Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, to close for our side, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds], my friend and colleague. (Mr. STUDDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding to me. We are in a great debate. I would hope that people reading the Congressional Record, watching this debate, would compare the tone, the sensitivity, and the reaching out of my friend's words, and then read the earlier words of the gentleman from Oklahoma, the words which were denunciatory and denigratory of the gentleman from Massachusetts and myself, and I would hope that people would compare the spirit of the approach, compare the attitude toward others, compare the way in which things are debated. I would say, as someone who has been included in this denunciatory rhetoric, that I would be very satisfied to have people in forming their judgment listen to the words uttered by the gentleman from Oklahoma, and listen to the words of my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts. I think we are helping people form a basis. This notion that a loving relationship between two people of the same sex threatens relationships between two people of the opposite sex, that is what denigrates heterosexual marriage. The argument that we have denigrated marriage or the institution of marriage or any other formulation says that two people loving each other somehow threatens heterosexual marriage. That is what denigrates heterosexual marriage. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding to me. We are in a great debate. I would hope that people reading the Conressional Record, watching this debate, would compare the tone, the sensitivity, and the reaching out of my friend's words, and then read the earlier words of the gentleman from Oklahoma, the words which were denunciatory and denigratory of the gentleman from Massachusetts and myself, and I would hope that the people would compare the spirit of the approach, compare the attitude toward others, compare the way in which things are debated. I would say, as someone who has been included in this denunciatory rhetoric, that I would be very satisfied to have people informing their judgment listen to the words uttered by the gentleman from Oklahoma, and listen to the words of my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts. I think we are helping people form a basis. This notion that a loving relationship between two people of the same sex threatens relationships between two people of the opposite sex, that is what denigrates heterosexual marriage. The argument that we have denigrated marriage or the institution of marriage or any other formulation says that two people loving each other somehow threatens heterosexual marriage. That is what denigrates heterosexual marriage. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, to close for our side, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds], my friend and colleague. (Mr. STUDDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman would continue to yield for 10 seconds, if in fact it is unconstitutional because of an interpretation of parts of the Constitution, no statute would hold against that.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. So that this could also apply to this section equally.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman's interpretation, I mean this seriously, if the gentleman's interpretation of Romer versus Evans is correct, and we do not know whether it is or not, would that not also apply then to the section here? In other words, if the court were to hold under Romer versus Evans----

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, so much for block grants. We heard the gentleman from Georgia. How dare we think that those State-elected officials ought to decide how to spend Federal money. Do not let them usurp and preempt. I could not have heard a better denunciation of block grants from the staunchest federalizing liberal around, because that is what is at issue. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the reference of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] to my consummate cleverness. There are circles in which I will have to explain away having received that compliment from him, but I am willing to take on that burden. Mr. Chairman, the point is that the gentleman is upset because the amendment is not stupid. And I apologize. There is nothing in the rules that says our amendments have to be stupid. I anticipated some of their arguments. They have been arguing, and let us be clear what this amendment says. This amendment leaves alone that part of the bill that purports to protect other States from having to do what Hawaii does. I do not think they have to anyway, but this double protects them. That is not an issue. This amendment says, and it says it clearly. Indeed, let me say immodestly, citing as authority the gentleman from Georgia, it says it ``consummately cleverly'' or ``cleverly consummately,'' that if a State by democratic procedures, by involvement of its electorate, either directly in a referendum or through its legislature or by decision to allow a court decision to stand after the time has gone by, if a State makes a democratic decision that says if two men in this State are in love or two women in this State are in love and they are prepared to undertake the obligations of marriage, they are prepared to live together and commit to each other, they are prepared to make legal, binding representations to each other, the Federal Government will treat them in that State as it treats anybody else. The Federal Government will treat them as the beneficiaries of that democratic decision. Mr. Chairman, what the bill says is if there is a referendum in a State, if there is a unanimous vote in the legislature to allow two people to love each other, we the Federal Government will say no. Why? We heard the gentleman from Georgia. Because we, the Federal Government, will decide. Again, let us not have any of this block grant nonsense. Let us not talk about State autonomy. We will sit here in Washington and tell Hawaii who can love each other and who cannot. Of course, they can make a law in Hawaii, but it will not be a real marriage. It will not have Federal tax benefits; it will not have pension benefits; it will not have testimonial privilege. Let us be very clear, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the