On October 20, the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights held a hearing on a constitutional amendment (S. J. Res. 1) that would define marriage. Sponsored by Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO), the Federal Marriage Amendment states, “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.” The panel held a previous hearing on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on April 13 (see The Source, 4/15/05).
In his opening remarks, Chair Sam Brownback (R-KS) said that “just one year ago, the issue of marriage was center stage in the national political debate. Poll after poll showed strong support for preserving traditional marriage, and a majority of Americans supported a marriage amendment to the Constitution. When the people spoke at the voting booths last November, they approved by decisive majorities every one of the 11 state amendments protecting traditional marriage.” Arguing that a threat to traditional marriage is “imminent,” he added, “In order to protect this vital institution, so central to the health and stability of families and society at large, we will have to define marriage. The only question is, who will do the defining? The people of the 50 states…or judges forcing social change and bypassing the democratic process?”
Ranking Member Russ Feingold (D-WI) expressed his opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment, pointing out that no one knows what effect it would have on civil unions and benefits for domestic partners and their children. He argued that there is currently “no crisis warranting a constitutional amendment on this issue,” concluding that an amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage is “unfair, unwise, and unnecessary.”
Christopher Wolfe, a political science professor at Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, stressed the importance of marriage as a social institution: “Marriage is obviously a personal relationship. But it is much more than that. Most importantly, it is the ordinary means by which new human beings are brought into the world and prepared to assume their positions as citizens of society. If marriage were not this if it were only a personal relationship there would be no essential reason for the state to have any concern about marriage, to recognize it at all.” He added, “One aspect of the context of this debate should be clear to anyone. That is the difficulty our society has had in sustaining stable marriages, especially in the last three or four decades. Illegitimacy is at an all-time high, approaching one-third of babies born in this country. Divorce has recently leveled off, but it has leveled off at a very high rate (and even this leveling off may be due simply to more people cohabiting rather than getting married to begin with). The result of these trends is that many children do not experience growing up with both their mother and father, which most Americans clearly recognize as the optimal framework for raising children. Even many social scientists, despite certain ideological blinders, have come to recognize that a marriage between a biological mother and father is the best context for raising children.” Professor Wolfe stated that “it is at least a very real possibility” that some judges may strike down DOMA, adding, “Given that fact, and given the existence of a well-organized and financed effort to legalize same-sex marriage in this country, backed by extensive ideological scholarship in the academy and in the legal community, it is only prudent to remove even the possibility that judges will intervene to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act and the state laws it was intended to protect…a Federal Marriage Amendment is the only reliable way to preserve the definition of marriage the American people have long recognized and are intent on defending.”
The subcommittee also heard testimony from Dr. Christopher Harris, a professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, and a gay single father. “Some supporters of the ‘Marriage Protection Amendment’ claim that the welfare of children will be advanced by a constitutional amendment denying the legal protections of marriage to gay and lesbian couples and their families. I disagree. Willfully injuring children through the denial of legal rights to their parents serves no purpose. Regardless of one’s individual feelings regarding same-sex relationships, I think everyone agrees that ALL children need the care and concern of a loving family and the legal protections this structure can provide. The value of a loving family cuts across sexual orientation. In fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics states clearly that ‘civil marriage is a legal mechanism by which societal recognition and support is given to couples and families. It provides a context for legal, financial and psychosocial well-being, an endorsement of interdependent care, and a form of public respect for personal beliefs.’” Summarizing peer-reviewed research on same-sex marriage, he said that “successful child rearing is unaffected by a parent’s sexual orientation. For instance, there is simply no significant difference between children of lesbian mothers and heterosexual mothers in such factors as anxiety level, depression or self esteem…In fact, every relevant study of the effect of parental sexual orientation on children shows NO measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or the children’s mental health and successful socialization.” Expressing his concern that children of same-sex couples could lose their right to health and life insurance benefits, Dr. Harris stated, “Unfortunately, the so-called ‘Marriage Protection Amendment’ prohibits exactly this type of security for children. If enacted, the MPA would deny the parents of millions of American children the ability to secure the same legal benefits available to children of all other two-parent families. This is a step backwards that our children and our country can ill afford.”
