U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

98–156 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 108–763

A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO

PRESERVE TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 23, 2004

Serial No. J–108–61

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

BRUCE ARTIM, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page

Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas ............................... 1

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 101

Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois .................... 28

Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin ............. 25

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 106

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of California ................. 5

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 108

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 111

Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts ... 21

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 112

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 116

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama .......................... 24

WITNESSES 

Allard, Hon. Wayne, a U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado ......................... 9

Bossin, Phyllis G., Chair, Section of Family Law, American Bar Association, 

Cincinnati, Ohio ................................................................................................... 31

Collett, Teresa Stanton, Professor of Law, St. Thomas School of Law, Minneapolis, Minnesota ............................................................................................. 33

Frank, Hon. Barney, a Representative in Congress from the State of Massachusetts ................................................................................................................. 12

Lewis, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia ...... 15

Musgrave, Hon. Marilyn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ................................................................................................................ 17

Richardson, Rev. Richard, Assistant Pastor, St. Paul African Methodist Episcopal Church, Director of Political Affairs, The Black Ministerial Alliance 

of Greater Boston, and President and CEO, Children’s Services of Roxbury, 

Boston, Massachusetts ......................................................................................... 35

Spaht, Katherin Shaw, Jules F. and Frances L. Landry Professor of Law, 

Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge Louisiana ........................................ 37

Sunstein, Cass R., Karl N. Llewellyn Distringuished Service Professor of 

Jurisprudence, Law School and Department of Political Science, University 

of Chicago ............................................................................................................. 39

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Phyllis G. Bossin to questions submitted by Senators Durbin 

and Feingold ......................................................................................................... 54

Responses of Teresa Stanton Collett to questions submitted by Senator Durbin .......................................................................................................................... 61

Responses of Katherine Shaw Spaht to questions submitted by Senator Durbin .......................................................................................................................... 68

Responses of Cass R. Sunstein to questions submitted by Senators Durbin 

and Feingold ......................................................................................................... 75

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Allard, Hon. Wayne, a U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 81

Page

IV

Bossin, Phyllis G., Chair, Section of Family Law, American Bar Association, 

Cincinnati, Ohio, prepared statement ................................................................ 84

Collett, Teresa Stanton, Professor of Law, St. Thomas School of Law, Minneapolis, Minnesota, prepared statement .......................................................... 92

Musgrave, Hon. Marilyn, a U.S. Representative from the State of Colorado, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 123

Richardson, Rev. Richard, Assistant Pastor, St. Paul African Methodist Episcopal Church, Director of Political Affairs, The Black Ministerial Alliance 

of Greater Boston, and President and CEO, Children’s Services of Roxbury, 

Boston, Massachusetts, prepared statement ..................................................... 127

Spaht, Katherin Shaw, Jules F. and Frances L. Landry Professor of Law, 

Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge Louisiana, prepared statement ..... 130

Sunstein, Cass R., Karl N. Llewellyn Distringuished Service Professor of 

Jurisprudence, Law School and Department of Political Science, University 

of Chicago, prepared statement .......................................................................... 136

Wall Street Journal, Lea Brilmayer, March 9, 2004, article ............................... 146

(1)

A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 

TO PRESERVE TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE 

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2004 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in Room 

325, Rayburn Senate Office Building, Hon. John Cornyn, Chairman 

of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Cornyn, Sessions, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold and Durbin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Senator CORNYN. This hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee shall come to order. 

Before I begin my remarks, I want to thank Senator Hatch for 

scheduling this hearing and for allowing me to chair it. It is a timely and appropriate topic for this hearing, the preservation of traditional marriage, and appropriate of course that it be held here before the Senate Judiciary Committee. After all, this is the only 

Committee that has jurisdiction over both the constitutional issues 

and the judicial issues, and the only reason that we are here today 

is because of activist judges who have inserted their personal political agenda into our Nation’s most important legal document, the 

United States Constitution. So I commend Chairman Hatch for 

wanting to address this constitutional and judicial problem. 

I also want to thank Senator Leahy, and Senator Feinstein and 

their staffs for working with my office on today’s hearing. Today’s 

topic triggers strong passions and emotions of well-meaning people 

on all sides. It is important that we acknowledge the hard work of 

all parents who are raising children in traditional and nontraditional environments alike, while at the same time we adhere to the 

dream that we have for every child, that they be raised by their 

own mother and father under the shelter and protection of the traditional institution of marriage. 

Likewise, it is important that today’s hearing is the culmination 

of bipartisan cooperation. The general custom of hearings in this 

Committee is a 2-to-1 ratio for witnesses, but Senator Leahy requested, and I was happy to agree to a 1-to-1 ratio today for both 

members and legal experts alike. On such an important issue, I 

would like to work in a bipartisan fashion, much as was done with 

the Defense of Marriage Act back in 1996. 

2

Today’s hearing will consider and examine carefully a proposed 

constitutional amendment to preserve traditional marriage. The 

United States Constitution cannot, and should not, be amended 

casually. Indeed, our Founding Fathers deliberately designed the 

Constitution to make it difficult to amend, but difficult does not 

mean impossible nor does it mean improper. To the contrary, our 

Founders recognized that situations would arise when amendment 

would be necessary and appropriate. 

George Washington, the President of the Constitutional Convention, said, ‘‘The warmest friends and the best supporters that the 

Constitution has do not contend that it is free from imperfections. 

The people can, as they will have the advantage of experience on 

their side, decide with as much propriety on the alterations and 

amendments which are necessary.’’ 

Indeed, our Constitution has been amended no fewer than 27 

times during our Nation’s history, most recently in 1992. Sometimes we amend in order to alter the allocation of power between 

the Federal and State Government or between different branches 

of the same Government. 

Today’s amendment, however, does not seek to alter the allocation of power at all, but rather to reinforce the original allocation 

of power that the Founders themselves designed. Indeed, today’s 

amendment is one of a long line of Constitutional amendments that 

have been ratified as a Democratic response to judicial decisions rejected by the American people, a list that includes the Eleventh, 

Fourteenth, Sixteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth and TwentySixth amendments. 

As Members of Congress, we must never disparage our role in 

the Democratic process. In the vast majority of circumstances, we 

can discharge or duties through the introduction, consideration and 

enactment of statutes. On a few occasions, however, statutes are 

not enough. On a few occasions, the constitutional amendment may 

be the only way available to the American people to participate in 

self-government. 

Today, presents one such occasion, and the issue is not legally 

complicated. Today, we will hear from legal experts who have carefully studied recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions and analyzed the 

extent to which they pose a serious Federal judicial threat to traditional marriage. We certainly look forward to their testimony, but 

the issue can be summed up quite simply without need for legal 

jargon or case citation. 

The issue is simply this: The traditional institution of marriage 

is not about discrimination. It is about children. However, activists 

in the streets and on the bench insist that marriage is about discrimination. Indeed, it is precisely because they believe that traditional marriage is about discrimination that they believe that all 

traditional marriage laws are unconstitutional and must be abolished by the courts. These activists have left the American people 

with no middle ground. 

As I have often said, most Americans firmly believe that every 

individual is worthy of respect and that the traditional institution 

of marriage is worthy of protection, and certainly no one likes to 

be unfairly accused of intolerance. But the only way for people of 

good faith to defend democracy and the traditional institution of 

3

marriage against this judicial onslaught, based on false charges of 

discrimination, is a constitutional amendment. That is the issue in 

a nutshell. Either you believe that traditional marriage is about 

discrimination, and therefore must be invalidated by the courts, or 

you believe that traditional marriage is about children and must be 

protected by the Constitution. 

The ongoing discussion about marriage in America must be conducted in a manner worthy of our country. It should be bipartisan, 

it should be respectful, and it should be honest. Indeed, there is bipartisan consensus on a number of fronts. The traditional institution of marriage has always been the law in each of the 50 States 

and no State legislature has ever suggested otherwise. 

Just 8 years ago, overwhelming Congressional majorities, representing more than three-fourths of each chamber, joined President Clinton in codifying a Federal definition of marriage through 

the bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act. This historic and bipartisan consensus exists because across diverse civilizations, religions 

and cultures, humankind has consistently recognized the institution of marriage as society’s bedrock institution. After all, as a matter of biology, only the union of a man and a woman can reproduce 

children, and as a matter of common sense, confirmed by social 

science, the most stable environment for raising children is in the 

traditional family. 

The U.S. Supreme Court itself recognizes the fundamental importance of the traditional institution of marriage nearly 120 years 

ago in Murray v. Ramsey. In that case, the Court unanimously concluded that ‘‘no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and 

necessary in the founding of a free self-governing commonwealth 

than the idea of the family as consisting in and springing from the 

union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony.’’ As the Court further noted, the union of one man and one 

woman is the ‘‘sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our 

civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is 

the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.’’ 

In light of the strong bipartisan consensus in favor of traditional 

marriage, it is offensive for anyone to suggest that supporters of 

traditional marriage—a group that includes President Clinton and 

the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans in Congress—with 

intolerance. Yet that is exactly what activist judges are doing 

today: accusing ordinary Americans of prejudice, while abolishing 

American traditions by judicial fiat. 

Moreover, Republican and Democratic legal experts alike recognize that the only way to save laws deemed ‘‘unconstitutional’’ by 

activist judges is a constitutional amendment. Indeed, in previous 

hearings, Republican and Democratic witnesses alike have recognized the problem and suggested constitutional amendments to defend marriage against judicial activism. It was a Democrat who 

first proposed a Federal amendment to protect marriage in the last 

Congress. So both the discussion and the search for constitutional 

solutions have been bipartisan. 

This discussion must also be respectful. Parents are doing the 

best job they can under difficult circumstances. Relationships based 

on love, friendship and mutual respect deserve respect. Supporters 

4

of traditional marriage also deserve respect. They do not deserve 

to be falsely accused of discrimination. In 1996, Senator Teddy 

Kennedy pointed out that ‘‘there are strongly held religious, ethical 

and moral beliefs that are different from mine with regard to the 

issue of same-sex marriage which I respect and which are no indication of intolerance.’’ I hope that spirit continues today. 

Finally, our discussion must be honest. Unfortunately, a number 

of myths have been put forth which demand correction. In my remaining time, I would like to quickly respond to three of those. 

The first myth is that ‘‘my marriage does not affect your marriage.’’ That statement does not describe reality. How we arrange 

the building blocks of our society affects all of us. As the archbishop of Boston, Sean O’Malley, recently wrote, ‘‘Ideas have profound effects on our society. A casual attitude toward divorce and 

cohabitation has had serious consequences for the institution of 

marriage for the last 20 years. Redefining marriage in a way that 

reduces it to a financial and legal arrangement of adult relationships will only accelerate the deterioration of family life.’’ 

Archbishop O’Malley’s concerns are substantiated by recent social science studies in Scandinavia, where the abolition of traditional marriage has caused a dramatic increase in the number of 

children born out of wedlock. If the national culture teaches that 

marriage is just about adult love and not about raising children, 

then we should be troubled, but not surprised, by the results. 

The second myth is that ‘‘we do not need to amend the Constitution to defend traditional marriage.’’ I would like to believe that the 

courts will always enforce traditional marriage laws against lawless officials. The track record, however, has not been promising. 

Last year, amendment opponents promised that courts would enforce traditional marriage laws, but they have clearly been proven 

wrong by recent events. 

The problem is that a majority of justices today apparently no 

longer believe in traditional marriage laws. Legal experts across 

the political spectrum, including some on our second panel today, 

have predicted that as many as six justices on the United States 

Supreme Court stand ready to abolish traditional marriage laws 

nationwide, the same six that ruled in Romer and Lawrence. Indeed, one of those six justices—Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg—has 

already opined that the courts should abolish laws against polygamy. 

So the myth that Federal constitutional action is unnecessary to 

preserve traditional marriage is precisely that—a myth. It is a 

myth that the States can take care of this problem on their own, 

because under our Federal system of Government, States have no 

power to override a Federal constitutional decision. 

Lawsuits to dismantle traditional marriage, as a matter of Federal as well as State constitutional law, have already been filed in 

Federal and State courts in Massachusetts, New York, Nebraska, 

Utah, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Georgia, West Virginia, Arizona, 

Alaska, Hawaii, New Jersey, Connecticut, Oregon, Washington, 

California, Vermont and in my home State of Texas. 

According to the New York Times, we can expect lawsuits in 46 

States by residents who travelled to San Francisco in recent weeks 

to receive a marriage license and be married. Hawaiians and AlasVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:17 Mar 07, 2005 Jkt 098156 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\98156.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
5

kans took preemptive action when they were faced with State constitutional challenges to their traditional laws. Citizens of Nebraska, Nevada, and other States took preemptive action before 

lawsuits were even filed back in the 1990’s. 

Now that the threat is a Federal threat, a Federal constitutional 

amendment is the only way to preserve traditional marriage laws 

nationwide. America needs stable families and marriages. The institution of marriage is just too important to leave to chance. 

Now, the third and final myth of proponents of traditional marriage is that they are ‘‘writing discrimination into the Constitution.’’ This argument is both curious and offensive. In testimony 

earlier this month, the NAACP declined to oppose traditional marriage laws, and I notice today that the American Bar Association 

is neutral as well. If marriage laws were about discrimination, 

surely both the NAACP and the American Bar Association would 

oppose it. But it is not, and they did not. 

But there is something even more pernicious about the claim of 

writing discrimination into the Constitution. Let me repeat what I 

said earlier. It is precisely because some activists believe that traditional marriage is about discrimination that they believe that all 

traditional marriage laws are unconstitutional, and therefore must 

be abolished by the courts. These activists have left the American 

people with no middle ground. They accuse others of writing discrimination into the Constitution, yet they are the ones writing the 

American people out of constitutional democracy. 

So supporters of traditional marriage are faced with an unhappy 

task. Either we give up the traditional institution of marriage to 

activists in the streets and on the bench, who see marriage as 

nothing more than discrimination, or we enshrine the traditional 

institution of marriage with the constitutional protection that our 

children need and deserve. 

The traditional institution of marriage is too important. It is 

worth defending. So, today, an important constitutional process begins. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cornyn appears as a submission for the record.] 

With that, I will turn the floor over to Senator Feinstein, who 

will serve as the Ranking Member for this hearing. 

Senator Feinstein? 

STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for 

your comments. I would particularly like to welcome Senator Allard, Representatives Frank, Lewis and Musgrave to this Senate 

hearing. We are delighted to have you, particularly House members 

over on this side. It is always nice when you come over. We are delighted to have you here, and pardon my scratchy throat. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to present a slightly different argument. Today, we have before us a constitutional amendment not to 

protect or expand the rights of a group of Americans, but to limit 

those rights instead. 

This amendment, if passed by the Congress and ratified by the 

States, would become the Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the ConVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:17 Mar 07, 2005 Jkt 098156 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\98156.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
6

stitution since that document itself was first completed in 1787. In 

those intervening 218 years, the Constitution has been amended 

infrequently, and almost always for the purpose of expanding, protecting or guaranteeing the rights of Americans. But today this 

amendment is different, for it would, if enacted, become the first 

amendment to limit rights. 

I believe this amendment is ill-timed, ill-advised, and I would 

like to briefly discuss why. 

First, the issue of marriage and domestic law has always been 

one under the purview of the States, not of the Federal Government. And throughout this Nation’s history, the States have proven 

entirely capable of dealing with this issue. As early as 1890, in In 

Re Burrus, that Supreme Court of the United States, in a child custody dispute, stated, and I quote, ‘‘The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the 

laws of the States, and not to the laws of the United States.’’ 

Later, in a 1979 Supreme Court decision, Hisquierdo v. 

Hisquierdo, the Court stated, and I quote, ‘‘Insofar as marriage is 

within temporal control, the States lay on the guiding hand.’’ The 

Court in that same decision also restated the language I just 

quoted from In Re Burrus. Even now, as voices are raised at the prospect of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and California, our traditional, State-centered processes have begun. 

In Massachusetts, the recent court ruling allowing for same-sex 

marriages does not take effect until May, yet the State legislature 

is at work on a State constitutional amendment to bar same-sex 

marriages, but allow civil unions. This amendment is certainly not 

guaranteed to pass, but it is clear that the people of Massachusetts 

will be dealing with this issue without need of assistance from 

Washington. 

And in California, there is Proposition 22, a ballot initiative 

which was passed by Californians in 2000, where by a 23-percent 

margin, Statewide, with over 4.5 million votes, 61-percent of the 

people voted in favor of an initiative, while almost 3 million—or 38 

percent—voted against the initiative which would amend the family code to state that ‘‘only marriage between a man and a woman 

is valid or recognized in California.’’ 

A few weeks ago, the mayor of San Francisco decided this law 

was unconstitutional and ordered the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The State Supreme Court has 

since enjoined the county clerk from issuing any further marriage 

licenses, and the county has complied, and the mayor will now 

have to show cause as to why he believes he has not exceeded his 

legal authority. 

