[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 2]
[House]
[Page 2786]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1410
                        DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT

  (Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California asked and was given permission 
to address the House for 1 minute.)
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, while we were gone 
last week, the United States Department of Justice made an unfortunate 
decision announcement. They announced that they would no longer defend 
an act of Congress that was signed into law by President Clinton, that 
is, the Defense of Marriage Act.
  The statement that came out of the Justice Department said that they 
could find no constitutional basis for defending that law. I recall we 
had the same thing happen in my home State where then-Attorney General 
Jerry Brown said he could not defend Proposition 8 which dealt with the 
definition of marriage.
  Having served in that office in California, I can tell you, I 
defended laws that I disagreed with. I defended laws that I had voted 
against, and I felt it was my solemn obligation to uphold the 
Constitution and the laws duly enacted in my State, just as I believe 
the Attorney General of the United States has that obligation on the 
Federal level.
  It is beyond disappointment. I believe it is a dereliction of duty. 
To somehow now find that there is no constitutional basis for defending 
that law is incredible and I think regrettable, and I think we ought to 
look into it.

                          ____________________