Windsor v. The United States Of America

Filing 30

AFFIDAVIT of Andrew J. Ehrlich in Support re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8)(Ehrlich, Andrew)

EXHIBIT 3

July 11, 1996

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

PERMISSION TO CONSIDER ON FRIDAY, JULY 12, 1996, H.R. 2428,
FOOD AND GROCERY DONATION
ACT, UNDER SUSPENSION OF
THE RULES
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that on
Friday, July 12, 1996, the Speaker be
authorized to entertain a motion, offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. GOODLING, or his designee, to suspend the rules and pass
H.R. 2428 as amended, a bill to encourage the donation of food and grocery
products.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr.
Speaker, on Wednesday July 10, 1996, I
was granted a leave of abence and I
missed a series of votes.
On rollcall vote number 295, I would
have voted no.
On rollcall vote number 296, I would
have voted no.
On rollcall vote number 297, I would
have voted yes.
On rollcall vote number 298, I would
have voted yes.
On rollcall vote number 299, I would
have voted no.
DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 474 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in
the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for consideration of the bill, H.R. 3396.
0040
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill (H.R. 3396) to
define and protect the institution of
marriage, with Mr. GILLMOR in the
Chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the
rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. CANADY] and the gentleman
from
Massachusetts
[Mr.
FRANK] will each be recognized for 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. CANADY].
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, today, the House begins its consideration of H.R. 3396, the
Defense of Marriage Act. H.R. 3396 has
two operative provisions. Section 2 of
the bill reads as follows:
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
from such relationship.

This provision invokes Congress’ constitutional authority, under Article IV,
section 1, to prescribe the effect that
shall be given the public records, acts,
and proceedings of the various States.
This section provides only that States
‘‘shall not be required’’ to recognize
same-sex marriage licenses issued by
other States. It would not prevent any
State from permitting homosexual
couples to marry, just as it would not
prevent any State from choosing to
give full legal effect to same-sex marriages contracted in other States. It
means only that they are not required
by the Full Faith and Credit Clause to
do so.
It appears that gay rights lawyers
are soon likely to win the right for homosexuals to marry in Hawaii, and
that they will attempt to ‘‘nationalize’’ that anticipated victory under
force of the Full Faith and Credit
Clause of the U.S. Constitution. I do
not believe that other States would
necessarily be required, under a proper
interpretation of that Clause and the
‘‘public policy’’ exception to it, to give
effect to a Hawaiian same-sex marriage
license.
But here is the situation we confront:
Gay rights lawyers have made plain
their intention to invoke the Full
Faith and Credit Clause to persuade
judges in the other 49 States to ignore
the public policy of those States and to
recognize a Hawaiian same-sex marriage license. This strategy is no secret; it is well documented. I would
hope that judges would reject this
strategy. But we all know that some
courts will go the other way. That explains why, as we learned at our hearing, over 30 States are busily trying to
enact legislation that will assist their
efforts to fend off the impending assault on their marriage laws. There is,
in short, disquiet in the States over
how this legal scenario will play out.
The strategy the gay rights groups
are pursuing is profoundly undemocratic, and it is surely an abuse of the
Full Faith and Credit Clause. Indeed, I
cannot imagine a more appropriate occasion for invoking our constitutional
authority to define the States’ obligations under the Full Faith and Credit
Clause. As Representative Torrance
Tom from Hawaii testified before the
Subcommittee: ‘‘If inaction by the
Congress runs the risk that a single
Judge in Hawaii may re-define the
scope of legislation throughout the
other forty-nine states, [then] failure
to act is a dereliction of the responsibilities [we] were invested with by
the voters.’’
Section 3 of the bill is even more
straightforward. It proves that, for
purposes of federal law only, ‘‘word
‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as hus-

H7441

band and wife, and the word ‘spouse’
refers only to a person of the opposite
sex who is a husband or a wife.’’ Again,
this is a reaction to the Hawaii situation. Prior to the Hawaii Supreme
Court decision there was never any reason to define the words ‘‘marriage’’ or
‘‘spouse’’ in federal law, because the
laws of the fifty States were uniform in
defining them exclusively with reference to heterosexual unions. But
now, it is necessary to make explicit in
the federal code Congress’ well-established and unquestionable intention
that ‘‘marriage’’ is limited to unions
between one man and one woman. Section 3 changes nothing; it simply reaffirms existing law.
I would note that the Clinton administration Justice Department believes
that H.R. 3396 is constitutional. President Clinton, more over, has indicated
that he ‘‘would sign the bill if it was
presented to him as currently written.’’
I’d make just one final point. Opponents of this bill have been quick to allege that its sponsors are motivated by
crass political considerations; they
have argued, in effect, that we have
contrived this issue in order to score
political points. In light of the Hawaii
situation, the proclaimed intention of
the gay rights lawyers, and the strong
bipartisan support for the bill, this
simply is not a credible argument. It
is, rather, an argument designed to
shift the focus of debate away from the
fundamental issues at stake in this
controversy.
What is at stake in this controversy?
Nothing less than our collective moral
understanding—as expressed in the
law—of the essential nature of the family—the fundamental building block of
society. This is far from a trivial political issue. Families are not merely constructs of outdated convention, and
traditional marriage laws were not
based on animosity toward homosexuals. Rather, I believe that the traditional family structure—centered on
a lawful union between one man and
one woman—comports with nature and
with our Judeo-Christian moral tradition. It is one of the essential foundations on which our civilization is
based.
Our law should embody an unequivocal recognition of that fundamental
fact. Our law should not treat homosexual relationships as the moral
equivalent of the heterosexual relationships on which the family is based.
That is why we are here today.
0045
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.
Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me just exercise
my objection to the way this House is
being run. If this is such an important
issue, why are we debating this at a
quarter to 1? I must say that for an important piece of legislation like this to

H7442

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

be treated in this fashion is quite shabby.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr.
KENNEDY].
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr.
Chairman, this debate really is about a
simple question, a question of equal
rights. Marriage is a basic right. It is a
basic human right. Love and commitment are essential pillars of marriage.
They are qualities that do not discriminate on account of gender. It is
not right for this Congress to step in
and to intrude into the private relationships and the most personal decisions of our constituencies. Love and
commitment can exist between a man
and a woman and it can and does exist
between men and between women.
Proponents of this curiously titled
bill say that we need legislation to protect the family. Nothing could be further from the truth. Families are not
threatened when two adults who love
each other make a lifelong commitment to one another. Families will not
fall apart if gay men and women are allowed to marry, if they are allowed the
same basic legal right to marry that is
already enjoyed by heterosexuals.
This is not about defending marriage.
It is about finding an enemy. It is not
about marital union. It is about disunion, about dividing one group of
Americans against another. This bill is
unconstitutional, this bill is unfair,
and the spirit behind this bill further
fans the flames of prejudice and bigotry that this 104th Congress has done
a pretty good job at fanning thus far.
I think it is a travesty that people
would bring this bill out simply to polarize Americans even further. Instead
of bringing love and commitment and
worshiping that in our society, this bill
sows the seeds of division and hatred
amongst people. I think that is a very
unfortunate thing.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. HUTCHINSON].
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the institution of marriage and
this bill, which seeks to uphold and
preserve traditional heterosexual marriage, the fundamental building block
of our society.
Mr. Chairman, it is true that the institution of marriage, understood to be
the social, legal and spiritual union of
one man and one woman, has been the
foundation of every human society. In
1988 the U.S. Supreme Court described
marriage, quote, as creating the most
important relation in life, as having
more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution.
In the 1970’s, the Minnesota State Supreme Court went further by stating
that, quote, the institution of marriage
as a union of man and woman uniquely
involving the procreating and rearing
of children within the family is as old
as the Book of Genesis.