The courts have long held that no State can be forced to recognize a marriage that offends a deeply held public policy of that 

State. States, as a result, have frequently—and constitutionally—

refused to recognize marriages from other States that differ from 

their public policy. 

Polygamous marriages, for example, even if sanctioned by another State, have consistently been rejected. Marriages between 

cousins or other close relatives have also been rejected by some 

States, even if those marriages are accepted in other parts of the 

7

country. And until the Supreme Court ruled on different equal protection grounds that no such discrimination was acceptable, even 

mixed-race marriages were often not recognized in many States. 

In no case that I know of has the Full Faith and Credit Clause 

of the United States Constitution been used to require a State to 

recognize a type of marriage that would violate its own strong public policy. 

Because several dozen States have already passed prohibitions 

on same-sex marriage, it seems clear that in those States, an argument could be made that strong public policy would lead to a refusal to recognize out-of-State, same-sex marriages. Mr. Chairman, 

I would note that Texas, and my State of California as well, are 

both among the 37 or so States that have laws on the books today 

defining marriage as between a man and a woman. 

So this is not a problem demanding an immediate solution, because no State currently faces any risk whatsoever of having to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another State. It is just 

that simple. 

As we sit here today, the people of this Nation are greatly divided on the issue of same-sex marriage. One recent poll suggested 

that only about 20 percent of the American people support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages like the one 

we discussed today. Considering that the amendment would need 

two-thirds of the Congress and then three-fourths of the States to 

ratify it, both its passage in this body and its enactment by the 

States seems unlikely. 

Additionally, the text of the amendment before us today is problematic in its own right. Although supporters claim that the 

amendment is limited to the word ‘‘marriage,’’ many constitutional 

scholars and family law experts believe that, as written, the original language of the amendment would also ban civil unions and domestic partnerships as well. 

University of Chicago Professor Jacob Levy, for example, criticized the text of the previous version of the amendment because it 

would prevent the very type of the civil unions that the amendment supporters claim it would allow, based on language in the 

amendment stating clearly that ‘‘Neither this Constitution nor the 

Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof 

be conferred upon unmarried couples.’’ 

In a new version of the amendment introduced by Senator Allard 

just yesterday, this language has been changed. I think this change 

of language is a good indication of how controversial and complex 

this issue is. Here, on the eve of a hearing into the text of one 

amendment, we see a change in language so dramatic that we are 

now really confronted with a different amendment altogether, with 

its own unique problems. 

I can tell you, as one who has devoted a great deal of time to 

working on a constitutional amendment to expand the rights of 

crime victims, this is a very long and detail-oriented process. We 

have been through literally dozens of drafts—probably as many as 

100—over the course of many years and with the help of many constitutional experts. This is not a process best done overnight, on a 

moment’s notice. 

8

In any event, under this new amendment’s language, it does now 

appear, contrary to the previous draft, that civil unions might be 

acceptable under certain State laws. Yet still, the amendment’s 

text is highly ambiguous and may even suggest, as I read it, that 

a constitutional amendment passed by a State specifically allowing 

civil unions would be invalid, because the plain text of the amendment we discuss today would state that, and I quote, ‘‘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.’’ 

So the effect of this new amendment is still very much an open 

question, and I hope that today’s hearing can shed some light on 

the details of the text, as well as the advisability of pursuing any 

similar amendment to the Constitution. 

On a personal note, Mr. Chairman, I should say that I have always believed that marriage is between a man and a woman. However, I also believe that this remains an open and evolving issue 

in America and that attitudes have changed even in the last few 

years. But regardless of what you, or I, or anyone thinks of the 

issue before us, it is hard to understand why we should impose a 

Federal constitutional prohibition on it or on civil unions. 

Marriage has always been, and should continue to be, an issue 

that is considered, debated and controlled by States, localities and 

religious leaders. The Federal Government spoke once on this 

issue, in 1996, with the Defense of Marriage Act. 

The Defense of Marriage Act—or DOMA as it is sometimes 

called—defines marriage as a union between man and woman, and 

it explicitly allows States to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages 

performed in other States. As a result, the Defense of Marriage Act 

is considered, even by its principal architect, former Republican 

Congressman Bob Barr, to go ‘‘as far as is necessary in codifying 

the Federal legal status and parameters of marriage.’’ 

That law is still in place. It has never been successfully challenged or overturned. So we need not readdress this issue with a 

constitutional amendment. Let us let the State processes work. Let 

us let the courts look at this issue over time. Let us not jump to 

the first constitutional amendment in our history that would limit, 

rather than expand, the rights of American citizens to be free. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to place in the record a couple of opeds which I thought were excellent—one by a former member of 

this Senate Judiciary Committee, the Chairman of the Immigration 

Committee, with whom I had the pleasure of serving, Mr. Alan 

Simpson, and that is entitled, ‘‘Missing the Point on Gays’’; another 

by Bob Barr, which is entitled, ‘‘Leave Marriage to the States’’; and 

one by George Will, entitled, ‘‘Culture and what Courts Can’t Do’’; 

and also a commentary by Lea Brilmayer, entitled, ‘‘Full Faith and 

Credit.’’ 

I thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Feinstein appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator CORNYN. Without objection, those will be made part of 

the record. 

I want to thank the Senator from California for, while we have 

some differences of opinion, she unfailingly is courteous, and reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:17 Mar 07, 2005 Jkt 098156 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\98156.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
9

spectful, and I think the tone that hopefully we have set today, by 

showing that there are some differences in perspective, and I am 

sure that we will be able to flesh those out through the witnesses 

as we hear this testimony evolve this morning, but I want to thank 

her publicly for her courtesy and for the way she has worked with 

us to make sure the process moves forward. 

I, too, would like to thank our colleague from the Senate, Senator 

Wayne Allard, as well as our colleagues from across the dome, Representative Barney Frank, Representative John Lewis, and Representative Marilyn Musgrave, for being with us today. We know 

that you have a lot of commitments, and we want to proceed now 

to hear your statement, and then we will allow you to do what your 

schedules dictate, in terms of taking care of other matters that I 

know are pulling at you as well. But thank you very much for 

being here this morning and sharing your testimony. 

At this time, we will recognize Senator Allard for his statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Senator ALLARD. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, Senator Feinstein. 

I wanted to share with the Committee, just before I give you my 

prepared remarks, that my attitude, as far as working with the 

Committee, when I introduced this amendment in the U.S. Senate, 

my public remarks as well as my remarks to my colleagues in the 

Senate was that I am always willing to work with the Committee 

and would certainly appreciate any suggestions and what might 

come forward to clarify the language that we have in the amendment. 

First of all, I do not think that you would consider amending the 

Constitution lightly. It is a very serious task, and it is important 

that you have the right language in that amendment. So, after 

hearing from comments from my colleagues and working with constitutional scholars, the decision was made that we would change 

the words so that it met the goals which I publicly talked about. 

Number one is that we define marriage as the union between a 

man and a woman; and, second, that we provide for a definite role 

for the State legislature, so that they could deal with the issues of 

civil unions and domestic partners as they saw fit and the benefits 

that might accrue thereof; and then also to limit an activist judiciary, particularly as it would apply to marriage. 

And so I viewed those revised revisions that we introduced in the 

Senate yesterday as pretty much technical in nature to comply 

with what I had been talking about and then also to clarify and 

remove any ambiguity, which I think just served us well as we 

move forward on this debate on marriage. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Committee allowing me to be 

with you today and to discuss marriage and a possible amendment 

to the Constitution to define and preserve this institution. It has 

been a pleasure to work with you, Mr. Chairman, as you have conducted a long and deliberate in-depth study of marriage issues in 

America today. 

Without much academic examination, most of us understand the 

historical, cultural and civic importance of marriage. Marriage, the 

10

union between a man and a woman, has been the foundation of 

every civilization in human history. This definition of marriage 

crosses all bounds of race, religion, culture, political party, ideology 

and ethnicity. 

As an expression of this cultural value, this definition of marriage has been incorporated into the very fabric of civic policy. It 

is the root from which families, communities, and Government are 

grown. This is not some hotly contested ideology being forced upon 

an unwilling populace. It is, in fact, the opposite. The value and 

civil definition of marriage is an expression of the American people 

expressed through the democratic process our Founding Fathers so 

wisely crafted. 

In 1996, Congress thoughtfully, and overwhelmingly, passed the 

Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA passed with the support of more 

than three-quarters of the House of Representatives and with the 

support of 85 Senators before being signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton. 

The Defense of Marriage Act was designed to allow States to 

refuse to recognize the act of any other jurisdiction that would designate a relationship between individuals of the same gender as a 

marriage. Thirty-eight States have since enacted statutes defining 

marriage in some manner, and four States have passed State constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union of a man and 

one woman. These State DOMAs and constitutional amendments, 

combined with Federal DOMA, should have settled the question as 

to the democratic expression of the will of the American people. 

Unfortunately, a handful of activist judges have recently determined that they are in a position to redefine the institution of marriage. A few State courts, not legislatures, have sought to overturn 

both statute and common perception of marriage by expanding the 

definition to include same-gender couples. 

State court challenges in Arizona, Massachusetts, New Jersey, 

and Indiana may seem well and good to colleagues concerned with 

the rights of States to determine most matters, a position near and 

dear to my heart. These challenges, however, have spawned greater 

disrespect, even contempt, for the will of the States than any of us 

could have predicted. 

The State of Nebraska provides the most stark example of this. 

Seventy percent of Nebraska voters supported an amendment to 

the State Constitution defining marriage as a union between a man 

and a woman—70 percent, I would add. This amendment has since 

been challenged in Federal court. In early March, the attorney general of Nebraska testified before a Subcommittee of this body, that 

it fully expects the duly amended Constitution of his State to be 

struck down, ruled unconstitutional by a Federal court. This is 

what we have come to, and this is where we are headed. The will 

of voters in the Nebraska case, an overwhelming majority of them, 

undone by activist judges and those willing to use the courts to 

bend the rule of law to suit their purposes. 

The courts are not alone in their subversion of the will of the 

people. Local activists who want to ignore State law are culpable 

as well. To date, 4,037 licenses for marriage have been issued in 

San Francisco, California and more than 2,000 have been issued in 

Oregon for same-gender couples. California is one of the 38 States 

11

that have enacted a DOMA law, a law selectively ignored by a 

handful of public officials. Couples from 46 States have taken advantage of the issuance of licenses in San Francisco and returned 

to their home States. Data on the number of States is unavailable 

from the Oregon licensees. However, it has been reported that more 

than 300 of the licenses issued were to out-of-state same-gender 

couples. 

While I do not believe that all same-gender couples who have 

traveled to San Francisco or Oregon are activists, or even desire to 

use their personal relationships as forces for policy change, it 

seems to me that there are long-term implications for both Federal 

DOMA and the rights of States to define unions through either 

State DOMA or the State constitutional amendment process. It is 

clear to me that we are headed to judicially mandated recognition 

of same-gender couples regardless of State or Federal statute. 

In November, I proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution 

to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and 

leaving all other questions of civil union or partnership law to the 

individual State legislatures. The language I introduced was identical to that introduced by my friend and colleague in the House, 

Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave. 

Yesterday, in response to much debate and deliberation in the 

Senate, I reintroduced this language with legal scholars and fellow 

Senators, I reintroduced this language with technical changes to 

make our intent more clear. Numerous critics have propounded the 

false notion that we have far greater restrictions in mind, and it 

is my hope that our technical changes will serve to clear the air 

of this charge. 

The policy goal has been, and will continue to be, to define and 

preserve the historic and cultural definition of marriage, while 

leaving other questions to the respective State legislatures. I believe the text originally introduced in the Senate accomplished this 

goal, but I have remained open to suggestion and stand willing to 

work with my colleagues as this important topic is debated. 

In closing, I would like to again thank the Committee for holding 

this hearing today. I stand willing to work with you to defend marriage from the current onslaught of judicial activism and to return 

the power on these matters to the States themselves. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Allard appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Senator Allard. I know you and 

Representative Musgrave have consistently stated your intentions 

with regard to the amendment that you had originally offered, that 

it was to leave it up to the legislatures of the various States to continue to develop alternative legal arrangements for unmarried people. 

Some technical questions, though, were raised after the time of 

the initial introduction of your amendment, and I believe you responded appropriately to those and attempt to clarify by making 

those technical changes to respond to those concerns that have 

been raised to clarify your intention. 

As you may know, UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh was one 

of the leading voices among legal scholars raising some question 

12

about the impact of the original language. And I notice that shortly 

after you announced your technical changes yesterday, he published an analysis concluding that you, in fact, fixed the problem 

that he had identified. They were quite simple fixes, just a few 

short words changed here and there, so it is no surprise that it did 

not take him much time to reach his considered legal conclusion. 

Without objection, I would like to introduce into the record Professor Volokh’s comments on those proposed changes to the amendment. At this time, we would be pleased to hear from Representative Barney Frank. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARNEY FRANK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Representative FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to be here to 

take part in the discussion of what the amendment really does, because I have been struck, frankly, by, I must tell you, it seems to 

me, an element of bait-and-switch in the way it is discussed. Of 

course, bait-and-switch laws, like a lot of other laws, fortunately 

don’t apply to us in our advocacy. So we don’t have to worry about 

it in the technical sense. 

I have discussions here and elsewhere of the importance of this 

amendment to prevent a Federal judicial decision that same-sex 

marriage is required. I have heard that it is necessary to prevent 

activist judges in the States from doing things, although I do have 

to say, Mr. Chairman, that over the past few years it does seem 

to me that the objection to activist judges on the part of some of 

my conservative friends is somewhat selective. 

I have to say that when I heard some of the people who have 

welcomed some of the Supreme Court decisions that have cut back 

substantially on our ability to protect people against discrimination 

on the part of their States denounce activist judges, I am puzzled. 

We have heard it said that this is necessary to prevent one State 

from doing what another State does. 

All of those are issues that could be dealt with, although I think 

it would be difficult, and I am not in favor of dealing with them 

in a particular amendment. But the amendment today does much 

more than that, and I am struck by what appears to be the unwillingness of its proponents to be explicit about this. 

We will have a referendum in Massachusetts probably in 2006. 

Under this amendment, if a majority of the voters of Massachusetts 

in a referendum decide to allow same-sex marriage, their decision 

will be canceled by the Federal Government. This amendment goes 

far beyond some of what we have heard today. It is not simply 

aimed at activist judges or pacifist judges or any other kind of 

judges. It is not aimed at full faith and credit. 

Its central point, the first sentence of this amendment, the one 

that hasn’t changed, says marriage is the union of a man and a 

woman. And that means that no political process in any State, no 

legislative enactment, no referendum, will be respected. 

So, please, if you want to talk only about judges or full faith and 

credit, you could do an amendment to deal with that. I would not 

be in favor of such an amendment, but let’s be clear what this 

amendment does. It denies any State in this country the right by 

13

any means, including a popular referendum, to decide that it wants 

to extend marriage to same-sex couples. 

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I have to differ with your characterization that this would invalidate traditional marriage laws. I think 

people may be getting the impression that somehow the traditional 

marriages will themselves be affected. And, of course, they will not 

be. 

When a court or anybody else changes a law, there are ways of 

changing it. You can abolish the law or you can extend its reach. 

This is a case not of abolishing traditional marriage, but of extending its reach to people who are not now eligible for it. 

And I have to say that nothing of what we are seeing in Massachusetts or elsewhere changes traditional marriage one iota. Certainly, the emotional bonds that bind a man and woman in love 

will not be diminished. The legal obligations, the legal requirements, the benefits—none of that will be changed. 

Indeed, it seems to me same-sex marriage frankly has less impact on people who do not choose to enter into one, and maybe we 

just need to repeat to people in various ways the fact that samesex marriage will be entirely optional. I have seen no versions that 

would impinge on anyone else. The point is simply this: If you do 

not choose to enter into a same-sex marriage, nothing about your 

marriage will be changed, not legally, not emotionally, not in any 

other way. And I think again we should be clear about this. 

Now, I have said you could, if you wanted to, deal with the full 

faith and credit, although I think that would be extremely hard. I 

believe the Senator from California has accurately described the 

state of law that the courts have not imposed one State’s views on 

another. 

In addition to the citation she gave, there was a very good article 

in the New York Times recently by Adam Liptak which made very 

clear that the history is of the States being allowed to defer to each 

other and work this out. The Federal courts have not imposed. I 

don’t think it would be possible or necessary to do anything constitutionally about that. But if that is your problem, it is a different 

issue. I don’t think there is a need to do anything. 

