Providing For Consideration of H.J. Res. 106, Marriage Protection Amendment

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. Res. 106, MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT -- (House of Representatives - September 30, 2004)

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 801 and ask for its immediate consideration.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. 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).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. 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).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. 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.

The text of the article is as follows:

Log Cabin Republicans Vote To Withhold Endorsement From President Bush

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8.-Log Cabin Republicans are withholding their endorsement from President Bush for 2004. "Log Cabin's National Board has voted to withhold a Presidential endorsement and shift our financial and political resources to defeating the radical right and supporting inclusive Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives," said Log Cabin Board Chairman William Brownson of Ohio. The Log Cabin Board of Directors voted 22 to 2 not to endorse the President's re-election.

"Certain moments in history require that a belief in fairness and equality not be sacrificed in the name of partisan politics; this is one of those moments. The national board's vote empowers Log Cabin to maintain its integrity while furthering our goal of building a more inclusive Republican Party. Log Cabin is more committed than ever to its core mission to build a stronger and more inclusive Republican Party. There is a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican party, and that fight is bigger than one platform, one convention, or even one President," said Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director Patrick Guerriero.

The vote by Log Cabin's 25 member national board marks the first time since the organization opened a national office in Washington, DC in 1993 that the organization has not endorsed the Republican nominee for President. Log Cabin endorsed Bob Dole in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2000.

Log Cabin will devote its financial and political resources to elect fair-minded Republican allies to local, state and federal offices. Log Cabin will endorse more than 50 GOP candidates for the U.S. House and Senate. "Every victory by fair-minded Republicans is a victory for the future of our party. We have made it clear that we can either be the party of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Giuliani or we can be the party of Alan Keyes and Rick Santorum," continued Guerriero.

"Log Cabin has proudly supported the President's firm leadership in the war on terror. As principled Republicans, we believe in our Party's commitment to a strong national defense and a confident foreign policy. We especially applaud the President's leadership in cutting taxes for American families and small businesses, his belief in free market principles and his compassionate and historic leadership in the global fight against HIV/AIDS," continued Guerriero.

"At the same time, it is impossible to overstate the depth of anger and disappointment caused by the President's support for an anti-family Constitutional Amendment. This amendment would not only ban gay marriage, it would also jeopardize civil unions and domestic partnerships. For six months, the President has made it clear what he opposes. He opposes civil marriage equality; however he has failed to articulate clearly what he supports. Does he support federal civil unions? Does he support domestic partnerships? Does he support tax fairness for gay and lesbian couples? Does he support employment non-discrimination? Does he support hate crimes legislation? Does he support allowing gay and lesbian service members to serve openly and honestly?" asked Log Cabin Political Director Chris Barron. "An organization's endorsement means nothing if it does not have to be earned."

"Some will accuse us of being disloyal. However, it was actually the White House who was disloyal to the 1,000,000 gay and lesbian Americans who supported him four years ago. Log Cabin's decision was made in response to the White House's strategic political decision to pursue a re-election strategy catered to the radical right. The President's use of the bully pulpit, stump speeches and radio addresses to support a Constitutional amendment has encouraged the passage of discriminatory laws and state constitutional amendments across America. Using gays and lesbians as wedge issues in an election year is unacceptable to Log Cabin," continued Guerriero.

"At the same time that we saw record numbers of gay and lesbian delegates at the Republican National Convention, and at the same convention where we saw hundreds of fair-minded Republicans gather to support Log Cabin and our allies, our party's platform adopted vicious and mean-spirited language that marginalizes gay and lesbian Americans."

Log Cabin's 2000 endorsement of the Bush/Cheney ticket came during an election where the Republican nominee ran a compassionate conservative campaign that avoided culture war issues. After meeting with gay Republicans in 2000, Mr. Bush declared "I am a better man," and welcomed gays and lesbians as valued parts of the American family. The early days of the Bush administration were marked by significant victories-maintaining existing anti-discrimination protections for federal employees, appointing openly gay employees throughout the Administration, a continuing dialogue with our organization, and the extension of survivor benefits to gay and lesbian partners who lost loved ones on 9/11.

Unfortunately these early successes were short-lived. "Last year, a dramatic and disappointing shift occurred rooted in Karl Rove's public acknowledgment that the 2004 re-election campaign would focus on turning out four million more evangelicals who he believed stayed home in 2000," said Guerriero. The President's initial reluctance to amend the Constitution became full-fledged support on February 24th of this year.

Log Cabin has spent most of the year fighting the anti-family Federal Marriage Amendment. This fight culminated with a July victory in the Senate when a growing chorus of Republican opposition of the amendment forced the pro-amendment faction to play procedural games to avoid an embarrassing loss. As many as a dozen or more Republican Senators were prepared to oppose the FMA on its merits.

"During the fight over the anti-family FMA, we sadly watched as the President and his Administration leaned on Republican members of the House and Senate to support this divisive and unnecessary amendment. We watched as the President's support for this anti-family amendment emboldened the forces of fear and exclusion to push anti-gay ballot initiatives and legislation on the state and local level. We watched as the radical right works to defeat fair-minded Republicans across the nation. We watched as the Republican Party Platform rejected our Party Unity Plan and included language opposing not only civil marriage but also civil unions, domestic partnerships or indeed any basic benefits for same-sex couples. At a time when courageous gay and lesbian military personnel are helping to win the war on terror, the platform outrageously claims 'homosexuality is incompatible with military service'," continued Guerriero. The GOP platform language continues to target gays and lesbians and fails to present a positive agenda to ensure basic fairness for millions of gay Americans, who pay taxes, serve in the military, enhance communities, and serve in government.

Throughout this challenging year Log Cabin has doubled in size and launched new chapters were none existed. Log Cabin successfully led the fight against the Federal Marriage Amendment with its first ever television advertising campaign, worked with 18 GOP lawmakers in passing hate crimes legislation in the Senate, and continued supporting and educating state and local officials. Log Cabin was proud to be the only gay and lesbian organization to endorse Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign for Governor of California. Log Cabin also was proud to see many of its closest allies speaking in primetime at the Republican National Convention. "It is not surprising to anyone at Log Cabin that the President's first real bounce in the polls came after a convention that highlighted inclusive Republicans and focused on unifying issues such as winning the war on terror. Log Cabin knows that the 2006 and 2008 elections will highlight a new generation of inclusive Republican leaders," said Guerriero.

Log Cabin calls on both major parties to return to the issues that unite the American family instead of fueling an unnecessary culture war. Log Cabin also denounces the continued flip-flops on gay and lesbian issues from Democratic nominee John Kerry. Senator Kerry has repeatedly made clear his opposition to civil marriage equality and has supported discriminatory constitutional amendments in Massachusetts and Missouri.

Log Cabin is firmly committed to seeing inclusive Republicans elected in 2004. Log Cabin will continue to oppose and expose any efforts to marginalize gays and lesbians. We also will continue to make it clear that the only way the GOP can continue as the majority party is to reach out to all Americans. Log Cabin also will continue to make it clear that the gay and lesbian community can realize full equality only if it works on building new alliances with conservative and centrist Americans.

"The battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party has just begun. We are confident that the politics of inclusion and hope will prevail over the politics of exclusion and fear. History, fairness and common decency are on our side," concluded Guerriero.

Last week, Log Cabin launched a new television advertising campaign to take this fight for the GOP's future directly to the American people. The ad makes it clear that the party has a choice. We can be the party of hope, in the best tradition of Ronald Reagan, by uniting around issues that bring Republicans together, like winning the war on terror; or the party can divide Americans with the politics of intolerance and fear that only lead to hate.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT