On May 13, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution held a hearing on a proposed Constitutional amendment (H. J. Res. 56) defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This is the third in a series of five hearings on the topic of same-sex marriage. Previous hearings were held last month (see The Source, 4/2/04 and 4/23/04).
Sponsored by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), the resolution states, “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incident thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
In his opening statement, Chair Steve Chabot (R-OH) explained that the intent of the federal marriage amendment “is to allow states and Congress to enact civil unions, but to reserve ‘marriage’ as a legal concept applicable only to the union of a man and a woman.” Noting that 44 states have enacted laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, he pointed out that the percentage is well beyond the 75 percent required to ratify an amendment to the Constitution.
Questioning why the subcommittee “doesn’t have time” to consider a Constitutional amendment to continue government operations after a terrorist attack, Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said, “We do, however, have time to spend months fretting over the purported dangers to western civilization if our neighbors, relatives, friends, and colleagues are permitted the equal right to enjoy the blessing and legal benefits of marriage,” adding, “Someone needs to get a grip on reality.”
Rep. Musgrave disputed the contention that the federal marriage amendment is “an attempt to constitutionalize discrimination against homosexuals and make them permanent second class citizens,” stating, “Gays are not excluded from the benefits of marriage by others. They are excluded by their own choices. Marriage is and for the entire history of mankind has always been a relationship between persons of the opposite sex, and the primary function of marriage has always been to provide a legal context for procreation and child rearing by fathers and mothers. Even the dictionary tells us that the very meaning of the word ‘marriage’ necessarily contemplates a relationship between a man and a woman. It is not discrimination for the state to recognize this fundamental biological reality.”
Pointing out that legislation has been enacted in the past to prohibit “inappropriately unequal treatment” of individuals based on their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and age, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) stated, “In every case, opponents of the legislation have made predictions that social chaos will ensue,” adding, “In no case of which I am aware have these predictions turned out to be accurate. That is, in every case of which I am aware, enactment of legislation prohibiting unfair treatment of people based on various personal characteristics has had some beneficial effects for those in the category being protected against mistreatment, and no negative effects on society at large.” Rep. Frank suggested that, in some cases, legalizing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts may strengthen marriage in general: “Indeed, since some private employers have announced that they will no longer honor domestic partnership benefits between people who are unmarried, now that everyone in the Commonwealth will have the right to get married, there may in fact [be] an incentive for some people to enter into heterosexual marriages, who have not previously done so, because they might otherwise lose some benefits.”
Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice said that same-sex marriage “will not simply undermine traditional marriage, it will transform our society and the nature and reach of government.” Explaining that marriage increases the level of health, happiness, and wealth of spouses, he said that research “indicates that the offspring of traditional marital relations also trend toward greater health and more developed social skills.” Mr. Sekulow concluded, “Traditional marriages make such significant contributions to society that it is simply a sound policy judgment to prefer such marriages over lesser relationships in kind (such as co-habitation) or entirely different in character (same-sex relationships).”