Then I want to get to the merits, and what we are talking about, 

as I said, is not abolishing traditional marriage, not changing traditional marriage. This simply says that people of the same sex—because of the way we were born, because of the way we are, we are 

not attracted to people of the opposite sex and we wish to express 

those feelings of intimacy and emotional commitment that most of 

us who are human are fortunate enough to have in a way that expresses our nature. It doesn’t detract from anyone else. 

I have to ask, Senators, others, who are we hurting? How does 

the fact that I or someone else wants to express love for another 

human being in the same way as the overwhelming majority of my 

heterosexual friends and relatives—how does that hurt you? Why 

is this considered somehow an infringement or an assault? That is 

all we are asking for. 

When we push for some legislation, for instance, anti-discrimination legislation, I am very much for it, but that has more effect on 

the heterosexual majority. We are telling you you have to hire 

someone, regardless of his or her sexual orientation, even if you 

14

don’t like that person’s sexual orientation. But nobody is going to 

marry anybody else who doesn’t want to get married to them. Nobody has to associate with anybody who is married that they don’t 

want to associate with. All we are saying is, please, can’t we in our 

lives do this? 

When I go home from today’s work and I choose, because of my 

nature, to associate with another man, why is that a problem for 

you? How does that hurt you? And if two women live across the 

street from you and they have been in love and have been together 

for years and now they are able, in Massachusetts, to formalize 

that relationship to legally be committed to each other, as they are 

emotionally committed to each other, does that mean the married 

couple across the street—somehow their marriage has been diminished? 

Chairman said, well, ideas have consequences. Yes, they do. You 

cited the Archbishop of Massachusetts, a very able man who has 

done great things in his short tenure, as saying, well, if marriage 

is taken too casually, that could be a problem. 

This is the opposite. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. 

What you have is millions of gay and lesbian Americans saying, 

you know, you have got a good thing going there, we admire it, we 

would like to be able to share it. How does that detract from it? 

I didn’t agree with the way they did it in San Francisco, but how 

does the image of thousands of people in San Francisco knocking 

on the door of the institution and saying you have got something 

really good here, we would like to get in—how do you interpret 

that as detracting from it? It doesn’t at all. 

Now, the question is children. Well, in the first place, of course, 

we don’t restrict the right to marry only to people who are going 

to bring up children. Let’s look at the fact that no one I know of 

is proposing laws that would prevent people from having children 

who happen to be gay or lesbian. There are people who are gay and 

lesbian who have children. 

Now, if you are not prepared to make it illegal—and I think that 

is a degree of intrusiveness that we don’t see coming from anyone—then why is it a problem, given that people have the legal 

right to have children, if they decide that they want to make sure 

those children are fully legally protected? Instead of having a claim 

on one parent, they want a claim on two. That is what we are talking about. 

I just want to touch on one other thing, because people have said, 

well, what about religions? The autonomy of religions in their ability to decide who can get married ought to be fiercely protected as 

it is. In my State of Massachusetts, I can think of at least two 

forms of marriage which the State recognizes that religions do not. 

If you are an Orthodox Jew and you do not get a ‘‘get,’’ I believe 

it is called—and I will have to work for the reporter to try and 

spell it for you—but if you do not get a religious divorce from the 

religious court, subsequent marriages are not recognized and your 

children are not considered legitimate, the children of a subsequent 

marriage. It is very harsh in Orthodox Jewry. I don’t agree with 

that tenet of my faith, but it is there. Similarly, if you are a Roman 

Catholic and you divorce and do not get an annulment, your subsequent marriage is not recognized by the Catholic Church. 

15

Now, I believe very strongly in the right of the Roman Catholic 

Church and Orthodox Jewry to refuse to recognize those marriages, 

but the State does. The State has done it for as long as I can remember. That doesn’t undermine religion to do that. 

So I just want to close by reemphasizing this is not an amendment about the Full Faith and Credit Clause or about judicial activism or about whether or not the six Justices who thought that 

I shouldn’t be locked up for expressing physical intimacy are now 

going to go and find a national rule against marriage. 

I have to say that I gather the Attorney General of Nebraska has 

told people that he thinks the United States Supreme Court is 

going to overturn Nebraska’s rule. I guess scaring your electorate 

is sometimes a useful thing to do. I don’t know anyone who seriously thinks the United States Supreme Court is even close to that. 

But that is not what your amendment does that you are considering here today. If you wanted to do any of those, put them forward and let’s debate them. I think they all have flaws, but let’s 

debate them. But let’s be clear about what this amendment does. 

It says that even if the State of Massachusetts, after a very thorough debate that people saw, a thoughtful and useful debate—even 

if, after that, the constitutional amendment is put on the ballot and 

after a further debate that I look forward to participating in in 2 

years—if the people decide to allow it, you who do the constitutional amendment will cancel out the right of the people of Massachusetts. I do not think that is an appropriate response in many 

cases, and certainly not to the threat that millions of people are 

threatening to commit love. 

Senator CORNYN. Representative Lewis, we would be pleased to 

hear your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN LEWIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Representative LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 

Chairman and members of this Committee, I am delighted to appear before you this morning. 

Mr. Chairman, I must say from the outset that I am strongly opposed to the Allard amendment. I am opposed to any amendment 

that seeks to write discrimination into the Constitution. The Constitution is not the proper place to address the right to marry for 

same-sex couples. It is better left to the States. 

On the eve of the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education—and this year we will celebrate the 40th anniversary of 

Lyndon Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964—I ask the 

supporters of this amendment to remember that our history has 

provided many examples of judges and courts moving this Nation 

toward social justice, often before legislatures were ready to embrace such progressive change. 

I ask the question, where would be as a Nation if Congress in 

1954, 50 years ago, radically amended our Constitution to uphold 

segregation or the ‘‘separate but equal’’ doctrine? I further ask, 

where would we be as a Nation if Congress in 1967 had made it 

unconstitutional for interracial couples to get married? 

The Constitution is a special, almost sacred document. The Constitution is the document that defines the framework of our GovVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:17 Mar 07, 2005 Jkt 098156 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\98156.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
16

ernment and protects our rights. It is not a place for mandating social policy in individual States or forcing individuals to reconcile 

their religious beliefs on such a sensitive and personal issue. 

This amendment would deny States the right to determine their 

own marriage laws, assign one group of Americans to second-class 

status, and deny children of gay parents the stability and legal protection that they can only be offered through marriage. 

The Allard amendment could potentially deny important State 

court decisions, such as the Vermont civil union decision and the 

Oregon domestic partnership decision. And restricting rights of certain individuals would set a dangerous and historic precedent. It 

would take us back. 

Since the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791, the Constitution 

has been amended only 27 times. Amendments to the Constitution 

are very rare and are only done to address critical public policy 

needs, such as abolishing slavery and extending the right to vote 

to women, African-Americans and young people. 

I believe amending the Constitution on this issue is an irrational 

and radical step that seeks to undermine the civil rights of many 

of our citizens. It chips away at the foundation of equal protection 

for all in our society. To amend the Constitution, as I said before, 

on this issue would be a major step back and not a step forward. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask you and the members of the Committee to 

think long and hard before altering America’s most important document for the sole purpose of restricting the civil rights of some of 

our citizens. I fought too hard and too long against discrimination 

based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination 

based on same-sex marriage. 

Some would say today let’s choose another route and give the gay 

and lesbian community certain legal rights, but call it something 

else; don’t quite call it marriage. We have been down that road before in this country. Separate is not equal. The right to liberty and 

happiness belongs to each of us, and on the same terms, without 

regard to either skin color or sexual orientation. Our rights as 

Americans do not depend on the approval of others or on the passion of the times. Our rights depend on us being Americans. 

The Allard amendment would divide rather than unite us as a 

country. Rather than divide and discriminate, let us come together 

and create one nation. We are all one people. We live in the same 

house, the American house. Let us as a nation and as a people recognize that gay people live in our American house. We need to realize that gay people live in this house and share the same hopes, 

troubles and dreams. Now is the time for us to finally treat them 

as equals, as members of the same house, in the same family, at 

the same table. We must build a beloved community, an all-inclusive community, a community at peace with itself. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Representative Lewis. 

Representative Musgrave, we would be happy to hear your opening statement at this time. 

17

STATEMENT OF HON. MARILYN MUSGRAVE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Representative MUSGRAVE. Chairman Cornyn, Ranking Member 

Feinstein and other distinguished members of the U.S. Senate, 

thank you for the opportunity to come before you today. 

As the sponsor of the Federal marriage amendment in the 

United States House of Representatives, I have spoken with Americans across the country about the importance of defending the traditional institution of marriage. I have spoken with legal experts 

across the political spectrum who agree that the traditional definition of marriage is likely doomed unless we amend the United 

States Constitution. 

I have spoken with family counselors who believe that children 

are best raised in the shelter and protection of a mother and father 

who are married. I have spoken with well-meaning Americans who 

love and respect all people and certainly bear no ill will toward any 

particular population or group, and yet who also revere, respect 

and tenaciously hold to the traditional definition of marriage. 

But I must say that of all the people I have met on this journey, 

I have been most impressed and most stirred by the leaders who 

have taken such a stand in defending marriage in their home 

States. These people are not from Washington. They are simply 

local leaders trying to solve the problems that they see in their 

communities. 

I have been stirred to action by the 38 States that have passed 

Defense Of Marriage Acts, reserving marriage as the union of a 

man and a woman. Since this issue was forced on the American 

people and their elected representatives, 38 States have taken clear 

action to nail down our collective understanding of what marriage 

is. 

The intent of the other 12 States has not changed over the last 

200 years either. In fact, I will go farther than that. To date, not 

one single State has legislatively enacted gay marriage. However, 

we see four supreme court justices in Massachusetts forcing a redefinition on their body politic, and forcing the rest of the Nation 

to take note. Since the action in the Massachusetts court, local officials in various States, even States with defense of marriage acts, 

are blatantly ignoring the rule of law and being disrespectful to the 

legislative process. 

Clearly, there is no national outcry to redefine marriage. Even in 

the three States that enacted some form of contract law for homosexuals in relationships, the legislatures went out of their way not 

to redefine marriage. So why is the traditional definition of marriage now under attack? Because activist courts are ignoring the 

rule of law and their duty to uphold the separation of powers doctrine and are forcing this on the American people against their 

will. 

Look what happened in Hawaii and Alaska after their high 

courts acted in a similar way. The people of those respective States 

rose up and, by a vote of more than 60 percent, amended their 

State constitutions to protect the traditional definition of marriage. 

In fact, in every State that the definition of marriage has been put 

to a direct vote of the people, anywhere from 60 to 70 percent voted 

to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman. 

18

Even with this action in the States, State and Federal judges are 

not stopping their attack. In fact, the opposite is true. State and 

Federal judges are increasing their attacks in many States. They 

are even threatening State marriage definitions in Federal courts. 

As a former State lawmaker, I honor and cherish State lawmaking. States generally deserve more, not less, power to make 

law. However, in this case, if no effective Congressional action 

takes place, we will be leaving state lawmakers with no options to 

preserve what every State clearly wants as their law. 

State and Federal activist judges will not stop until a national 

marriage definition is legislated from the bench. In our country, 

this is unacceptable. The American people deserve to have a say on 

this important issue. 

The bottom line is I trust the American people and their elected 

representatives to help guide this great Nation of ours. 

Take, for example, Reverend Richard Richardson. I know you 

have heard him, Mr. Chairman, when he testified a few weeks ago 

before a Subcommittee hearing, and I am glad that he is here before this Committee today. Reverend Richardson is an ordained 

minister in the African Methodist Episcopal Church in Boston. He 

is also Director of Political Affairs for the Black Ministerial Alliance of Greater Boston. He is also the President and CEO of Children’s Services of Roxbury, a child welfare agency. Not only has he 

worked in the field of child welfare for almost 50 years, he has 

been a foster parent himself for 25 years. I met him recently and 

I would like to quote a statement of his. 

‘‘I never thought that I would be here in Washington testifying 

before this distinguished Subcommittee on the subject of defending 

traditional marriage by a constitutional amendment. As members 

of the BMA, we are faced with many problems in our communities 

and we want to be spending all of our energies working hard on 

those problems. We certainly didn’t ask for a nationwide debate on 

whether the traditional institution of marriage should be invalidated by judges. But the recent decision of four judges of the highest court in my State threatening traditional marriage laws around 

the country gives us no choice but to engage in this debate. The 

family and the traditional institution of marriage are fundamental 

to progress and hope for a better tomorrow for the African-American community. And so as much as we at the BMA would like to 

be focusing on other issues, we realize that traditional marriage, as 

well as our democratic system of Government, is now under attack. 

Without traditional marriage, it is hard to see how our community 

will be able to thrive,’’ end of quote. 

Those are powerful words from Reverend Richardson about the 

importance of the traditional institution of marriage to the AfricanAmerican community. He is a member of a community that knows 

what discrimination is, and he speaks with a special moral authority when he says that marriage is about the needs of children and 

society, not about discrimination. 

Reverend Richardson testified before the United States Senate a 

few weeks ago saying, quote, ‘‘The defense of marriage is not about 

discrimination. As an African American, I know something about 

discrimination. The institution of slavery was about the oppression 

of an entire people. The institution of segregation was about disVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:17 Mar 07, 2005 Jkt 098156 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\98156.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
19

crimination. The institution of Jim Crow laws, including laws 

against interracial marriage, was about discrimination. The traditional institution of marriage is not discrimination, and I find it offensive to call it that. Marriage was not created to oppress people. 

It was created for children. It boggles my mind that people would 

compare the traditional institution of marriage to slavery. From 

what I can tell, every U.S. Senator, both Democrat and Republican, 

who has talked about marriage has said that they support traditional marriage laws and oppose what the Massachusetts court did. 

Are they all guilty of discrimination?’’ 

Mr. Chairman, of course, this issue is not about discrimination. 

For the African-American community and for every American community, marriage is about the needs of children and society. It is 

important that the American people and members of Congress revere our founding charter with the reverence and respect that it so 

clearly deserves. No one seeks to amend the Constitution casually. 

I know that all the members of the Congressional Black Caucus 

are struggling with the Federal marriage amendment, but they 

know how important the traditional institution of marriage is to all 

Americans, regardless of race, culture or religion. 

I will quote Congressman Arturo Davis, a Democrat from Alabama and member of the Congressional Black Caucus. He said recently, quote, ‘‘I have not made a decision on the constitutional 

amendment... When I see mayors announcing that they will violate 

the law, it raises the point and puts the country and the Congress 

in a difficult position,’’ end of quote. 

A difficult position indeed, Mr. Chairman. However, Congress 

has the duty to watch developments in the States and to help promote the rule and our system of Government, with elected representatives of the people debating and crafting the laws of our 

various States. 

This whole debate, although now necessary, was not initiated by 

any member of Congress. However, many of us have come to the 

reluctant conclusion that the legal experts across the political spectrum are right. The only way to preserve traditional marriage is 

with a constitutional amendment. 

When the other side says that we are guilty of ‘‘writing discrimination into the Constitution’’, I am offended on behalf of people like 

Reverend Richardson and other members of the minority community. Furthermore, this accusation cheapens the debate and shows 

disrespect to all of those who are trying to have a meaningful public discussion about how our laws are made. 

You would have to logically assume that former President Bill 

Clinton was also being discriminatory when he signed the Federal 

Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. And what about the other 150 

Congressional Democrats both in the House and the Senate who 

voted for the Defense of Marriage Act? Did they act to codify discrimination? Was over two-thirds of Congress in 1996 filled with 

animosity toward anyone? I think not. 

Reasonable observers would agree that such a charge is blatantly 

and fundamentally wrong, and distracts from the very real issue 

that we are all forced to deal with. If Congress does nothing, the 

courts will have redefined our definition of marriage that is well 

20

over 200 years old without the consent or approval of the American 

people. 

Let me be clear. When I hear the accusations of discrimination, 

my resolve only grows stronger on this issue. And from what I have 

seen, this brings members of the minority community that have 

been truly discriminated against rallying to support the Federal 

marriage amendment. The American people are sophisticated 

enough to know that the accusation of discrimination is false. 

Those of us that support marriage as the union between a man 

and a woman have very little choice: either do nothing and surrender the traditional definition of marriage or defend it against 

unfounded charges of discrimination and amend the United States 

Constitution to ensure that no court will easily abolish it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Representative Musgrave appears as 

a submission for the record.] 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Representative Musgrave, and 

thanks to each of our panel members for being here today and representing your respective views. 

I know some members of the Committee would like to ask a few 

questions of the panel, but I know many of you have conflicting engagements. So those of you who can stay for just a few more minutes in order to respond to a few questions from the Committee, 

I would appreciate it. I am sure they would, as well. 

I will defer any questions that I may have and recognize Senator 

Feinstein for any questions she may have. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My 

question is of Senator Allard. 

Senator I wanted to ask you a question about Section 2 of the 

amendment, specifically what the intent was of limiting the amendment to the Constitution of the United States or the constitution 

of any State rather than the law, and what the intent is in requiring that marriage or the legal incidents thereof not be required to 

be conferred to anyone other than a man and a woman. What is 

the intent? 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. What we were 

trying to do was limit the action of the courts on constitutional 

matters, and that is the reason for addressing the State constitution especially, and the Federal Constitution as well. 

And then the sort of catch-all term that you caught at the back 

was an attempt to deal with contracts, for example, with insurance 

companies and what not where although it is not State law, they 

may put provisions in there that would define marriage other than 

what we have in the amendment. It was intended to basically catch 

those types of provisions that might occur that would change the 

definition of marriage. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Including a civil union? 

Senator ALLARD. No. Civil unions would not be a part of that. 

The potential part that could have impacted civil unions we did remove in the revised section. I have always stated publicly that my 

intent was never to limit civil unions or domestic partnerships; 

that those were to be addressed by the States. 

So the technical change that we put in the revised bill was to 

carry forward to make sure that we removed any doubt that we 

21

were trying to limit in any way civil unions. We expect that State 

law would deal with civil unions, and that provision has been removed in the revised bill that we introduced. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I think we will have to look further into that 

because I am not sure that it doesn’t remove it, as well. 

Congressman Frank. 

Representative FRANK. Senator, I appreciate the chance to comment on that because as I have said, I don’t think there is a need 

to stamp out any of this love. But on the point that the Senator 

just made, he makes a careful distinction in the second half of the 

amendment and says judges are prevented from doing this, but legislatures are allowed. 

The point I raise is I don’t understand why that doesn’t also 

apply to marriage, at least given that it doesn’t change the rhetoric. In other words, the rhetoric is activist judges, activist judges, 

activist judges. But the amendment clearly—and the distinction 

makes this clear—the amendment with regard to marriage doesn’t 

discriminate in its prohibition between judges, on the one hand, 

and legislatures or referenda on the other. 

Now, clearly, the authors knew how to do that if they wanted to, 

because in the second part they make that distinction. So I do 

think again, truth in advertising. Let’s be very clear. This is not 

an amendment to keep activist judges from declaring marriage. It 

is an amendment that doesn’t allow the political will of the State, 

expressed either through the legislature or through the people, to 

allow marriage. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CORNYN. Senator Kennedy. 

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you all for your testimony. 

I believe very strongly that if it is not necessary to amend the 

Constitution, then it is necessary not to amend the Constitution, 

and I am still strongly opposed to this proposal. 

I would ask the panel if, in their own study of this issue, they 

know of any other time in the history of America that the Federal 

Government would ever dictate to the States how the States should 

interpret their own State constitutions. Has that ever happened in 

the history of this country? 

Senator ALLARD. Well, the purpose of the Constitution is to define the limits and the roles of the States and the Federal Government. I remind the Senator that you know very well that I am a 

veterinarian and not an attorney, but when I look at the Tenth 

Amendment, for example, we laid out specific roles for the States 

and specific roles for the Federal Government. And in that way, 

there were bounds set for the States, as well as the Federal Government. 

If you look at the Constitution, it is the law of the land an it puts 

in place all these relationships. So there are certain dictates that 

are going to come out of the Constitution. So I don’t think this is 

unprecedented in any way. 

I think that if you look at the amendment, it is very respectful 

of the role of the States, and that is that they can deal with civil 

22

unions or they can deal with domestic partners as they see fit, as 

it applies to benefits that might apply thereto. So I don’t view this 

as an incursion on States’ rights. 

Senator KENNEDY. But they couldn’t, clearly, if it was a part of 

the Constitution. 

Senator ALLARD. All we have done in this particular amendment 

is define marriage as between a man and a woman, and then we 

leave the States to deal with those other issues. 

Senator KENNEDY. But the question was if the State made the 

judgment to do it through its Constitution, you are saying that this 

would nullify that action. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, if the States decided to deal with civil 

unions through their constitution, or any kind of domestic partners, 

our amendment would not have an adverse impact on that. We 

deal just with the definition of marriage as it applies to a man and 

a woman. 

Senator KENNEDY. Congressman Frank. 

Representative FRANK. Senator, your question is exactly right. 

No, we have never seen this degree of intrusion by the Federal 

Government into the internal decisionmaking processes of the 

States. 

The second half of this amendment says to the States, okay, you 

can do it by this method, but not by that method. And that is unprecedented, I believe, certainly in terms of the Constitution, and 

I believe statutorily. We have generally said the State is a political 

entity. 

By the way, with all this talk about activist judges—and again 

I have to say when I hear some of this denunciation of activist 

judges and I think about the judges whom people have been supporting and their record, I am puzzled. 

But in some of the States, remember these activist judges are 

elected. Judges aren’t always appointed. We are talking about 

State supreme court judges. So, apparently, even on the second 

part of this, what this amendment says is elected State supreme 

court justices may not interpret State constitutions because we, the 

Congress, don’t like it. So this is not simply a case of appointed 

versus elected. There are a number of States that have elected supreme court judges and this prohibition on them applies. 

But it is also the case that this Federal decision that it is okay 

to do it by the legislature, but not by the courts, we have never 

seen before. And again, of course, with regard to marriage, it 

doesn’t make any difference. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, just one further question, Mr. Chairman. 

With regard to what is proposed now in our own State of Massachusetts, if that were to pass, as of May civil marriage will still be 

permitted in the State. That will go on. If there is an amendment 

to the Constitution, it will go through the constitutional process 

through 2006. 

Congressman Frank, is it your reading—and I think you have 

spoken to it and maybe the record is very clear on it—that the final 

action, even after the State makes this judgment that it wants to 

permit civil unions, with all the protections and rights and benefits 

of marriage, would be struck down if this amendment were to pass? 

23

Representative FRANK. Well, certainly, if the amendment is defeated by the people and marriage is thus allowed to continue, that 

would be overruled. If this amendment goes in effect, the Federal 

Government has said to the people of Massachusetts, your referendum is of no consequence. The vote of the people of Massachusetts will simply be ruled out. 

With regard to the civil union piece, it is interesting. In Vermont, 

as we know, several years ago there was a tremendous divisive debate in Vermont about civil unions. Today, it is a non-issue because 

the reality has turned out to be—and I believe there are some people who are against same-sex marriage or other relationships because, frankly, they don’t like us, and not liking one of us, they 

think two of us is a lot worse. 

There are other people who are genuinely concerned about the 

impact this might have on marriage. I respect that. I think the experience in Vermont shows that those fears did not turn out, and 

we heard the same fears. In Vermont now, they are very happy 

with civil unions. No one is trying to undo it. This amendment 

would cancel it out. I don’t know whether it would do it retroactively. 

And in Massachusetts, you have a fruit of the poison tree argument. The referendum that we will have in Massachusetts which, 

if it passes, establishes civil unions is clearly the direct result of 

the supreme court opinion. If we hadn’t had the supreme court 

opinion, we wouldn’t have had this. 

So I don’t know what its effect would be. It probably wouldn’t 

cancel it out, but it certainly would be the case that if Massachusetts votes for marriage, the Federal Government says, vote, 

schmote, we know better. 

Senator ALLARD. Senator Kennedy, may I respond? I don’t think 

that the constitutional amendment that I am proposing would impact adversely any State’s effort to deal with the issue of civil 

unions, and that includes Massachusetts if you put it in the Constitution, or that includes Vermont, and their legislature has acted. 

We have drafted this with the intent that it would not have an impact on those State actions. 

Representative FRANK. But the legislature in Vermont clearly 

acted as a result of a directive from the Supreme Court of Vermont. 

So this is clearly the direct consequence of a judicial decision. 

Senator KENNEDY. As I understand it, the revised amendment 

would require the State courts to construe their own State constitutions in a manner that would prohibit same-sex couples from receiving the, quote, ‘‘legal incidents of marriage.’’ That is the operative part. There is no precedent in this democracy for that. 

I want to just ask, if I could, finally, John Lewis, some supporters of the Federal Marriage Amendment have compared the 

need to amend the Constitution to overturn the Goodridge decision 

with the situation faced by President Lincoln after the Supreme 

Court issued the notorious Dred Scott decision. 

Do you think it is fair to compare Goodridge, which held that the 

State could not discriminate against gays and lesbians by denying 

them the many benefits and protections that the laws of the State 

provide for married couples, with Dred Scott, which declared that 

African-Americans are not citizens of the United States? 

24

Representative LEWIS. I think the day will come in America. It 

could be 40 years from now. It could be much less. It could be 50 

years from now. But we will look back over this debate and say, 

what was this all about, the same way we look back to 50 or 60 

or 70 or 100 years ago, to the days of slavery, to the time when 

blacks and whites could not be in the same place or sleep under 

the same roof, ride in the same taxicab, or blacks and whites 

couldn’t marry. And we look back at it now and we say, what was 

it all about? I think history is going to bear us out on this issue 

and say, what was it all about? 

Senator CORNYN. Senator Feingold, if I may, we are getting away 

a little bit from the initial plan, which was to—because we want 

to get to our second panel, people who have traveled a long way 

to come here and we want to hear from each of them, and I know 

time is running out. In an effort to accommodate some of my colleagues here who wanted to ask questions of the panel, we were 

proceeding to ask some, and I appreciate the restraint that has 

been exercised. Ordinarily, we would go back and forth between 

sides. At this time, I would recognize the Senator from Alabama if 

he has a few questions for the panel. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. I will keep it short. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have done a great job with this hearing and your experience as a Texas Supreme Court Justice, I think uniquely qualifies 

you to give a fair hearing here. Your opening statement, in my 

view, was comprehensive and wise and true and we need to discuss 

this at a high level and I think we will. 

It is a delight to have the panel here. We welcome all of you. 

Senator Allard, I like the language of the amendment as you have 

proposed it better than what we looked at first. I think that is supportive. I, like you, am open to any way to make it better. If there 

are good suggestions and we can refine it more, I am open to, and 

I think you are, and you have demonstrated that and I certainly 

salute for it. 

Representative Lewis, it is great to have you back. It was good 

to have been with you in your home State of Alabama recently and 

I just want to publicly thank you for your courageous leadership in 

helping move Alabama forward through some difficult days. You 

are clearly one of the nation’s great leaders and it made a difference that we should appreciate. 

Mr. Chairman, I would just say this and I think we need to 

stress this, that this is not disrespectful of the States. Not one 

State legislature elected by the people that I am aware of has voluntarily voted legislation consistent with the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision. So courts, Federal courts, unelected Federal 

courts are the ones who are redefining the Constitution to carry 

out a view of marriage and family they think is appropriate that 

the American people do not think is appropriate. It undermines democracy. 

In this country, elected representatives are accountable to the 

public. We make judges lifetime appointed individuals and office 

holders because we want them to be apart from politics and legislaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:17 Mar 07, 2005 Jkt 098156 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\98156.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
25

tion and all the debates that we carry on. We want them to enforce 

the law and not to be pressured one way or the other. 

So I think what you are doing is simply restoring the right of the 

American people to decide one of the most critical cultural issues 

facing America, and that is how do we think about family and marriage. I think it is a good healthy debate. In some parts of it, we 

need to go and discuss other issues of how we can strengthen families and help children, but that is not what we are doing here in 

the Judiciary. We need to look at this amendment and see what 

we can do to make sure it has got integrity, that it works, it is fair, 

it allows the States freedom but also protects their rights to make 

important decisions. Thank you very much. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Senator Sessions, and on that 

point, before I go to Senator Feingold, the role of the States, I want 

to acknowledge that a number of distinguished State law enforcement officials around the country have submitted letters in defense 

of the traditional institution of marriage and we will enter those 

letters of record. They, in effect, state that the real threat to States’ 

rights is in the area of judicial activism, not the results of the actions of Congress. 

Senator Feingold? 

STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just make 

a brief statement and ask one question. I think it will save time 

in the long run. 

As I said at the two prior hearings on this subject, I really think 

it is unfortunate that we are devoting so much time to this issue. 

I continue to believe that a constitutional amendment on marriage 

is unnecessary and I also believe that the effort to rush the amendment through our Committee and bring it to the Senate floor this 

summer is politically motivated to score points in an election year. 

That is unfortunate for the American people who are struggling 

every day with so many pressing issues, from jobs to access to 

health care to educating their children. These things are the things 

that deserve the Senate’s attention and action. 

The regulation of marriage in our country has traditionally been 

a matter for States and religious institutions and should remain so. 

No one, including the witnesses who have testified at the prior 

hearings, has shown that there is a need for Federal intervention. 

Proponents of an amendment argue that it is necessary to amend 

the Constitution to ensure that no State is forced to recognize a 

same-sex marriage performed in another State. But not a single 

court has forced a State to recognize a same-sex marriage or civil 

union performed in another State. We spent quite a bit of time on 

this at the last hearing. In fact, as Professor Lea Brilmayer persuasively testified earlier this month, no State in the history of our 

Nation has ever been forced to recognize a marriage that was 

against the public policy of that State. 

I note also that just since our last hearing, which was just a little 

while ago, the California Supreme Court has ordered city officials 

in San Francisco to stop performing same-sex weddings. The Attorney General in the State of New York ruled that State law proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:17 Mar 07, 2005 Jkt 098156 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\98156.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
26

hibits same-sex marriage. And in Massachusetts, as many have 

discussed, the process for amending the State Constitution is ongoing. 

It appears, in other words, that this effort here for this constitutional amendment is ill-timed and ill-advised. We should let States 

continue to sort these issues out. But the Chairman and many in 

his party feel differently and so this hearing was scheduled to consider a specific proposal to amend the Constitution, the Federal 

Marriage Amendment. I think we can all agree that amending the 

Constitution is a very serious matter and should be undertaken 

only after careful deliberation and debate. We should not do this 

in a haphazard or rushed manner. 

Yet just yesterday, presumably in anticipation of this hearing, a 

revised version of the Federal Marriage Amendment was unveiled. 

I think, Mr. Chairman, it is simply inappropriate to hold a hearing 

on the text of a constitutional amendment less than 24 hours after 

that text is introduced. That is not the proper way for the Senate 

to consider amending our Nation’s governing charter which has 

served our Nation well for over 200 years. No hearing should be 

held when Senators and witnesses have had less than a day to review the legislative language that is the focus of the hearing. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that it would be inappropriate for the Subcommittee on the Constitution to consider this new language until 

the Committee holds another hearing on it. 

Mr. Chairman, observing an appropriate deliberative process for 

amending the Constitution of the United States is particularly important because the stakes are so high. We are talking here about 

an amendment that would, for the first time, as Congressman 

Lewis said so well, for the first time, put discrimination into our 

governing document. It would dictate to the people of each State 

how their own State Constitution should be interpreted and applied 

on a subject that has since the beginning of our republic been regulated by the States. 

I note that the authors of the Federal Marriage Amendment appear to have recognized that the original version of the amendment 

would not only have prohibited same-sex marriages, it would have 

barred States from recognizing civil unions or providing some benefits that are available to married couples such as hospital visitation 

rights to same-sex couples. Of course, that is exactly what some 

proponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment would like to see. 

It is encouraging that the sponsors do not share that extreme view. 

But no amount of redrafting will convince me that we need a 

constitutional amendment to regulate marriage. Marriage has been 

part of human civilization for 4,500 years or more. It is not under 

seige. It is not in danger of withering away. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, in fiscal year 2003, approximately 2.2 million heterosexual couples were married in the 

United States. I hope we in the Senate will get back to the business of trying to improve their lives and the lives of their children 

rather than spending time on a divisive political exercise. 

I just ask one question of Representative Lewis. I thank both 

Congressmen Frank and Lewis for being here. I would especially 

like to thank Representative Lewis, who has dedicated his life to 

fighting for civil rights for all Americans. 

27

Representative proponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment 

argue that a constitutional amendment would strengthen the institution of marriage. For example, Reverend Richardson, who testified at a previous hearing and is with us again today, has stated 

that the institution of marriage, quote, ‘‘plays a critical role in ensuring the progress and prosperity of the black family and the 

black community at large,’’ unquote, and that is why he supports 

a Federal Marriage Amendment. 

Could you respond to that? Do you agree that in order to ensure 

the progress and prosperity of the African-American family and 

community we must amend the U.S. Constitution with a Federal 

Marriage Amendment? 

Representative LEWIS. I grew up in rural Alabama and I saw 

segregation and I saw racial discrimination. I saw the signs that 

said, ‘‘white men,’’ ‘‘colored men,’’ ‘‘white women,’’ ‘‘colored women.’’ 

As a child, I tasted the bitter fruits of racism. Years later, I got 

involved in the civil rights movement. I was ordained a Baptist 

minister. I went to seminary, studied religion, the great religion of 

the world, theology, systematic theology. I studied philosophy. 

