Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 88) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Speaker Hastert and Mr. Leader Boehner for bringing this bill to the floor. Letters and e-mails and phone calls continue to pour into my office urging me to continue in this effort. We know that polls show that the overwhelming majority of the American people support traditional marriage, marriage between a man and a woman.

The people have a right to know whether their elected Representatives agree with them about protecting traditional marriage.

I cannot think of a better good that this body may pursue than to promote and defend the idea that every child deserves both a father and a mother. Studies demonstrate the utmost importance of the presence of a child's biological parents in a child's happiness, health and future achievements. If we chip away at the institution which binds these parents and the family together, the institution of marriage, you begin to chip away at the future success of that child.

I would not want to negate the heroic job that many single parents do every day in providing the necessary support to a child's happiness. But today we are discussing what social policy is best for our children, and I am convinced that the best is found in promoting and defending traditional marriage.

Are there other important issues? Of course there are, but preserving 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,'' certainly warrants a few hours of our time. And even if there are other issues we need to address, as a former Member, one of my favorites, J.C. Watts said, ``Members of Congress are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.''

And where are those who say we are wasting time when we were renaming post offices and Federal buildings earlier this year? Mr. Speaker, if we have enough time to rename post offices and Federal buildings, surely we can spend one afternoon debating whether or not the traditional definition of marriage is worth preserving.

Others have asked why we need this amendment given that courts in New York, Georgia, and Nebraska have recently turned back challenges to traditional marriage. I just would like to say these decisions simply do not settle the issues. Cases in New Jersey and Washington, to name only two of many, remain pending.

Additionally, the Massachusetts Supreme Court's Goodridge decision legalizing same-sex marriage in that State continues to stand. Just last week, legislators in Massachusetts put off a measure to give the people the opportunity to decide this issue for themselves. While the Goodridge case remains on the books, court dockets all over the country will continue to be ensnarled with same-sex marriage litigation as opponents of traditional marriage continue to fight to expand their agenda to the rest of the country.

While recent court victories are not unimportant, the ultimate court test, the test in the United States Supreme Court, is still on the horizon. And legal experts agree at least four and probably five of the members of that court will act to overturn traditional marriage across America. That is why most legal experts expect DOMA to fall once a challenge finally reaches the high Court, which is why it would be the very height of foolishness to rely on the Supreme Court to protect marriage. Sadly, that august tribunal is part of the problem. Justice Scalia has already warned us that the Court's 2003 Lawrence decision was only the beginning of a road at the end of which is a radical redefinition of marriage at the hands of the Court.

Does anyone else see the irony in the opponents of this bill calling on us to wait until the Supreme Court rules before deciding this issue? Many of those who protested the loudest that DOMA was unconstitutional when it was enacted in 1996 are today the ones who say we ought to presume DOMA is constitutional until the high Court tells us otherwise.

The American people want us to settle this issue now. They don't want us to wait to see how much havoc the courts will wreak on the definition of marriage before we act to protect it.

Our marriage laws represent centuries of cumulative wisdom regarding the best way to address public concerns about property, inheritance, legal liability and raising children. The last matter is especially important because we now know beyond any reasonable doubt that children thrive best when they are raised in a traditional family. And statistically speaking, the further we go from this ideal, the more we can expect to see increases in measures as a whole host of social problems.

Again, this is not to say that children raised in nontraditional families will necessarily fall prey to these problems, but public policy is based on cumulative, not individual experience. Facts, as it has been said, are stubborn things. And one sad but stubborn fact is that the statistical dice are loaded against children who are raised without a father and a mother.

Some oppose the Marriage Protection Amendment on the grounds that the institution of marriage is already in trouble. Why be concerned, they say, about same-sex marriage when the divorce rate among couples in traditional marriages is so high? But can't you see this is a non sequitur? It is like saying to a doctor, The patient already has pneumonia, so why are you taking precautions to prevent him from getting a staph infection? Yes, traditional marriage has its problems, we all know that, and the high divorce rate is a national scandal. But far from undermining my point, this reinforces it. We are dismayed by the breakup of families because we know broken families lead to more and more children being deprived of the tremendous benefit of having both their mom and dad around to raise them.

Other opponents of this amendment argue that the existence of same- sex marriage in Massachusetts has not caused the earth to stop spinning on its axis, so they ask what is all this fuss about. After only 2 years of experience, it is absurd to suggest that we can even begin to guess how the redefinition of marriage in that State will ramify in the future. And the fact that same-sex marriages in Massachusetts do not directly affect my marriage or your marriage means nothing in regard to the public policy debate. The breakup of the family next door does not directly affect your marriage or my marriage either, but we all recognize that every family that comes apart is a tragedy, and that is why our laws have always sought to encourage, not undermine, traditional families.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to Mr. Nadler, your statements about hospital visits and those things, that was a misstatement. That is not what this amendment does. There are State legislatures that have the authority to handle all of the benefits that you have talked about, and that is what the amendment clearly states.

I would just like to say, we can look at places like the Netherlands, where since 1997 they have had registered partnership, and gay marriage since 2001. In effect, that is probably the best place to look at what gay marriage has done. The out-of-wedlock births have escalated. The divorce rate is escalating. In fact, many people in Scandinavia don't think that marriage is even relevant today.

I would say today if marriage can mean anything, eventually marriage will mean nothing.

Within the institution of marriage, society offers special support and encouragement to the men and women who together make children. Because marriage is deeply implicated in the interest of children, it is obviously a matter of public concern. Children depend on society to create institutions to keep them from chaos. That is why we have the obligation to give special support and encouragement to an institution that is necessary to the well-being of children.

I urge my colleagues to support public policy that strengthens marriage and vote in favor of this amendment.

Marriage is for Children:

1a) In setting up the institution of marriage, society offers special support and encouragement to the men and women who together make children. Because marriage is deeply implicated in the interests of children, it is a matter of public concern. Children are helpless. They depend upon adults. Over and above their parents, children depend upon society to create institutions that keep them from chaos. Children cannot articulate their needs. Children cannot vote. Yet children are society.

They are us, and they are our future. That is why society has the right to give special support and encouragement to an institution that is necessary to the well being of children--even if that means special benefits for some, and not for others. Single people are denied the benefits of married couples, for example. But this is permitted because married parenthood is essential to society. The law has always permitted the state to give special support to critical institutions, if those institutions serve a compelling interest of society. Marriage is exactly such an institution. Marriage is designed to maximize the chances that each child will be provided with a mother and a father, in a stable family setting, during the years when children are too young to fend for themselves. To redefine marriage in such a way as to remove its essential connection to parenthood is to take away its very purpose.

(1b) Only a man and a woman have the power between them to create children. Marriage as an institution helps to turn the love of a man and a woman into an instrument for the nurture and protection of children. If we redefine fathers, mothers, and parenthood out of marriage, then this precious institution will be lost.

