Senate Hearing Debates Same-Sex Marriage As National Crisis 3/8/2004
By Rebecca Jones
The U.S. cultural climate continues to heat up as more city officials flirt with "gay marriage."
The U.S. cultural climate continues to heat up as more city officials across the country issue illegal marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Polls indicate that Americans are increasingly in support of a federal constitutional amendment to limit marriage to a man and a woman. In response, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, called a hearing to discuss the need for a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage from being invalidated by activist judges and state officials.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom was the first to order city officials to issue "marriage" licenses to same-sex couples in defiance of state law. Two mayors in New York, Nyack Mayor John Shields and New Paltz Mayor Jason West, have now joined him. City officials in Portland, Oregon announced on March 3 that they, too, will be following Newsom's example by issuing counterfeit marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Each of these city officials is taking their cues from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision in Goodridge, which decided that it is unconstitutional to limit marriage to the union of a man and a woman.
"The American people didn't initiate this discussion, nor did members of Congress of either party," said Sen. Cornyn in his opening statement at the hearing. "Let's be clear and honest about this. The only reason we are discussing this issue today is the work of aggressive lawyers, and a handful of activist judges." Senator Cornyn believes that same-sex marriage is no longer just a state problem, but a national one that requires a national solution in the form of a constitutional amendment.
Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wisconsin) disagreed in his opening statement, calling a constitutional amendment "unnecessary, divisive, and utterly inconsistent with our constitutional traditions." Feingold downplayed the issue as "a divisive political exercise in an election year, plain and simple."
"Given the fact that constitutional amendments can take years to become law, Feingold's comment makes me glad he didn't choose a career in the military," said Jan LaRue, CWA's chief counsel.
Cornyn pointed out that "across diverse civilizations, religions and cultures, humankind has consistently recognized the institution of marriage as society's bedrock institution." He discussed the social and biological reasons that make traditional marriage important and the injustice of "accusing ordinary Americans of intolerance, while abolishing American traditions by judicial fiat."
Witnesses at the hearing included Rev. Richard Richardson, an African-American pastor in Boston, Massachusetts, who has also served as a foster parent with his wife for twenty-five years. "The family and the traditional institution of marriage are fundamental to progress and hope for a better tomorrow for the African-American community," said Richardson. "The traditional institution of marriage is not discrimination. And I find it offensive to call it that."
The subcommittee hearing raised the concern of preserving a state's right to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage license issued in another state. Feingold said that discussions about a constitutional amendment on marriage are premature because we are not yet involved in a national crisis.
Also testifying at the hearing was Professor Lea Brilmeyer, a professor of International Law at Yale Law School, who said: "Passing federal constitutional amendments to correct state judges' interpretations of state law radically alters the distribution of decision-making authority in the American federal system."
Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, another witness at the hearing, said, "I am not here to debate with you the moral issue of whether same sex marriage is right or wrong. I am here because of the reality that four judges in Massachusetts could eventually invalidate Nebraska's ban on same sex marriages."
Bruning said it's likely that Nebraska will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages in spite of the state's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). "In 2000, more than 70% of Nebraskans voted to amend the Nebraska Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. In 2003, the ACLU and Lambda Legal Foundation together sued Nebraska in federal court, arguing that the Nebraska amendment unconstitutionally denies gay and lesbian persons equal access to the political system," said Bruning.
Concerned Women for America
1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 488-7000
Fax: (202) 488-0806