S. HRG. 112–120 

S. 598, THE RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT: 

ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF DOMA ON AMERICAN FAMILIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 20, 2011 

Serial No. J–112–35 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

S. 598, THE RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT: ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF 

DOMA ON AMERICAN FAMILIES 

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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

70–639 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 112–120 

S. 598, THE RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT: 

ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF DOMA ON AMERICAN FAMILIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 20, 2011 

Serial No. J–112–35 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of California ................. 3 

Franken, Hon. Al, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 140 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................ 10 

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah ............................ 3 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 161 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator form the State of Vermont .................... 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 188 

Schumer, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of New York ................... 44 

WITNESSES 

King, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa ........... 6 

Lewis, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia ...... 4 

Minnery, Thomas, Senior Vice President for Public Policy, Focus on the 

Family, Colorado Springs, Colorado ................................................................... 14 

Murray, Susan M., Ferrisburgh, Vermont, statement .......................................... 17 

Nadler, Hon. Jerrold, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 8 

Nimocks, Austin R., Senior Legal Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund, Washington, DC ............................................................................................................. 35 

Solmonese, Joe, President, Human Rights Campaign, Washington, DC ............ 33 

Sorbo, Andrew, Berling Connecticut ...................................................................... 16 

Wallen, Ron, Indio, California ................................................................................ 12 

Whelan, Edward, President, Ethics and Public Policy Center, Washington, 

DC .......................................................................................................................... 37

Wolfson, Evan, Founder and President, Freedom To Marry, New York, New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 39 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Austin R. Nimocks to questions submitted by Senator Grassley .. 47 

Responses of Evan Wolfson to questions submitted by Senator Klobuchar ....... 53 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

American Civil Liberties Union, Laura W. Murphy, Director, Washington 

Legislative Office; Christopher E. Anders, Senior Legislative Counsel; and 

Ian S. Thompson, Legislative Representative, Washington, DC, July 20, 

2011, joint letter ................................................................................................... 54 

Amnesty International, Larry Cox, Executive Director, July 19, 2011, letter 

and attachments ................................................................................................... 58 

Andreas, Jen, Pastor, Lord of Life Lutheran Church, Ames, Iowa, July 23, 

2011, letter ............................................................................................................ 63 

Burrows, Marvin, Hayward, California, statement .............................................. 64 

Carey, Rea, Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action 

Fund, statement ................................................................................................... 71 

Chabot, Don and Jim Nimmo, Courage Campaign Members, Los Angeles, 

California, statement ........................................................................................... 75 

Cooper-Harris, Tracey L., statement ...................................................................... 76 

Chrisler, Jennifer, Executive Director, Family Equality Council, Boston, Massachusetts, July 19, 2011, letter ......................................................................... 83 

Page

IV 

Coleman, Jonathan Strickland, and Rick Kerby, Courage Campaign Members, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 98

Cumiskey, Kathleen and Robin Garber, Courage Campaign Members, Los 

Angeles, California ............................................................................................... 99 

Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, Washington, DC, Survey ......................................................... 100 

Docto, Wilfredo T., Co-Owner, Moose Meadow Lodge LLC; Waterbury, 

Vermont, July 15, 2011, letter and chart ........................................................... 136 

Drinkwater, Bill and Ernest Reid, Cumberland, Rhode Island, letter ................ 139 

Gaddy, C. Welton, Reverend, President of Interfaith Alliance, Washington, 

DC, statement ...................................................................................................... 142 

GLAD, Boston, Massachusetts, GAO Report ......................................................... 144 

Geckler, James, Providence, letter ......................................................................... 156 

Hallowell, Ted, statement ....................................................................................... 157 

Huckaby, Jody M., Executive Director, PFLAG National, Washington, DC, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 163 

Igoudin, A. Lane and Jonathan D. Clark, statement ........................................... 170 

Johnson-Young, Jill, Riverside California, statement .......................................... 175 

Kalend, Mark W., Alameda County, California, statement ................................. 180 