The European Experience With Gay Marriage:

Can it be a coincidence that Scandinavia, the region with the highest out-of-wedlock birthrates in the world, was the very first place to recognize same-sex unions? Marriage was already in serious decline in Sweden and Norway when same-sex partnerships arrived, and since that time marital decline in those countries has advanced still further. But the clearest example of the effect of same-sex marriage is the Netherlands, where they have had registered partnerships since 1997 and full gay marriage since 2001. In the Netherlands, out-of-wedlock birthrates were low until the arrival of registered partnerships and gay marriage. But since the advent of registered partnerships and same- sex marriage, the out-of-wedlock birthrate has risen faster and longer in the Netherlands than in any other west European country.

(1a) What is marriage? Marriage is society's way of supporting the men and women who together make children. Children can't fend for themselves. That's why the public has always taken an interest in marriage. By supporting the institution of marriage, the state encourages the rearing of children under the secure care of a mother and father. But what would happen if we said marriage doesn't have anything to do with mothers, fathers, and children? What would happen if we said marriage is really just about a couple of adults who love each other--whether they're men and women or not?

Well, just look at Scandinavia and Holland. Over in Scandinavia they've had various forms of same-sex partnership nearly two decades. And they've had gay marriage in Holland for several years. But marriage in Scandinavia is dying, and marriage in Holland is growing progressively weaker every year. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are now born out-of-wedlock. In some parts of Norway, as many as eighty percent of first-born children and two-thirds of subsequent children are now born out-of-wedlock. True, much of that decline took place even before same-sex partnerships came into effect. But in both Sweden and Norway, marriage continued to decline following the introduction of same-sex partnerships. Can it be a coincidence that the region of the world where marriage has traditionally been weakest was the first place to experiment with something like same-sex marriage?

The negative effects of gay marriage on marriage are even clearer in the Netherlands. Prior to the introduction of registered partnerships and later gay marriage, Holland was known for having one of the lowest out-of-wedlock birthrates in Northern Europe. Yet out-of-wedlock birthrates have been rising at an unusually rapid rate in the Netherlands ever since registered partnerships, and then formal gay marriage, were established.

In the last decade, no other West European country has seen its out- of-wedlock birthrate rise as fast as Holland's. And there were no other major legal or social changes during the last decade that might explain Holland's rising out-of-wedlock birthrate in some other way. So it looks very likely that registered partnerships and same-sex marriage have helped to hasten the unusually rapid decline of marriage in the Netherlands.

Gay marriage has helped send a message to parents in Scandinavia and Holland that being married doesn't have much of anything to do with being a parent. Nowadays, a lot of parents in Scandinavia and Holland put off getting married until after they've had a child or two, if they don't break up first--which many do. Increasingly, parents in these countries don't get married at all anymore. If marriage is disappearing in the parts of the world that have had something like gay marriage longer than anywhere else, I don't want to take a chance on gay marriage here.

1b) Marriage is not meant solely, or even mainly, for husbands and wives. Marriage exists as a public institution because children need mothers and fathers. Once marriage is treated as a mere celebration of the love of two adults, there is no reason for it to necessarily happen before children are born instead of after. And if marriage could just as well happen after children are born, it doesn't really need to happen at all. European parents have increasingly stopped marrying because they no longer think of marriage as an institution meant to bind children to mothers and fathers. Gay marriage helps Europeans to see it that way, making them consider marriage nothing more than the expression of mutual affection between two adults. But this view translates into marrying long after children are born--if parents don't break up first. It means rising rates of family dissolution. That's what's happening in Europe. Do we want it to happen in America? That the family is the bedrock of society is more than just a cliche. In Scandinavia, where they've had de facto gay marriage for some time, marriage is dying, and a huge welfare state has taken over for parents. If the family goes here in America, then we will either have the social chaos of more crime and fatherless kids, or we will have to vastly expand our welfare state. So this issue touches on the deepest problems of governance. America's system of limited government works because the family does what the state does not. Weaken the family, and government is bound to expand to take its place. That is exactly what's happened in Scandinavia.

Responding to Critics of the Scandinavia/Holland argument:

(1) I know some folks have said that same-sex partnerships haven't had any bad effects on marriage in Europe, but I don't find their arguments convincing.

(a) For one thing, some of these folks actually deny that Europe's high out-of-wedlock birthrates are a problem at all. That's just not true. In Europe, cohabiting parents break up at two-to-three times the rate of married parents. That level of family instability is very bad for children. So the European experience actually proves that it's better when parents get married.

(b) Some folks say that marriage was in trouble in Scandinavia even before same-sex partnerships came along. Well, that's true, although in most parts of Scandinavia marriage continued to decline after same-sex partnerships came along. We all know that marriage has been in trouble for some time in America, and in many other countries, for a wide variety of reasons. But if you want to see a clear case where marriage was relatively strong, and only went into serious decline after the introduction of same-sex partnerships, just look at Holland. (See 1a in the previous section for more on Holland.)

(c) Some folks claim that the Dutch example isn't a problem because out-of-wedlock birthrates have been rising almost as rapidly in Eastern Europe as in Holland. But the decline of marriage in Eastern Europe is rooted in the economic chaos that followed the collapse of communism. The amazing thing is that a prosperous Western European country like The Netherlands is experiencing the same sort of marital decline we're seeing in countries recovering from the collapse of their entire social system.

(d) Some folks say that out-of-wedlock birthrates in Sweden haven't gone up all that much since registered partnerships came along in 1994. But they're not counting from 1987, when Sweden introduced the very first same-sex partnerships in the world. Just because these first same-sex partnerships didn't include all the rights of marriage doesn't mean that they weren't a huge legal and symbolic step. Amazingly, in 1987, at the very same time that Sweden introduced the first same-sex partnerships in the world, Sweden also granted just about all the rights of marriage to unmarried heterosexual couples. So from 1987 on, Sweden's parliament sent out a powerful message that married parenthood isn't important. Same-sex partnerships were part of that message from the start.

(e) Some folks say that marriage in Denmark hasn't suffered since they adopted same-sex partnerships in 1989. Well, it's true that the Danish out-of-wedlock birthrate hasn't risen since they adopted same- sex partnerships, like it has in Sweden, Norway, and Holland. But that's a bit misleading. Actually, the rate of unmarried parenthood has increased among young people in Denmark, who are adopting the same practice of cohabiting parenthood favored in other Scandinavian countries. But the increased rate of unmarried parenthood among young Danes has been temporarily offset by marriages among older Danes.

You see, there are virtually no housewives left in Denmark. The need to support the huge Danish welfare state forces nearly all Danish women to work. And it was only in the late 1980's and 1990's that Denmark created a parental leave policy and other changes that allowed large numbers of women to take time off of work to become mothers. That policy

change unleashed huge pent-up demand among Danish women to have children, and that led to a temporary increase in the marriage rate among older Danes. But all that time, younger Danes have been taking up the practice of unmarried parenthood that is already so popular in the rest of Scandinavia.