Most Americans who are still up at
this hour will think it odd that we are
actually considering legislation to define marriage as an exclusively heterosexual monogamous institution when,
in fact, in the history of our country
marriage has never meant anything
else. It is inherently reserved for one
man and one woman. As Webster’s Dictionary states, quote, marriage is the
institution whereby a man and a
woman are joined in a special social
and legal relationship.
Furthermore, I believe that marriage
is a covenant established by God
wherein one man and one woman are
united for the purpose of founding and
maintaining a family. H.R. 3396 solidly
reinforces these previous U.S. and
State Supreme Court findings by simply restating the current and long-established understanding of marriage as
the social, legal and spiritual union of
one man and one woman.
The President, who has promised his
support for this legislation, and promised to sign this bill, said it very well
at the National Prayer Breakfast this
past January. He said, ‘‘We know that
ultimately this is an affair of the
heart, an affair of the heart that has
enormous economic and political and
social implications for America, but,
most importantly has moral implications, because families,’’ he said, ‘‘are
ordained by God as a way of giving
children and their parents the change
to live up to the fullest of their Godgiven capacities.’’
The President is absolutely right.
Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that
our country can survive many things,
but one thing it cannot survive is the
destruction of the family unit which
forms the foundation of our society.
Those among us who truly desire a
strong and thriving America for our
children and grandchildren will defend
traditional heterosexual marriage and
will vote for final passage of this bill.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.
Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from San Francisco, CA [Ms.
PELOSI], a great champion of human
rights.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding me this
time and for his strong leadership on
this important issue and other issues of
civil and human rights in this country
and throughout the world.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this ill-named Defense of Marriage Act and I do so on the basis of
conscience, Constitution and constituency.
This legislation in terms of the Constitution, I believe, violates the spirit
of the Constitution’s full faith and
credit clause as well as its equal protection provisions. It also is quite ironic to me that the Republican Party,
which is a strong advocate for States’
rights, now wants to override the will
of the States and this is all in the hypothetical at that.
As a matter of conscience, I am opposed to this legislation because I be-

July 11, 1996

lieve it is a blatant act of discrimination. It is also disappointing that it is
happening at this time because last
week on the Fourth of July we celebrated our country’s independence and
our country’s greatness. This week we
are acting to diminish that greatness
by saying to some members of our society that they are not equal under the
law. Who is next? This bill is an insult
to gays and lesbians in our country.
Who is next? That brings me to my
constituency.
I have the privilege of representing
the most diverse population of any district in the country. I know there will
be those who say their districts are as
diverse but I do not think anyone’s is
more diverse than mine. In my district,
I can easily see and say that the beauty is in the mix. I want to be sure that
the power is also in the mix, the power
for all of those different people to
make their own decisions about their
personal lives, the power for them to
reach their own fulfillment, newcomer
or old guard, black, brown, white or
yellow, gay or lesbian.
Those decisions and that fulfillment
include those affecting their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. We value
family in our community as a source of
strength to our country and a source of
comfort to our people. What constitutes that family is an individual
and personal decision. But it is for all
a place where people find love and support. If that happens to be with people
living together of the same sex or of
different sex, if it happens platonically
or not, if it happens that they find
comfort and love and support, God
bless them.
Let me tell you about two very special constituents of mine who have
lived together for over 25 years. Their
commitment, their love and their happiness are a source of strength to all
who know them. Their relationship—I
hold this up so you can all see—is not
a threat to anyone’s marriage. This is
Phyllis Lyons and Dell Martin. Phyllis
has two grandchildren. Phyllis and Dell
have been leaders in our community
and command the respect of all who
know them. Why should they not be
able to share each other’s health and
bereavement benefits? Why should they
not be able to visit each other in the
hospital in case of accident or in case
of illness? I know people will say, you
can sign up in advance and tell the doctor before you go in for the operation.
That does not happen is you are in an
accident. Why should they not be able
to share a financial relationship inheritance, immigration, the list goes on
and on.
Why should they not have the full
protection of the law? All of our community in our area are in debt to Phyllis and Dell for their contribution to
the community, serving on commissions, they have been officially recognized over and over again in the course
of their years of service. Tonight I am
again in their debt for allowing me to
share their personal history with you. I

July 11, 1996

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

thank them for doing that, and I say to
all of you, if you knew Phyllis and Dell
and many hundreds of thousands of
people that I know like them, why
would you not want them to be treated
equally?
But I ask you to make a more personal question of yourselves. Should
you find yourself in a situation where
your children or your close relatives or
your close friends find solace, happiness, comfort, love, support in a relationship that is appropriate for them,
would you not want them to have the
legal recognition that they deserve? It
is not again a threat to anyone.
Mr. Chairman, I wish I could go into
what is a threat to marriage in this
country, but with that I urge my colleagues to think carefully before discriminating against anyone in this
country. I urge our colleagues to vote
‘‘no’’ on this legislation.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. LARGENT].
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in strong support of the Defense of
Marriage Act and begin by saying that
the reason that it is called the Defense
of Marriage Act is very simple and very
plain. There is an active court action
in the State of Hawaii that is scheduled—some say as long as two years
from now, earlier it was reported it
could be as early as the first week in
August—that they would rule that
same-sex marriages are in order and
according to the full faith and credit
clause of the Constitution that a couple could fly from any part of the country to the State of Hawaii, receive a
marriage certificate in that State, return to their home State and be obligated in that State, potentially be obligated in that State, that State would
have to honor that marriage certificate. There is a very radical element
that is in the process of redefining
what marriage is.
We do not need to explain that for
thousands of years and across many,
many different cultures, a definition of
marriage that transcends time has always been one man and one woman
united for the purposes of forming a
family. But that very definition is
under assault. There have been many
people that have spoken already this
evening that have said, this is about
equal rights, or this is about discrimination. Let me just say first of all that
this is not about equal rights. We have
equal rights.
0100
Homosexuals have the same rights as
I do. They have the ability to marry
right now, today. However, when they
get married, they must marry a person
of the opposite sex, the same as me.
That is the same right that I have.
Now, I would also say that, just like a
homosexual, I do not have the right to
marry somebody of the same sex. It is
the same for them as it is for me.
There is no disparate between this
rights issue.