Kazan, Steven, Kazan, McClain, Lyons, Greenwood & Harley, PLC, Oakland, 

California, statement ........................................................................................... 183 

Kirchick, Jason, Stowe, Vermont, July 18, 2011, letter ....................................... 186 

Koehl, Robert and Stylianos Manolakakis, Courage Campaign Members ......... 187 

Lerner, Rabbi Devon, former Executive Director for the Religious Coalition 

for the Freedom To Marry in Massachusetts, statement ................................. 190 

Lewis, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia ...... 192 

Leyland, Jane A., statement ................................................................................... 194 

Maatz, Lisa M., Director, Public Policy and Government Relations American 

Association of University Women, Washington, DC, statement ...................... 201 

Marrero, Christopher, Winooski, Vermont, July 18, 2011, letter ........................ 204 

Minnery, Thomas, Senior Vice President for Public Policy, Focus on the 

Family, Colorado Springs, Colorado, statement ................................................ 205 

Montgomery, Colleen, CPA, Burlington, Vermont, letter ..................................... 220 

Murray, Susan M., of Ferrisburgh, Vermont, statement ..................................... 221 

Nadler, Hon. Jerrold, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

York, statement .................................................................................................... 229 

Neilson, Victoria F., Legal Director, Immigration Equality, Washington, DC, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 231 

Nimocks, Austin R., Senior Legal Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund, Washington, DC, statement and attachment .............................................................. 235 

Out & Equal Workplace Advocates, San Francisco, California, statement ........ 267 

Poehler, Heather and Kath, letter ......................................................................... 271 

Providence Journal, March 11, 2011, article ......................................................... 272 

Reed, Carol, letter .................................................................................................... 274 

Ripple, Rock E., Providence, Rhode Island, July 18, 2011, letter ........................ 275 

Ruhe, David R., Reverend, Senior Minister, Plymouth Congregational United 

Church of Christ and Matthew J. Mardis-LeCroy, Minister of Spiritual 

Growth, Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ, July 20, 2011, 

joint letter ............................................................................................................. 277 

Shore, Sherri and Amy, joint letter ........................................................................ 279 

Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, (SPSSI), Washington, 

DC, statement ...................................................................................................... 284 

Solmonese, Joe, President, Human Rights Campaign, Washington, DC, statement ...................................................................................................................... 288 

Sorbo, Andrew, Berling Connecticut, statement ................................................... 296 

Speck, Cathy, statement ......................................................................................... 301 

Tomaselli, Maria, Ludlow, Vermont, July 20, 2011, letter .................................. 308 

Vorro, Beth, and Beth Coderre, Courage Campaign Members, letter ................. 309 

Wallen, Ron, Indio, California, statement ............................................................. 310 

Walt, Jason A. Stuart, Essex Junction, Vermont, July 20, 2011, letter ............. 314 

Westergard, Mark S., South Burlington, Vermont, letter .................................... 314 

Whelan, Edward, President, Ethics and Public Policy Center, Washington, 

DC, statement ...................................................................................................... 315 

Wiley, Reverend Dennis W., Covenant Baptist United Church of Christ, 

Washington, DC, statement ................................................................................ 337 

Page

V 

Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, M.V. Lee Badgett, Professor, Research Director; Gary J. Gates, Williams Distinguished Scholar; Pizer, Jennifer C., Legal Director, Arnold D. Kassoy Senior Scholar of Law; Han 

H. Meyer, Senior Scholar of Public Policy; Nan D. Hunter, Professor, Legal 

Scholarship Director; joint statement ................................................................. 340 

Wolfson, Evan, Founder and President, Freedom To Marry, New York, New 

York, statement .................................................................................................... 352 

ADDTIONAL SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Amnesty International, Larry Cox, Executive Director, additional attachments 

are being retained in the Committee files 

(1) 

S. 598, THE RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT: ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF DOMA ON AMERICAN FAMILIES 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, WASHINGTON, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:50 a.m., in room 

SH–216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Franken, Coons, Blumenthal, Grassley, and 

Hatch. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you all for coming. I should note that 

Senator Grassley and I talked; he is going to be a few minutes late. 