The Slippery Slope to Polygamy, Polyamory (Group Marriage) and Parental Cohabitation:

(1) Once we say that same-sex couples can marry, it's going to be impossible to deny that right to polygamists and believers in group marriage. After all, gay marriage is being advocated on grounds of relationship equality. So if all relationships are equal, why is group marriage forbidden? And don't think it can't happen here. We already know that there are thousands of practicing polygamists in some Western states. But did you also know that there are groups of ``polyamorists'' all over the country? Just go to the Internet and run a google search on the word ``polyamory.'' The polyamorists have already had one court case trying to gain recognition for a marriage of a woman and two men. They're just waiting for gay marriage to pass to begin agitating for legalized group marriage. And after granting gay marriage on equal protection grounds, how is a court going to deny them? There are plenty of polyamorists out there, but the problem goes further than that. We now have an advocacy group called the ``Alternatives to Marriage Project'' which supports polyamory and other innovations like parental cohabitation. The Alternatives to Marriage Project is frequently quoted in the mainstream media. And believe it or not, the most powerful faction of family law scholars in our law schools favors legal recognition of both polyamory and parental cohabitation. There are even law review articles out now advocating both. And the influential American Law Institute has even come out with proposals which would grant nearly equal legal recognition to cohabiting and married parents. If we allow marriage to be radically redefined now, we will not be able to stop these further changes.

(2) Now I know that some folks scoff at the claim that same-sex marriage could lead to polygamy. But just look at what's happened around the world in the past year or so. In Sweden, which passed the first same-sex partnership plan in the world, we've had a serious proposals floated by parties on the left to abolish marriage and legalize multi-partner unions. In the Netherlands, the first country in the world to have full and formal same-sex marriage, a man and two bisexual women signed a triple cohabitation contract. When a conservative political party asked the Dutch government to withdraw recognition from that contract, the government refused. In fact, the Dutch Justice Minister said it was actually a good thing that the law was beginning to provide support for multi-partner relationships. In Canada, two out of four reports commissioned by the last government recommended the decriminalization and regulation of polygamy. True, the revelation of those reports helped Canada's Conservative Party win the last election. But the fact remains that many of Canada's legal elites want to see the abolition of traditional marriage and official recognition for multi-partner unions.

And of course, in America we've got ``Big Love,'' a popular television show on HBO about polygamy. Even a year ago, no-one would have believed it if someone had said we'd soon have a television show with polygamists as heroes. But it's happened. And next week the BRAVO Channel is going to run a sympathetic documentary about a relationship between a woman and two bisexual men. It's called ``Three of Hearts,'' and it's already played in movie theaters across the country.

The truth is, this is only the beginning. Advocates for multi-partner unions are out there, but many of them are waiting for same-sex marriage to be legalized before they make their move to gain public acceptance. Newsweek has already said that ``polygamy activists are emerging in the wake of the gay marriage movement.'' Well, just wait till gay marriage is actually legalized. If that happens, you can bet we'll see plenty more movies and television shows along the lines of ``Big Love'' and ``Three of Hearts.'' The people on the so-called ``cutting edge'' of culture in Europe and Canada have already made it clear that multi-partner unions are their next crusade, and it's happening in America even as we speak. The only way to put a stop to it is to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

The Threat to Religious Freedom:

(1) It's becoming increasingly apparent that gay marriage poses a significant threat to religious liberty. Scholars on both the left and right agree that same-sex marriage has raised the specter of a massive and protracted battle over religious freedom. In states that adopt same-sex marriage, religious liberty is clearly going to lose. Gay marriage proponents argue that sexual orientation is like race, and that opponents of same-sex marriage are therefore like bigots who oppose interracial marriage. Once same-sex marriage becomes law, that understanding is likely to be controlling. Legal same-sex marriage will be taken by courts as proof that a ``public policy'' in support of same-sex marriage exists.

So in states with same-sex marriage, religiously affiliated schools, adoption agencies, psychological clinics, social workers, marital counselors, etc. will be forced to choose between going out of business and violating their own deeply held beliefs. If a religious social service agency refuses to offer counseling designed to preserve the marriage of a same-sex couple, it could lose its tax-exempt status. Religious schools would either have to tolerate conduct they believed to be sinful, or face a cut-off of federal funds. It's already happening, as we've seen with the recent withdrawal of Boston's Catholic Charities from the adoption business.

Free speech could also be under threat, as sexual-harassment-in-the- workplace principles are used by nervous corporate lawyers to draw speech prohibitions on the marriage issue. Fear of litigation will breed self-censorship. One expert predicts ``a concerted effort to take same-sex marriage from a negative right to be free of state interference to a positive entitlement to assistance by others.''

Some folks say the answer to this problem is special exemptions from the law for religious conscience. But conscience exemptions would be very difficult to enact. And in Europe, which has tried this in places, conscience exemptions are breaking down and failing to provide protection for the traditionally religious.

The lesson in all this is clear. There's a lot more at stake in the battle over same-sex marriage than the marriage issue itself, important as that is. The very ability of religiously affiliated organizations to exist and operate is under threat.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I very much regret that the Republican majority in this House has brought this bill to the floor. This bill, to put it simply and bluntly, is about adding discrimination and intolerance to the United States Constitution. This is about the Republican majority's once again trying to divide and polarize the Nation. It is about the Republican leadership's taking something that should be about love and turning it into a weapon of hate.

I am proud, Mr. Speaker, to be from Massachusetts, the home of the Nation's first State Constitution. In Massachusetts over 8,000 same-sex couples have been married since May of 2004, when it became legal. I should advise my colleagues that Massachusetts has not fallen off the map into the Atlantic Ocean. The sun still rises and sets in the Commonwealth. The Red Sox still play at Fenway, and life goes on. The only thing that is different is that couples of the same sex who love each other, want to spend the rest of their lives together, and want to get married can do so. It means that men and women who happen to be gay are able to enjoy the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as men and women who happen to be straight. And, Mr. Speaker, that is how it should be.

Those who have continued to advocate a ban on same-sex marriage are on the wrong side of history. There are some here who claim that they are on some sort of moral crusade to protect the institution of marriage. To them I say worry about your own marriage. I do not need you to protect mine. I have been happily married to the same woman for 17 years without the help or interference of Congress. What we should be protecting are the civil and human rights of all Americans.

The fact that same-sex marriage is legal in my home State has had no impact on my marriage except that we were invited to more weddings. Same-sex marriage is a threat to no institution, to no individual.

The underlying bill before us would not only add discrimination to the Constitution for the first time in our history. It would repeal, it would actually take away, the rights of thousands of Americans. What do the supporters of this bill say to the gay couples in Massachusetts who are now legally married; our family members, our neighbors, our coworkers, the people who sit next to us in church? Do you say your marriage is now meaningless and we are going to take away your rights? Do you say we are sending you back to second-class citizenship? Do you say that we have so much hatred for who you are that we are willing to tarnish the United States Constitution?

Marriage law in this country has traditionally been left to the States. Indeed, even in Massachusetts the same supreme judicial court that the proponents of this bill decry recently ruled that a referendum banning same-sex marriage can go forward. That referendum is currently working its way through the process. And I believe, of course, that the referendum should and will fail, that the citizens of Massachusetts would not vote to turn back the clock. But that should be up to us, Mr. Speaker, not to the people of Colorado or Georgia or anywhere else.

In addition, this bill jeopardizes not just same-sex marriage in Massachusetts but domestic partnership and civil union laws in other parts of the country. The proposal before us is so poorly drafted that legal experts disagree on exactly what effect it will have on those laws. That means, of course, that the issue will end up back in the courts, which is ironic given the concept of court-bashing by the bill's supporters.