Further, I would say that marriage is
not a right in the first place. It is a
privilege. That really brings me to another subject, when we talk about this
bill defining for Federal purposes what
constitutes a marriage, one man and
one woman. There is, as I said, a radical element, a homosexual agenda that
wants to redefine what marriage is.
They want to say that a marriage not
only is one man and one woman but it
is two men or it is two women.
What logical reason is there to keep
us from stopping expansion of that definition to include three people or an
adult and a child, or any other odd
combination that we want to have?
There really is no logical reason why
we could not also include polygamy or
any other definition to say, as long as
these are consenting human beings,
and it does not even have to be limited
to human beings, by the way. I mean it
could be anything. But what rational
reason, logical reason is there to say
no, it is okay for two males or two females but we are not going to expand
the definition beyond that. There is no
reason why we cannot just completely
erase whatever boundaries that currently exist on the definition of marriage and say it is a free-for-all, anything goes.
It has also been said many times that
the reason that this bill is being
brought forth in the House of Representatives and later in the Senate is
because of political reasons. I would
just also reiterate the fact that the
President is waiting for this bill at this
moment. He has said many times that
now is the time to act and to reaffirm
the fact that marriage constitutes one
man and one woman.
The President has already agreed to
sign this bill. This is not a wedge issue.
This is not a political football that is
going back and forth between presidential candidates. We need to move on
this bill as quickly as possible and reaffirm marriage as the foundation and
the cornerstone of our society.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.
Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from Illinois let me say that
the previous speaker said that this
might be decided as early as the first
week of August. There is not a shed of
evidence of that. The trial of this issue
is going to begin in September in Hawaii. Now, how a trial that is going to
begin in September could be decided in
the first week of August baffles me but
no more than a lot of the other things
he said.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 31⁄2 minutes to
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
GUTIERREZ].
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman,
without question, we’ve heard some
puzzling arguments in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act.
But at least one good thing has come
from this debate.
I think everyone understands better
when to take my Republican friends seriously and when they are just having
a good laugh at the expense of the
American people.

H7443

I now realize that my friends on the
other side of the aisle aren’t the least
bit serious when they talk about how
important it is for the federal government not to interfere in the lives of our
people.
I understand that they are just kidding—just teasing us—when they stress
the importance of taking power out of
Washington and giving it to local officials.
And now I know that their biggest
joke of all is that old line about the
importance of family values—all that
talk about encouraging people to care
about and be committed to each other.
Because the bill that most of my
friends on the other side of the aisle
are supporting tonight represents the
polar opposite of all those lofty goals
we’ve heard them talk so much about.
The misleadingly titled ‘‘Defense of
Marriage Act’’ is the ultimate in Washington bureaucracy dictating to the
American people how they should live
their lives.
And it is an outstanding example of
telling state officials how they should
legislate and make policy.
This should be a simple issue.
Unfortunately, for many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle,
that simple issue is politics.
It’s as simple as exploiting fears and
promoting prejudice.
But something more important than
looking for a few extra votes should be
simple, too.
Seeking fairness.
Seeking an America where, all people
are treated the same under the law, in
every aspect of their lives—from choosing where they live to who they marry.
And one more thing should be simple.
Promoting freedom.
Making sure that all Americans have
the freedom to live their personal lives
in exactly the way they choose.
Without being discriminated against.
Without being stopped or harassed by a
meddling federal government. Without
being prevented by legislators from deciding what is best for them.
I think the debate we hear tonight is
the very reason so many Americans are
troubled by politicians exploiting the
idea of ‘‘family values.’’
I don’t know many Americans—regardless of their political party, race,
religion or sexual orientation—who
don’t believe that family values are vitally important.
But I also don’t know many Americans who want a couple of hundred
politicians in Washington to impose
their values on everyone else’s families.
Let me tell you about some very
basic values I think we’re talking
about when we stand up against this
bill.
The values of people who love each
other. People who share each other’s
lives. People who care about their future and the future of those around
them. People who want to make a commitment that is legal and official and
is important to them.

H7444

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

To me, that sounds like family values.
And all of the noise we hear on the
other side of the aisle sounds like politics as usual.
I encourage my colleagues in the
house today—and I don’t say this very
often—give my Republican friends
what they say they want.
Real family values. And more local
control. And a federal government that
stays out of American’s lives.
There’s only one way to do that.
Vote to defeat the Defense of Marriage Act.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. COBURN].
(Mr. COBURN asked and was given
permission to revise an extend his remarks.)
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, we have
heard a lot tonight already. We heard a
lot in the debate on the rule about discrimination. We just heard about family values. I do not think it is about
any of those things. The real debate is
about homosexuality and whether or
not we sanction homosexuality in this
country.
Mr. Chairman, I come from a district
in Oklahoma who has very profound beliefs that homosexuality is wrong. I
represent that district. They base that
belief on what they believe God says
about homosexuality. It is what they
believe God says about it. What they
believe is, is that homosexuality is immoral, that it is based on perversion,
that it is based on lust. It is not to say
that the individual is any less valuable
than anybody that might believe that,
but it is discrimination towards the
act, not towards the individuals. That
should be something that we stand for,
that should be something that we stand
on.
So I support the Defense of Marriage
Act for many reasons, but I support it
because my district supports it. My
district says it is time to say that homosexuality should not be sanctioned
on an equal level with heterosexuality,
and there are lots of reasons to back
that up.
If you look at some of the studies
that are put forward to say homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality,
all you have to do is look at the number of partners on average that we see
with homosexuality, and there are
studies to say that over 43 percent of
all people who profess homosexuality
have greater than 500 partners. There
are studies that would say that. The
point being is I stand here representing
my district to say homosexuality, the
act of homosexuality, not the individual, is immoral, it is wrong. We should
say that and we should not be afraid to
stand on the very principles of our beliefs.
We can claim our beliefs, we can
claim to represent the beliefs of those
whom we represent, and we should
stand for that. Others have different
beliefs, I recognize that, and I would
yield to their beliefs. But for me and

my district, I am going to yield to the
beliefs that we hold. I believe it is discrimination against the act and not
the individual.
We hear about diversity, but we do
not hear about perversity, and I think
that we should not be afraid to talk
about the very issues that are at the
core of this. This is a great debate that
we are going to have in our country,
and it is not going to end with the debate on this bill. The fact is, no society
that has lived through the transition
to homosexuality and the perversion
which it lives and what it brought
forth.
It is not to say that the individuals
are any less valuable or any less
bright, but the fact is it is morally
wrong, and I stand on that statement.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.
Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. LEWIS] because I cannot think of a more fitting
response, since he would not yield on
the question of morality and discrimination, than one of the great heroes of
the fight against discrimination in our
lifetime.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and
colleague for yielding me the time.
Let me say to the gentleman that
when I was growing up in the south
during the 1940s and the 1950s, the great
majority of the people in that region
believed that black people should not
be able to enter places of public accommodation, and they felt that black people should not be able to register to
vote, and many people felt that was
right but that was wrong. I think as
politicians, as elected officials, we
should not only follow but we must
lead, lead our districts, not put our fingers into the wind to see which way the
air is blowing but be leaders.
Mr. Chairman, this is a mean bill. It
is cruel. This bill seeks to divide our
nation, turn Americans against Americans, sew the seeds of fear, hatred and
intolerance. Let us remember the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths self-evident
that all people are endowed by their
creator with certain inalienable rights.
Among these are life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness.
This bill is a slap in the face of the
Declaration of Independence. It denies
gay men and women the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Marriage is a basic human right. You cannot tell people they cannot fall in love.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. used to say
when people talked about interracial
marriage and I quote, ‘‘Races do not
fall in love and get married. Individuals fall in love and get married.’’
Why do you not want your fellow
men and women, your fellow Americans to be happy? Why do you attack
them? Why do you want to destroy the
love they hold in their hearts? Why do
you want to crush their hopes, their
dreams, their longings, their aspirations?
We are talking about human beings,
people like you, people who want to get

