Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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?

A half a dozen out of 20,000.

I apologize. If the gentleman would continue to yield briefly.

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. 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. 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 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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is another sad day for the House of Representatives and for the people that we serve. Once again, some in the leadership of this House, including and especially the majority leader, have brought a divisive, unnecessary, and just plain mean-spirited bill to the floor in order to advance their own partisan political interests.

Once again, they have decided to ignore unemployment, ignore the health care crisis, ignore record deficits, ignore national security, in short to ignore the real concerns of the American people. Why?

You can find the answer just by looking at the calendar. We are 5 weeks from an election and there are some, not all, but some Members on the other side of the aisle who have chosen to put aside the important work we need to do.

By today, the 13 appropriation bills should have been signed into law. So far, only one has the President's signature. Where is the Homeland Security appropriation bill? Can anyone really say with a straight face that a constitutional amendment beating up on gay people is more important than funding our Homeland Security needs? How about the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, or the transportation bill? How about funding for schools and hospitals and veterans? They are nowhere to be found. Instead, we get legislative gay bashing. Another sad day.

Today, we are being asked to consider H.J. Res. 106, which would amend the United States Constitution to ban gay marriage, to ban civil unions, and to abolish the ability of States to interpret their own State constitutions. So this is no small matter.

It is important to note at the outset that the Constitution clearly prohibits the government from interfering with the marriages performed by religious institutions. Our Founding Fathers were very clear about this. The government cannot force any church or synagogue or mosque to perform a religious marriage. That will not change, no matter what happens today.

Now, there are several fundamental problems with this amendment. First, it has long been the tradition in this country that States, not the Federal Government, have the right to regulate marriage and other issues of family law. And States are already addressing same-sex marriage. When the Hawaii Supreme Court held that denying same-sex couples the right to marriage violated the Hawaii constitution, the voters of Hawaii passed a constitutional amendment allowing the State legislature to limit marriage to different-sex couples.

The people of Alaska amended their constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman after an Alaskan trial court held denying the right of marriage to same-sex couples violated the Alaskan constitution.

States all across the country are moving in similar directions, but that is not good enough for the supporters of this amendment. They believe that the only way to address this issue is to add discrimination to the United States Constitution.

Of course, the irony in all of this is that the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was signed by President Clinton and is already the law of the land. Under DOMA, States can already refuse to recognize marriages from States with different policies.

I guess that fact does not make for very good press releases or 30- second political attack ads.

Second, if this amendment becomes the law of the land, civil union and domestic partnership laws all across the country will be thrown out the window. Things like hospital visitation rights, family medical leave, and inheritance rights can be taken away.

According to the Coalition Against Discrimination in the Constitution, an organization of civil-rights groups, labor unions, and religious organizations, this constitutional amendment would likely prevent the civil unions enacted by the States of Vermont and California.

Now, we will hear a lot of talk from people on the other side of the debate today about Massachusetts, so let me talk about my home State. Our State Supreme Court decided in favor of same-sex marriage last year. And right now there is a legislative process underway in which the people of Massachusetts will have the opportunity to change our own State constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, if they so choose.

The interesting thing is that I doubt that it will succeed in Massachusetts. Starting on May 17, 2004, gay men and women in Massachusetts got married, and guess what? The world kept spinning on its axis, the sun came up the next day, people went to work, sent their kids to school and cheered for the Red Sox. So we are doing just fine in Massachusetts, thank you very much. And we certainly do not need anyone from Colorado or Georgia or Texas telling us how to handle the marriage issue in our own State.

The impeccably conservative Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney, said it well in 2000, and I have his words right here, and I quote, ``The fact of the matter is that we live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody. And I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one else's business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behaviors in that regard. I think different States are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a Federal policy in that area.''

And those are the words of the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney. The Vice President speaks from very personal experience. He loves someone who is gay, not because she chose to be gay but because that is just who she is.

Mr. Speaker, if this amendment passes, discrimination against a group of people will be written into the Constitution of the United States. If this amendment passes, we will be taking a step backward in our march toward equal protection under the law. All of us take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution not to use it as a political weapon.