Mr. Speaker, the impact of this debate goes far beyond constitutional arguments. The proponents of this bill are contributing to a climate of intolerance. We will hear protests from the other side today that they have no problem with gay people. Yet here they are arguing that gay people do not deserve the same rights as everybody else.

Mr. Speaker, I am also terribly troubled by the hate spewing from some of the outside groups using the same-sex marriage issue to whip up emotions and raise money. Mr. Speaker, some of the rhetoric is just deplorable. But I doubt that we will hear any of the bill's supporters denouncing it here today on the floor.

My colleagues, discrimination is discrimination, and it should find no sanctuary in our Constitution or in our hearts. It should find no sanctuary on the floor of the people's House.

We all know why this proposal is before us. It is an election year, and if it is an election year, the Republican leadership will find a place on the agenda for gay-bashing.

This proposal is worse than a distraction. It is not an assault on our fellow citizens. It is an attack on a piece of their humanity, and I urge you to stand on the right side of history and to defeat this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record at this time an article that appeared in the Economist magazine entitled ``The Case For Gay Marriage.''

I will insert into the Record an executive summary of the Cato Institute's policy analysis entitled: ``The Federal Marriage Amendment: Unnecessary, Anti-federalist and Antidemocratic.''

I would also like to insert into the Record a letter from the Human Rights Campaign in opposition to the bill before us, a letter from the American Jewish Committee in opposition to the bill before us, a letter from the National Council of Jewish Women in opposition to the bill before us, and a letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights in opposition to the bill before us.

[From the Economist print edition, Feb. 26, 2004]

The Case for Gay Marriage

It rests on equality, liberty and even society

So at last it is official: George Bush is in favour of

unequal rights, big-government intrusiveness and federal

power rather than devolution to the states. That is the

implication of his announcement this week that he will

support efforts to pass a constitutional amendment in America

banning gay marriage. Some have sought to explain this action

away simply as cynical politics, an effort to motivate his

core conservative supporters to turn out to vote for him in

November or to put his likely ``Massachusetts liberal''

opponent, John Kerry, in an awkward spot. Yet to call for a

constitutional amendment is such a difficult, drastic and

draconian move that cynicism is too weak an explanation. No,

it must be worse than that: Mr. Bush must actually believe in

what he is doing.

Mr. Bush says that he is acting to protect ``the most

fundamental institution of civilisation'' from what he sees

as ``activist judges'' who in Massachusetts early this month

confirmed an earlier ruling that banning gay marriage is

contrary to their state constitution. The city of San

Francisco, gay capital of America, has been issuing thousands

of marriage licences to homosexual couples, in apparent

contradiction to state and even federal laws. It can only be

a matter of time before this issue arrives at the federal

Supreme Court. An those ``activist judges'', who, by the way,

gave Mr. Bush his job in 2000, might well take the same view

of the federal constitution as their Massachusetts

equivalents did of their state code: that the constitution

demands equality of treatment. Last June, in Lawrence v.

Texas, they ruled that state anti-sodomy laws violated the

constitutional right of adults to choose how to conduct their

private lives with regard to sex, saying further that ``the

Court's obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to

mandate its own moral code''. That obligation could well lead

the justices to uphold the right of gays to marry.

Let them wed

That idea remains shocking to many people. So far, only two

countries--Belgium and the Netherlands--have given full legal

status to same-sex unions, though Canada has backed the idea

in principle and others have conferred almost-equal rights on

such partnerships. The sight of homosexual men and women

having wedding days just like those enjoyed for thousands of

years by heterosexuals is unsettling, just as, for some

people, is the sight of them holding hands or kissing. When

The Economist first argued in favour of legalising gay

marriage eight years ago (``Let them wed'', January 6th 1996)

it shocked many of our readers, though fewer than it would

have shocked eight years earlier and more than it will shock

today. That is why we argued that such a radical change

should not be pushed along precipitously. But nor should it

be blocked precipitously.

The case for allowing gays to marry begins with equality,

pure and simple. Why should one set of loving, consenting

adults be denied a right that other such adults have and

which, if exercised, will do no damage to anyone else? Not

just because they have always lacked that right in the past,

for sure: until the late 1960s, in some American states it

was illegal for black adults to marry white ones, but

precious few would defend that ban now on grounds that it was

``traditional''. Another argument is rooted in semantics:

marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and so cannot be

extended to same-sex couples. They may live together and love

one another, but cannot, on this argument, be ``married''.

But that is to dodge the real question--why not?--and to

obscure the real nature of marriage, which is a binding

commitment, at once legal, social and personal, between two

people to take on special obligations to one another. If

homosexuals want to make such marital commitments to one

another, and to society, then why should they be prevented

from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other

ways, are allowed to do so?

Civil unions are not enough

The reason, according to Mr. Bush, is that this would

damage an important social institution. Yet the reverse is

surely true. Gays want to marry precisely because they see

marriage as important: they want the symbolism that marriage

brings, the extra sense of obligation and commitment, as well

as the social recognition. Allowing gays to marry would, if

anything, add to social stability, for it would increase the

number of couples that take on real, rather than simply

passing, commitments. The weakening of marriage has been

heterosexuals' doing, not gays', for it is their infidelity,

divorce rates and single-parent families that have wrought

social damage.

But marriage is about children, say some: to which the

answer is, it often is, but not always, and permitting gay

marriage would not alter that. Or it is a religious act, say

others: to which the answer is, yes, you may believe that,

but if so it is no business of the state to impose a

religious choice. Indeed, in America the constitution

expressly bans the involvement of the state in religious

matters, so it would be especially outrageous if the

constitution were now to be used for religious ends.

The importance of marriage for society's general health and

stability also explains why the commonly mooted alternative

to gay marriage--a so-called civil union--is not enough.

Vermont has created this notion, of a legally registered

contract between a couple that cannot, however, be called a

``marriage''. Some European countries, by legislating for

equal legal rights for gay partnerships, have moved in the

same direction (Britain is contemplating just such a move,

and even the opposition Conservative leader, Michael Howard,

says he would support it). Some gays think it would be better

to limit their ambitions to that, rather than seeking full

social equality, for fear of provoking a backlash--of the

sort perhaps epitomised by Mr. Bush this week.

Yet that would be both wrong in principle and damaging for

society. Marriage, as it is commonly viewed in society, is

more than just a legal contract. Moreover, to establish

something short of real marriage for some adults would tend

to undermine the notion for all. Why shouldn't everyone, in

time, downgrade to civil unions? Now that really would

threaten a fundamental institution of civilisation.

[From Policy Analysis, June 1, 2006]

The Federal Marriage Amendment Unnecessary, Anti-Federalist, and Anti-

Democratic

(By Dale Carpenter)

Executive Summary

Members of Congress have proposed a constitutional

amendment preventing states from recognizing same-sex

marriages. Proponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment claim

that an amendment is needed immediately to prevent same-sex

marriages from being forced on the nation. That fear is even

more unfounded today than it was in 2004, when Congress last

considered the FMA. The better view is that the policy debate

on

same-sex marriage should proceed in the 50 states, without

being cut off by a single national policy imposed from

Washington and enshrined in the Constitution.