Originally, this was scheduled to begin at 10 o’clock, and his schedule was set accordingly. But we moved it up 15 minutes to accommodate the statements from our colleagues who are here. 

I want to welcome everyone to the first ever Congressional hearing examining a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA. 

I called this hearing to assess the impact of DOMA on American 

families. I have heard from many Vermont families concerned 

about this important civil rights issue. Earlier this year, I was 

proud to join Senator Feinstein and others to introduce S. 598, The 

Respect for Marriage Act, a bill that would repeal DOMA, and restore the rights of all lawfully married couples. These American 

families deserve the same clarity, fairness, and security that other 

families in this great Nation enjoy. 

As Chairman of this Committee, I have made civil rights a focal 

point of our agenda. But outside of the hearing room, I have often 

spoken with those who think the issue of civil rights is merely one 

for the history books. This is not so. There is still work to be done. 

The march toward equality must continue until all individuals and 

all families are both protected and respected equally under our 

laws. 

In the 15 years since DOMA was enacted, five States, including 

my home State of Vermont, plus the District of Columbia, have 

provided the protections of marriage to committed same-sex couples. In just a few days, the State of New York will become the 

sixth State to recognize and protect same-sex marriage. But, unfortunately, the protections that these States provide to their married 

2 

couples are overridden by the operation of DOMA. I am concerned 

that DOMA has served to create a tier of second-class families in 

States like Vermont. This runs counter to the values upon which 

America was founded and to the proud tradition we have in this 

country of moving toward a more inclusive society. 

Next month, Marcelle and I will celebrate our 49th wedding anniversary. Our marriage is so fundamental to our lives that it is 

difficult for me to imagine how it would feel to have the Government refuse to acknowledge it. But, sadly, the effect of DOMA goes 

well beyond the harm to a family’s dignity. The commitment of 

marriage leads all of us to want to protect and provide for our families. As we will hear today, DOMA has caused significant economic 

harm to some American families. This law has made it more difficult for some families to stay together. It has made it more difficult for some family members to take care of one another during 

bad health. And DOMA has even made it more difficult for some 

Americans to protect their families after they die. 

I believe it is important that we encourage and sanction committed relationships. I also believe that we need to keep our Nation 

moving toward equality in our continuing efforts to form a more 

perfect union. I am proud to say that Vermont has led the Nation 

in this regard. 

In 2000, Vermont took a crucial step when it became the first 

State in the Nation to allow civil unions for same-sex couples. Nine 

years later, Vermont went further to help sustain the relationships 

that fulfill our lives by becoming the first State to adopt same-sex 

marriage through the legislative process. I have been inspired by 

the inclusive example set by Vermont. 

But I have also been moved by the words of Representative John 

Lewis, my dear friend from the other body. Like others, my position has evolved as States have acted to recognize same-sex marriage, and I applaud the President’s decision to endorse the Respect 

for Marriage Act that Senator Feinstein and others and the rest of 

us have introduced. The President understands that this civil 

rights issue affects thousands of American families. 

I want to support the repeal of DOMA because I do not want 

Vermont spouses, like Raquel Ardin and Lynda DeForge, to experience the continuing hardship that results from DOMA’s operation. 

They live in North Hartland, Vermont. They have been together in 

a committed relationship for over three decades. They both served 

the country they love in the Navy, and both worked for the Postal 

Service. They moved to Lynda’s parents’ home in Montpelier, where 

I was born, to care for her mother who was living with Alzheimer’s 

disease. Sadly, Raquel’s degenerative arthritis forced her into retirement, and now she needs regular and painful treatment. Lynda 

was denied family medical leave to care for Raquel, her spouse, because DOMA does not recognize her Vermont marriage, which is a 

lawful Vermont marriage. This is just one example of an American 

family’s unfair treatment because of DOMA. 

Many other Vermont families have reached out to share their experiences. They include small business owners paying more in Federal taxes because they are not allowed to file as other married 

couples do. They are young couples that are taxed when their employer provides health insurance to their spouse. They are working 

3 

parents with teenage children navigating student loan forms. They 

are retirees planning for end-of-life care. These are powerful stories, and their stories, all of them, will be part of the hearing 

record. 

