THE VOICE OF CHICAGO'S GAY, LESBIAN, BI, TRANS AND QUEER COMMUNITY SINCE 1985

'I have long opposed government recognition of same-gender marriages, and this legislation [DOMA] is consistent with that position,' said chairman John Cornyn, R-Texas, in his opening statement. 'The question before us now is whether the popular and bipartisan legislation will remain the law of the land as the people intend, or be overturned by activist courts.'

Those words pleased social conservatives but Cornyn's tone—the coolness of a bureaucrat, not the visceral fear and loathing that tinges the voices of many on the right in discussing gay marriage—surely must have left many of them wanting more Cornyn's framing of the hearing—'Americans instinctively and laudably support two fundamental propositions: that every individual is worthy of respect, and that the traditional institution of marriage is worthy of protection'—indicated the balance that he brought to the proceedings.

Five Democratic Senators actively took on the far-right witnesses.

Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., set the tone for the Democrats when he reviewed the many pressing issues facing the country and said, 'I wonder whether this issue really should demand the attention of Congress.'

'I fear that it may be political acting for some outside of the Congress who want to be able to score political points at the expense of gay and lesbian Americans.' Leahy's appearance was noteworthy because, while he is the ranking Democrat on the full committee, he does not serve on the subcommittee.

Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., said that he was one of the few Senators who voted against DOMA. Gay marriage was far down the list of concerns of his constituents raised during the 21 town meetings he held in the state during the August recess. He questioned why the body should be devoting time to 'a divisive issue that is best left to the states and courts.'

He said the Federal Marriage Amendment 'would have the effect of writing discrimination into the Constitution ... . A state should be able to grant rights and protections to same-sex couples, if it wants to, and the federal government should not interfere with that decision.'

Aside from the mistake of prohibition, 'the Constitution has never been amended to limit basic rights,' Feingold said. 'We should not seek to amend the Constitution in a way that will reduce its grandeur.'

Cornyn reminded the room that the hearing 'is not about whether we should adopt a constitutional amendment,' that has been introduced in the House but not the Senate. 'In my view, that is premature.' Discussion of an amendment 'is for a future date, or not.'

WITNESSES

Rev. Ray Hammond, a member of the Alliance for Marriage in Massachusetts, discussed 'the tripling of fatherlessness in America' and the importance of stable families in raising children.

'Marriage must be seen as an institution that goes beyond the contractual giving of rights and even beyond the emotional celebration of the love of two people for each other.' He saw it as reconciling the great divide of the human race, that between man and woman.

Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, asserted, 'marriage is about getting children the mothers and fathers that they need.' She acknowledged that the 'crisis' of marriage and the family has occurred 'for reasons that obviously have nothing to do with gays and lesbians, and advocates of gay marriage.'

'Unisex marriage is making a powerful statement by law and by our government that children do not need mothers and fathers. That motherless and fatherless families are not only just as good, they are just the same as a mother-father married family,' she maintained.

Gregory Coleman, the former Solicitor General of Texas, review the history of legal challenges on same-sex marriage and two key decisions on gay issues by the U.S. Supreme Court. They were the Romer case that struck down Colorado's Amendment 2 and the Lawrence decision that struck down sodomy laws earlier this year.

He concluded, 'As things currently stand, given the outcomes and rationales in Romer and Lawrence, it is likely, though not inevitable, that DOMA itself and prohibitions on same-sex marriage more generally will be held to be unconstitutional ... within the next five to 15 years.'

'The courts are robbing the American people of their fundamental right to self-government,' charged Michael Farris, an attorney and leader in the Christian home schooling movement. 'We are on the verge of a judicial revolution that has got to stop.' Dale Carpenter disagreed. 'The theory that the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) now being proposed, seems to be that the states must be saved from themselves. That they must be saved from their own legislatures. They must be saved from their own courts. And that they must be saved from the people,' said the law professor at the University of Minnesota and gay columnist.

'No person who cares about the Constitution should support this amendment. As a conservative, I believe it is unnecessary, it is unwise, it is contrary to the structure of our federal government, it is anti-democratic, and it is a form of overkill ... . It is a solution in search of a problem.'