But I don’t think, as someone who came to the civil rights movement, got arrested, went to jail for a time, beaten and left for dead 

at the Greyhound Bus station in Montgomery in May of 1961 during the Freedom Riot, had a concussion at the bridge in Selma on 

March 7, 1965, 39 years ago, I don’t think today that amending the 

United States Constitution to ban same-sex marriage would do 

anything, not one thing, to improve the lot of African-Americans or 

any other group. 

I think it is the wrong way to go. Discrimination, as I said in response to Senator Kennedy, discrimination is wrong. It is dead 

wrong. For the past many years, we have been trying to remove 

our country, to expand the Constitution, to remove any sign, any 

symbol of discrimination from the Constitution. And to come back 

these years later to place discrimination in the Constitution, it is 

just wrong. 

I think black families in America are having problems like all 

other families. They need jobs. The children need to get an education. Thank you. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Representative. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I am expected at another Committee and I want to excuse myself, if I may, so I can be at that 

Committee. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Senator Allard, for being here with 

us. We thank the entire panel for being here. Ordinarily, I know 

we don’t detain members this long, but there was an interest in 

asking some questions and thank you for accommodating the members of the Committee. 

Representative FRANK. Senator, I appreciate that. I plan to be 

around as long as you want to talk about this. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you. I knew we could depend on you, 

Representative Frank. 

Senator Durbin? 

28

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Senator DURBIN. I am really sorry Senator Allard left because I 

don’t think we have on the panel here people that can answer the 

questions that I have prepared and that is a shame. 

There are many things that divide us as members of the House 

and Senate, politically and otherwise, and there is one thing that 

unites us. Before we can serve in either of these chambers, we have 

to take an oath of office, and within that oath of office is a very 

simple but poignant commitment, to uphold and defend a document, the Constitution of the United States. Whoever designed that 

oath of office thought as much as anything that we had to take 

that document very, very seriously. 

I am sorry that Senator Allard had to leave, but I understand 

that. That happens to all of us in Congress, and Musgrave, as well. 

But the fact of the matter is that we are holding a hearing in this 

historic room where people have gathered throughout the history 

of this building to form the most important decisions in our republic, and we are gathered as a Committee with an exceptional mandate, to look at the Constitution of the United States we have 

sworn to uphold and defend, and we literally are considering words 

to be added to that Constitution which were conceived and delivered to us less than 24 hours ago. Think of that for a moment. We 

are going to amend the Constitution of the United States of America with words that were conceived and delivered to us less than 

24 hours ago. 

I would like to ask Senator Allard a few questions and Congresswoman Musgrave, if she supports this version, as well, but I really 

strongly disagree with the conclusion that these are somehow technical changes. I think they are much more than technical changes. 

I have heard them say repeatedly, both of them, that it is not 

the intention of this newly drafted amendment to the Constitution 

to in any way jeopardize civil unions, and yet I have to say point 

blank, and Congressman Frank, this is your statement I am referring to, what we have here is the proposal by the Commonwealth 

of Massachusetts that they will add a constitutional amendment 

establishing civil unions for same-sex couples with, quote, ‘‘entirely 

the same benefits, protections, rights, and responsibilities that are 

afforded to couples married under Massachusetts law,’’ end of 

quote. 

Now, as I read this, the second sentence of the constitutional 

amendment says, ‘‘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.’’ I think this expressly prohibits the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from enacting and enforcing this constitutional amendment, the State constitutional amendment which 

they have proposed. 

Let me add a second element. What does the phrase, ‘‘legal incidents thereof’’ mean? I think it means, and I will defer to my constitutional scholars who are on the Committee and witnesses here, 

I assume that it means the rights that are created by virtue of the 

institution of marriage, the legal incidents thereof. So I happen to 

have health insurance through the Federal Government through 

29

Blue Cross and Blue Shield and my health insurance is a family 

plan and it says it will cover my spouse, and my wife and I are 

covered by that health insurance. 

Now might come a State, my State or others, that say under the 

State Constitution and an Equal Protection Clause contained in 

that Constitution, we believe that that spousal coverage of health 

insurance should extend to those who are in a domestic partnership relationship, to men, to women. Now, that is not a leap of 

logic. That is exactly what many States and localities have tried to 

achieve. They have said, we want health insurance to cover your 

partner if you have a partner of the same sex. 

Well, excuse me, but if you say that the equal protection of the 

law means that spouse can include a same-sex partner, isn’t that 

something like a legal incident of marriage that is prohibited by 

the language in this constitutional amendment? 

So to say that we are protecting civil unions and clearly not protect them, to say that we are going to prohibit the legal incidents 

of marriage applying is clearly, I think, telling the story here. This 

language of this amendment is inconsistent with civil unions. It is 

inconsistent with domestic partnerships. 

The last point I will make is this. I don’t think words are added 

or deleted to a constitutional amendment in a careless manner. I 

assume the people that pored over this language did it extremely 

carefully, and let me tell you some words that they deleted in their 

amendment. 

In the original amendment, it said ‘‘legal incidents thereof be 

conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.’’ That language, ‘‘unmarried couples or groups,’’ was stricken. Why? Well, frankly, because we are still struggling in some parts of this Nation with the 

idea of polygamy. Now, it is only in a limited number of States, but 

why was this reference to group marriage deleted? I think it is an 

important question. I am sorry the sponsors of the amendment 

aren’t here to answer it. 

I think it is something very critical for us to ask, because I have 

heard over and over again, and they said, and I quote Congresswoman Musgrave, we are talking about traditional amendment, a 

definition well over 200 years old. Does the traditional definition of 

marriage in America include polygamy? In some States, it might. 

Does the traditional definition of marriage include interracial marriage? Well, it didn’t until 1968 in the Loving decision. 

So when we talk about this grand tradition, I think there are a 

lot of unanswered questions about what that tradition really 

means, and most importantly, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that those 

who are propounding the amendment aren’t here to answer those 

questions. Thank you. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Senator Durbin. 

I am advised that ordinarily, it is irregular for members of a 

members’ panel to respond to questions. They have the same conflicts and demands on their time as we do, but certainly I don’t begrudge anyone who wants to ask anybody any question about anything. It is important that we shed as much light as we can on this, 

but I know we will have plenty of witnesses to respond to some of 

the concerns that you have raised and that others may raise. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I would— 

30

Senator CORNYN. Let me just say one thing and I will recognize 

the Senator from Alabama, and then we need to get to our next 

panel. This is not a markup on constitutional text. That will come 

at a later time. This is a hearing, really an open-ended hearing on 

one of what I have seen, a total of six different proposals. This is 

the one that was filed the earliest and one that people have focused 

the most attention on. There is no limitation, certainly, on any 

member of the United States Senate to offer amendments on any 

text that may come before this Committee or, indeed, before the entire Senate. 

Indeed, I remember back when we were discussing the victims’ 

rights amendment and one that I proudly cosponsor with the Senator from California, we had some amendments offered the day before the markup of that constitutional text and somehow we were 

able to accommodate that. I don’t think anyone was shocked. I 

think we were able to absorb what the intention of the amendment 

was and, indeed, we voted that amendment out. 

I would like to get on to our next panel, but I will briefly recognize the Senator from Alabama. 

Senator SESSIONS. I just wanted to say that I know Senator Allard was certainly not disrespectful of this Committee. This is 

about as long as I have seen a Congressional panel stay in a Committee. They have been very responsive. We all have a lot to do 

around here and I think we have a substantive panel next and I 

think we should get on with that. 

Representative FRANK. Could I ask one question, Senator? 

Senator CORNYN. Representative Frank, you can ask one question. 

Representative FRANK. Because you mentioned that there were 

six texts you had seen. Did any of them allow a State legislature 

or a referendum to make the decision on marriage? 

Senator CORNYN. I don’t know how many have been filed, and 

frankly, I couldn’t answer the question. 

Thank you for your time and participation. We value your participation and input. Thank you, gentlemen, very much. 

Senator CORNYN. At this time, we will call the second panel and 

ask you please to come up to the table. What I would like to do 

in the interest of time is as our panel members are coming up, to 

introduce them briefly. 

Our first panel member is Ms. Phyllis Bossin, and please correct 

me if I mispronounce anybody’s name. I am very sensitive, having 

a name like Cornyn, to people mispronouncing it, so I apologize if 

I do. Ms. Bossin is with Phyllis G. Bossin Company, LPA, and 

Chair of the American Bar Association Family Law Section. She is 

from Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Professor Teresa Stanton Collett is Professor of Law at St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

Our next panelist is Reverend Richard Richardson, who others 

have already alluded to and who testified before this Committee at 

an earlier hearing. He is Assistant Pastor of the St. Paul African 

Methodist Episcopal Church and Director of Political Affairs of the 

Black Ministerial Alliance of Greater Boston, also President and 

CEO of Children’s Services of Roxbury. He is from Boston, Massachusetts. 

31

Our next panelist is Professor Katherine S. Spaht. She is the 

Jules F. and Frances L. Landry Professor at the Paul M. Herbert 

Law Center, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 

Thank you for being here. 

Our final panelist is Professor Cass Sunstein, the Karl N. 

Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor of Jurisprudence at the 

University of Chicago Law School in Chicago, Illinois. 

We welcome each of you and I want to especially thank you for 

your patience. We had an exuberant Committee who wanted to ask 

questions of the first panel and thanks for hanging in there with 

us. We appreciate the fact you have sacrificed and traveled a great 

distance to be here today to offer your expertise to the Committee. 

With that, we will recognize each of the panelists for a fiveminute opening statement, and I am going to hold you to it. I know 

you will understand because I know there will be questions we 

want to ask and we want to make sure we have plenty of time to 

ask any questions that your testimony provokes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator CORNYN. Senator Feinstein? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Before you begin and I forget, I would like 

to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement by 

the Ranking Member and a few additional letters for the record. 

Senator CORNYN. Certainly, without objection. 

Ms. Bossin, we would be pleased to hear your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF PHYLLIS G. BOSSIN, CHAIR, SECTION OF FAMILY LAW, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, CINCINNATI, OHIO 

Ms. BOSSIN. Before beginning my formal statement, I do need to 

correct a misconception that could possibly result from your opening remarks. You correctly stated that the American Bar Association, in opposing the proposed amendment, did not take a position 

on same-sex marriage per se. You then suggested that the American Bar Association failed to do so because we believe that laws 

prohibiting such marriages are not discriminatory. 

When the United States Supreme Court declines to hear a case, 

it is well established that no inference may properly be drawn as 

to their views on the merits. The same is true for the American 

Bar Association. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the 

fact that 600 members of our House of Delegates did not take a position on same-sex marriage is that the question was not before 

them. What they did take a position on is the inadvisability of a 

constitutional amendment that would prevent the States from deciding these questions, which is what I am here to talk about 

today. 

As you have already indicated, I am the Chair of the Section of 

Family Law and I am here to express the views of the Association 

on this extremely important issue. As a practitioner in the field of 

family law, I have experienced the many complex issues that arise 

in families as they relate to children over the last 26 years. 

The ABA has a longstanding interest in the development of State 

laws that safeguard the well-being of families and children. While 

these laws vary among the several States, their common purpose 

is to ensure that wherever possible, children have the opportunity 

to grow up in stable family units and to benefit from child support 

32

and other legal protections that derive from a legal relationship 

with each of their functional parents. 

Among the primary means by which the States have accomplished this purpose is by establishing the rules that govern civil 

marriage. The ABA opposes any constitutional amendment that 

would restrict the ability of a State to determine the qualifications 

for civil marriage between two persons within its jurisdiction. 

While we have taken no position either favoring or opposing laws 

that would allow same-sex couples to enter into civil marriage, the 

ABA opposes S.J.Res. 26 and other similar amendments that would 

usurp the traditional authority of each State to determine who may 

enter into civil marriage and when effect should be given to a marriage validly contracted between two persons under the laws of another jurisdiction. 

At a time when millions of children are being raised by same-sex 

couples, the State should have the flexibility to protect these children by conferring legal recognition on the families in which they 

are being raised. The States should be permitted to enact laws and 

policies they deem appropriate to protect these children. That these 

children are being raised by same-sex couples is the reality. We are 

not discussing hypothetical or theoretical children. These are real 

children with real needs. 

This authority has resided with the States since the founding of 

our country, enabling the courts and legislatures to fashion rules 

that are well-suited to local needs and creating varied approaches 

that benefit the nation as a whole. As Justice Louis Brandeis famously explained, ‘‘To stay experimentations in things social and 

economic is a grave responsibility. Denial of the right to experiment may be fraught with serious consequences to our Nation. It 

is one of the happy incidents of the Federal system that a single 

courageous State may serve as a laboratory and try novel social experiments without risk to the rest of the country.’’ 

The proposed amendment and the new variation released yesterday are two vague to ascertain their full meaning with certainty. 

However, they most certainly would have sweeping consequences 

for the laws of our States, stripping the States of their historic and 

traditional authority to fashion their own responses to meet the 

needs of their residents. 

I share the concerns expressed by Senators Feinstein and Durbin 

this morning that this new amendment would actually disallow 

and prohibit civil unions. In addition to barring all State courts 

and legislatures from taking steps to permit same-sex couples to 

enter into civil marriage, S.J.Res. 26 appears to prohibit States 

from extending to unmarried couples legal protections comparable 

to those accorded to married spouses. Among these are the right 

to sue for wrongful death, to inherit under in testate succession 

laws, to visit a partner in the hospital, to make medical decisions 

for a person unable to make his or her own decisions, to qualify for 

family medical leave, dependency presumptions for workers’ compensation, and even to control the disposition of a deceased’s remains. 

Variations among the States’ laws governing same-sex unions 

have provided the opportunities for States to examine the effect of 

different laws on society and provide guidance to other States that 

33

seek to modify their own laws to reflect the changing views of their 

residents. A constitutional amendment would offer none of these 

benefits. Instead, it would freeze the law and usurp the historic responsibilities of States in these arenas. We have faith in the ability 

of the States to seriously reflect on this important issue and to act 

accordingly. 

While the ABA took no position with respect to DOMA, enacted 

in 1996, that statute surely is sufficient, together with State defense of marriage laws, to address the concerns of amendment proponents that the Full Faith and Credit Clause might require a 

State to recognize a same-sex marriage contracted in another 

State. In addition, the argument that a constitutional amendment 

now is necessary because DOMA might 1 day be challenged and 

eventually overturned is, at the very least, premature. One does 

not amend the Constitution on a hunch. One does not amend the 

Constitution to call a halt to democratic debate within the States. 

Senator CORNYN. Ms. Bossin, we will be glad to introduce your 

entire written statement as part of the record. 

Ms. BOSSIN. Fine. 

Senator CORNYN. If I could get you to wrap up so we can stay 

on schedule as much as possible. 

Ms. BOSSIN. Thank you. I will conclude. The Constitution, as has 

been alluded to this morning, has been amended only 27 times in 

215 years. We hope that you will exercise the same restraint and 

oppose S.J.Res. 26 and other similar amendments, the result of 

which would be to deprive millions of children the full protection 

of the law. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I will be happy to 

answer your questions. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bossin appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator CORNYN. Professor Collett? 

STATEMENT OF TERESA STANTON COLLETT, PROFESSOR OF 

LAW, ST. THOMAS SCHOOL OF LAW, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 

Ms. COLLETT. Mr. Chairman, Senator Feinstein, my name is Teresa Collett and my remarks today represent my personal opinion 

as a law professor as written in the area of marriage and family 

and do not represent the views of my institution, the University of 

St. Thomas in Minneapolis. 

There are three fundamental questions that this Committee 

must answer. Two are procedural, one is substantive. The first is 

whether or not the definition of marriage is the proper subject of 

constitutional concern. In fact, Ms. Bossin and I have a fundamental disagreement. 

The question of whether or not marriage is an issue of Federal 

constitutional concern has already been answered for us by the 

United States Supreme Court. For over 100 years, the United 

States Supreme Court has issued Federal opinions dealing with the 

nature of marriage. As early as 1878, the Court addressed the role 

that marriage and family play in preparing children to assume the 

duties of citizenship and upheld the Federal ban on polygamy. SufVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:17 Mar 07, 2005 Jkt 098156 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\98156.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
34

fice it to say that in the intervening 125 years, I am not sanguine 

about whether this sitting Supreme Court would uphold such a ban 

in light of Justice Ginsberg’s writings prior to her taking the bench 

affirming her view that polygamy could not withstand an attack 

based on privacy. 

Marriage has also become a question of State constitutional law 

through unrelenting attacks by activists in court. It currently has 

been attacked by 20 different State litigations in States including 

Arizona, California, Florida, Indiana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New 

York, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia. Those are the 

States where it is being litigated currently. In addition to that, 

there are news reports that Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and 

Tennessee will soon face court challenges. 

