[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 5112-5113]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  EDITORIAL BY FORMER CONGRESSMAN BARNEY FRANK IN THE PORTLAND PRESS 
                        HERALD ON MARCH 24, 2013

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DAVID N. CICILLINE

                            of rhode island

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 11, 2013

  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following editorial by 
Former Congressman Barney Frank.

     Ruling for Same-Sex Marriage Would Be Right, Not ``Activism''

                    (By the Honorable Barney Frank)

       People who are caught making assertions that blatantly 
     contradict positions they have previously taken often respond 
     that ``Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,'' trying 
     to trade an old quote for a little intellectual honesty.
       But inconsistency is nothing to be proud of. It is an 
     unmistakable sign that a person has lost confidence in an 
     argument but believes it can be won by invoking some general 
     principle, even if it's one the person has previously 
     repudiated.
       Then the hobgoblin involved is the person's effort to hide 
     his or her real motive.
       We will--I hope--soon see an example of rhetorical 
     hobgobliny if the Supreme Court issues an opinion holding 
     that the law that currently treats my marriage to my husband 
     Jim as a threat to society is a clear denial to us of the 
     equal protection of the law.
       If a majority holds that the stupidly named Defense of 
     Marriage Act is unconstitutional, right-wing advocates of the 
     view that same-sex married couples should pay the same taxes 
     as our straight fellow citizens but not receive any of the 
     same benefits will respond not so much by defending this 
     blatant discrimination as by piously denouncing ``judicial 
     activism.''
       They will have no other option. Persisting in the claim 
     that happily married men in an opposite-sex marriage will, on 
     seeing Jim and me together, be sorely tempted to abandon 
     their wives clearly no longer has the persuasive power it 
     once had.
       When DOMA was enacted in 1996, it was apparently plausible 
     to most Americans that those of us in same-sex marriages 
     would have the same effect on some men as a popular juice 
     commercial claims for its product. Instead of slapping their 
     foreheads and regretting that they hadn't had a V-8, the fear 
     was that they would see Jim and me and proclaim, ``I could 
     have married a guy.''
       To their credit, the right-wingers understand that since 
     there has been no such result in the nine years since same-
     sex marriage was first legalized in Massachusetts, nor in any 
     of the other eight jurisdictions that have followed, claiming 
     that they are defending their marriages by defunding mine is 
     a losing proposition--intellectually, factually, and 
     increasingly electorally.
       So they will instead invoke the principle that unelected 
     judges should not annul laws adopted by the elected President 
     and Congress, piously insisting that it is the right of the 
     people in our system to make the laws.
       But they will only be pretending to believe in that 
     principle. In fact, since 2010, conservatives--including 
     virtually all of those who will denounce the judicial 
     activism of the anti-DOMA decision--have been working hard to 
     get these very same judges to annul most of the laws enacted 
     by the elected president and Congress in 2009 and 2010.
       Conservatives not only sought to have the health care bill 
     canceled by judges, they have denounced Chief Justice Roberts 
     for voting not to overturn the elected officials' decision. 
     The financial reform bill has been the subject of multiple 
     conservative-backed lawsuits seeking to cancel regulation of 
     speculation in oil, to block consumer protection, and to 
     return derivative trading to its unregulated status.
       Most glaringly, the right-wing politicians are hoping the 
     Supreme Court will throw out one of the greatest legislative 
     achievements of the past fifty years--the Voting Rights Act 
     (This law was passed in 1965 and has since been reenacted 
     several times, under the signature of Ronald Reagan among 
     others.)
       Exposing the inconsistency--i.e., hypocrisy--of 
     conservatives who will weep for democracy if discrimination 
     based on sexual orientation is struck down while they are 
     utilizing that very process to rescind financial regulation, 
     un-defend consumers, reduce health care programs, and take 
     away voting protections understandably makes them 
     uncomfortable. And labeling those of us who do it as 
     hobgoblins does not solve their rhetorical problem.
       Lacking any basis for the proposition that same-sex 
     marriages cause any harm to those who have opted not to enter 
     into one, the pro-DOMA faction needs an inconsistent 
     denunciation of judicial activism to avoid acknowledging that 
     their real motive is some combination of dislike, disapproval 
     or disgust at the notion that gay people should be allowed by 
     society to live legally free from prejudice.

[[Page 5113]]



                          ____________________