Carpenter said that the FMA might also negate domestic partnerships, civil union and other protections. There are hundreds of thousands of children being raised by gay couples in the United States. 'Where are the protections under the law for these children?'

'The basic question to ask and to answer is: Given that gay people exist in America and are not going to be removed, what is to be done about them? Are we to shunt them to the side, to ostracize, to marginalize them? Or are we bring them into the fabric of American life?'

Keith Bradkowski spoke movingly of his 11-year relationship with Jeff Collman, a flight attendant on the first plane to slam into the World Trade Center on 9/11, and of the difficulty of everything from obtaining a death certificate to maintaining their house, because they were not legally married.

'The terrorists who attacked this country killed people, not because they were gay or straight, but because they were Americans ... . Two years ago we were all united against the common threat of terrorism, now I'm sitting here and being told that our relationship was a threat to our country.' He did not understand that.

QUESTIONS

During the question period, Ted Kennedy , D-Mass., said the FMA would undermine religious freedom 'by telling churches that they can't consecrate same-sex marriages, even though some churches are now doing so.'

Feingold read from Justice Scalia's dissent in the Lawrence case, in which he asserted that the majority decision would lead to 'bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication' being declared legal. Feingold asked, 'If Congress should enact a series of constitutional amendments based on these predictions?'

Farris didn't think they have 'the same political traction' as same-sex marriage. He asserted, 'A law ultimately says what is right and what is wrong. If morality alone cannot justify these particular laws, no laws can be justified.' He called the Lawrence decision 'more revolutionary' than Roe v. Wade, which protected a woman's right to an abortion.

Carpenter disagreed. Ordinarily a state does not define a law on the basis of a moral justification, it does so on the basis of some harm that it can demonstrate. Lawrence was 'very unusual' in that Texas only defended it on the basis of the claimed moral judgment of the people of Texas.

Responding to a question from Charles Schumer, D-New York, Carpenter said the FMA would 'injure, intrude upon the very structure of the Constitution, which sets up a federal government of limited and enumerated powers,' and leaves areas such as criminal, property, and family law to the states. 'This would be the first time in the history of our country that we amended the structure of those relationships, for reasons that seem to me, highly hypothetical.'

'What conservatives ought to remember is that the states have acted as laboratories for change, for trying out policies.' The FMA would preclude this, he said.

'Marriage is that important,' countered Farris, 'our civilization is at stake.'

Throughout our history, more than 10,000 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed, but only 17 have been passed in the last 200+ years, said Carpenter. 'That system has worked enormously well ... we ought to be very reluctant to touch that document, essentially on the basis of hypothetical fears and conjecture.'

Richard Durbin, D-Ill., expressed his support for traditional marriage and noted that he had voted for DOMA. But when it comes to the FMA, 'I don't want to take a roller to a Rembrandt.' He called it 'premature to the extreme.'

'When I hear Mr. Bradkowski's story, it is one that I've heard over and over again. There are certain things that we should have done to make your grief and sorrow a little less, and we didn't. And I think we can without assaulting the issue of marriage.' Illinois Petition Volunteers Needed for Campaign to Oppose Marriage Act

The Steering Committee of Human Rights Campaign Illinois is asking for volunteers to join in the fight against the Federal Marriage Amendment Sept. 18-21 in a multi-pronged effort known as the 'Million For Civil Marriage September Roadblock.'

The campaign involves teams of petitioners stationed at multiple points in and around Chicago where friends and family of the GLBT community can be found.

Volunteers will have petition forms to gather signatures; other 'virtual volunteers' are asked to sign the petition online (www.MillionForMarriage.org) and to encourage others to do the same.

'This is a critical moment for our community,' said HRC Illinois Political Chair Russ Klettke. 'It costs nothing other than your time, and sends a powerful message to Washington that our government should not be creating new discrimination.'

E-mail hrcmarriagechicago@hotmail.com or call (312) 951-0169.