these urgent challenges. Yet with precious few 
days left in the legislative session, the leadership in Congress has 
decided that our time is best spent trying to divide Americans for 
political reasons. And the device they are using to divide us is the 
most sacred document of all--the Constitution of the United States.
  The Constitution has always united Americans behind a shared set of 
ideals. In our history, the Constitution has been amended only to 
protect and expand our rights. Since the Bill of Rights, our Nation has 
passed constitutional amendments to abolish slavery, to give all 
Americans equal protection under the laws, and to extend the right to 
vote to former slaves, women, and young Americans.
  Never in our history has a constitutional amendment been used to take 
rights away. The Federal Marriage Amendment destroys that tradition 
simply to pander to the political base of the Republican Party 5 weeks 
before an election. This amendment has little to do with defending the 
institution of marriage.
  With the strains on today's families and the incidence of divorce and 
broken homes, I fail to see how we strengthen the institution of 
marriage by forever excluding couples willing to enter into a lifelong 
commitment.
  Our society encourages and values a commitment to long-term 
monogamous relationships--and we honor that commitment through the 
legal institution of marriage.
  Same-sex couples are not asking for special rights or special favors. 
They are asking for the opportunity to make a commitment to one 
another--to share in a conservative institution and the rights and 
responsibilities it entails.
  I understand that this is an issue where good people may disagree, 
and where many diverse faith traditions are brought to bear. But let's 
be clear--if we leave the Constitution intact, every church, every 
community, and every State will still be free to define marriage as 
they choose.
  There is simply no Federal issue here and no need for a Federal 
solution. The Supreme Judicial Court of my State of Massachusetts has 
found that our State law violates our State constitution. It's a State 
matter, and we are handling it in Massachusetts.
  I have confidence in the people of Massachusetts that we will arrive 
at a solution based on our laws and our values. The outcome will have 
no effect on the laws of other States.
  My Republican colleagues have decried heavy-handed solutions from 
Washington and defended States' rights. Vice President Cheney has 
asserted that this is an issue for the States to decide. So did Texas 
Governor George Bush before he came to Washington and flip-flopped.
  I would plead with my colleagues who pride themselves as ardent 
defenders of States' rights and local control--we don't need Federal 
interference in Massachusetts.
  We should be honest with our constituents that the Federal Marriage 
Amendment on the House floor today has no chance of passage. It has 
already been rejected by the Senate.
  Today's vote is nothing more than a transparent political gimmick. 
It's a shameful assault on millions of hard-working, law-abiding 
Americans.
  And it's a shameless attempt to divide all Americans at a time when 
unity is needed like never before.
  I urge my colleagues to protect the Constitution, not degrade it for 
political reasons. Vote ``no'' on the Federal Marriage Amendment.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and 
this amendment.
  We did not seek this debate, but it was thrust upon us. A handful of 
judicial activists have sought to change the traditional definition of 
marriage through judicial decree.
  Supporters of same-sex marriage are vocal, tireless, and well-funded. 
They are eager to attack the traditional meaning of marriage through 
whatever court is willing to listen. They are determined to force this 
revolutionary and destructive view of marriage down the American 
people's throats.
  But there is hope for the millions of Americans who value the 
traditional definition of marriage. Their hope is the democratic 
process and this amendment. Supporters of same-sex marriage cannot win 
through the democratic process. Again and again, when the issue has 