Add to those 14 States the States of Hawaii, Alaska, and 

Vermont that had to respond to judicial overreaching where the 

Supreme Courts found that same-sex marriage was mandated in 

the State Constitution, and Massachusetts, that remains embroiled 

in a political fight about the definition, as well as Connecticut, 

Iowa, and Texas, where activists tried to get courts to redefine 

marriage in response to civil unions, and we find that 21 States of 

this Union are having to respond to activists in an attempt to redefine marriage. 

Is this a national question? Indeed, it is, not something that the 

people have sought but rather something that litigators have 

sought and activist judges have imposed upon this. 

But is it a Federal question? Well, in fact, the United States’ 

most recent Supreme Court, Lawrence v. Texas, suggests that indeed it is. Justice Scalia warns in his dissenting opinion that although there is language in the majority opinion that disclaims its 

impact on same-sex marriage, don’t believe it, and that is the consensus of legal scholars. Lawrence Tribe has said it is only a matter of time. 

In fact, one of the experts on this panel, Professor Sunstein himself has opined that same-sex marriage is constitutionally mandated in his own legal writing. It is, in fact, only a matter of time 

before we see a Federal constitutional opinion that forces same-sex 

marriage upon the people of the United States. 

I support the Federal Marriage Amendment, but like Senator Allard, there are three things it must do. It must first protect the 

right of the people to engage in the most important political right, 

that of self-governance. 

Second, it must define marriage as the union of a man and a 

woman because marriage is about the needs of children, not about 

adult desires. 

But third, it must protect the rights of States to engage in experimentation to protect the rights of all unmarried individuals. 

My experience as an elder law attorney has taught me that there 

are many unmarried individuals that need special legal statuses 

that will allow for the creation of legal rights and obligations. That 

is why in my writing I have supported Hawaii’s reciprocal beneficiary statutes. It brings to mind a recent news report of a grandson in India that could conceive of no other way to protect his 

grandmother than to marry her in order to provide legal protections for her. But I believe that that legal status need not be deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:17 Mar 07, 2005 Jkt 098156 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\98156.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
35

pendent upon a sexual union. Rather, we have got to allow experimentation by the States, but we don’t have to redefine marriage to 

do it. 

The Allard amendment does it and we need a Federal constitutional protection. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Professor. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Collett appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator CORNYN. Reverend Richardson, it is good to have you 

back before the Committee again. You testified before the Subcommittee on the Constitution a few weeks ago and we would be 

happy to hear your opening statement here today. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF REV. RICHARD RICHARDSON, ASSISTANT PASTOR, ST. PAUL AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 

DIRECTOR OF POLITICAL AFFAIRS, THE BLACK MINISTERIAL ALLIANCE OF GREATER BOSTON, AND PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CHILDREN’S SERVICES OF 

ROXBURY, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 

Rev. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Chairman Cornyn and Senator 

Feinstein. It is a pleasure to be back. The Honorable Marilyn 

Musgrave gave my bio, so I will try to keep my remarks to the time 

limit. My full written statement will be submitted. 

As has been said, I am Chairman of the Political Affairs Committee for the Black Ministerial Alliance. I joined yesterday with 

several hundred African-Americans and others who came to show 

their support for the Federal Marriage Amendment at the Alliance 

for Marriage press conference yesterday. I believe that at that 

press conference, it was certainly a display of where the community 

that we represent through these churches, the African-American 

churches and the Church of God in Christ and the AME church in 

particular, some nine million members that we represent, to show 

our support for the constitutional change. 

The recent decision of the judges of the highest courts in my 

State threaten traditional marriage laws around the country. It 

gives us no choice but to engage in this debate. I would like to just 

spend some time explaining why the definition of marriage as a 

union of one man and one woman is so important, not just for the 

African-American community, but to people of all religions and cultures around the world. 

To put it simply, we believe that the children do best when 

raised by a mother and a father. My experience in the field of child 

welfare indicates that when given a choice, children prefer a home 

that consists of a mother and a father, their mother and their father if necessary. Society has described the ideal family as being 

a mother, a father, 2.5 children, and a dog. Children are raised expecting to have a biological mother and father. It is not just society, 

it is biology. It is basic human instinct. We alter these expectations 

and basic human instinct is at its peril, at the peril of our community. 

The dilution of the ideal or procreation or child rearing within 

the marriage of one man and one woman has already had a devastating effect. We need to strengthen the institution of marriage, 

not dilute it. Marriage is about children, not just about adult love. 

36

As a minister to a large church with a diverse population, I can tell 

you that I love and respect all relationships. This discussion about 

marriage is not just about adult love. It is about finding the best 

arrangement for raising children, and as history, tradition, biology, 

sociology, and just plain common sense tells us, children are raised 

best by their biological mother and father or a mother and a father. 

Let me be clear about something. As a reverend, I am not just 

a religious leader. I am also a family counselor and I am deeply 

familiar with the fact that many children today are raised in nontraditional environments, foster parents, adoptive parents, single 

parents, children raised by grandparents, uncles and aunts, and I 

don’t disparage any of these arrangements. People are working 

hard and doing the best they can to raise children. But that doesn’t 

change the fact that there is an ideal. There is a dream that we 

have and should have for all children, and that is a mom and dad 

for every child, whether they be black or white. 

I don’t disparage other arrangements. I certainly don’t disparage 

myself, because as a foster parent to more than 50 children, a 

grandparent of several adopted grandchildren, and almost 50 years 

of working with children who have been separated from their biological parent or parents and are living in a foster home, been 

adopted, or in any other type of non-traditional setting, I can attest 

that children will go to no end to seek out their biological family. 

It is instinct. It is part of who we are as human beings and no law 

can change that. As much as my wife and I shared our love with 

our foster children and still have lasting relationships with many 

of them, it did not fill the void that they experienced. 

I wanted to spend the last few minutes talking about the discrimination. I wanted to state something very clearly without 

equivocation and hesitation or doubt. The defense of marriage is 

not about discrimination. But I am doubly offended when people 

accuse supporters of traditional marriage of writing discrimination 

into the Constitution. It is bad enough that they are making false 

charges of discrimination against the vast majority of AfricanAmericans indeed, and the vast majority of all Americans. Marriage is about children, but activist lawyers are convincing activist 

judges that marriage is about discrimination. 

And every time they say that, the Federal Marriage Amendment 

writes discrimination into the Constitution, they are also saying 

that traditional marriage must be abolished by courts. So it is not 

just that they want to silence us. They also want to write our values out of the Constitution, as well. Mr. Chairman, African-Americans know what it is like to be written out of the Constitution. 

Please don’t take us out of the Constitution process again. 

Finally, I want to mention something about the process. I know 

that the Massachusetts legislature is currently considering this 

issue and I hope they do. The court has told us that we cannot 

have traditional marriage and democracy until 2006 at the earliest 

and we believe that is wrong, it is anti-democratic, and that it is 

offensive and it is dangerous to black families and black communities. Defense of marriage should be a bipartisan effort, and I am 

a proud member of the Democratic Party and I am so pleased that 

the first constitutional amendment protecting marriage was introduced by a Democrat in the last Congress. 

37

Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me the opportunity to represent the Black Ministerial Alliance, the Cambridge Black Pastors’ Conference, and the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the 

Church of God in Christ, and the Ten-Point Coalition, in reaffirming our support for a Federal constitutional amendment to define 

marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Thank you. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Reverend Richardson. We appreciate your being with us today. 

[The prepared statement of Rev. Richardson appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator CORNYN. There are a number of other churches and organizations around the nation who have expressed similar sentiments and we will make their statements part of the record, without objection, including the National Conference of Catholic 

Bishops, the Southern Baptist Convention, the United Methodist 

Action for Faith, Freedom, and Family, the Islamic Society of 

North America, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of 

America, the National Association of Evangelicals, Campus Crusade for Christ, and the Boston Chinese Evangelical Church. 

Professor Spaht, we would be delighted to hear your opening remarks. 

STATEMENT OF KATHERINE SHAW SPAHT, JULES F. AND 

FRANCES L. LANDRY PROFESSOR OF LAW, LOUISIANA 

STATE UNIVERSITY, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 

Ms. SPAHT. Mr. Chairman and Senator Feinstein, I do appreciate 

this opportunity to testify today. As a law school professor who has 

devoted over 30 years of her professional career and life to the 

study of family law, I cannot imagine a more important topic for 

the Committee and for the United States Senate to consider than 

the institution and definition of marriage. 

If you look at my work in my past, you will know that the defense of marriage is not something I come to lately. It has been my 

life’s work. And as a person who works extensively at the State legislature and in that particular arena, I am one who appreciates the 

role that States play in our Federal system. So it might be logical 

to ask, why would I support the Federal Marriage Amendment? 

I do so because, and the answer is very simple, if this body 

doesn’t approve a Federal constitutional amendment defending 

marriage, I believe that the courts will take this issue away from 

the American people and they will abolish traditional marriage. I 

would ask that this amendment be passed by Congress, much as 

the Federal DOMA was, the Defense of Marriage Act, and give the 

people themselves the opportunity to make this decision about traditional marriage. 

Why would I say that this issue would be taken away by the 

Federal courts? Well, my colleague and friend, Teresa Collett, has 

suggested why, and that is, in particular, the decision by the 

United States Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas. It is a decision 

that I have studied very carefully since the decision was rendered, 

in the context of re-regulating marriage in some way that would 

strengthen it at the State level. It is clear to me after examining 

that particular decision very extensively and having written two 

articles recently about it that will be published in the next 3 

38

months, I am convinced that the decision does, indeed, threaten 

traditional marriage. 

If you look at part of that opinion, the Court stated, quote, ‘‘Our 

laws and traditions afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage procreation, et cetera. Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just 

as heterosexual persons do.’’ The Court, of course, once again explicitly identified marriage as a Federal issue, which, of course, it 

is under the 14th Amendment. 

Not once did the Court in discussing marriage mention that marriage is about children, not exclusively about adult love, much less 

discrimination, and when we look at the Goodridge decision decided in Massachusetts, not surprisingly, it relies heavily upon the 

decision in Lawrence v. Texas. In both cases, both in Lawrence and 

in the Goodridge case in Massachusetts, the Court refers to the fact 

that many Americans have very deep-seated religious convictions 

and opinions and beliefs about moral traditions that nonetheless, 

not in Lawrence, clearly, because Justice Kennedy suggested that 

couldn’t be the basis for helping interpret what the word ‘‘liberty’’ 

means, but also in Goodridge, it was rejected, these deep-seated 

convictions, and ultimately, the Court concluded that traditional 

marriage laws, in fact, have no rational basis, that they are based 

on invidious discrimination, that they are, quote, ‘‘rooted in persistent prejudices.’’ 

In fact, as has been alluded to also by my colleague, Professor 

Collett, there is an unusual consensus among constitutional law 

professors, and I say this because I guess we make our living disagreeing with each other, but there is an amazing consensus 

among law professors across the spectrum, not only on my side but 

also on the other side. Harvard Law School Professor Lawrence 

Tribe has said you would have to be tone deaf not to get the message from Lawrence that traditional marriage laws are now constitutionally suspect. Tribe has said that under the Lawrence decision, marriage is, quote, ‘‘now a Federal constitutional issue,’’ and 

predicts that the U.S. Supreme Court will follow the Massachusetts 

court. 

Another constitutional law expert, Yale Law School’s William 

Eskridge, has said that Justice Scalia is right. Lawrence signals 

the end of traditional marriage laws. Eskridge has repeatedly stated under the Court’s rulings, DOMA is unconstitutional. 

And, of course, as has been also alluded to earlier, my fellow panelist, Professor Sunstein, has expressed the view as early as 1993 

that the ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional. 

I could go on, but my time is limited and I would simply say that 

there is no way to prevent what has been predicted by these professors other than a Federal constitutional amendment. As Senator 

Cornyn has correctly noted, throughout history, we have approved 

a number of constitutional amendments to reverse judicial decisions with which the American people disagreed, and the only way 

we can know whether they disagree is to let them vote on it. Thank 

you. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Professor Spaht. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Spaht appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

39

Senator CORNYN. Professor Sunstein, we would be delighted to 

hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF CASS R. SUNSTEIN, KARL N. LLEWELLYN DISTINGUISHED SERVICE PROFESSOR OF JURISPRUDENCE, 

LAW SCHOOL AND DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, 

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be 

here. I am just going to make two simple points, not about the policy but about the Constitution and the law. The first has to do with 

the reservation of constitutional change to what Madison called 

great and extraordinary occasions, and I am going to try to specify 

how our tradition has understood that notion. And second, I am 

going to try to explain why there is no problem that a constitutional amendment is necessary to solve, notwithstanding some 

fears that have been expressed this morning. 

It is the case that we have amended the Constitution rarely. It 

is also the case that some of our amendments have been in response to judicial decisions. But it is important to see that the 

amendments have fallen in two very simple categories. 

The first has to do with remedies for defects in the constitutional 

structure, as, for example, in the specification of rules for Presidential succession and in the specification of rules governing the 

Electoral College. These are structural amendments that are designed to clarify or fix defects in the original design. 

The second category involves the expansion of rights, most notably the initial Bill of Rights, which is still over a third of our constitutional amendments, and in the 20th century, extension of the 

franchise has been the dominant theme of our constitutional 

change. 

Whatever one thinks of this amendment, it can’t plausibly fall in 

the category of fixing structural defects in the original design or in 

the category of expansion of individual rights. Whether or not it 

counts as a limitation of individual rights, it is not plausible to say 

that it is an expansion of individual rights. 

Now, it is possible that we can find reasons to amend the Constitution, if we are determined to do that, that fall outside of our 

longstanding practices. But let me suggest that the concerns expressed on behalf of this amendment are not adequate to justify 

that radical change. 

It is possible that the Chicago White Sox and the Chicago Cubs 

will meet in the World Series and play to a seventh game tie. That 

is unlikely, but that scenario is more likely than it is that the Supreme Court of the United States, as currently constituted, will 

hold that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. This 

is a reckless conception of what is on the horizon and it is indefensible by reference to anything any Supreme Court Justice has said, 

at least on the bench, and I believe even off the bench. 

The Court has issued two narrow rulings. One strikes down by 

reference to tradition, by the way, a Colorado amendment. The 

other strikes down by reference to clear public values a criminal 

law forbidding consensual sodomy. In neither of those cases did the 

Court suggest that same-sex marriage would be constitutionally required. In fact, in the latter case, in the more recent one, the very 

40

Justices who supported the majority view went way out of their 

way to suggest they were not coming near to the same-sex marriage problem. 

If we are concerned about what is on the horizon from the Supreme Court, then there might be a constitutional amendment to 

protect the Endangered Species Act—that is under constitutional 

attack—or the Clean Water Act—that is under constitutional attack—but not this one. This one is not under constitutional attack. 

My views, I am sure inadvertently, have been misstated. The 

quotation given was with reference to views of other people and all 

of my writings on this subject have suggested that it would be disastrous, if you will forgive a self-quotation, for the Supreme Court 

to say the Constitution requires States to recognize same-sex marriage, and in any case, the prediction is extremely clear. The 

Rehnquist Court is not about to say that States must recognize 

same-sex marriage. 

There is a concern about activism at the State level and I am 

concerned about that, too. That is objectionable. It is less objectionable than Federal constitutional activism, but here we do not have 

a reason for amending the Constitution, either. Note that while 

many constitutional challenges have been filed, only one in Massachusetts has succeeded. Note also that deliberative processes are 

underway in Massachusetts by which the citizens of Massachusetts 

can revisit that decision if they choose. 

Note also that our longstanding tradition has allowed States not 

to recognize marriages that violate their own public policy if they 

don’t want to do that. That has been the uncontradicted practice. 

The major problem with the Defense of Marriage Act is not that 

it is unconstitutional, it is that it is unnecessary. It simply ratifies 

what has been a longstanding practice. 

Time to conclude. By tradition, our constitutional amendments 

have been reserved to the correction of serious problems in the government structure or to the expansion of individual rights. The existing situation can’t plausibly be placed in either category. It is 

easily handled and it is being handled through existing institutions. The proposed amendment would show contempt for over two 

centuries of practice resolving almost all of our disputes through 

the Federal system and through ordinary democratic processes. 

For these reasons, the proposed amendment is constitutionally 

ill-advised. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Professor. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sunstein appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator CORNYN. Thanks to all of you for your opening statements. I have some questions and I know Senator Feinstein will, 

as well. 

This has been very informative already. To be candid with you, 

my concern is primarily about who gets to define a fundamental institution like marriage, which I believe, and I believe social science 

confirms, is the most stable foundation for families and in the best 

interests of children, not to disparage by any means, as I believe 

Reverend Richardson pointed out and others, other family arrangements which, of necessity, people do the best they can. 