There are some who say that this is about protecting future generations, our kids. Well, let me tell you in this chamber today, I have two beautiful children, a 6-year-old son and a 3-year-old daughter, who I love more than anything, and I do not want them to grow up in a country where an entire group of people is treated as second class citizens.

To those, like the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Musgrave), who say this is about protecting marriage, let me ask, just whose marriage are you trying to protect? I am happily married, and I do not need Members of Congress to protect my marriage. Please do not use my marriage to promote homophobia and discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment is wrong. And to those of my colleagues who support this amendment today, let me state clearly that you are on the wrong side of history. It is wrong to tarnish our most sacred document, our Constitution, with discrimination. It is wrong to take a beautiful institution like marriage and use it as an instrument of division and hostility.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing. Help secure the blessings of liberty for all Americans. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I would like to point out one thing which I find particularly interesting, and that is at the recent Republican National Convention in New York City, all of the featured prime-time speakers that the party decided to put on display for us, Rudy Giuliani and George Pataki and Arnold Schwarzenegger, all oppose what is trying to be done today. They all oppose this constitutional amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me first say to the gentleman who just spoke, I guess I must obviously have more confidence in our State legislatures across this country than he does because State legislatures all across this country are acting on this issue. I think they are closer to the people of the States than in many respects we are. It seems to me that this process is working. When he says that we are forced to be here, that we cannot talk about getting a real highway bill, that we cannot talk about health care, that we cannot talk about national security issues or veterans benefits or education, but we have to be here and debate this right now, the fact of the matter is this debate is going on all across this country, and we should let that process make its way through.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. Speaker, the Log Cabin Republicans, which is a very well-known group to all of us here in the Congress, a group that voted to endorse Bob Dole in 1996 and George Bush again in 2000, has issued a statement entitled ``Log Cabin Republicans Vote to Withhold Their Endorsement from President Bush.''

The statement says that it is impossible to overstate the depth of anger and disappointment caused by the President's support for an anti- family constitutional amendment. It goes on to say that using gays and lesbians as wedge issues in an election year is unacceptable to Log Cabin, and they conclude by saying that this year they will withhold their endorsement of President Bush.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just point out to the gentleman who just spoke that there is no law in this country that forces any given religion to recognize any particular marriage. Religions are separate from what we are talking about here today. I just want to remind the gentleman that there are non-Christians who live in this Nation as well, and I would hope that he would believe that this country is equally theirs as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to read a Q and A between Vice President Dick Cheney and a questioner in Davenport, Iowa, on August 24, 2004, because I think it helps to kind of put this in perspective, and maybe some of my colleagues should listen to this.

The question was: ``We have a battle here on this land as well. And I would like to know, sir, from your heart, I don't want to know what your advisors say or even what your top advisor thinks, but I need to know, what do you think about homosexual marriages?''

And the Vice President responded: ``Well, the question has come up obviously in the past with respect to the question of gay marriage. Lynn and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar with. We have two daughters, and we have enormous pride in both of them. They're both fine young women. They do a superb job, frankly, of supporting us. And we are blessed with both our daughters.

``With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be able to be free, ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to. The question that comes up with respect to the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by government, if you will, to particular relationships. Historically, that's been a relationship that has been handled by the States. The States have made that basic fundamental decision in terms of defining what constitutes a marriage. I made clear 4

years ago, when I ran and this question came up in the debate I had with Joe Lieberman, that my view was that that's appropriately a matter for the States to decide and that's how it ought to be best handled.''

I very rarely agree with the Vice President of the United States, but I think he makes an awful lot of sense on this issue, and I think he makes a compelling case why we should not be moving forward with a constitutional amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just like to read a couple of other quotes here which I think are enlightening. One from John McCain, Republican Senator from Arizona where he said: ``The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans.'' He added, the amendment ``usurps from the States a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most States do not believe confronts them.''

Let me read one other quote here. ``It seems to me that the power to regulate 'commerce' can by no means encompass authority over mere gun possession any more than it empowers the Federal Government to regulate marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals throughout the 50 States. Our Constitution quite properly leaves such matters to the individual States.'' And that is from the words of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in U.S. v. Lopez.