A person who opposes same-sex marriage on policy grounds

can and should also oppose a constitutional amendment

foreclosing it, on grounds of federalism, confidence that

opponents will prevail without an amendment, or a belief that

public policy issues should only rarely be determined at the

constitutional level.

There are four main arguments against the FMA. First, a

constitutional amendment is unnecessary because federal and

state laws, combined with the present state of the relevant

constitutional doctrines, already make court-ordered

nationwide same-sex marriage unlikely for the foreseeable

future. An amendment banning same-sex marriage is a solution

in search of a problem.

Second, a constitutional amendment defining marriage would

be a radical intrusion on the nation's founding commitment to

federalism in an area traditionally reserved for state

regulation, family law. There has been no showing that

federalism has been unworkable in the area of family law.

Third, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage

would be an unprecedented form of amendment, cutting short an

ongoing national debate over what privileges and benefits, if

any, ought to be conferred on same-sex couples and preventing

democratic processes from recognizing more individual rights.

Fourth, the amendment as proposed is constitutional

overkill that reaches well beyond the stated concerns of its

proponents, foreclosing not just courts but also state

legislatures from recognizing same-sex marriages and perhaps

other forms of legal support for same-sex relationships.

Whatever one thinks of same-sex marriage as a matter of

policy, no person who cares about our Constitution and public

policy should support this unnecessary, radical,

unprecedented, and overly broad departure from the nation's

traditions and history.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say that I used to think that what was sacred in this country was defending civil rights and civil liberties and fighting against discrimination. Apparently I am mistaken, based on the comments that I have just heard.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

If all these States are doing what you want them to do, why do we need a Federal constitutional amendment?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, just for the record, there is no Federal challenge at this time in any Federal court to DOMA. So that not is not even an issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left.

Mr. Speaker, I want to agree with my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) when he says that the American people are a good and tolerant people. He is absolutely right. Unfortunately, that doesn't extend in terms of the tolerance part of it to a lot of Members of this Chamber.

I mean, we have listened to this debate for nearly an hour now, and we have heard the words from the other side, and they are words of exclusion, and even hate.

We have heard talk about family values. Well, hate is not a family value. Discrimination is not a family value. Exclusion and denying people's rights are not family values.

In Massachusetts, my home State, same-sex marriage is legal. It is legal. Gay couples can go to the town hall, city hall, fill out the forms, pay the application fee and legally get married; 8,000 couples have done so, and everything has stayed the same in Massachusetts. Life goes on.

But what you want to do here today with this amendment is not only prevent other States from acting as Massachusetts has done, but what you are saying to those 8,000 couples is that we want to affirmatively go and take away your rights; we want to null and void your legal rights.

That is shameful. It is insulting. It is discrimination. If your State wants to ban gay marriage, that is your State's right to do so, but the people of Massachusetts have a different opinion, and if the people of Massachusetts want to respect and honor same-sex marriages, that is our business. It should not be the business of the House of Representatives or the United States Senate to go in there and to go against and to void the will of the people of Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, this is all about politics here today. The Senate has already defeated this. This is appalling that we are here today. This is about gay-bashing. It is about winning political points. Quite frankly, this is disgraceful.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I do believe in the separation of church and State, as one asked the question that we should be talking about what we believe in.

I believe in the 10th amendment and its constitutional premise: ``The powers not delegated to the United States

by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.''

My good friend who just spoke from South Carolina made a very valid point, that we are now tampering with constitutional privileges that we have yielded to the States, and more importantly, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution have made it very clear that it is a document of enhancement, of affirmation of rights.

My concern is that we are now standing on the floor of this sacred body denying rights to human beings and Americans. We are denying the rights, the privacy rights, civil liberties rights. We are even going so far as to deny visitation rights at hospitals and the ability to mourn your loved one.

Might I say that this past week a dear, beloved friend of mine mourned his partner, mourned his partner, and all of the community came to acknowledge the leadership of his partner. Is his grief or his loss to be degraded on this floor, to be denied, to ask the question whether it was not a special and sacred relationship?

So I ask my colleagues, as we corrected the enslavement of those of us who came here first in the bottom of the belly of a slave boat with the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment, affirmation of rights, creating rights, not denying rights, I will not stand here on the floor today and accept the responsibility of denying rights. Might I say, the Senate, the other body, has already spoken. They could not get a simple majority. Why? It is wrong to deny rights to Americans.

I will not allow the flag to be desecrated by this amendment. Defeat this constitutional offering and bring back freedom to America.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is the symbol of the misplaced priorities of the Republican leadership in the House. It is clear that this amendment is being addressed not for the policy involved but simply for floor debate. We have considered this issue in Congress before, and doing so again is simply a waste of taxpayers' money. This debate is ill-advised and will not help the American people. Issues we could be addressing here today are: the global war on terrorism we are fighting, from which we have been distracted by the war in Iraq, and a war that has resulted in a devastating toll on American lives and our budget; the crisis in the Middle East; increasing gas prices; a ballooning budget deficit of over $5 trillion that is choking our economy and crucial social service programs; and a health care system that is failing the millions of Americans that remain uninsured.

Why are we wasting time on the House floor, in our legislative offices and with our valuable staff to handle this imprudent amendment?

I oppose this bill because, for the first time in America's rich and long democratic history, the Constitution will be used not as a beacon of liberation but an instrument of deprivation. On the 230-year anniversary of our Constitution, let us not desecrate it by enacting this act. H.J. Res. 88, the ``Marriage Protection Amendment,'' proposes to impose the opinion of a minority of the members of this Congress on the lives of all Americans on matters that concern their personal lives, their family relations, and their very identity.

tenth amendment

The 10th Amendment states: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' The individual states need to have the ability to differ with the Federal Government in an area that relates to what goes on in the homes of individuals.

equal protection of the law

Gay and lesbian Americans are American citizens who pay taxes and protect our communities as fire fighters, police officers, and by serving in the military, and therefore desire the same rights and protections as other Americans.

Denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry amounts to a federal taking--legal rights in pensions, health insurance, hospital visitations, and inheritance that other long-term committed couples enjoy. It should never be our job to restrict the rights of the American people--only to extend them. This amendment would write discrimination into our Constitution.

As Members of Congress with the authorities vested in us as a body, we have a responsibility to deal with issues that need attention. There is no emergent need relating to individual well-being, national security, or any other government interest that warrants a constitutional amendment for this purpose. This is a waste of the taxpayers' dollars. This Amendment takes away existing legal protections, under state and local laws, for committed, long-term couples, such as hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, pension benefits, and health insurance coverage among others.

Under current law, marriage is a decision of the state. As marriage was initially tied to property rights, this has historically always been a local issue. The state gives us a marriage license, determines a couples' tax bracket and authorizes its divorce. It does not need additional control over the situation. Religious conceptions of marriage are sacrosanct and should remain so, but how a state decides to dole out hospital visitation rights or insurance benefits should be a matter of state law. As legal relationships change, laws adapt accordingly.

Matters of great importance, such as marriage, need to reflect the will of the people and be resolved within the democratic process. By having Congress give the states restrictions initially, we are denying them the chance to let their constituents decide what is best for them. We cannot use the Constitution as a bullhorn to dictate social policy from Washington.