The Respect for Marriage Act would allow all couples who are 

married under State law to be eligible for the same Federal protections afforded to every other lawfully married couple. Nothing in 

this bill would obligate any person, religious organization, State, or 

locality to perform a marriage between two persons of the same 

sex. Those prerogatives would remain. What would change, and 

must change, is the Federal Government’s treatment of State-sanctioned marriage. The time has come for the Federal Government to 

recognize that these married couples deserve the same legal protections afforded to opposite-sex couples. 

I thank the witnesses who are going to be here today. I know 

that those who were able to travel to the hearing room represent 

a small fraction of Americans impacted by DOMA, but I am glad 

that the Committee is going to webcast this so they can hear it. I 

want to point out this powerful book put together by a Vermont 

photographer, Linda Holingdale, called ‘‘Creating Civil Union: 

Opening Hearts and Minds’’ this book shows some of the families 

impacted by DOMA. I will not include the book in the record, 

becuase it is already published, but I encourage all Senators who 

are interested to take a look. 

Senator Hatch, did you wish to say anything? 

STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF UTAH 

Senator HATCH. Mr. Chairman, I want to welcome all of our good 

colleagues here. I appreciate all three of them. I will put my statement in the record. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Hatch appears as a submissions for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Feinstein, you are the sponsor, chief sponsor of this bill. 

Would you like to say something? 

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

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. Very briefly, Mr. 

Chairman, let me thank you for your leadership because you have 

made this a historic day in holding the first hearing ever on this 

subject, so it is very special and very historic. 

DOMA was wrong in 1996, and it is wrong today. Twenty-seven 

of my colleagues and myself have introduced the Respect for Marriage Act. Our bill is simple. It strikes DOMA from Federal law. 

I would like to make just a few quick points. 

Family law has traditionally been the preserve of State law. It, 

therefore, varies from State to State. Marriage is the preserve of 

State law. Divorce is the preserve of State law. Adoption is the preserve of State law. And inheritance rights are the preserve of State 

law. The single exception is DOMA. 

4 

Chief Justice Rehnquist once wrote that family law ‘‘has been left 

to the States from time immemorial, and not without good reason.’’ 

And he was right. 

My second point is that same-sex couples live their lives like all 

married couples. They share financial expenses. They raise children together. They care for each other in good times and in bad, 

in sickness and in health, until death they do part. But DOMA denies these couples the rights and benefits to file joint Federal income taxes, to claim certain deductions, to receive spousal benefits 

under Social Security, to take unpaid leave under the Family and 

Medical Leave Act, to obtain the protections of the estate tax when 

a spouse passes and wants to leave his or her possessions to another. 

I would like to thank Ron Wallen from Indio, California, as well 

as the other witnesses today for coming before the Committee, and 

I also want to thank the 16 Californians who submitted statements 

for the record, which, Mr. Chairman, I would ask to enter into the 

record. 

Chairman LEAHY. Without objection. 

[The statements appears as a submissions for the record.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. There are between 50,000 and 80,000 married same-sex couples in this country and 18,000 in my State of 

California. Many Californians impacted by DOMA could not come 

here today to testify. Let me give you one example. 

Jill Johnson Young from Riverside could not fulfill one of her 

wife Linda’s last wishes: that they be buried together at a veterans 

cemetery. This is not right. 

Dr. Kevin Mack was tragically killed this past Thursday on his 

way to San Francisco General Hospital. He leaves behind his husband and two children, who now, because of DOMA, essentially 

lose rights that would have gone to a heterosexual couple. 

For some reason, the Congress of the United States, when it 

passed DOMA in 1996, sought essentially to deny rights and benefits provided by the Federal Government to legally married samesex couples. This must change. That is what this is all about. However long it takes, we will achieve it. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Our first witness is Congressman John Lewis, as we all know, 

a civil rights legend. I should also point out he is a close personal 

friend. He is often referred to as ‘‘the conscience of the Congress.’’ 