Mr. Speaker, today, we have the opportunity to do the right thing. We have the opportunity to reject the politics of division and discrimination. We have the opportunity to protect the Constitution of the United States, to stay on the path toward equal protection under the law for every single American. We have the opportunity to act in a way that reflects well on this institution and the people we are elected to serve.

I am encouraged, Mr. Speaker, by the number of Republicans who will vote ``no'' on this misguided constitutional amendment today. And I am proud to stand with them.

We will hear a lot about Massachusetts today. A son of our State named John F. Kennedy once said, ``The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated.'' Mr. Speaker, that is indeed the heart of the question.

I urge my colleagues to seize this opportunity, vote ``no'' on this constitutional amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of the proposed marriage protection amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Before addressing the merits of the marriage protection amendment, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for bringing this bill up.

I know there are some in Congress and the media who do not believe traditional marriage rises to the level of importance to be considered on the floor today.

The American people disagree with them. This bill is about protecting the institution of marriage, which, as the Supreme Court said many years ago, is ``the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.''

Since Labor Day, this Congress has spent time renaming post offices and Federal buildings, Mr. Speaker. If we have enough time to rename post offices and Federal buildings, surely we have enough time to spend an afternoon considering whether the very foundation of traditional marriage will endure another 200 years.

On one matter, however, I do agree with the opponents of this bill: We should not lightly undertake to amend the Constitution. In the 213 years since

the Bill of Rights was adopted, the Constitution has been amended only 17 times, an average of once every 12\1/2\ years.

As a conservative I understand, perhaps better than most, the national consensus that the Constitution should be amended only rarely. Indeed, I wish we could leave the Constitution alone and this amendment was unnecessary, and if there was any other way to protect marriage, I would be the first to support it. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The matter has been forced upon us, and, whether we like it or not, the Constitution is about to be amended.

Let me say that again: The choice before us is not whether to amend the Constitution or leave it unamended. One way or another, the Constitution will be amended, and the only choice we have is whether to act now and accomplish the amendment through the procedures specified in the Constitution itself, or fail to act, in which case the amendment would be accomplished de facto by activist courts bent on imposing by judicial fiat a transformation of traditional marriage that is unsought and unwanted by the American people.

How do I know what the American people want? Simple. When the people are given a voice in this matter, they support traditional marriage by overwhelming margins. Last month, for example, the people of Missouri approved a marriage protection amendment to their State constitution by a margin of 70.8 percent, and 2 weeks ago the people of Louisiana approved a similar amendment by a margin of 78 percent. Yet the people's will does not seem to count with the courts.

Last year, Justice Scalia warned us in their Lawrence decision that the Supreme Court was paving the way for activist judges to redefine traditional marriage. Even after Justice Scalia's warning, few of us were prepared for the breathtaking speed with which events would overtake us. Only months later, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decreed that for the first time in the history of this Nation, a State would be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The Massachusetts courts are not alone. Only last month, courts in Washington struck down as unconstitutional that State's Defense of Marriage Act in cases concerning the recognition of same-sex marriages.

Even in the face of this judicial onslaught, some argue that we should wait to act until after the Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. Does anyone else see the irony here? Many of those who spoke the loudest that DOMA was unconstitutional when it was enacted in 1996 are the very same ones who now say we ought to presume DOMA is constitutional until the courts tell us otherwise.

I say if we could place our confidence in the Supreme Court, there would be no need for the marriage protection amendment in the first place. But in Lawrence, Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion in which she specifically stated that she believed preserving the traditional institution of marriage would be a sufficient basis for upholding a State marriage law. The five members of the Lawrence majority had an obvious opportunity to join Justice O'Connor's position and thus reassure us on this issue. Instead, they chose to remain silent. Let me suggest their silence speaks volumes.