candor of the gentleman. Let us not have any of this nonsense about State autonomy. That is what this amendment says. It says if the Hawaii Supreme Court does it, it still would not take effect. But if the Hawaii Supreme Court makes a decision and enough time goes by under the Hawaii constitution, the legislature let it stand, there was a referendum in favor of it, we will then allow it. So here is what we are being told. Do not let the democratic processes of a single State allow same-sex marriage in that State to be a federally valid marriage, even though it means it will have no effect on any other State. We are not attacking that point. If my amendment passes, the bill will say what one State does has no effect on any other State. Another State does not have to have it. If a State makes a democratic decision to let two women love each other in a loving relationship, that cannot be because it will dissolve marriage, and we get back to that. There are people in this society, heterosexuals who are married, who have been accused of spousal abuse; who have been accused of and have acknowledged not supporting their children; who have had multiple divorces and remarriages. Those are serious problems. We need to help people with that. But implicitly to blame those on the fact that two men love each other is extraordinarily unfair and that is why we heard the eloquent, passionate statement of the gentleman from Wisconsin who proceeded me. He and I and others are willing to take on the burden of working out the difficulties of two human beings becoming mutually committed. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about two human beings. And for those who pretend not to know the difference between a monogamous relationship between two human beings and polygamy, I must say that I think they debase and debate when they use that kind of analogy. Everyone knows the real difference. We are talking about mutuality; about two people loving each other and committing to each other. Do Members know what they are saying if they vote down this amendment? ``No, you cannot do that. How dare you have a democratic vote in a State to allow two people to show love and commitment and affection. We cannot allow that, because it threatens our marriages.'' Mr. Chairman, I do not believe anyone really thinks it threatens their marriages. I do not understand what motivates them. In one case someone said: Do not allow them the sacrament of matrimony. We have no power to give anyone any sacraments. We are not in the business of dispensing sacraments, and I hope we never get there. Mr. Chairman, we are creating an institution called civil marriage. People in this Chamber have taken full advantage of their right legally to divorce. People have had several divorces. That is not a sacrament. We did not create the sacrament of ``holy divorce.'' We allow this, in society, in a sensible society with personal freedom, individuals to make choices in a civil society. Those who find that religiously offensive are free to do nothing about it. They are free not to participate in it. We are talking here about creating an institution of civil society. In fact we are not talking about creating it. We are saying if the Federal Government sees a State by democratic means in this amendment create an institution of civil society that allows two people to love each other, the Federal Government will do what it can to stop it. Why? My colleagues heard the gentleman from Georgia. Because how dare they preempt and usurp the State. Who is preempting and usurping? The legislature. How dare the legislature of Hawaii preempt our imperial right to decide who is married and who is not married. How dare the people of Hawaii presume to think that they can define love in an effective way. Mr. Chairman, I hope the amendment is adopted.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order by the rule.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra]. (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman]. (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds to say first, if people on the other side are content to have the last comment stand as representative of their viewpoint, so am I. I would say to the gentleman from Florida, he totally misstated this amendment. We are on an amendment that appears to have escaped him. He said I said it preempts States' rights and then talked about the section of the bill not relevant to the amendment. He just got it totally wrong. Yes, there is a section that purports to give the States rights that I believe the States already have. But there is another section which is what this amendment was about, and this second section says that if a State does allow such a marriage, the Federal Government would recognize it. So he was talking about the first section, not about the second section. The second section is the subject of the amendment, and I did want to point out that he was, therefore, totally inaccurate in his representation of what I had said.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran]. I was looking for that long list of Republicans, which has apparently dwindled, that the gentleman was talking about.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I do this with trepidation because I underestimated to some extent the sensitivity on the other side when I point this out, but the gentleman from Texas made a point of the fact that three judges did this in Hawaii, and not the legislature and not a referendum. I have a subsequent amendment which would allow a State to get Federal recognition of marriages only when it is done by the legislature or by referendum or in other ways by the people, and it will probably make no difference. But I just want to say that that argument that this is only the judges in Hawaii does not appear to me to be one that the Members who make it attach a great deal of weight to because when I offer an amendment which obviates it, it would not make any difference. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to batten down, because I yield 4 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie], and we all know what power Hawaii has, so get ready. (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, to close for our side, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds], my friend and colleague. (Mr. STUDDS. asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)