Senator Chuck Grassley and Representative Steve King (IA-05) spoke out this week for preserving the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, which states that the federal government recognizes only marriages between one man and one woman. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a July 20 hearing on S. 598, the Respect for Marriage Act. That bill would repeal part of the DOMA so that for purposes of federal law, “an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is valid in the state where the marriage was entered into.” Six states and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriages.
Grassley is the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, and his opening statement in yesterday’s hearing asserted that “George Orwell would have marveled” at calling S. 598 the “Respect for Marriage Act.” In Grassley’s view, the bill would undermine the institution of marriage. He denied that Congress passed DOMA in 1996 “to express disapproval of gay and lesbian people.” He asserted that supporters of DOMA now face threats and intimidation that amount to an “unacceptable” “chilling of First Amendment rights.”
Grassley invited King to testify before the committee, and in his statement, King asserted that recognizing same-sex marriages would devalue the institution of marriage. Saying “you can’t choose who you love” could be used to justify incestuous or polygamous unions, King told the senators. He also argued that the DOMA is consistent with the will of the American people, who have voted in 31 states to restrict legal marriage to one man and one woman. (More recent opinion polling has shown growing support for same-sex marriage rights.)
After the jump I’ve posted the full texts of Grassley’s opening remarks and King’s testimony. Both Iowa Republicans described the government’s interest in protecting marriage as an institution that promotes procreation. King cited a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said, “Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” During the past decade, several state Supreme Courts have rejected that argument as a reason to deny same-sex couples the benefits of marriage.
Multiple plaintiffs have challenged the constitutionality of the federal DOMA. Click here for a brief summary of six lawsuits working their way through federal courts. In July 2010, a U.S. District Court judge hearing two of those cases in Massachusetts struck down section 3 of the DOMA. In February of this year, President Barack Obama instructed the U.S. Department of Justice not to defend “the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples” as applied in those two court cases. This week, White House spokesman Jay Carney affirmed that the president supports repealing DOMA. King claimed in his testimony that President Obama said DOMA is unconstitutional “despite no court ever reaching that conclusion.” He may be unaware of U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro’s ruling from last summer.
While I support repealing DOMA, I view the current debate over S. 598 as a somewhat cynical public relations exercise. Everyone knows that the Republican-controlled U.S. House would never approve a DOMA repeal bill. Had Democrats tried to move this legislation when they held majorities in both houses of Congress, I would give them more credit. It’s notable that Obama publicly voiced his opinion about DOMA only after its repeal was a dead letter in the House.
Any comments about marriage equality are welcome in this thread.
Senator Chuck Grassley’s opening statement
Opening Statement of Ranking Member Grassley at Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on the Defense of Marriage Act
Opening Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley
Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing
“The Respect for Marriage Act”
Wednesday, July 20, 2011Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today is entitled the Respect for Marriage Act. George Orwell would have marveled at that name. A real bill to restore marriage would restore marriage as it has been known: as between one man and one woman. That is the view of marriage that I support. This bill would undermine, not restore marriage, by repealing the Defense of Marriage Act.
The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996. The Senate vote was 85-14.
Unlike a bill in which one member of a party supports a partisan bill of the other party, which sometimes passes for bipartisanship around here, this was truly a bipartisan bill. President Clinton signed it into law. President Obama ran for election on a platform of support for traditional marriage.One of the witnesses before us today says that DOMA was passed for only one reason: “to express disapproval of gay and lesbian people.” I know this to be false. Senators at the time such as Biden, Harkin, Kohl, and you, Mr. Chairman, and Representatives at the time, such as Schumer and Durbin, did not support DOMA to express disapproval of gay and lesbian people. And neither did I.
Marriage is an institution that serves the same public purpose all over the world: to foster unions that can result in procreation. It creates incentives for husbands and wives to support each other and their children. It exists more to benefit children than adults.
Although many marriages do not involve children, societies all over the world recognize the numerous reasons to extend special recognition to traditional marriage.
I never thought I would have to defend traditional marriage. It has been the foundation of our society for 6000 years. Not only here, but around the world. It is what civilizations have been built on.
Support for traditional marriage cannot be viewed in a vacuum. Over the last 50 years, marriage has changed dramatically. Perhaps the divorce laws, inheritance laws, and criminal laws of that time needed reform.
Like many members of Congress, I believe in federalism. I do support the rights of the states to make changes in marriage if they so choose.
But I also believe that a state that changes its definition of marriage should not be able to impose that change on sister states or the federal government. Section 2 of DOMA adds a statutory enhancement to state authority under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution to maintain their own definitions of marriage.
In addition, same-sex couples are not the only couples who face the issues we will hear from today. Unmarried heterosexual couples, siblings, and friends who live together all can face the same problems, some of which can be addressed through other means than this particular legislation.