July 11, 1996

married, buy a house, and spend their
lives with the one they love. They have
done no wrong.
I will not turn my back on another
American. I will not oppress my fellow
human being. I have fought too hard
and too long against discrimination
based on race and color not to stand up
against discrimination based on sexual
orientation.
Mr. Chairman, I have know racism. I
have known bigotry. This bill stinks of
the same fear, hatred and intolerance.
It should not be called the Defense of
Marriage Act. It should be called the
defense of mean-spirited bigots act.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this
bill, to have the courage to do what is
right. This bill appeals to our worst
fears and emotions. It encourages hatred of our fellow Americans for political advantage. Every word, every purpose, every message is wrong. It is not
the right thing to do, to divide Americans.
We are moving toward the 21st century. Let us come together and create
one nation, one people, one family, one
house, the American house, the American family, the American nation.
0115
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes and 30 seconds
to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
BARR].
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman,
I thank the distinguished gentleman of
the Subcommittee on the Constitution
for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, when this issue first
came up earlier this year, some constituents back home approached me
and they said, Bob, if somebody had
come to you two years ago or three
years ago, when you were contemplating running for the Congress of the
United States of America and said,
Bob, one of the things that you are
going to have to draft up and champion
in the Congress of the United States is
a piece of legislation that defends
against an assault on the institution of
marriage. And it is going to be necessary in that piece of legislation to
define marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman, and it
is going to be essential that you do
that.
I probably would have said they were
crazy.
This is America. This is America.
This is the land that has as its most
basic building block the family unit, a
marriage between a man and a woman.
But here we are, and it is indeed an
issue.
It is an issue that is being used by
the homosexual extremists to divide
America. It is part of a deliberate,
coldly calculated power move to
confront the basic social institutions
on which our country not only was
founded but has prospered and will continue to prosper, thank you.
For those who say it is just a hypothetical issue, look here. This is one of
the homosexual groups that espouses

July 11, 1996

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

the various things that we are hearing
on the other side. They say, many
same-sex couples in and out of Hawaii
are likely to take advantage of what
would be a landmark victory. The
great majority of those who travel to
Hawaii to marry will return to their
homes in the rest of the country expecting full legal recognition of their
unions.
That is their plan. They are bent on
carrying it out. I kid you not, they will
try to do it.
The legislation before us today simply stands up and says, enough is
enough. There is not one other country
in the world, not one other country on
the face of the earth, for heaven’s sake,
that is doing what the judges in Hawaii
are poised to do and from there use
that as a launching pad all across
America to do, and that is to throw out
the window the very definition of the
building block on which our society
and all societies in the world are founded. Not one other country in the world
has taken this extreme, radical step.
America would be the first.
I do not stand here with anger. I
think this is a great day for America,
to stand here and debate an issue of
such fundamental importance that vast
majorities of our citizens, even in Hawaii, believe is an important issue.
They are saying, stand up for marriage,
stand up for the basic building blocks
on which our society is founded. Stand
up to the extremists. I hear them and I
believe a vast majority of Members in
both bodies, indeed, the President of
the United States himself hears those
voices, and we are responding to them
as representatives ought to do.
The issue is a very real one. It is not
just the extremist homosexual groups
that are pushing this agenda. It is people in the White House. It is people in
the Washington Post, the Washington
Blade. To them marriage means just
two people living together alone. Is
that not sweet? In other words, it
means absolutely nothing.
Now, if folks on the other side believe
that homosexual relationships are just
great and if they believe that marriage
should mean simply people doing whatever it is they want to do, then fine,
say that. And bring out the dictionaries and let us completely change
what marriage means. Marriage does
not mean two men or two women getting married. It just does not mean
that. You can say it does, but it does
not. You are talking about something
completely different. If that is what
you want, then come up with legislation and say, that is what we want. We
want to redefine the basic building
block on which our society was founded, and then let us have a debate about
it.
But do not come here and debate the
legitimate claim that we are doing
something wrong, that we are being divisive by standing up to extremists
who are bent on completely eradicating
the concept of marriage as all civilizations not only know it but have known
it.

This legislation goes no further than
is absolutely essential, Mr. Chairman,
to meet this very specific challenge. It
is indeed a challenge, as we can see by
the groups advocating it and as can be
seen by the court case in Hawaii. It is
not a hypothetical court case. The Supreme Court of Hawaii has made very
clear in rulings already on record that
they believe in their minds it is unconstitutional in the Hawaiian Constitution to deny a marriage license to two
people of the same sex. They have told
the lower courts that it is almost impossible, virtually impossible for the
lower courts not to reach that same decision or, if they do not, it is going to
be overturned on appeal.
In other words, my colleagues, the
courts in Hawaii are going to recognize
homosexual marriages, and these
groups are then going to take those
marriage licenses, so-called marriage
licenses, pieces of paper that purport to
be marriage licenses and come to the
mainland.
The fact of the matter is that, even
though many of us believe that the full
faith and credit clause of our Constitution cannot be used, should not be used
to override the public policy of the different States, the fact of the matter is,
none of us know how the courts are
going to rule on these things. So in an
exercise of responsibility and in an exercise of proper role of federalism, we
have crafted the Defense of Marriage
Act. It simply says, this is the status
quo and no one State of the Union can
have its decision of its people overridden, run roughshod by people from
judges from another State.
I forget who it was over here on the
other side talking about that being an
erosion or trampling of States rights,
good heavens. We are saying that
States have those rights and maintain
that right. This legislation simply reaffirms it, Mr. Chairman.
The only other thing that it does,
also clearly within the purview of the
jurisdiction of the Congress, is to define the reach of Federal statutes that
concur legitimate Federal benefits on
its citizens, to define it for purposes of
determining spouses and marriage,
what it has meant over the entire long
history of western civilization. And
that is that marriage means, does
mean, always will mean legal union between one man and one woman.
I strongly urge passage of and support for the Defense of Marriage Act.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.
Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from
California
[Ms.
WOOLSEY].
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given
permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, H.R.
3396 outlaws something that does not
even exist. It tramples over the Constitution. It flies in the face of States
rights, and it plays into the hands of
the radical right, those who are trying
to divide our country by scapegoating
gays and lesbians. But let us move be-