41

We know every day how single parents heroically struggle to provide in the best interests of their children, foster families, you 

name it. There are other family arrangements. That is life. But it 

is not to say that we can’t aspire to the ideal, and for me that is 

what we are talking about. We are also talking about who gets to 

choose to define marriage. 

Certainly, when I hear people talk about writing discrimination 

into the Constitution, I wonder, after John Adams penned the Massachusetts Constitution, or the principal author of the Massachusetts Constitution in 1780, why it was 224 years later that four 

judges first divined a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. 

Others have said, well, this is all about politics and no one would 

raise this issue now but for the fact we are in a Presidential election, but I will ask those critics to look at what happened, and that 

is that this right was first identified, at least by the courts, in 

2004, and that is not a timing anybody else chose but them. 

But let me ask, first of all, I guess, Professor Sunstein, you had 

said we should only amend the Constitution for important subjects. 

Of course, we have amended the Constitution for a number of reasons, but two sort of jump out that I would like you to comment 

on. One is we have amended the Constitution to limit Congress’s 

ability to vote itself a pay raise. We have also amended the Constitution to say that Congressional sessions shall start every 2 

years on January the third. Hardly, it seems, earth-shaking 

amendments. 

In your view, is marriage less important to our Nation than the 

subject of Congressional pay raises? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. No. Actually, I didn’t use the word ‘‘important.’’ 

I used Madison’s words, ‘‘great and extraordinary occasions.’’ That 

is the formulation. I agree with you about the importance of marriage. The only suggestion is that there isn’t an attack on marriage 

from a single Federal judge. There is not one pronouncement by 

any Federal judge raising the scenario that you fear, and the only 

decision we have from a State court refers not at all as the foundation for its ruling to the Federal Constitution. This is a perfectly 

ordinary process within one State. 

Senator CORNYN. Professor, like every good lawyer, I know you 

choose your words very carefully. But let me go back and ask you, 

we have some charts here that I want to ask you about because 

there has been some suggestion that proponents of the Federal 

Marriage Amendment are trying to amend the Constitution on a 

hunch—I think that word was used—or that perhaps we are trying 

to solve a problem that nobody believes truly exists. 

But in 1993, even before the Supreme Court announced its decision in Romer and Lawrence, you asked readers of the Harvard 

Law Review to consider the view that a ban on same-sex marriages 

is unconstitutional. Did you write that? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. Actually, you know, it was a long time ago and 

I thought maybe I did. I just saw it yesterday, and I looked back 

on it and it is a footnote in a jurisprudential paper on analogical 

reasoning. I don’t recommend it to you, incidentally, this paper on 

analogical reasoning. And in the footnote, I referred to the fact that 

two people had made this argument, a professor named Sylvia Law 

and a professor named Andrew Koppelman, and I actually said, 

42

consider the view that the ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional. I specifically did not endorse the view. And where I have 

discussed it, I have pleaded with the Federal courts, not that they 

need or care about my pleas, but I pleaded with them not to hold 

that on prudential grounds. I recently wrote that it would be disastrous. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, thank you for that explanation— 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. These are reckless statements about my view. 

When I testified against the Federal Defense of Marriage— 

Senator CORNYN. I am sorry, what kind of statements are they? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. Reckless statements of my view, if I may say. I 

like being quoted, but these are— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CORNYN. Are you saying the question is reckless or your 

answer is reckless? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. No, these quotations are reckless as statements of 

my view. The second one is a little better, but my suggestion was 

not that the Court would strike down the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. It was that it was constitutionally ill-advised because it 

would raise serious constitutional questions and there is no need 

for it. 

Senator CORNYN. Let me ask you, in 1996, did you, in fact, testify against the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, saying that there 

is a big problem under the Equal Protection component of the Due 

Process Clause just as construed a few weeks ago by the U.S. Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans? Did you say that? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. That is an accurate statement in the context of 

testimony that refrained from saying the Court would strike down 

the law. It said that it was constitutionally ill-advised. 

Senator CORNYN. And then in 1994, you wrote in the Indiana 

Law Journal that the ban on same-sex marriage is not easy to support, that the prohibition on same-sex marriages as part of the social and legal insistence on two kinds is deeply connected with 

male supremacy, that the ban on same-sex marriage may well be 

doomed to a constitutionally illegitimate purpose. The ban has everything to do with the constitutionally unacceptable stereotypes 

about the appropriate roles of men and women. Now, did you write 

that? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. I did, but this was in the context of an article 

whose bottom line was the Federal courts should stay very far 

away from accepting arguments like this, and on prudential 

grounds, the Supreme Court should not intervene in this debate, 

which should be resolved democratically. 

What you are quoting is not an argument that is original to me 

but has been made by Professor Andrew Koppelman at Northwestern. This was a lecture that contained an overview of a large 

set of constitutional arguments and its basic plea was for judicial 

deference. 

I think my plea is less important than the predictive question, 

what is the Supreme Court going to do, and it defies belief to think 

that the Rehnquist Court is on the verge or even close to being on 

the verge of striking down laws forbidding same-sex marriage. 

Senator CORNYN. Just a few months ago, you wrote in the New 

Republic that Massachusetts, referring to the Goodridge decision of 

43

the Massachusetts Supreme Court, you said Massachusetts gets it 

right, and you pointed out that the Massachusetts ruling was based 

on Federal precedents. You were talking about Lawrence v. Texas, correct? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. No. Actually, these are—if I may say, I really am 

grateful for all the attention to my writing, but these are really 

misstatements. The ‘‘Massachusetts gets it right’’ was the editors. 

Those are not my words. That is the editor’s title in an article in 

which I said, and this the word I used, it would be disastrous if 

the Supreme Court went Massachusetts’s way, and I specifically 

predicted that the Court wouldn’t because it is proceeding—as it 

didn’t in Roe v. Wade. It is now proceeding very cautiously and 

with due respect for democratic processes. 

That it drew some support from Federal precedents is also hilariously out of context because the whole point of the sentence and 

the paragraph was to say that this was based on State law, not on 

Federal law. 

Senator CORNYN. Professor Sunstein, I appreciate your explanation in response to my questions. The point of my questions is 

really to address the statement, which to me is pretty amazing on 

its face, that this is somehow a dreamed-up answer to a question 

that hadn’t been asked. 

But you will concede, won’t you, that there have been legal scholars like yourself and other who have for some time questioned 

whether the restriction of marriage to a man and a woman is constitutional? Would you agree with that? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. I think legal scholars have questioned a lot of 

things, and— 

Senator CORNYN. Including that? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. If we amended it, they have also said that the 

New Deal is unconstitutional and we are not amending the Constitution to entrench the New Deal. 

Senator CORNYN. I would say if I was still back in a courtroom 

that that was unresponsive to the question. Would you just concede 

with me, and I will leave it at this, that you and other legal scholars have for some time, even before Lawrence v. Texas, questioned 

whether the restriction of marriage to a man and a woman is constitutional? Would you agree with that? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. I think I can just speak for myself, and any questions I have raised have been in the context of saying the Supreme 

Court should not accept constitutional challenges to bans on samesex marriage. 

Senator CORNYN. Professor, you agree that Professor Lawrence 

Tribe has questioned whether the restriction of marriage to a man 

and a woman is constitutional after Lawrence v. Texas? Have you 

read that somewhere? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. I have, and Professor Tribe has said a great deal 

of things, a number of things, and I wouldn’t want to say the 

Rehnquist Court is in agreement with Professor Tribe on the great 

issues of the day. 

Senator CORNYN. Let us go back to the text of the language of 

the amendment itself, please, if we may, on the chart. There has 

been some concern expressed about the meaning of the constitutional amendment with the technical corrections that Senator AlVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:17 Mar 07, 2005 Jkt 098156 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\98156.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
44

lard and Representative Musgrave have proposed. I would just like 

to ask perhaps Professor Collett, you are familiar with this language, are you not? 

Ms. COLLETT. Yes, I am, Senator. 

Senator CORNYN. There has been some charge made that the second sentence of this proposed amendment would somehow restrict 

the ability of the States to accommodate civil unions by virtue of 

the democratic process through their elected representatives. Do 

you share that view or could you explain your view of that language to us? 

Ms. COLLETT. Senator, I believe the amendments that were proposed yesterday improve the language tremendously. As is noted in 

my written testimony, which I hope will become a part of the 

record of this hearing— 

Senator CORNYN. It will. 

Ms. COLLETT. —I am active in the efforts to amend the Minnesota State Constitution right now. We want to ensure the ability 

of the legislature to create some sort of structure for unmarried individuals to have certain legal benefits, and I believe this would 

allow that, because the legal incidents language, I believe, is modified by marriage so that they have to be attached to the marital 

status. 

Senator CORNYN. Doesn’t this sentence, in fact, only restrict the 

right, the claimed right of a court to force that on the voters of a 

State without the voters’ approval? 

Ms. COLLETT. I believe it is directly responsive to opinions like 

the Hawaii Supreme Court opinion that was responded to by the 

voters of Hawaii, the Alaska Superior Court opinion, and most recently, the Massachusetts Supreme Court opinion. When Professor 

Sunstein said there has only been one State Supreme Court, in 

fact, there have been four State Supreme Courts that have tried to 

force this radical notion on marriage on the people of their State. 

The voters of two of those States amended their State Constitution. 

This would not interfere with that, obviously. And the people of 

Vermont, their legislature responded by providing civil unions. I do 

not believe this would interfere with that, as well. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you. My time has expired. I will recognize Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to ask each of the lawyers, and Reverend Richardson, you can relax, this question. If the constitutional amendment 

that was proposed yesterday were to be ratified, would State legislatures be prohibited from granting marriage equality to same-sex 

couples if large majorities in the State voted to do so, or a majority 

of the State voted to do so? 

Ms. BOSSIN. I do not believe that this language is quite as clear 

as Professor Collett believes and I think that the language could 

be construed just the opposite, to prohibit legislatures on a challenge from extending the legal incidents of marriage to same-sex 

couples. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. But the question I am asking here is, if you 

have an initiative, proposition, that is brought directly to the voters 

of the State and the voters of the State say yes, we want same-sex 

45

marriages, would this constitutional amendment eradicate that initiative? 

Ms. BOSSIN. I think it is clear that it would. 

Senator BENNETT. Okay. That is what I wanted— 

Ms. BOSSIN. I apologize. I misunderstood your question. I think 

it is absolutely clear that it would. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. Professor? 

Ms. COLLETT. Senator Feinstein, if the people of the State decide 

that marriage is about adult desire rather than children’s needs 

and choose to embody same-sex marriage, I believe that this 

amendment would preclude that, yes. 

Ms. SPAHT. I agree. 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. It depends on whether it is in the State Constitution or not. If they decide that and do it through ordinary State 

law, the new version doesn’t reach that. But if they did it through 

the State Constitution, the new version does reach that. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. In other words, you mean that if the initiative were an amendment to the State Constitution, then clearly 

this would obliterate it? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. That is the key in the new version. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. If it were the result of general law, you are 

saying that—in other words, if the legislature passed it, it gives the 

legislature higher prominence in law than the Constitution? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. Yes, with one exception or clarification, which is 

if there is a referendum which changes State law without changing 

the State Constitution, that is okay under the new language. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So for those that are proposing this, in your 

view, this would be a major loophole? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. It would be a major loophole. I can predict litigation. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. Now, I would like to ask the same 

question of everybody else with respect to civil unions or domestic 

partnerships whereby benefits vest to a couple. Would those be affected by this legislation? 

Ms. BOSSIN. Again, I think it certainly could be read to preclude 

those benefits. I think it could be read contrary to what other people have indicated. I think that this language is vague and could 

be construed against those benefits. 

Senator CORNYN. Professor? 

Ms. COLLETT. I do not believe it—I believe it allows for the legislative enactment of civil unions, reciprocal beneficiaries, domestic 

partnerships, other alternative arrangements. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I am sorry, I didn’t—you said that reciprocal 

arrangements produced by a valid law would not be affected, 

whether that law would be a city law or a State law or a State 

Constitution? 

Ms. COLLETT. That is correct. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

Ms. SPAHT. And having just seen this language this morning and 

not having as much time maybe to study it, I would agree with 

Professor Collett. I don’t think they would be affected by this language. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Mr. Sunstein? 

46

Mr. SUNSTEIN. Yes. The more natural reading is if the State Constitution calls for civil unions or domestic partnerships that include 

the legal incidents of marriage, that is forbidden by this text. So 

if the State Constitution provides the legal incidents of marriage 

involving medical plans, hospital visits, and so forth, the more natural reading of the text is that that is prohibited. 

Ms. SPAHT. Mr. Chairman, I would disagree. Simply by looking 

at the language, shall be construed to require, and that suggests 

to me because whatever was done was not a separate constitutional 

amendment that set it up. It was by virtue of a judicial opinion, 

looking at the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses that may 

be in any particular State Constitution. But I know that lawyers 

can disagree about language. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I think that is a point, Mr. Sunstein. Do you 

want to respond to that point? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. Yes. I don’t see it. It says neither the Federal 

Constitution nor any State Constitution shall be construed to require that the legal incidents of marriage must be conferred. So 

suppose you have a State Constitution that requires that the legal 

incidents of marriage, though not marriage, be conferred on samesex marriages, as in, for example, a referendum in Connecticut. 

That seems in big trouble, doesn’t it? It is not— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes, but supposing it is a civil union validated by State law— 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. By State statute? This doesn’t— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. It would exempt—clearly, it would not affect 

State statute if you are correct in your reading, but if it were conferred by an amendment to the Constitution, even voted on by the 

people, it would. 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. I think that is the more natural reading, but Professor Spaht is right. It is not an inevitable reading and it is sad 

that we have, even after all this thought, ambiguity. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Let me go to my next question, and I would 

say this to the drafters of the amendment. What was the rationale 

of impacting the Constitutions both of a State and the Federal Government as opposed to just talking about the law or doing both? 

Why was this drafted just to relate to the Constitutions? Does anybody know the answer? I think that is a question that needs to be 

asked, because I find it puzzling that you can then, as a product 

of this, allow general law to trump the Constitution— 

Ms. COLLETT. Senator Feinstein? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. —which to my knowledge is unheard of. 

Ms. COLLETT. I believe Professor Sunstein is incorrect on that. 

Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, it would not be 

possible for a United States constitutional amendment to be 

trumped by a State statute. So a State statute that provided for 

marriage between members of the same sex would not trump a 

United States constitutional amendment that provides marriage in 

the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a 

woman. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, then wouldn’t this also affect any benefits construed through a civil union if that is the case? 

Ms. COLLETT. No, because civil union is a different legal status 

than a marriage, Senator. 

47

Senator FEINSTEIN. Right now. But assume an amendment to 

law or the Constitution. Say a civil union, say I went out and got 

signatures to put on the ballot an initiative providing for civil 

unions and saying that these—if enacted, Federal benefits should 

apply to the civil union. 

Ms. COLLETT. I understand the question, Senator, but just in the 

same manner that corporations and partnerships are different 

forms of organizing a business entity, civil unions and marriages 

are different forms of relationships between individuals. This 

amendment applies only to the institution of marriage, which has 

been organized for centuries around the need for children to have 

a mother and a father. Civil unions is an institution that is of rather contemporary vintage which was created by the Vermont legislature to respond to a judicial mandate. 

If, in fact, the people in a State determine that they want a legal 

arrangement between individuals because of their affectional preferences, then it would be a different legal status in the same way 

that partnerships are different than corporations. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Anyone else on that point? 

Ms. SPAHT. On that particular one, no, Senator Feinstein, but I 

would just conjecture as to your question about why it addresses 

the State Constitution— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Right. 

Ms. SPAHT. —in the second sentence, and my conjecture is it is 

related again to judges making decisions, whether they are at the 

Federal or the State level, as in Goodridge, that a particular State 

law violates the Equal Protection, Common Benefits Clause in 

Vermont, or the Human Declaration of Rights in Massachusetts in 

the Goodridge case, to conclude that the State must recognize marriage. And that is only—as I said, again, I wasn’t a part of any of 

that deliberation. I am just conjecturing. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. That is helpful. Thank you very 

much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CORNYN. Senator Sessions? 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. We are delighted you are here to 

discuss this issue. It is interesting and I do believe that the amendment should be subjected to scrutiny and questions and let us see 

how it looks and see how it would play out in real life. 

But I do agree that one of the biggest rubs here for members of 

Congress and the American people is that under the guise of interpreting a Constitution which trumps the people’s branch, the legislative branch, judges have interpreted their State Constitution to 

alter what the legislature has intended, and by having it declared 

constitutional, a constitutional issue, it therefore requires the legislature to go to the extent of passing a constitutional amendment 

that might not otherwise be passed. 

With regard to the Federal Constitution, I think, as the witnesses indicated, the Federal Constitution trumps State law and 

State Constitutions and if a Federal Supreme Court rules that 

Equal Protection means that all marriages and unions have to be 

treated the same, whether it is same sex or not, then that trumps 

all State law, negating the ability of every elected legislative 

branch in the country to otherwise hold and declare. 