been put forth in the court of public opinion, they have lost 
miserably.
  Mr. Speaker, this vote today is what our democracy is all about. The 
response of my constituents and Americans throughout the country has 
been overwhelming and impressive. The vast majority of Americans have 
risen to the defense of traditional marriage. Today, the voice of the 
American people will be heard.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, September 13 was an important date for 
Congress. It marked the expiration of the decade-old Assault Weapons 
Ban. Police Chiefs across the country strongly encouraged the extension 
of this ban. President Bush even announced he would sign an extension 
if Congress presented him with the opportunity. Unfortunately, the 
Republican leadership did not deem the ban fit for a vote.
  Instead, Congress squanders valuable time voting on matters that 
either have no bearing on the real work at hand or are designed as 
divisive wedge issues.
  Just yesterday the House voted to repeal the District of Columbia's 
28-year-old assault weapons ban and to prohibit the DC Government from 
enacting such laws in the future.
  That was yesterday, Mr. Speaker. Today, the House, in another profile 
in courage, will devote valuable time to one of the most divisive of 
wedge issues--a vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
  Are these the most pressing issues of the day for Congress? For the 
American people? Of course not. Al Qaeda will not stop at the borders 
of Washington, DC, in fear of our newly armed city, but tourists and 
other visitors might. And DC residents, Members of Congress and their 
families will be at greater risk.
  Nor will our ports, railways, airports, and other critical 
infrastructure be more secure because we waste time on what is certain 
to be a failed Federal effort to ban gay marriage.
  States have long regulated marriage and I do not believe that America 
has suffered from this practice. I believe State legislatures and 
courts are the proper arbiters of questions of community values. On 
this issue there is bipartisan agreement. Indeed, four of the featured 
speakers at the recent Republican convention oppose this amendment, 
including Vice President Cheney and California Governor Schwarzenegger.
  We have traditionally amended the Constitution to grant a broader 
range of rights to Americans. Why, in the 21st century, are we breaking 
from this 200-year-old tradition? In my view, the Constitution should 
be amended rarely, dispassionately, and only in the interest of 
codifying or expanding rights and liberties. This proposed amendment 
fails to meet that test, is divisive, and distracts from more urgent 
priorities.
  If America is hit by terrorists again, I fear that history will look 
back at us with a scathing and sorrowful eye. There will be anger at 
our misplaced priorities, and sadness that we fell victim to the 
passions of those whose vision for America's future is clouded by fear 
and intolerance.
  I oppose H.J. Res. 106 and urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to oppose it. We need to put this shameful vote behind us and 
focus on problems that all Americans agree need to be addressed, such 
as jobs, health care and, most of all, national security.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, although I will not be present when 
the House convenes on Thursday, September 30, 2004, for consideration 
of the H.J. Res 106, the Marriage Protection Amendment. I oppose it, 
just like Vice President Dick Cheney, because it undermines the 
principles of federalism espoused by most Republicans and interferes 
with the rights of States that have been recognized since the founding 
of our country.
  Furthermore, we should not change the Constitution for the purpose of 
singling out one group for discrimination. A constitutional marriage 
amendment is also unnecessary given that the Defense of Marriage Act 
already defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
  Finally, the argument that the Marriage Protection Amendment is 
needed to stop activist judges and courts from forcing the American 
people to accept gay marriage is unfounded,