H7445

yond the bill’s numerous flaws and
look at how it will affect American
families. Let us look at what it will
mean to my family.
Last month my youngest son married
a wonderful young woman. As friends
and family gathered to celebrate their
commitment to each other, the State
of California also granted them the
legal benefits of marriage. This bill,
however, would ensure that another of
my sons will never have the same options nor the protections that come
with marriage. In fact, even the most
basic rights of marriage that my
youngest son already takes for granted, such as the ability to visit his
spouse in a hospital, could be denied to
his brother, denied because of his sexual orientation.
Mr. Chairman, let us not reduce ourselves to being pawns for the radical
right. Let us not turn the House of
Representatives into a political convention for extremists. For once let us
reject fear, embrace tolerance and
move this Nation forward without leaving anyone behind.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this
really mean-spirited bill.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.
Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. RIVERS].
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to this bill and I oppose it
with both my head and my heart. My
head, because my brain and my legal
training tell me that there are constitutional flaws in this particular bill.
My heart speaks even more strongly to
tell me that this is wrong. Wrong because in America, rights are not for
some but not for others. We do not
have one-half citizenship or three-quarters citizenship for some people and
different kinds of citizenship for another. We treat all of our citizens the
same.
I took a look at the marriage vows,
because I tried to decide what it is exactly that we want to keep people from
having under this bill. When you take
generic wedding vows that are accepted
in many churches you find words like
this: I so-and-so take you to be my
wedded husband, wife, to have and to
hold. And I thought, to have and to
hold, which people is it that we want to
forbid to have a committed relationship, to be sustained by the love of another person.
For better for worse, I ask again,
which people are there that we want to
make sure should not have a soul mate,
a partner in life’s struggle, someone to
laugh with, someone to cry with, someone to work with, to improve their
lives, to support one another through
good times and bad.
I looked at the words ‘‘in sickness
and in health’’ and I asked myself,
what people does the government want
to keep from having a partner who will
nurture them, who will nurse them,
who will wipe their brow, who will hold
their hand when they are ill. I could
not find any.

H7446

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

I looked at the words ‘‘to love and to
cherish’’ and I asked myself, who does
the government want to keep from
being the center of another person’s
life. Who do we want to stop from being
hugged, held, adored?
I looked at the words ‘‘I promise to
be faithful to you until death parts us’’
and I asked myself, as a matter of public policy, who do we want to forbid
from a monogamous promise. And
given the comments made earlier
about promiscuity, I cannot imagine
who that would be.
Love is not a zero sum game, Mr.
Chairman. One couple’s love is not a
threat to another. Today’s marriages
are threatened by a lack of commitment, a lack of maturity and a lack of
fidelity. To argue any other thing else
is specious.
0130
I hope that all Members and all
Americans will let their conscience be
their guide on this despicable bill.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.
Chairman, I yield 2 minutes, 45 seconds, to the gentleman from New York
[Mr. NADLER].
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, we
began our national life by declaring
that all men are created equal. We did
not really mean it. We meant that all
white men of property are created
equal. The history of this country is
largely the history of expanding that
definition to all white men, to white
men and black men, to white men and
black men and white women and black
women. We have achieved all that, but
we said we want to achieve all that. We
are just beginning to go down that road
for gay and lesbian people. We still permit discrimination by law. We are just
beginning to expand that definition,
and we will.
The arguments against gay and lesbian marriage are essentially the same
argument that we used to hear against
black-white
marriages.
We
had
antimiscegenation laws in this country. I have no doubt that one day we
will permit in every State in this
Union, and we will celebrate, gay and
lesbian marriages. One day we will
look back and wonder why it was ever
thought controversial to allow two
people who wanted to share each other’s lives in a committed, monogamous
relationship to undertake the obligations and benefits of marriage, why it
was ever thought that allowing gay and
lesbian people to visit each other in the
hospital or to share each other’s pension rights posed a threat to marriages
of heterosexual people.
But the bill before us today is not designed to solve a real problem. It is designed to appeal to fear and prejudice
and hatred and bigotry. It is also a
fraud.
We are told we must pass this bill to
protect our States from being compelled by the Constitution’s full faith
and credit clause to recognize same-sex
marriages entered into in Hawaii.
Aside from the fact they were a year or

two away from Hawaii making any
such decision, the full faith and credit
clause does not compel or would not
compel States to do such a thing. The
public policy exception that today allows New York or Connecticut to
refuse to recognize a 15-year-old marriage entered into in States which permit 15-year-old marriages would permit States on public policy grounds
not to recognize same-sex marriages if
they choose not to. So that section of
the bill is unnecessary.
But the other section of the bill, the
section that defines marriage in Federal law for the first time and says to
any State, ‘‘No matter what you do,
whether you do it by referendum or by
public decision or by legislative action,
the Federal Government won’t recognize a marriage contracted in your
state if we don’t like the definition. We
are going to trample the States’
rights,’’ shows exactly where this bill
is coming from. We are going to say
those are second-class marriages because we overruled New York or Connecticut or Hawaii or whoever decides
to do that.
Why do we want to start down the
road of a Federal marriage law? This
bill, Mr. Chairman, defends against a
nonexistent threat. Marriages in this
country are threatened by a 50 percent
divorce rate, by drugs, by alcoholism,
by gambling, by immaturity, by lots of
things, but not by allowing gay or lesbian couples to formalize their relationships and pursue their happiness.
Mr. Chairman, this is a despicable
bill, and I urge its defeat.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. TALENT].
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding this time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, the institution of
marriage is not a creation of the State.
It is older than the government, older
than the Constitution and the laws,
older than the Union, older than the
Western tradition of political democracy from which our Republic springs,
and I think it is deeply rooted in the
basic precepts of our civilization. It has
been sanctified by all the great monotheistic religions and, in particular, by
the Judeo-Christian religion which is
the underpinning of our culture.
Mr. Chairman, it is an act of hubris
to believe that marriage can be infinitely malleable, that it can be pushed
and pulled around like silly-putty
without destroying its essential stability and what it means to our society,
and if marriage goes, then the family
goes, and if the family goes, we have
none of the decency or ordered liberty
which Americans have been brought up
to enjoy and to appreciate. That is
what this bill is about.
I am going to deal just very briefly
with two of the arguments that have
been used against it. The one is that
the bill is somehow against love or
against loving or caring relationships.
It is not. There are all kinds of loving

July 11, 1996

and caring relationships in America,
and basically that is a good thing, and
people can do that if this bill passes.
We are not saying that people cannot
do that. We are saying that the States
should not be forced to give the imprimatur of legal sanction to those kinds
of relationships, and to argue to the
contrary is to say essentially the
States have to recognize polygamy if it
is loving relationships or adult incestuous marriages if it is a loving relationship, and what it shows is we are on a
slope that leads to no standards and no
relationships, as the gentleman from
Georgia said, where marriage becomes
meaningless.
The other argument that this bill is
somehow divisive. Mr. Chairman, let us
be frank here. There is a division that
already exists in our society, a great
gulf over how we ought to define marriage and what it means in terms of
sexual morality. This bill does not create that. The people who are trying to
attack marriage, the other side, is not
saying they are being divisive. Why are
we being divisive? Because we are trying to defend it.
The question is not whether there is
a division. The question is which side
of the division are my colleagues on
and whether we are going to allow
these issues to be worked out democratically in the States according to
the democratic processes or whether
we are going to have a resolution that
is forced upon the States by the court.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.
Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me say I welcome
the gentleman’s support for the principle that the States should be able to
work this out. When I offer an amendment tomorrow that would strike the
part of the bill that would prevent the
State from fully doing that, I will look
for his support. But consistency might
evaporate overnight.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from California [Mr.
FARR].
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding. As one of the
great leaders of human rights issues, I
appreciate his time.
I cannot believe that we call ourselves lawmakers. I think we fail to
ask ourselves what is broke here that
needs fixing. Our country has just gone
through 220 years without Federal law
on marriages. Think about it. We do
not have Federal a marriage license.
People get married under State law.
Some States allow people to marry
cousins. Some States allow persons
committing statutory rape to have the
rape dropped if they marry the person.
States do not regulate how many times
someone can get married, they do not
regulate how many times someone can
get a divorce.
So why is this bill called the Defense
of Marriage Act? It does not improve
marriages, and it takes away States’
rights.