Furthermore, any law determining who may or may not marry denies religious institutions the right to decide this amongst themselves and is therefore a denial of the religious freedoms that we treasure so dearly.

Leading civil rights and religious organizations across the Nation have expressed their opposition to this amendment. Among them are: the Anti-Defamation League; the Alliance of Baptists; the American Civil Liberties Union; the League of Women Voters of the United States; the American Jewish Committee; the NAACP; and many more.

I have here in my hand a letter to Representatives Hastert and Pelosi, signed by over 2,500 members of the clergy in our Nation. They come from different faiths and backgrounds, and may disagree on many things, but they all oppose this amendment.

This proposed amendment will forever write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution rather than focusing on the crucial problems and challenges that affect the lives of all of us. It is nothing more than a political distraction for the country to divert attention from the overabundance of real problems and our tremendous lack of effective solutions.

violation of privacy

Our civil liberties are based upon the fundamental premise that each individual has a right to privacy, to be free from governmental interference in the most personal, private areas of one's life. Deciding when and whether to have children is one of those areas. Marriage is another.

In 1965 the Supreme Court ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut that a married couple had the right to use birth control. In doing so, the Court recognized a ``zone of privacy'' implicit in various provisions of the Constitution. Most recently, the Supreme Court struck down a law criminalizing sex between same-sex couples in Lawrence v. Texas based upon these same principles.

Indeed, Lawrence relied principally on Griswold, Eisenstadt and Roe v. Wade. Collectively, these decisions recognize the fundamental principle that the Constitution protects individuals' decisions about marriage, procreation, contraception and family relationships. The issues are inextricably linked--in law as well as policy.

there is no valid need to amend the constitution

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

defense of marriage act already exists

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

mpa will not change views on same sex marriage

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

this will clog the judicial system

The MPA is a lawyer's dream and a judge's nightmare. The number of cases that will flood

the system will be outlandish. Does the MPA retroactively invalidate all marriages that have occurred in the interim? If a spouse has died, how does the retroactive annulment effect custody of the children, or property rights? There will be a litany of case law brought out to deal with these questions, and our judicial system will be filled with cases trying to sort out the lasting effects of the MPA.

this is likely to fail

Amending the constitution is not a simple thing, and should be done with care and caution over a longer period of time. Our haste in this matter will be the tragic flaw of the MPA's journey. Recent polls show that a majority of people who oppose gay marriage also oppose amending the constitution to ban them. In addition, this amendment has already been considered in the Senate and was rejected.

MPA does not help families

Many of my colleagues are arguing that the MPA is here to protect the family. Spending time and resources to amend the constitution to prevent gay marriages is not helping a single family. Divorce, abuse, unwed motherhood, and unemployment are doing far more harm to millions of families everywhere. To those who are taking up the cause to protect American families, perhaps your attention could be focused elsewhere on the problems which are truly plaguing them.

The vocal proponents of the MPA show their strong and willful hatred of the gay and lesbian community. This egregious amendment would enshrine discrimination against a specific group of citizens and intolerance of specific religious beliefs into our Nation's most sacred document. The fight for equality is uniquely woven into our Nation's history. From the suffrage movement, to the civil rights movement, to the gay rights movement, minorities in this country have worked tirelessly to achieve the equal rights guaranteed to all.

the legal incident of marriage warrants a license

Marriage provides a multitude of critical protections to same sex couples and their children. These legal incidents include rights related to: group insurance; victim's compensation; worker's compensation; durable powers of attorney; family leave benefits; and a joint tax return.

These benefits are necessary for families to function. If ``marriage'' is truly a license that extends rights, it should not be denied to one group of people--otherwise, this body will be guilty of legislating in violation of the Equal Protections Clause of the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record at this point the Clergy for Fairness, Religious Leaders Opposed to the Federal Marriage Amendment, that shows the standing of the religious community of America. It is entitled: ``We, the People.''

Clergy for Fairness,

Washington, DC, July 7, 2006.

Rep. J. Dennis Hastert,

Speaker of the House,

Washington, DC.

Rep Nancy Pelosi,

House Minority Leader,

Washington, DC.

Dear Rep. Hastert and Rep. Pelosi: As clergy from a broad

spectrum of religious traditions we hold diverse views

regarding marriage. However, we are united in our opposition

to amending the U.S. Constitution to define marriage.

The Marriage Protection Amendment raises alarming

constitutional concerns. We do not favor using the

constitutional amendment process to resolve the divisive

issues of the moment. Loading down the Constitution with such

amendments weakens the enormous influence it holds as the key

document that binds our nation together.

We are concerned that the Marriage Protection Amendment

would mark the first time in history that an amendment to the

Constitution would restrict the civil rights of an entire

group of Americans. Misusing our nation's most cherished

document for this purpose would tarnish our proud tradition

of expanding citizens' rights by Constitutional amendment, a

tradition long supported by America's faith communities.

These concerns alone merit rejection of the Marriage

Protection Amendment.

We also share a serious concern that the proposed Marriage

Protection Amendment would infringe on religious liberty.

Thoughtful people of faith can and do disagree on the issue

of marriage. America's many religious traditions reflect this

diversity of opinion, as do we who sign this letter.

But we respect the right of each religious group to decide,

based on its own religious teachings, whether or not to

sanction marriage of same-sex couples. It is surely not the

federal government's role to prefer one religious definition

of marriage over another, much less to codify such a

preference in the Constitution. To the contrary: the great

contribution of our Constitution is to ensure religious

liberty for all.

Some argue that a constitutional amendment is necessary to

ensure that clergy and faith groups will never be forced to

recognize marriages of same-sex couples against their will.

This argument is unfounded. Such coercion is already

expressly forbidden by the First Amendment's

``establishment'' clause, its guarantee of the right to

``free exercise'' of religion, and the Supreme Court's

doctrine of religious autonomy that is rooted in both

religion clauses. These, and only these, are all the

protection of religious autonomy--and of religious

marriage--our nation needs.

Our nation's founders adopted the First Amendment precisely

because they understood the dangers of allowing government to

have control over religious doctrine and decisions. It is

this commitment to religious freedom that has allowed

religious practice and pluralism to flourish in America as

nowhere else. If this freedom is to be maintained, we must

respect the rights of faith communities to apply their own

religious teachings and values to the issue of same-sex

relationships. It is surely not the business of politicians

to assert control over the doctrine and practice of our faith

communities.

The Marriage Protection Amendment would dignify

discrimination and undermine religious liberty. America's

religious communities do not support this amendment. As

leaders of these communities, we urge you to vote against any

attempt to pass this Amendment.

Respectfully,

Rev. Richard K. Heacock, Jr., United Methodist, Fairbanks,

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 918 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 918 is a closed rule. It provides 1 hour and 30 minutes of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their designees. This resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution, it provides one motion to recommit, and it provides that during consideration of the joint resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the joint resolution to a time designated by the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 918 and the underlying joint resolution, H.J. Res. 88, the Marriage Protection Act.

First, I would like to thank Representative Marilyn Musgrave, the author and lead sponsor of this constitutional amendment, for her steadfast commitment to the preservation of traditional marriage.