[[Page 20111]]

a fact evidenced by the numerous marriage-related bills--both in favor 
of and against same-sex marriage--currently pending in more than two 
dozen State legislatures around the country.
  That is why, if I were present, during the vote for H.J. Res. 106, I 
would have voted against the Marriage Protection Amendment. In light of 
the fact that the first Presidential Debate is being held in my 
congressional district on Thursday, I must remain in Florida.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. 
Res. 106, the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment. This measure 
seeks to amend the United States Constitution and define marriage as 
the union between a man and a woman, denying gays and lesbians the 
right to marriage and the legal benefits that come with it.
  In the 200-year history of this great Nation, our Constitution has 
been amended a mere 17 times since our Founders drafted the original 10 
amendments.
  This amendment would be the first ever to strip a specific group of 
constitutional rights, directly contravening our history of expanding 
civil rights and liberties to the previously disenfranchised.
  This amendment appeals to many Americans' deeply held belief that 
marriage is a religious covenant only between a man and a woman.
  But marriage is also a legal contract, and the fundamental principal 
of equal protection dictates that all citizens have access to the 
benefits of such contracts.
  The legal right to marry--be it man-to-woman or same-sex--is and must 
remain separate from the religious one.
  This amendment will exclude some Americans from the full range of 
human experience to which they are entitled under the full protection 
of the law. Therefore, I believe that this measure must be defeated.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the 
constitutional amendment to protect marriage as between one man and one 
woman. This is a very important issue for congress to address, and I am 
glad to have been part of the movement to bring this legislation to the 
House floor.
  Marriage is a core institution of societies throughout the world and 
throughout history. It's something that has provided permanence and 
stability for our very social structure. Today, statistics clearly show 
that couples who are married are happier and better off economically, 
and that children who are raised in homes with a traditional, two-
person married couple are better off. The societal benefits to 
protecting and promoting traditional marriage are, in fact, numerous.
  In my home state of Louisiana, we voted just recently on a statewide 
constitutional amendment to define marriage in the traditional sense as 
between one man and one woman. The amendment passed with 78 percent, 
which clearly shows that an overwhelming majority of Louisianians want 
to see this legislation passed today.
  Some opponents of this measure claim that states should decide. I 
strongly believe in letting states decide issues for themselves, and 
Congress tried this approach in 1996 with the Defense of Marriage Act. 
It passed and was signed into law, but today that law, and with it the 
clear will of the American people, is being chiseled away by opponents.
  States--and more importantly, the people--will soon have their rights 
to decide this issue taken from them, by judges from some other part of 
the country. Not one state has decided by either popular referendum or 
legislative action to agree to anything other than marriage as between 
a man and a woman.
  So I encourage and implore my colleagues today to support and vote 
for this measure, so that our states and our citizens can decide these 
matters for themselves.
  Mr SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, during debate on the Marriage 
Protection Amendment, the Minority Leader referenced the ``Party of 
Lincoln'' and it support for the freedom of all people, including 
slaves. She made reference to Lincoln and his party in an effort to 
criticize the Republican Party for its stand in support of marriage as 
solely between one man and one woman.
  Mr. Speaker, I'd like to insert an article into the Record that 
documents the Republican Party's historical support--even at its 
beginning--for the institution of marriage. The article by Robert P. 
George and William L. Saunders entitled, ``Republicans and the Relics 
of Barbarism: Moral Conviction made the GOP the GOP,'' discusses the 
moral debates that defined the Republican Party in the 1800s. The 
issues of polygamy and slavery were at the center of those debates.
  Slaveholders clamored for their ``right'' to own another human being, 
thereby destroying the worth of that human being, while polygamists 
claimed it to be their ``religious freedom'' to engage in plural 
marriage, at the expense of their children and society.
  When the Supreme Court usurped congressional power in the Dred Scott 
decision, claiming that the Constitution contained a ``right'' to own a 
slave, the Republican Party, led by President Lincoln, steadfastly 
challenged the decision. It is known that President Lincoln defeated at 
least one candidate who favored a pro-choice position in regard to the 
issue of slavery. In addition, the Republicans made Utah statehood 
contingent upon their inclusion of a prohibition of polygamy in their 
State constitution.
  These ``archaic'' moral disputes are unchanged in modern debates.
  Today, proponents of abortion, embryonic stem-cell research and 
cloning assert their ``right'' to create and destroy another human 
being at will, and thereby destroy the worth of that human being. In 
addition, the pervasive philosophy of moral and sexual liberation seeks 
to devalue the traditional, foundational role of marriage, at the 
expense of children and society.
  The defense of traditional marriage and the protection of all life as 
equal and of intrinsic worth in the eyes of our Creator, are inherent, 
core beliefs of the Republican Party. We would do well to recall this 
truth, and to bring it to bear on our modern topics of discussion. We 
must defend the sanctity of life by opposing abortion and embryo-
destructive research, and we must defend marriage as the permanent 
union between one man and one women, in order to maintain the moral and 
structural stability of our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in support of marriage today in 
the tradition of the Party of Lincoln--the Republican Party. I urge my 
colleagues of both parties to do the same and vote in support of H.J. 
Res. 106, the Marriage Protection Amendment.