July 11, 1996

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

This bill is not about marriage, because the Federal Government does not
marry people. This bill is about meanness, it is about taking away States’
right to enact a law that would allow
an elderly man or an elderly woman,
maybe a grandmother, even someone’s
grandfather, from receiving the benefits or giving benefits to a caretaker of
the same sex who they may marry for
only the reasons of being able to inherit property. It says that the only
way someone can leave Social Security
benefits or medical care benefits or
Federal estate tax deductions is if they
married someone of the opposite sex.
Elderly people often live together with
friends of the same sex. If a State
wants to honor that arrangement for
tax benefit purposes equal to marriage,
this bill would ban it.
My wife and I have raised our daughter in a loving supportive relationship.
Our daughter recently asked us, ‘‘Why
is your generation so homophobic?’’ I
told her that it was the last civil rights
battle in America. She said, ‘‘I hope
you solve it because our generation,
it’s no big deal.’’
Let us listen to our elderly, let us listen to our youth; make laws that help
people, not hurt them. Reject this
mean-spirited bill.
1345
Women could not own property.
There could not be marriage between
the races. Many things change over
time, Mr. Chairman. This, too, is going
to change.
I would like to pay tribute, special
personal tribute to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. LEWIS], to Dr. King, to all
those of both parties and no parties.
There was nothing partisan about that
movement; there is and ought never to
be anything partisan about this, the
final chapter in the history of the civil
rights of this country.
I wish I could remember, I used to
know the entirety of that ‘‘I Have a
Dream’’ speech, but we will rise up and
live out the full meaning of our Creator. It may not be this year and it certainly will not be this Congress, but it
will happen As I said earlier, we can
embrace that change and welcome it,
or we can resist it, but there is nothing
on God’s Earth that we can do to stop
it.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STUDDS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.
Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding to me.
We are in a great debate. I would
hope that people reading the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, watching this debate,
would compare the tone, the sensitivity, and the reaching out of my friend’s
words, and then read the earlier words
of the gentleman from Oklahoma, the
words which were denunciatory and
denigratory of the gentleman from
Massachusetts and myself, and I would
hope that people would compare the

spirit of the approach, compare the attitude toward others, compare the way
in which things are debated.
I would say, as someone who has been
included in this denunciatory rhetoric,
that I would be very satisfied to have
people in forming their judgment listen
to the words uttered by the gentleman
from Oklahoma, and listen to the
words of my friend, the gentleman
from Massachusetts. I think we are
helping people form a basis.
This notion that a loving relationship between two people of the same
sex threatens relationships between
two people of the opposite sex, that is
what denigrates heterosexual marriage. The argument that we have denigrated marriage or the institution of
marriage or any other formulation
says that two people loving each other
somehow threatens heterosexual marriage. That is what denigrates heterosexual marriage. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlemen from
Massachusetts
have
congratulated
themselves on the tone and quality of
the debate in opposition to this bill. We
have heard in opposition to this bill
the following words. We have heard
that those who oppose same-sex marriage and those who support this bill
are laughable. We have heard that it is
a joke. We have heard it is based on
prejudice. We have heard that it is
mean-spirited, that the bill is cruel,
that those who support it are bigoted,
despicable, hateful, ignorant. Those are
words that have been uttered here tonight. I believe the American people
can make their own judgment about
that.
I believe that those words are an insult to the American people, 70 percent
of whom or more oppose same-sex marriages. Seventy percent of the American people are not bigots. Seventy percent of the American people are not
prejudiced. Seventy percent of the
American people are not mean-spirited,
cruel, and hateful. It is a slander
against the American people to assert
that they are.
All this rhetoric is simply designed
to divert attention from the fundamental issue involved here. It is an attempt
to evade the basic question of whether
the law of this country should treat homosexual relationships as morally
equivalent to heterosexual relationships. That is what is at stake here:
Should the law express its neutrality
between homosexual and heterosexual
relationships? Should the law elevate
homosexual unions to the same status
as the heterosexual relationships on
which the traditional family is based, a
status which has been reserved from
time immemorial for the union between a man and a woman? Should we
tell the children of America that it is a
matter of indifference whether they establish families with a partner of the
opposite sex or cohabit with someone

H7447

of the same sex? Should we tell the
children of America that we a society
believe there is no moral difference between homosexual relationships and
heterosexual relationships? Shall we
tell the children of America that in the
eyes of the law, the parties to a homosexual union are entitled to all the
rights and privileges and benefits that
have always been reserved for a man
and woman united in marriage?
To all of these questions the opponents of this bill say yes. They support
homosexual marriage. They believe
that it is a good thing. They believe opposition to same-sex marriage is immoral. That is their opinion. I respect
their right to express that. They want
to tell the children of America that it
makes no difference whether they
choose a partner of the opposite sex or
a partner of the same sex. They want
the law to be indifferent to such matters.
Although I respect the right of Members to express that sentiment, I vehemently disagree with it. Those of us
who support this bill reject the view
that such choices are a matter of indifference. In doing so, we have the overwhelming support of the American people. In doing so, we have the support of
President Clinton. In doing so, I believe
we will have the support of a majority
of both parties in this House. I would
urge the Members of the House to support this bill and to oppose all amendments that will be offered tomorrow.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the ill-named
‘‘Defense of Marriage Act’’ is little more than
a half-baked effort by the Republicans to find
yet another issue which they can use to divide
the country in a desperate search for votes,
deep in an election year. Before we rush head
long to judgment on yet another divisive social
issue, we ought to at least consider the following:
There is no reason to act on this issue now.
The Hawaii Supreme Court decision that the
supporters of this bill are so fearful of took
place way back in 1993. And the trial proceeding, which is expected to take place shortly,
will be subject to appeal to the intermediate
and State supreme court—no final binding decision is expected for two years at the earliest.
The States are completely free to act on
their own on this issue without any help from
Congress. It is black letter law that the States
are free to reject marriages approved by other
States which violate public policy. It is pursuant to this authority that States have invalidated marriages consummated in other States
which are incestuous, polygamous, based on
common law, and involve under-age minors.
Ironically, by enacting this law, Congress will
by implication be limiting the States’ authority
to reject other types of marriage which may be
contrary to public policy.
The full ‘‘faith and credit’’ hook on which this
bill is based is nothing less than a legal charade. The second sentence of the full faith and
credit clause merely grants Congress the authority to specify how certain acts, records,
and judicial proceedings may be authenticated. There is nothing in the full faith and
credit clause which permits Congress to place
a break on the application of sister States policies, as opposed to their judgments. Enacting