Today Congressman Lewis continues to be, as he has been throughout his life, a powerful advocate of matters of equality. 

Congressman Lewis, please go ahead, sir. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN LEWIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

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

Chairman Leahy and other members of the Senate, I thank you 

for inviting me to testify before this Committee today. It is an 

honor to be here. 

I am very happy to see the Judiciary Committee holding hearings to address the issue of marriage equality. But at the same 

time, Mr. Chairman, I must admit I find it unbelievable that in the 

5 

year 2011 there is still a need to hold hearings and debate whether 

or not a human being should be able to marry the one they love. 

Now, I grew up in southern Alabama, outside of a little town 

called Troy. Throughout my entire childhood, I saw those signs 

that said ‘‘white restroom,’’ ‘‘colored restroom,’’ ‘‘white water fountain,’’ ‘‘colored water fountain,’’ ‘‘colored waiting,’’ ‘‘white waiting,’’ 

‘‘white men,’’ ‘‘colored men,’’ ‘‘white women,’’ ‘‘colored women.’’ As 

a child, I tasted the bitter fruits of racism and discrimination, and 

I did not like it. And in 1996 when Congress passed the Defense 

of Marriage Act, the taste of that old bitter fruit filled my mouth 

once again. 

The Defense of Marriage Act is a stain on our democracy. We 

must do away with this unjust, discriminatory law once and for all. 

It reminds me of another dark time in our Nation’s history, the 

many years when States passed laws banning blacks and whites 

from marrying. We look back on that time now with disbelief, and 

one day we will look back on this period with that same sense of 

disbelief. 

When people used to ask Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. about 

interracial marriage, he would say, ‘‘Races do not fall in love and 

get married. Individuals fall in love and get married.’’ 

Marriage is a basic human right. No Government, Federal or 

State, should tell people they cannot be married. We should encourage people to love and not hate. 

Human rights, civil rights, these are issues of dignity. Every 

human being walking this Earth, man or woman, gay or straight, 

is entitled to the same rights. It is in keeping with the American 

promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These words 

mean as much now as they did at the signing of the Declaration 

of Independence. 

That is why Congress must not only repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, but work to ensure full marriage equality for all citizens, 

together with the privileges and benefits marriage provides. All 

across this Nation, same-sex couples are denied the very rights you 

and I enjoy. They are denied hospital visitation rights and they are 

denied equal rights and benefits in health insurance and pensions 

simply because the person they love happens to be of the same sex. 

Even in States where they have achieved marriage equality, 

these unjust barriers remain, all because of the Defense of Marriage Act. 

Unfortunately, too many of us are comfortable sitting on the 

sidelines while the Federal Government and State governments 

trample on the rights of our gay brothers and sisters. As elected 

officials, we are called to lead. We are called to be a headlight, and 

not a taillight. So I applaud the work of Congressman Nadler and 

Senator Feinstein, and I applaud the Senate Judiciary Committee 

for holding this hearing. 

I urge this Committee, the Senate as a body, and the U.S. House 

of Representatives as a whole to pass the Respect for Marriage Act 

as soon as possible. Justice delayed is justice denied, and passing 

this bill is simply the right thing to do. 

More than just our constituents, these are our brothers and sisters. We cannot turn our backs on them. We must join hands and 

work together to create a more perfect union. In the final analysis, 

6 

we are one people, one family, the American family, and we all live 

together in this one house, the American House. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for inviting me to testify. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you very much, Congressman 

Lewis. 

We have been joined by Senator Grassley, and we have a Congressman from his own State of Iowa, Congressman Steve King, 

who represents Iowa’s 5th Congressional District. He is a member 

of the House Agriculture Committee, Small Business Committee, 

and the Judiciary Committee of the House, the other Judiciary 

Committee. 

Congressman King, thank you for being here. Please go ahead, 

sir. 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE KING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank Senator Grassley also for inviting me to testify here. It is an honor and 

privilege to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I 

testify, of course, in opposition to S. 598 and other efforts to repeal 

the Defense of Marriage Act. 