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

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

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

       In the middle of the 19th century, a new political party 
     emerged dedicated to two great moral struggles. The 
     Republican party pledged to fight the ``twin relics of 
     barbarism'': slavery and polygamy.
       By then, slavery was deeply entrenched in the culture of 
     the American south. What some had regarded as ``necessary 
     evil'' that would gradually die out had been given a new 
     lease on life by technological developments, and by the 
     emergence of profitable overseas markets for cotton. An 
     entire social and economic system was built on slavery. No 
     longer was it reasonable to hope that the ``peculiar 
     institution,'' and with it the moral controversy convulsing 
     the nation, would quietly fade away. Powerful interests had a 
     stake not only in maintaining the slave system, but in 
     extending it into the western territories of the United 
     States.
       So the Republicans faced a daunting challenge. Pro-slavery 
     Democrats condemned them as ``fanatics'' and ``zealots'' who 
     sought to impose their religious scruples and moral values on 
     others. Slaveholders demanded that they ``mind their own 
     business'' and stay out of the ``domestic'' and ``private'' 
     affairs of others. Defenders of a ``right'' to own slaves 
     pointedly invited northern abolitionists to redirect their 
     moral outrage towards the ``wage slave'' system in the north. 
     ``If you are against slavery,'' they in effect said, ``then 
     don't own a slave.''
       By the mid-1850s, polygamy, which had originally been the 
     largely secret practice of the Mormon elite, had come out of 
     the closet. Polygamists claimed that attacks on ``plural 
     marriage'' were violations of their right to religious 
     freedom. Later, some would bring lawsuits asking judges to 
     invalidate laws against polygamy as unconstitutional. One of 
     these cases would make it all the way to the Supreme Court. 
     Apologists for polygamy denied that plural marriage was 
     harmful to children, and challenged supporters of the ban on 
     polygamy to prove that the existence of polygamous families 
     in American society harmed their own monogamous marriages. 
     They insisted that they merely wanted the right to be married 
     in their own way and left alone.
       But the Republicans stood their ground, refusing to be 
     intimidated by the invective being hurled against them. They 
     knew that polygamy and slavery were morally wrong and 
     socially corrosive. And they were prepared to act on their 
     moral convictions.
       For the Republicans, the idea that human beings could be 
     reduced to the status of mere ``objects'' to be bought and 
     sold and exploited for the benefit of others was a profound 
     violation of the intrinsic dignity of creatures made in the 
     image and likeness of God. Similarly, the idea that marriage 
     could be redefined to accommodate a man's desire for multiple 
     sexual partners was, as they saw it, deeply contrary to the 
     meaning of marriage as joining a man and a woman in a 
     permanent and exclusive bond.
       In the great moral struggles of the 19th century, the 
     Republicans sought advantage

[[Page 20112]]