No, we must not wait. The trajectory of the courts' decisions is unmistakable, and we must act now to preserve traditional marriage. We have already seen that even one State's misadventure in this area has had egregious nationwide consequences, as activists file lawsuit after lawsuit seeking to export same-sex marriages to other States. Ironically, it will take an amendment to the Federal Constitution to force this issue out of the courts and back to State legislatures, where it has always been and where it properly should be.

Mr. Speaker, some people have opposed the marriage protection amendment on the grounds that it discriminates. But it is not the marriage protection amendment that discriminates against homosexuals. Rather, the institution of marriage, as it has been understood for millennia, by its very nature is reserved exclusively for persons of the opposite sex. Moreover, society has always limited the pool of persons available for marriage by age, blood ties, mental capacity, and other considerations.

The limitations of traditional marriage rest not on an intent to discriminate, but on what is most beneficial for society and children, as evidenced by volumes of social science research. Traditional marriage is worth preserving because the nuclear family is far and away the best environment in which to raise children. Every child deserves both a father and a mother.

Yes, traditional marriage has had its problems. The high divorce rate, infidelity, and domestic violence are a national scandal, but far from undermining my point, these trends reinforce it because we are dismayed by these trends for the very reason that they lead to the break-up of traditional families, which leads to more and more children being deprived of the tremendous benefit of having both their mom and dad around to raise them.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say I wish traditional marriage was not under attack, but it is. I wish we did not have to deal with this problem now, but we do. Like it or not, the courts have thrust this burden on us and we must not fail to shoulder it.

We as Members of Congress have a responsibility to restrain activist judges who think they can, without devastating consequences to our society, simply jettison the collective wisdom of thousands of years without the input or consent of the American public or their elected Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the marriage protection amendment.

I submit the following letter for the Record.

Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave,

Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Musgrave: The United States House of

Representatives is considering whether or not to send a

constitutional amendment protecting marriage to the States

for their consideration. Contrary to recent arguments and

assertions, I believe that this amendment is consistent

with--and increasingly necessary to uphold--the principles of

federalism so important to our constitutional government.

The Framers rightly left marriage policy, as so many other

things, with the States. But the definition of marriage is

not mere policy issue. It strikes at the very integrity and

meaning of one of the primary elements of civil society.

In a free society, certain questions must be settled for

the good of that society. States can't impair the obligation

of contracts, or coin their own money, or experiment with

forms of non-republican government. We learned the hard way

that the nation could not endure half slave and half free.

As marriage is a fundamental social institution, it is not

only reasonable but also obligatory that it be preferred and

defended in the law. Activist judges forcing the redefinition

of marriage make it necessary to protect the institution in

the U.S. Constitution.

This doesn't mean that marriage must be completely

nationalized or should become the regulatory responsibility

of the federal government. Policy decisions concerning

questions such as degrees of consanguinity, the age of

consent, and the rules of divorce should remain with the

States.

The wisdom of extending certain benefits that stop well

short of marriage--that don't undermine the distinctive

status of marriage--are policy questions that should be the

responsibility of State legislatures.

A Constitutional amendment that defines marriage and blocks

the actions of overzealous judges would protect the States's

capacity to regulate marriage by protecting the integrity of

the institution as such.

In order to guard the States' liberty to determine marriage

policy in accord with the principles of federalism, society

as a whole must prevent the institution itself from being

judicially redefined out of existence.

The constitutional amendment process is neither an

exclusively federal nor an exclusively State action: It is a

shared responsibility of both Congress and the States

representing the American people. By intention, it is a very

difficult process.

Constitutional amendments ought to be rare and should be

pursued only after careful and serious consideration, when it

is necessary to address an issue of great national magnitude

and when there is broad-based support among the American

people throughout the States, as there is concerning

marriage.

Is marriage sufficiently important to protect in the United

States Constitution?

Despite our reluctance to amend our most sacred law--

despite the significance of the endeavor and awesome task

involved--recent and impending judicial activism justifies

this course of action.

Thank you for considering and sharing these concerns with

other Members of Congress.

Sincerely,

Edwin Meese, III,

Chairman, Center for Legal & Judicial

Studies, The Heritage Foundation.

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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), a former judge.

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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

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. 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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. Pence asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).

(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

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).

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 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. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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.