H7448

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

a law of the nature before us today would be
nothing less than unprecedented.
Given these problems, why are we acting
today? Why has a bill gone from introduction,
to hearing, to subcommittee, full committee,
and now the floor in a mere two month’s time?
The only possible answer is that Republicans
are intent on creating a political issue completely out of thin air so they can demonize
gay and lesbian individuals and further divide
the American people. The Contract with America has been a flop, the Republican party is
behind in the polls, and their leadership is
desperately trying to manufacture ‘‘wedge’’ political issues. If there were any other reason,
they would slow this bill down, wait for the
courts and the State of Hawaii to act, and seriously analyze the legal implications of what
they are doing.
Fortunately, I don’t think the American people will be fooled by this legislative red herring. They want real solutions that improve
their every day lives, not legislative placebos.
This is legislation by mob rule and is wrong.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the rule for the socalled ‘‘Defense of Marriage Act’’. The rule allows only two amendments to this very unnecessary piece of legislation. In committee, an
attempt by Congresswoman Schroeder and
myself to include the words non-adulterous
and monogamous to the definition of marriage
in the bill was rejected and because this is a
modified closed rule we cannot offer this
change today.
No one can deny that the family as an institution has changed dramatically since the
days when our own parents were children.
Today, there is no single definition of family
that applies to all individuals. A family may be
made up of two parents and their children,
grandparents caring for grandchildren, single
mothers or single fathers raising their children,
couples without children, foster parents and
foster children, or individuals of the same-sex
living together and sharing their lives as a
couple, how their relationships are handled
should be left to the states. This legislation
takes the right of the states away.
We need to respect the human rights of all
these American families. We should not make
laws which are based on an antiquated notion
of what constitutes a family. This unnecessary
legislation patently disregards the 14th
Amendment provision that provides equal protection under the law to all Americans. I believe this legislation has been rushed forward
with little thought and reason.
As a wife and a mother, I believe in the
human family. The institution of marriage
should be cherished and respected, however,
same-sex relationships allow human beings to
express their attitude of caring for each other.
Recognized same-sex relationships simply
allow individuals living together and loving
each other to be entitled to the rights associated with a loving and caring relationship.
This legislation would define marriage as ‘‘a
legal union between one man and one woman
as husband and wife’’. The word spouse
would refer ‘‘only to a person of the opposite
sex who is a husband or a wife.’’
Never before has the federal government attempted to define either marriage or spouse.
This has, and continues to be, the role of the
states and they have done it well for the past
200 years. It is beyond the responsibility of the
federal government to define marriage and impose that definition on the states.

Furthermore, even if (as the bill’s sponsors
claim) the federal government needs to step in
to clarify differing definitions between states,
this legislation is premature. Same-sex marriage is not legal in any state. Hawaii is unlikely to decide the issue of same-sex marriage for at least two years, so this legislation
attacks an issue which is not yet ripe. The
only reasons to deal with it now is to make it
a political controversy.
Finally, since we are being forced to consider this legislation, I do not see why we
could not attach the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) to this legislation. This
long awaited legislation would extend federal
employment discrimination protections to include sexual orientation, providing basic protection to ensure fairness in the workplace for
Americans who are currently denied equal
protection under the law. If we are going to
consider this type of legislation a consideration
of ENDA should be included. This rule does
not allow for such a consideration. I urge my
colleagues to vote down this rule. Thank you.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support
of H.R. 3396, The Defense of Marriage Act.
The need to enact legislation to preserve
the fundamental definition of matrimony as a
union between one man and one woman is
pressing and necessary. This legislation is not
about mean-spirited antics or election year
politics. A pending ruling by a Hawaii court
could legalize same-sex marriages in that
state. According to the Full Faith and Credit
Clause of the Constitution, unless Congress
says otherwise, the other 49 states in the
Union would be required to abide by the Hawaii decision. Requiring the entire nation to
discard the will of the clear majority of Americans undermines our democracy and would
deny other states the opportunity to enforce
laws banning the recognition of same-sex
marriages.
The time-honored and unique institution of
marriage between one man and one woman is
a fundamental pillar of our society and its values. The Defense of Marriage Act does not
deny citizens the opportunity—either through
their elected representatives or ballot referendum—to enact legislation recognizing samesex marriages or domestic partnerships within
their own borders. The Defense of Marriage
Act says that states should determine their
own policy and that the federal government
has a right to define who is entitled to benefit
as a spouse. This legislation is consistent with
the need to return power and decision making
to the states where it rightfully belongs.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to carefully examine the issue of same-sex marriages
and separate two fundamental issues. The
first issue involves the question of whether individuals have a right to privacy and the
choice to live as they see fit. I think most
Americans, myself included, would agree that
everyone should have the right to privacy. The
second issue involves the question of whether
all states must follow Hawaii’s example, and
has greater societal and constitutional implications than the issue of privacy. The Defense of
Marriage Act addresses the second issue and
does nothing to deny an individual his or her
right to privacy.
During a time when the traditional two parent family is becoming the exception, I believe
it is important to reaffirm our commitment to
ensuring that moms and dads are encouraged
and strengthened in the task or raising their
children.

July 11, 1996

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to
marvel at the wisdom of Congress. We have
done such a wonderful job over these past 2
years that we are ready to take on the awesome task of matchmaking for all citizens of
the United States.
The legislation we are debating now dictates
to them who they can love and spend their
lives with in order to benefit from the rights
guaranteed by the Constitution and the legal
benefits of our laws—civil laws governing marriage and divorce that have previously been
the province of the States.
Have we nothing better to do with our time?
Marriage is a personal matter. Marriage is
about two people coming together to love and
support each other. Why should Congress
interfere in this very personal decision?
It was less than 30 year ago that our courts
ruled it unconstitutional for the States to ban
marriage between persons of different ethnic
backgrounds. Have we learned so little in the
last 30 years?
This bill has nothing to do with family values
or protecting the institution of marriage. It is a
political game to obscure the real issues behind the failure of marriages and to divide
Americans in an election year.
It is an attempt to fan the coals of bigotry
and hatred to try to gain a few votes. The institution of marriage will not be saved to
strengthened by increasing hate between our
citizens.
This is not a religious issue. Each of the numerous religions practiced in America is free
to perform the rites of marriage in accordance
with its tenets.
Many marriages between persons of the
same gender have been blessed by their religions—in all 50 States. This is purely and simply a civil matter—whether the Federal Government should decide for its citizens which of
these unions to recognize and with whom citizens may share their vows of marriage.
Nor is this a moral issue. The only moral
question before us is whether it is moral to
use this legislation to foster prejudice and misinformation among our citizens for political
gain.
I suggest we turn our attention to creating
conditions that foster relationships between
people in which they care for each other. To
quote Ecclesiastes 4:9–10, ‘‘Two are better
than one. If one falls down, his friend can help
him up.’’
The Reverend Billy Graham used that Biblical quote to justify marriage. Reverend Graham stated, ‘‘ Nowhere is this truer than in
marriage when sickness or other problems
come. One of the reasons God has given marriage to us is for times like this.’’
It is with marriage that our society makes it
a little easier to survive and obtain fulfillment.
Let’s turn our efforts to making life a little
easier for people by giving them all equal opportunities to love and help each other.
Let’s also give them the freedom to decide
for themselves who they would like for a partner in life. Let’s not raise barriers to prevent
our citizens from partaking equally in the rights
guaranteed by our Constitution and legal benefits granted by our laws.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this
narrow-minded legislation.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, because I
believe it is necessary to attend the funerals of