48

So it is a pretty significant deal as far as I am concerned, and 

that is the danger of an activist judge. A judge can take a phrase 

like ‘‘Equal Protection,’’ expand it beyond its traditional meaning, 

and impose a political decision on the people and they are only 

left—their only recourse is to go through a constitutional amendment. No legislative enactment can overcome that once they declare it so. 

So I think that is why we are concerned about this and why we 

feel like this amendment goes beyond even the heartland issue of 

marriage. It goes to separation of powers. It goes to democracy. If 

we allow the judicial branch to be able to depart from the law, to 

decide issues based on what they think is right and just, departing 

from traditional statutory interpretation procedures to do so, then 

we have lost democracy. The people no longer control, because 

those judges are lifetime appointed. 

They say, you know, the Court may not so hold. They may not 

overrule DOMA and they may not. Maybe they won’t. Maybe they 

won’t in the short term. But let us say a liberal President got elected, maybe one from Massachusetts. The most liberal Senator in the 

United States Senate gets elected President and has four appointments to the United States Supreme Court. Maybe that makeup 

today is not such that they would overrule DOMA, but it is quite 

possible today. Scholars clearly believe it is possible with the current makeup of the Court. 

So I believe the American people need to be alert to protect their 

liberties, their liberties, to decide marriage. You mean a State legislature can’t decide with marriage is in their State? Big deal. This 

is raw power and it represents a clear challenge to democracy, I 

think, as to how we are going to decide some of these issues. 

Professor Collett, you mentioned—and I think we need to think 

about this—in your remarks that while you favor prohibiting marriage from being defined other than between a man and a woman, 

you think that the amendment—any amendment, I believe your 

language is—must allow for compassionate alternatives for unmarried people in various relationships. Would you expand on that, 

and is that possible under the amendment proposed by Senator Allard? 

Ms. COLLETT. Yes, Senator. In fact, my practice area before I 

came to the academy was in the area of elder law, and based on 

that practice experience as well as my observation of the loving and 

committed relationships of some of my gay and lesbian friends convinced me that, in fact, we do need some sort of opportunity for 

States to create legal arrangements for individuals who are looking 

for the opportunity to have legal rights and obligations connected 

to their willingness to enter into long-term mutual commitments of 

care and affection. 

For example, there was a recent news report that I alluded to in 

my earlier testimony of a young man in India who wanted to care 

for his grandmother and could think of no other way to do so rather than to enter into a marriage for her. There ought to be some 

other arrangement than marriage to allow people to provide some 

sort of benefits for those they love for them and it shouldn’t have 

to be dependent upon a sexual relationship and it shouldn’t have 

to be dependent upon cohabitation. 

49

That is why I have been on record for a number of years in support of the reciprocal beneficiary legislation that was passed by Hawaii. That is why I think that States have to remain free under 

the amendment to experiment in this way. Two elderly sisters— 

Senator SESSIONS. Would this amendment outlaw the Hawaii reciprocal legislation if a State chose to implement it? 

Ms. COLLETT. No, it would not. I would not support it if it did. 

Senator SESSIONS. On the question of discrimination, I would like 

to ask this. This is a question of definition, and when you define 

something, some is in and some is out. We said that the right to 

vote was 21, then we changed it to 18. Why not 17? The President 

has to be 35. Why not 30? You make decisions. So I think it is really definitional. We define things every day, and I tried to write this 

out so I can say what I want to say. 

The State has an interest in the continued existence of marriage. 

When a man and a woman have children and those children, statistically speaking, are shown to be healthier, as Reverend Richardson indicated, in the long run—statistically speaking, not in every 

case—they do better when they are raised with a mother and a father. So a State has an interest, it seems to me, in that. 

Now, same-sex marriage would extend the State’s recognition of 

traditional marriage to a broader group outside the bright-line definition that we have had for thousands of years, and it would be 

into an area where the State has less interest, because the State 

has an interest in raising children and who is going to raise them 

and how they are going to be raised. 

It would then recognize for the first time unions outside traditional marriage and to a situation where some partnerships are 

recognized and some partnerships and unions are not recognized. 

Homosexual unions would be recognized, apparently, under the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruling and maybe even a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. But two sisters or two brothers, a brother and 

a sister, good friends who are not sexual, don’t desire to marry, are 

partners, deeply sharing different values and maybe rent and savings and expenses, they would be in the same general class, it 

seems to me, as the homosexual relationships and would not qualify for benefits of marriage under some of these court rulings. 

So it would seem that the extension of marriage, to me, to samesex unions would open up a Pandora’s box of discrimination. That 

is, how do you shut it off? What is a legitimate partnership if you 

get away from the classical man and woman marital union that we 

have recognized so long? 

Professor Spaht, do you want to comment on that? 

Ms. SPAHT. I would simply say, Senator, that, in fact, that is 

what happened in European countries, France in particular. They 

couldn’t make that distinction with the solidarity pact, and so that 

is not surprising. 

Senator SESSIONS. Would you explain that a little more? I am not 

sure what you are referring to precisely. 

Ms. SPAHT. In European countries, they have various different 

arrangements, you know, whether we are talking about Scandinavia, and Senator Cornyn referred in his statement to, I am 

sure it is the article by Stanley Kurtz called, ‘‘The End of Marriage 

in Scandinavia,’’ in discussing the different types of legal arrangeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:17 Mar 07, 2005 Jkt 098156 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\98156.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
50

ments and registered partnerships that can occur in those countries. 

But also in France, when it got down to making a decision in 

France what to do, then what the law has done essentially, if I understand it—and I am surely no expert on it, so I don’t pretend to 

be—is that it was difficult to make a decision. Why do we have to 

know about the sexual relationship at all? It is just two people who 

want to register, and in part, this addresses Professor Collett’s 

kind of response and as if turns out people have the opportunity 

to experiment. But when they got down to, why do we have to inquire, then it opened it up to any two people who wanted to sign 

up for certain benefits, which essentially is what occurs in France. 

Senator SESSIONS. Anyone else? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. I can just say that the number of Federal judges 

who have taken issue with what you have said is zero. 

Senator SESSIONS. That disagree with what I said? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. Not one. No Federal judge has raised a constitutional question about bans on same-sex marriage, not one. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, a number of experts have raised that 

question and— 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. More have— 

Senator SESSIONS. Scalia said that we are heading that way. I 

believe Professor Tribe likewise so indicated, and it is pretty plain 

that Massachusetts thought it was following Lawrence, at least to 

some degree, when it rendered its opinion, so— 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. No, they were very clear to say that was the State 

Constitution, not, if I may say, not the Federal Constitution. They 

couldn’t have done what they did had they not referred the State—

I clerked for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, so I know 

something about it. It has very distinctive traditions and it is pretty willing to read the State Constitution to go well beyond the National Constitution, and the citizens of Massachusetts seem not to 

have a lot of trouble with that except on occasion when they slap 

the court in the face, as they might do here. But the court stayed 

very far away from saying the Federal Constitution extended as far 

as it did with the State Constitution. 

Ms. COLLETT. Well, with perhaps the exception of the Federal 

judge in Nebraska, according to the testimony you heard or the 

Subcommittee heard last time from the Attorney General of Nebraska, who we have only the preliminary ruling, of course, on that 

State’s constitutional amendment where they attempted to define 

marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that litigation 

has been brought by activists in that State and they have a preliminary ruling by a Federal judge in that State that the Attorney 

General characterized in his testimony before the Subcommittee of 

this Committee saying that he anticipates losing on the basis of 

Federal law in that case— 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. A really pessimistic Attorney General. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. COLLETT. —where they have cited both Lawrence and 

Romer. 

Ms. SPAHT. He has lived a long time. 

[Laughter.] 

51

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you very much, Chairman Cornyn. 

Thank you for your leadership, and we are very appreciative that 

we have someone with your background and experience chairing 

this. 

Could I just offer for the record a Washington times article of 

last week on the question of civil rights. A number of members of 

the Congressional Black Caucus do not agree with Mr. Lewis’s, 

Congressman Lewis’s, comments. One, Representative Arturo 

Davis from Alabama, a Harvard-educated African-American lawyer, former Assistant United States Attorney, was quoted as saying 

this. ‘‘The civil rights movement was more of a movement for equal 

rights for all Americans, education, voting rights, and jobs, whereas 

gay rights in terms of gay marriage is a movement for a special 

group of Americans,’’ said Representative Arturo Davis, Alabama 

Democrat. So I would not compare civil rights and gay rights. I 

would offer that for the record. 

Senator CORNYN. Without objection. 

Ladies and gentlemen, I want to say again how much I appreciate your testimony here today and the tone of the witnesses and 

the respectful and dignified way that I think we have all tried to 

conduct ourselves. I think that is important. Whatever the fate of 

any text, whether it is this or anything else, is going to be left up 

to the vote of Congress. It takes two-thirds vote to pass a constitutional amendment and three-quarters of the States and that has 

yet to be determined. 

But the one thing I want to ask Reverend Richardson on again, 

I want to touch on something again that Senator Sessions just 

mentioned because I think the argument that what we are talking 

about is protecting the civil rights of same-sex couples in the same 

way that we historically have, or at least in more recent times, 

sought to protect the civil rights of African Americans, that comparison concerns me a great deal, and you alluded to it Reverend 

Richardson. 

But let me just take you back a little bit. Of course, we fought 

a Civil War in this country over the role of African-Americans in 

this society after we were unwilling to confront it at the time of the 

writing of the Constitution. So we had a Civil War to try to reconcile that omission and the terrible way that African-Americans 

were treated in this country. 

But we also after the Civil War passed three constitutional 

amendments to deal with it, and the 14th Amendment in particular 

deals with race and was passed to address and to remedy the racial 

discrimination that existed officially in this country for a long time, 

since its inception until after that amendment was passed. 

So it concerns me that people would equate what has happened 

in terms of race in this country with the checkered history that we 

have, with, in fact, now that we have passed a constitutional 

amendment to guarantee equal protection to people of different 

races, how they would equate that with this new-found, newly discovered constitutional right that four judges on the Massachusetts 

Supreme Court found just this year after 224 years. 

I would ask you, please, Reverend Richardson, if you could expand on your earlier answer and address that directly, because 

52

that is an argument that we hear coming back and I would like to 

hear your response. 

Rev. RICHARDSON. I believe that it is offensive to compare it to 

the struggle that African-Americans went through. It bothers me 

that when we are talking about different groups that are trying to 

raise their awareness, whatever they are trying to succeed in getting across, is that they will go back and compare it to the struggles of a people, and in this particular case, African Americans. It 

bothers me how they always want to dilute it down to satisfy what 

they are trying to attain. 

Civil rights, as I know it, started about oppression of a people, 

and when that got to the point that it was being raised, then oppression turned to segregation. And then when that got to be argued, then segregation turned to discrimination. They just keep 

watering it down. But you can’t compare what the gay and lesbian 

community are going through today to what the African-American 

people went through in their struggle to gain their rights. 

I think that it is the same way with this around marriage. We 

have never had a discussion years ago about what marriage was. 

That was clearly defined. Now, to make it suit a certain population, 

they are trying to redefine the word of marriage now. Now you 

hear talk about religious marriage versus civil marriage. They keep 

separating the intent of what it was meant to be. Marriage years 

ago was marriage, a man and a woman, no question about it. 

Across the world, that has been the standard. 

Now to satisfy a special group, they want to now talk about, well, 

let us separate that into religious marriage versus civil marriage. 

Well, that difference never came up until just recently, around the 

difference between what marriage means. 

If you asked me what the definition of marriage is, I can tell you 

what it is. It is a man and a woman. But when I ask that to some 

of the members of our congregation and some of the people that are 

saying that—what is your definition of marriage? Well, I can’t give 

a definition of what they are defining marriage. Then they bring 

in about, well, we love each other and all, and that is fine and we 

don’t disagree with that. We recognize them as human beings and 

we love them as human beings. 

We are just saying, don’t start to dilute the thing that has been 

historical over hundreds of years that has been what marriage has 

stood for. Now, because of what they are trying to attain, then they 

say, well, it is different now. That is religious marriage and we are 

talking about civil marriage. Well, that was never even a discussion years ago. Why are we trying now to dilute it to all of a sudden there won’t be anything called marriage. It will just be a, ‘‘do 

your thing,’’ and it does affect families. 

They are saying, well, what we do doesn’t affect your family. 

Well, it certainly does. It certainly does, because when I have—I 

have five girls and I have 25 grandchildren and when they present 

themselves and say, well, I want to go live with somebody and try 

it out and see if it works, well, wait a minute. That is not acceptable. That does affect me. Well, somebody else is doing it. Why 

can’t I do it? It seems like it is okay. 

It does affect people’s lifestyle and it does affect families in general when you see these other things. As much as I enjoy going to 

53

Provincetown and taking—but I had to stop going there and taking 

my kids as a nice summer resort because of some of the things that 

they would see and then bring back home and start asking questions about why is this, why is that, and telling their friends. Well, 

I just went here for the weekend and I saw this and I saw that. 

It does affect families. So you can’t isolate it and say that it doesn’t 

spill over into the general population. 

So the whole thing around comparing what is happening now to 

comparing what happened then is just not the same. 

Senator CORNYN. Let me ask you just sort of on a concluding 

note, Reverend Richardson, have you noticed among your church 

members, the people in the community that you serve, the negative 

effect of deterioration in traditional family life? 

Rev. RICHARDSON. I don’t think we see it on the surface because 

we certainly talk about we should love everybody and that we 

should treat everybody equally. But below the surface, there is a 

difference. We certainly have gay and lesbian members in our congregation. They have adopted children in some cases. They are not 

looked at differently. They believe in what they believe in. But I 

think the children feel the difference. 

Senator CORNYN. I was really alluding to the impact of singleparent families and fatherlessness, in particular. Has that been a 

longstanding issue? 

Rev. RICHARDSON. I think that every child, every child that is 

raised in an environment that doesn’t have a mother and a father 

image to help raise them and bring them up truly is affected in 

some way. I have children that have separated from their husbands 

and they are trying to raise one of our grandchildren and I see the 

effect that it has on the grandchildren when it is only a mother 

there trying to raise them or a father trying to raise them. They 

need that, and so the grandparents step into the gap or the aunts 

or the uncles step into the gap to fill that. There is a void in a 

child’s life when they don’t have a mother and a father to raise 

them. 

Senator CORNYN. Certainly, as we have said time and time 

again, no one here is disparaging other family relationships— 

Rev. RICHARDSON. No, definitely not, definitely not. 

Senator CORNYN. —and I don’t understand you to be doing it either, but merely to say what you believe the ideal is in terms of 

the best interests of family life and children. Is that correct, sir? 

Rev. RICHARDSON. That is correct. 

Senator CORNYN. I know we have about worn out the audience 

and we have no doubt worn you out and most of the Committee, 

too. I want to again express my appreciation for your being here 

today and your willingness to share your opinions with us. I am 

sure that we have all learned a lot. 

Thank you very much, and this hearing is now concluded. 

[Whereupon, at 1:13 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.]

54


98156.001
55


98156.002
56


98156.003
57


98156.004
58


98156.005
59


98156.006
60


98156.007
61


98156.095
62


98156.096
63


98156.097
64


98156.098
65


98156.099
66


98156.100
67


98156.101
68


98156.102
69


98156.103
70


98156.104
71


98156.105
72


98156.106
73


98156.107
74


98156.108
75


98156.022
76


98156.023
77


98156.024
78


98156.025
79


98156.026
80


98156.027
81


98156.028
82


98156.029
83


98156.030
84


98156.094
85


98156.031
86


98156.032
87


98156.033
88


98156.034
89


98156.035
90


98156.036
91


98156.037
92


98156.038
93


98156.039
94


98156.040
95


98156.041
96


98156.042
97


98156.043
98


98156.044
99


98156.045
100


98156.046
101


98156.047
102


98156.048
103


98156.049
104


98156.050
105


98156.051
106


98156.052
107


98156.053
108


98156.054
109


98156.055
110


98156.056
111


98156.057
112


98156.058
113


98156.059
114


98156.060
115


98156.061
116


98156.062
117


98156.063
118


98156.064
119


98156.065
120


98156.066
121


98156.067
122


98156.068
123


98156.069
124


98156.070
125


98156.071
126


98156.072
127


98156.073
128


98156.074
129


98156.075
130


98156.076
131


98156.077
132


98156.078
133


98156.079
134


98156.080
135


98156.081
136


98156.082
137


98156.083
138


98156.084
139


98156.085
140


98156.086
141


98156.087
142


98156.088
143


98156.089
144


98156.090
145


98156.091
146


98156.092
147

Æ


98156.093