As the manager of this rule and an original cosponsor of the underlying joint resolution, I am very pleased the House will have an opportunity today to consider and debate this very important amendment to our Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, the proceeding debate, both on the rule and the underlying resolution, either can be divisive and disrespectful, or it can be respectful and productive. This amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with exclusion, but it has everything to do with protecting the traditional and historical definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Contrary to what the opponents of this resolution might say today, this amendment will simply preserve the

traditional definition of marriage as it has existed for millennia.

I anticipate there will be those on the other side who will say this amendment was concocted for political purposes. To the contrary, Mr. Speaker. This amendment is in response to a few activist judges who are trying to throw out the definition of marriage, along with over 200 years of American judicial precedent.

These judges, and these judges alone, made this matter an issue, and they did so without one vote cast in either a legislature or at the ballot box. These activist judges substituted legal precedent and the will of the American people with their own personal desires and political beliefs. Their decision to scrap the traditional definition of marriage has forced us, forced us, to now consider enshrining the definition of marriage into our Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, like most of my colleagues, I would prefer to not have to address this issue in this manner. But, unfortunately, I know my constituents and a strong majority of the American people want us to defend the traditional definition of marriage. A poll by the New York Times, not exactly a bastion of right-wing conservatism, they found that 59 percent, I repeat, 59 percent, of Americans favor an amendment to the Constitution stating that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

I also, sadly, realize this amendment will probably not have the necessary two-thirds majority to pass and opponents will cite this as a reason to not even consider the underlying resolution. We heard it in a couple of the 1-minute speeches from the other side just a few moments ago. Well, this vote will serve as an opportunity for each and every Member of this body to go on record in support or in opposition to protecting the traditional definition of marriage. And after this vote each of us will be judged accordingly by our constituents, and I can say with a clear conscience and without hesitation that I will support this rule, I will support the underlying resolution for the sake of the sacred institution of traditional marriage and for the sake of our precious children.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to encourage my colleagues to support the rule and this underlying resolution.

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

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

In response to a couple of things that my good friend said, Mr. Speaker, nowadays lots of people are claiming that marriage is a discriminatory institution. Same-sex couples say marriage discriminates against them. Believe it or not, single people are now complaining that marriage discriminates also against them. After all, say the singles, why should the State give special benefits to married parents but not to us?

It gets worse. Even polygamists and believers in group marriage, who call themselves polyamorists, are saying that marriage discriminates against them.

Now, if the support society gives the men and women who have the potential to create children is going to be called discrimination, pretty soon there is not going to be such a thing as a marriage at all. When one group can call marriage discrimination, then any group can make the same claim.

And, also, Mr. Speaker, there was a comment about a couple loving each

other. But this is not a civil rights issue. Love, of course, is a great thing. But in my humble opinion, marriage is not just any kind of love. It is a love that can bear children, and it is a love that involves both a mom and a dad. Two men might be a good father. But neither one is a mom. The ideal for children is the love of both a mom and a dad. No same-sex couple can provide that. The ideal for marriage is about bringing together moms and dads so children have a mother and a father to learn from.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Representative Virginia Foxx.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

The gentleman from Ohio is concerned and says, what next? Is the Congress going to take out from the Pledge of Allegiance ``with liberty and justice for all''? I say to my friend from Ohio, no. Later on this week we will have the opportunity to defend ``one Nation under God'' and keep the Federal judiciary from taking that out.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

The gentleman from Massachusetts I am sure is aware of the fact that in his State, opponents have gathered 170,000 signatures supporting a constitutional amendment they hope would end gay marriage, despite what their supreme court did.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin that 45 States currently define marriage as a union of one man and one woman or expressly prohibit same-sex marriages; and those 45 States we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, include 88 percent of the population of this country. We are not just talking about Georgia. The fact is in a constitutional amendment, three-fourths of the States will have to ratify it.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is because of these activist judges who are chipping away at the will of the people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the gentleman from Virginia that it is not all about money and how we spend it that we are in this Congress, but it is also about values and how this great country represents them to the world, not the least of which is the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I could debate theology with the gentleman from Missouri, as an ordained minister, but I do know a little bit about the sacrament of marriage, Mr. Speaker, as one of about 200 Catholic Members of the United States Congress.

I think God has spoken very clearly, very clearly on this issue. And I would refer the gentleman to Holy Scripture, and what the word says in regard to marriage and the sanctity of marriage. I think it is pretty clear.

The gentleman wants to talk about the fact that this should be a church issue. I agree with you. I wish it were, if it were not for these activist Federal judges and these public officials. I will remind the gentleman from Missouri, the good Reverend, that they will be the one that would be performing these marriages and they would do it to a fare-thee-well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

My good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee, decried politics, and then he started his remarks about politics. He talked about whether these judges were Republican judges and Democratic judges and gave numbers.

In response to him, we are blaming activist judges, whether they are Democratically appointed or Republican appointees, who are attempting by judicial fiat to redefine our constitutional definition of marriage which has stood for 223 years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to my good friend from Texas, who has been married to his lovely wife for 37 years, Judge John Carter.

Mr. Speaker, I proudly yield 2 minutes now to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), who has been married 37\1/2\ years.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers on my side. While I am going to reserve the balance of my time for closing, I want to respond and give myself as much time as I might consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts, for whom, and whose intellect, I have a deep respect. I think he knows that.

Let me just say that Americans are a good and tolerant people. The people of this country believe in equality and freedom, and we respect the rights of individuals to conduct their personal lives as they see fit.

Reasonable people can differ in their views on homosexuality or its causes, consequences, and moral significance. Personally, I think it is a good thing that American citizens who happen to be gay are accorded more tolerance and respect today than was the case 50 years ago.

But I honestly believe that the issue facing us today is not the issue of homosexuality. Most fundamentally, the issue we face today is marriage, the meaning of marriage as an institution and how best to support it. I favor the Federal Marriage Amendment because I want to support the institutution of marriage and keep it strong.

This issue is not, in my humble opinion, about homosexuality.

Well, in response to the gentleman, again, as I said, it is not an issue of same-sex union.

And benefits that are afforded them by many States. The States certainly have the right to prescribe that in regard to issues of consanguinity and the age of consent and benefits for same-sex unions.

But they don't, in my opinion, have the right to redefine the definition of marriage.

Reclaiming my time, I think that the gentlewoman from Colorado and those of us who support this constitutional amendment feel that this is all about marriage that results, or potentially can result, in the procreation of children. This is what our Constitution has implied for 223 years and, indeed, what the word of God has implied for 2,000 years.

With that, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time for the purpose of closing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again in support of this rule and in full support of and recognition of the importance of this underlying amendment to our Constitution.

I appreciate each and every one of my colleagues who spoke during the debate on this rule. I fully recognize that many of us will have to simply, yet respectfully, as I said, disagree.

However, Mr. Speaker, I know that I stand today with the citizens of Georgia's 11th Congressional District, as well as the vast majority of Georgia and the Nation's citizens who continue to be outraged by the ability of a few judges to overturn our legal precedent and our traditional family values.

In 2004, the people of Georgia affirmed with a vote of 76 percent to 24 percent that marriage is an institution between one man and one woman, and I proudly count myself among that 76 percent.