July 11, 1996

H7449

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

two close and personal friends of mine, Illinois
State Representative Roger T. McAuliffe, deputy majority leader of the Illinois House of
Representatives, and Jack Williams, mayor of
Franklin Park, I will unfortunately miss tomorrow’s vote on H.R. 3396, the Defense of Marriage Act.
As member of both the House Committee
on the Judiciary and its Subcommittee on the
Constitution, both of which had jurisdiction
over H.R. 3396, I have already twice voted in
favor of the bill. Therefore, since I am not able
to attend tomorrow’s flood consideration of
H.R. 3396, it would be my intention to vote
‘‘aye’’ on final passage.
While I will not be present for tomorrow’s
vote, I have taken the necessary steps in arranging a ‘‘pair’’ with another member of the
House who will also be absent. The pairing arrangement will offset our votes so that we may
be absent without affecting the overall result.
As it is customary, the name of my pair should
appear
in
tomorrow’s
CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, in the history
of our Country, marriage has never meant
anything other than an exclusively heterosexual and monogamous institution. The fact
that we have to take up legislation today to
defend this precious institution is mind-boggling.
While the Defense of Marriage Act protects
the rights of a State to decide for itself whether to recognize same-sex marriage entered
into in a different State, we cannot ignore the
larger issue—traditional family values. The
very nucleus of family is marriage. Perhaps no
other relation provides society with the benefits marriage does. We cannot allow the integrity of marriage to broken down and destroyed.
We have seen throughout history, civilizations that have allowed the traditional bonds of
family to be weakened—those civilizations
have not survived. America has, and should
always be a Nation that prioritizes traditional
family values and the tradition of a one-man
and one-women marriage.
Mr. Speaker, it is time we stopped this assault on America’s families and the sacred institution of marriage. I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, today I
rise to speak against H.R. 3396, the Defense
of Marriage Act. The title of the bill is puzzling.
What are we defending marriage against: divorce, domestic violence, adultery? Can anyone name a single married couple whose
union would be strengthened or defended
against harm by this legislation? With all the
unresolved burning issues facing this institution, it is nothing short of incredible that we
would be diverting time and energy away from
questions like Medicare, the environment, and
the economy on this matter.
Supporters of the bill point to what they
claim is the danger of same-gender marriage.
They say that if a court in Hawaii rules in favor
of same-gender couples, other States will then
have to give ‘‘full faith and credit’’ to the resulting marriages. I’m going to take this opportunity to concentrate on the traditions of our
Nation, in particularly the rights of States and
the Constitution of the United States. H.R.
3396 is an unnecessary intrusion into the
State domain of family law. It tears at the fabric of our Constitution.

Historically, States have the primary authority to regulate marriage based upon the 10th
amendment of the Constitution. The Supreme
Court has supported this constitutional right. In
Aukenbrandt versus Richards, 1992, the Court
rules that ‘‘without exception, domestic relations has been a matter of state, not federal
concern and control since the founding of the
Republic.’’
It is also interesting to note that questions
concerning the validity of an out-of-state marriage are generally resolved without reference
to the ‘‘full faith and credit’’ clause of the U.S.
Constitution. States traditionally recognize outof-state marriages unless they have statutes
prohibiting such a union. For example, polygamy is illegal in all States, and in most states
certain incestuous marriages are illegal too.
States can declare an out-of-state marriage
void if it is against the state’s public policy or
if entered into with the intent to evade the law
of the State.
Congress has invoked the ‘‘full faith and
credit’’ clause only five times since the founding of the Republic. The three most recent instances have required each State to give child
custody, child support, and protection orders
of other States the same faith and credit it
gives its own such orders. The Defense of
Marriage Act differs in one critical aspect from
the legislative enactment passed by the Congress under it full faith and credit power: H.R.
3396 permits sister States to give no effect to
the laws of other States.
This is a novel and unconstitutional interpretation of the clause. According to a leading
constitutional law scholar, Laurence H. Tribe,
‘‘the Constitution delegates to the United
States no power to create categorical exceptions to the Full Faith and Credit Clause.’’
The Supreme Court just recently struck
down a Colorado law that targeted gay and
lesbians in Romer versus Colorado, This case
suggests that the Supreme Court will rule legislation motivated by animus against gays and
lesbians unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment unless
the legislative classification bears a rational relationship to a legitimate State purpose. In
other words, since H.R. 3396 targets a group
of people due to their—in the words of Gary
Bauer of the Family Research Council—‘‘dangerous lifestyle and behavior,’’ it is likely to be
struck down by the courts. There is no dire urgency or compelling public interest to pass
this measure, which is not only unnecessary
but also likely to be found unconstitutional by
the Supreme Court.
In addition, I find it hard to believe how
many of my colleagues can justify their support of H.R. 3396 when they are also cosponsors of H.R. 2270. At least 37 Members of the
House are cosponsors of both bills. H.R. 2270
would require the Congress to specify the
source of authority under the U.S. Constitution
for the enactment of laws. Where in article I or
anywhere else in the Constitution is the Congress given authority to write a national marriage law? Maybe the sponsors of both bills
don’t see the contradiction. Maybe they just
don’t care.
Many on the other side of the aisle have
been vocal and unceasing in their support for
reversing the flow of power away from Washington and back to the States. Well, the laws
governing marriage are traditionally and con-

stitutionally under the authority of the States.
If there is any area of law to which States can
lay a claim to exclusive authority, it is the field
of family relations. How can someone reconcile being for States rights while at the
same time taking away a basic, constitutional
right given to States by the Framers of our
Constitution? I strongly encourage my colleagues to allow the States to continue exercising their constitutional rights and not fan the
flames of intolerance. As William Eskeridge,
Law Professor at Georgetown University, simply stated, ‘‘the reasons to hesitate before
adopting this legislation are conservative ones:
federalism, original intent and tradition.’’
Let us remember that the United States
draws its strength from the enormous diversity
to be found within the borders of our great Nation. Vote against The Defense of Marriage
Act.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired for general debate.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do
now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose;
and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
HAYWORTH) having assumed the chair,
Mr. GILLMOR, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration
the bill (H.R. 3396) to define and protect the institution of marriage, had
come to no resolution thereon.

GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days
within which to revise and extend their
remarks on H.R. 3396, the bill just considered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Ms. DUNN of Washington (at the request of Mr. ARMEY) for today and the
balance of the week, on account of personal reasons.
Mr. YATES (at the request of Mr. GEPHARDT) after 7:30 p.m. tonight, on account of personal reasons.

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED
By unanimous consent, permission to
address the House, following the legislative programs and any special orders
heretofore entered, was granted to:
(The following Member (at the request of Mr. GUTIERREZ) to revise and