I’d like to note that one of our witnesses describes the serious threats that were made against ordinary citizens who exercised their First Amendment rights to petition the government for redress of grievances when California judges forced that state to adopt same-sex marriage.
The minority very much hoped to call a witness today at this hearing to testify in support of DOMA. I am sure she would have done an excellent job.
She declined, however, citing as one reason the threats and intimidation that have been leveled against not only her but her family as a result of her public support for DOMA. She will continue to write on this subject, but will no longer speak publicly about it. This chilling of First Amendment rights is unacceptable.
There are people of good faith on both sides of this question. They should seek to persuade each other through logic and factual evidence. They should not resort to threats of violence or seek to silence their opponents.
DOMA is a constitutional law. But it is subject to constitutional attack.
As one of today’s witnesses shows, the Department of Justice has not performed its constitutional duty to take care that the law be faithfully executed during the course of litigation involving DOMA.
The department recently argued that the courts should rely on unpassed bills in deciding on the legality of governmental action. This is a ridiculous argument, one which courts have never accepted.
The rule of law requires rulings based on actual laws, not on policy preferences. The Obama Administration lost on that argument in the Leal case, although, regrettably, four activist justices agreed with it.
Neither the administration nor any judge should rely on the unpassed bill S. 598 in arguing or deciding the constitutionality of DOMA. Nor should the Administration or any judge accept the argument the Justice Department made in Leal that there is any legal significance to the mere introduction of a bill even if it is strongly supported by the administration. Nor should the administration or any judge be of the erroneous opinion that this Congress will pass S. 598.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Steve King’s testimony during the hearing:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank Senator Grassley also, for inviting me to testify here. It’s an honor and a privilege to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I testify, of course, in opposition to S.598 and other efforts to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.
The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 by overwhelming bipartisan majorities and was signed into law by President Clinton. This law defined marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” This law also clarified that states did not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
Traditional marriage is a sacred institution and serves as the cornerstone of our society. We cannot afford to devalue it with legislation like S. 598 and we must oppose any effort that would diminish the definition of marriage. All of human experience points to one committed relationship between a man and a woman as the core building block to society. It takes a man and a woman to have children and children are necessary for the next generation and we need to pass through to to them the values of our civilization and the family. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this in 1888, when it stated, “Marriage is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.” In 1942, the Supreme Court said, “Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
DOMA was passed in 1996 because Congress and President Clinton understood that “civil society has an interest in maintaining and protecting the institution of heterosexual marriage because it has a deep and abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing.” Now with today’s proposed legislation, you’re suggesting that the government does not have the same interest to protect marriage today as it did in 1996.
The other side argues that “you can’t choose who you love” and that a union between two men or two women is equal to that of one man and one woman. But these are the same arguments that could be used to promote marriage between fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, or even polygamous relationships.
In 1998, I helped draft Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act, that states, “only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.” In 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court issued a lawless decision in Varnum. v. Brien. Seven Iowa Supreme Court justices decided to legislate from the bench. They struck down Iowa’s DOMA law. To read their opinion brings one to the conclusion that these justices believe they have the authority to find the Constitution itself–unconstitutional. They even went so far as to say that rights to same-sex marriage “were at one time unimagined.” When Iowans went to polls on November 2, 2010, they sent a message to the Supreme Court of Iowa. They rejected the Varnum decision and historically ousted all three justices who were up for retention. That included Chief Justice Marsha Ternus. Never in the history of Iowa had the voters ousted a single Supreme Court Justice, let alone the three that were up for retention votes last November.
In fact, every single time the American people have had the opportunity to vote on the definition of marriage, 31 out of 31 times, they have affirmed that marriage is and should remain the union of a husband and a wife. 30 states currently have constitutional amendments to define marriage between one man and one woman and Maine passed an initiative to overturn a same-sex marriage bill.
Despite the clear will of the people, we have legislation like S. 598 before us today. We also have the President saying that DOMA is unconstitutional, despite no court ever reaching that conclusion. President Obama has also directed the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of this law. It is not the role of the executive branch to determine what is or is not constitutional. It is the role of the executive branch to execute and uphold the laws that Congress passed. Now, I understand that yesterday President Obama announced that he would support the repeal of DOMA. It is his domain to take such a position.
But contrary to that position, I think it is clear that the will of the American people to maintain, protect and uphold the definition of marriage between one man and one woman is there and this is good for families, good for society, and good for government. I would quickly add, Mr. Chairman, a couple of points about civil rights. Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act says protection for “race, color, religion, sex, national origin”. Those, except for the Constitutional protection of religion, are immutable characteristics. Those characteristics that are immutable should be injected in the discussion.
And a marriage license is offered because that’s a permit to do that which is otherwise illegal. It’s not a right to get married; that’s why states regulate it by licensing. They want to encourage marriage.
Thank you. I appreciate your attention and I yield back.