     in every morally legitimate and available way. When 
     appropriate, they would accept strategic compromises on the 
     road to victory; but they would not compromise away their 
     principles.
       When in the Dred Scott decision the Supreme Court of the 
     United States announced its discovery of what amounted to a 
     constitutional right of slaveholding, Lincoln and other 
     leading Republicans refused to treat the case as a binding 
     precedent. They would not bow to judicial usurpation. When 
     Utah sought admission as a state, the Republican-controlled 
     Congress made statehood conditional upon incorporation of a 
     prohibition of polygamy into the state constitution.
       As Republicans gather in New York this week, they would do 
     well to remember their moral heritage. The twin relics of 
     barbarism have returned in distinctively modern garb. 
     Abortion and embryo-destructive research are premised on the 
     proposition that some human beings--those in the embryonic 
     and fetal stages of development--may legitimately be reduced 
     to objects that can be created and destroyed for the benefit 
     of others. At the same time, the ideology of sexual 
     liberationism threatens to undercut the traditional 
     understanding of marriage as the permanent and exclusive 
     union of one and one woman.
       A familiar mantra of ``pro-choice'' politicians is that 
     abortion should be ``safe, legal, and rare.'' Now, however, 
     they seek to validate and fund a massive industry that would 
     create human beings for the precise purpose of destroying 
     them during the embryonic stage of development in biomedical 
     research. What happened with slavery is now happening with 
     embryo-killing: The people who use to define it as a 
     ``necessary evil'' to be resisted or lessened by means other 
     than legal prohibition now promote it as a social good--
     something that law and government should not only tolerate 
     but embrace and even promote.
       At the same time, the sexual-liberationist movement seeks 
     to undermine traditional understandings of the meaning and 
     significance of human sexuality. The attempt to abolish the 
     legal concept of marriage as the one-flesh union of a man and 
     a woman is part of a larger effort to ``liberate'' people 
     from what the cultural-political Left regards as outmoded and 
     repressive ideas about the centrality of procreation and the 
     moral requirement of fidelity in human sexual relationships. 
     Even some leading ``conservative'' advocates of ``same-sex 
     marriage'' have announced their moral acceptance of 
     promiscuity; one has gone so far as to proclaim the 
     ``spiritual value'' of ``anonymous sex.'' Increasingly, 
     critics of traditional morality are willing explicitly to 
     invoke the authority of ancient pagan civilizations in which 
     practices (including abortion, infanticide, and homosexual 
     conduct) condemned by the Judeo-Christian ethic sometimes 
     flourished.
       Critics of the Republican stand in defense of marriage and 
     the sanctity of human life--including some within the party--
     echo the arguments of 19th-century apologists for the relics 
     of barbarism. They accuse pro-life and pro-family Republicans 
     of being ``religious fanatics'' who disrespect people's 
     liberty and seek to ``impose their values'' on others. ``If 
     you are against abortion,'' they say, ``then don't have an 
     abortion.'' They maintain--often disingenuously--that legal 
     recognition of the ``marriages'' of same-sex partners will 
     not harm or weaken traditional marriages.
       These arguments fare no better as defenses of human-embryo 
     killing and the redefinition of marriage than they did of 
     slavery and polygamy. Justice requires that all human beings 
     irrespective of race or color, but also irrespective of age, 
     or size, or stage of development, be afforded the protection 
     of the laws. The common good requires that the laws reflect 
     and promote a sound understanding of marriage as uniting one 
     man and one woman in a bond founded upon the bodily communion 
     made possible by their reproductive complementarity.
       An influential minority in the Republican Party proposes 
     abandoning, or at least soft-pedaling, the Party's 
     commitments to the sanctity of human life and the dignity of 
     marriage and the family. They say that social issues are 
     ``too divisive.'' They suppose that the easy road to 
     Republican electoral success is as the party of low taxes and 
     low morals. They counsel capitulation to judges who usurp the 
     constitutional authority of the American people and their 
     elected representatives.
       Let Republicans be mindful of their heritage. It was moral 
     conviction--and the courage to act on moral conviction--that 
     gave birth to the Republican party and made it grand. Now it 
     is old, but need not be any less grand. By summoning the 
     moral courage that enabled their Party to stand proudly 
     against the twin relics of barbarism in the 19th century, 
     Republicans can bring honor upon themselves in the great 
     moral struggles of our own day.

  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 106, the 
Marriage Protection Amendment. Passage of this resolution will not 
protect marriage, and I am concerned it will create the opposite effect 
of what its proponents seek to accomplish.
  Let me first state that I believe that marriage is a sacred union 
between one man and one woman. I strongly support the federal Defense 
of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed by Congress and signed into law in 1996.
  Second, marriage is an issue that our Founding Fathers wisely left to 
the states. 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 marriage performed in other states. Yet the Defense 
of Marriage Act not only prohibits federal recognition of same-sex 
marriages, it allows individual states to refuse to recognize such 
unions performed in other states. And in the eight years that have 
passed since its enactment, DOMA never has been invalidated in any 
court in the country. The authors of DOMA took the greatest pains to 
write a law that is constitutional and will withstand judicial 
challenges.
  Proponents also claim that amending the Constitution is the only way 
to prevent so-called ``activist judges'' from legislating matters of 
same-sex marriage. Yet amending the Constitution to address marriage 
could invite federal judicial review not only of marriage, but of 
divorce, child custody, inheritance, adoption, and other issues of 
family law. Not only would this violate the principles of federalism, 
it would create very bad public policy.
  Mr. Speaker, no legislature in the country has established same-sex 
marriage in statute. In fact, 39 states, including Illinois, have 
adopted laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman.
  I urge my colleagues to have faith in our system of government, keep 
marriage out of the Constitution, and allow the states to continue to 
exercise what is best left to them.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 801, the joint resolution is considered 
read for amendment, and the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 
15-minute vote on House Joint Resolution 106 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on motions to suspend the rules on House Concurrent 
Resolution 501 and House Resolution 792.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 186, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 484]

                               YEAS--227

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam

[[Page 20113]]


     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--186

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cox
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--20

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


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1725

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

                          ____________________