Marriage Protection Amendment

MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT -- (House of Representatives - September 30, 2004)

(BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House Joint Resolution 106, the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment, which proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex couples from getting married or receiving any of the rights of marriage. The right-wing political machine is churning out divisive legislation at a record pace as we get close to the election, but this is a new low. They would, for the first time ever, target a specific group of Americans in our most sacred document, and permanently ban them from having equal rights under the law. This proposed amendment not only bans marriage, but any of the "legal incidents thereof," meaning that the supporter of this amendment think our founding document should keep gay and lesbian couples from filing a joint tax return, inheriting property, or visiting their partners in the hospital.

It's one thing for the Republicans to claim that banning flag burning will make us more patriotic or to propose a balanced budget amendment when they're running the highest deficits in history, but to play their political games with millions of Americans is beneath contempt. Apparently, there are a lot of things the supporters of this amendment don't understand about our government:

The Constitution has always defined the limitations of government and liberties of people, not the other way around.

Citizens of the United States are guaranteed equal treatment under the law, even if they aren't popular.

For people who choose a religion, there are two separate marriages: a civil contract and a religious ceremony. That religious ceremony has nothing to do with our laws. A church can marry whomever it wants and refuse to marry whomever it wants. For example, Churches in Massachusetts don't have to marry gay people even though the State does.

The civil contract part of marriage is enforced by a set of laws that affect property, children, health care and other responsibilities and rights. In the U.S. we are required by the Constitution to divorce these laws from any religious influence.

Passing this amendment would take us down a dangerous path of trying to make civil and religious marriage one in the same. If we're going to bring our civil marriage system in line with religious marriage, then we also need to pass an amendment banning Catholics from getting divorced.

The fact that Massachusetts is marrying same-sex couples doesn't mean that other States have to do the same. Already, 44 States have specifically banned gay marriage, and the Constitution guarantees their right to set their own policies on State issues.

Constitutional amendments have to be passed by two-thirds of both the House and Senate before being submitted to the States for ratification. This amendment has already failed in the Senate, so today's vote is all a cynical, hateful political game.