I want to close this debate by reminding my colleagues that we have an opportunity today to stem the tide of this judicial activism and to restore the ability of the American people to establish policies that affect them and their lives through their elected Representatives.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues, please support this rule, and upon the conclusion of general debate, I ask my colleagues to affirm legal and historical precedent and defend our traditions about supporting the underlying amendment to restore the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of marriage, in support of families, and in support of national unity. I rise against this proposed constitutional amendment, against the drumbeat of election- year political demagoguery.

This amendment does not belong in our Constitution. It is unworthy of our great Nation. 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, the first 10 of them, the Bill of Rights, in 1791. Constitutional amendments have always been used to enhance and expand the rights of citizens, not to restrict them.

The Bill of Rights, which was added in 1791, protected freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, the right to be secure in our homes. Ten amendments protecting individual rights and liberties. We amended the Constitution to permanently wipe away the stain of slavery, to expand the right to vote, to expand the rights of citizenship and to allow for the direct election of senators.

Now we are being asked to amend the Constitution again, to single out a single group and to say to them for all time, you cannot even attempt to win the right to marry.

This amendment was introduced last month. We have never held hearings on it. The Judiciary Committee has never considered it. Never. Don't let anyone tell you that the Judiciary Committee considered it in 2003. We did not. That was a different amendment we considered.

But what is the Constitution between friends when there is an election coming up? From what precisely would this amendment protect marriage? From divorce? From adultery? No. Evidently, the threat to marriage is the fact that there are millions of people in this country who very much believe in marriage, who very much want to marry but who are not permitted to marry.

This amendment, contrary to what we have heard, doesn't block activist courts from allowing people of the same sex to marry. It would also prevent their fellow citizens from deciding democratically to permit them to do so, whether through the legislative process or even through a referendum of the people.

And why is it requisite on Congress to tell any State that the people of that State may not make up their minds for themselves on this question? Why is it necessary for the Federal Government to amend our Constitution to say to Massachusetts, which is going to hold a referendum on this subject in 2008, you may not do so because we have decided this for you?

Mr. Speaker, 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 with custody of children, 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 destroyed by someone else's same-sex marriage somewhere in America, I would welcome an explanation of what he or she thinks would happen to his or her marriage and why.

Are there any takers? Anyone here who wants to get up and say why they believe their marriage would be threatened if two other people are permitted to marry?

I didn't think so.

The overheated rhetoric we have been hearing is reminiscent of the bellicose fear-mongering that followed the Supreme Court's decision almost 40 years ago in 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 survived as a Nation and we are better for that Supreme Court decision.

I believe firmly that in the not-too-distant future people will look back on these debates with the incredulity with which we now view the segregationist debates of years past. I think the public opinion polls are indicative: Opposition to gay marriage is a direct function of age. The older people are, the more set in the ways of the old discriminatory practices of this country they are, the more they oppose gay marriage. If you take a poll of people under 35 years old, 70 to 75 percent are in favor of allowing gay marriage. That is the trend for the future because demographics is destiny.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment actually does more than it purports to do. It would not only preempt any State law allowing people of the same gender to marry, even if that law was approved by the legislature or by referendum, it would preclude any State from extending medical visitation privileges or inheritance rights, for example, to same-sex couples. That is what ``the incidents thereof'' in the amendment means.

Proponents of this amendment have already tried to use a similar prohibition against same-sex marriage to attack in court domestic- partner benefits. So when they tell you this is only about marriage, don't believe it. No court has required that a marriage in one State be recognized in another, so don't believe anyone who tells you that this amendment is meant to protect your own State laws.

The Defense of Marriage Act which passed this Congress and which the President signed in 1996 says no State can impose its marriage laws on another.

There are many loving families, Mr. Speaker, who deserve the benefits and protections of the law. They don't live just in New York or San Francisco or Boston, they live in every one of the 435 congressional districts of this great country. 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 the same rights as 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 to have what we have already heard on this floor and to what we will hear that amounts to pure bigotry against a minority population, even on the eve of an election.

We know this amendment is not going anywhere. We know this is merely a political exercise. Shame on this House for playing politics with bigotry.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. Speaker I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished minority leader of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Federalism is the division of power between the Federal Government and the States. Family law, marriage, divorce have always been a matter for the States. This amendment attempts to seize it for the Federal Government. That is a major change in federalism, whatever the gentleman from California may say.

It is most certainly an issue of federalism because the Federal Government has never before gotten into the definition of marriage or divorce or any of those things. It has always been left to the States until this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

I will yield to Ms. Jackson-Lee for a unanimous consent request, and then you have your speaker, and I will close for my side and you close for yours. Let me ask how much time we have left at this point.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of points made in this debate today with doubtful validity. We are told we should pass this amendment to protect marriage. But against what threat? If Henry and Steve want to get married, maybe that is a good idea, maybe it is a bad idea, but it does not threaten the marriage of anyone else, of any man or woman who wants to get married. It does not affect them in any way. Divorce is a threat. Some of our other threats are threats, but gay marriage is not a threat to a straight marriage.

We are told we have to protect children, but children are already in the custody of straight people, of gay people, of gay couples, of individuals. If we want to protect children, we should give a legal basis to the partnership of the two people who have custody of them. Now, we are not saying that it might not be preferable to have a traditional custody arrangement, maybe it is, but this does not affect that in any way.

Nor do we say because we want to protect children that we prohibit elderly couples from getting married or sterile couples from getting married because procreation is the purpose of marriage. So this is a red herring.

We had a whole religious discussion. The fact is churches can define marriage in their point of view, any way they want. We are not telling a church you must consider this couple married from a religious point of view. We are not telling the church how to define the sacrament. We are talking about civil marriage, and churches can do what they want and regard as married whom they want, but we are talking about what the government recognizes.

We are also told that this is to protect marriage, but the amendment talks about not only marriage by, but the incidents thereof, to clearly prohibit specific rights that a State may choose to give to a gay couple, the right of inheritance, a right of visitation when one is sick in the hospital. Why should we tell the States they cannot do that at their wisdom?

We are told always by the other side of the aisle that we should protect the rights of States, but as I said a few moments ago, family law, the marriage law, divorce law, visitation law, child custody law have always been a matter for the States. Why are we preempting those State laws?

We are told we are preempting unelected judges, that that amendment is an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, that it would preempt not just judges elected or appointed. It would preempt the State legislative action; it would preempt action by the people in a referendum. That is not democratic, with a small D.

This, Mr. Speaker, is a political stunt. It is a political stunt at the expense of a minority, of an unpopular minority. That is all it is. We know it is not going to pass. We know the Senate already rejected it. So this is just a political stunt.

I appeal to my colleagues, vote ``no'' on this amendment. Leave family law where it always has been, with the State, and do not desecrate our Constitution, do not desecrate our most sacred document, our civil religion, by inserting it into an amendment to deny a basic right to an unpopular group just because we want to make a political point at the expense of that unpopular group in an election year.

Make no mistake, that is what this amendment is. That is all it is. It does not protect marriage. It does not protect children. It just makes a political point at the expense of an unpopular group, and we should not desecrate our Constitution by so doing.

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