The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 by overwhelming bipartisan majorities and was signed into law by President Clinton. 

This law defined marriage as, and I quote, ‘‘a legal union between 

one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 

‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.’’ This law also clarified that States did not have to 

recognize same-sex marriages performed in other States. 

Traditional marriage is a sacred institution and serves as the 

cornerstone of our society. We cannot afford to de-value it with legislation like S. 598, and we must oppose any effort that would diminish the definition of marriage. All of human experience points 

to one committed relationship between a man and a woman as the 

core building block to society. It takes a man and a woman to have 

children, and children are necessary for the next generation, and 

we need to provide to them, pass through to them the values of our 

civilization in the family. 

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this in 1888 when it stated, 

and I quote, ‘‘Marriage is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor 

progress.’’ And in 1942, the Supreme Court said, ‘‘Marriage and 

procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of 

the race.’’ 

DOMA was passed in 1996 because Congress and President Clinton understood that civil society has an interest in maintaining and 

protecting the institution of heterosexual marriage because it has 

a deep and abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation 

and child rearing. Now with today’s proposed legislation, you are 

suggesting that the Government does not have the same interest 

to protect a marriage today as it did in 1996. 

The other side argues that you cannot choose who you love and 

that a union between two men or two women is equal to that of 

one man and one woman. But these are the same arguments that 

7 

could be used to promote marriage between fathers and daughters, 

mothers and sons, or even polygamous relationships. 

In 1998, I helped draft Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act that 

States, ‘‘Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.’’ 

In 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court issued a lawless decision in 

Varnum v. Brien. Seven Iowa Supreme Court Justices decided to 

legislate from the bench. They struck down Iowa’s DOMA law, and 

to read their opinion brings one to the conclusion that these justices believe they have the authority to find the Constitution itself 

unconstitutional. They even went so far as to say that rights to 

same-sex marriage ‘‘were at one time unimagined.’’ When Iowans 

went to polls on November 2, 2010, they sent a message to the Supreme Court of Iowa. They rejected the Varnum decision and historically ousted all three justices who were up for retention. That 

included Chief Justice Marsha Ternus. Never in the history of Iowa 

had the voters ousted a single Supreme Court justice let alone the 

three that were up for retention votes last November. 

In fact, every single time the American people have had the opportunity to vote on the definition of marriage, 31 out of 31 times 

they have affirmed that marriage is and should remain the union 

of a husband and a wife, and 30 States currently have constitutional amendments to define marriage between one man and one 

woman, and Maine passed an initiative to overturn a same-sex 

marriage bill. 

Despite the clear will of the people, we have legislation like S. 

598 before us today. We also have the President saying that DOMA 

is unconstitutional, despite no court ever reaching that conclusion. 

President Obama has also directed the Justice Department to stop 

defending the constitutionality of this law. It is not the role of the 

executive branch to determine what is or is not constitutional. It 

is the role of the executive branch to execute and uphold the laws 

that Congress passed. 

Now, I understand that yesterday President Obama announced 

that he would support the repeal of DOMA. It is his domain to take 

such a position. But contrary to that position, I think it is clear 

that the will of the American people to maintain, protect, and uphold the definition of marriage between one man and one woman 

is there. This is good for families, good for society, and good for 

Government. 

I would quickly add, Mr. Chairman, a couple of points about civil 

rights. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act says ‘‘protection for race, 

color, religion, sex, national origin.’’ Those, except for the constitutional protection of religion, are immutable characteristics. Those 

characteristics that are immutable should be injected into the discussion, and a marriage license is offered because that is a permit 

to do that which is otherwise illegal. It is not a right to get married. That is why States regulate it by licensing. They want to encourage marriage. 

Thank you. I appreciate your attention and I yield back. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, Congressman King. 

Congressman Nadler is the author of the Respect for Marriage 

Act and lead sponsor of the companion bill in the House. He is also 

the lead House sponsor of the Uniting American Families Act, 

which we have also talked about in this Committee. 

8 

Congressman Nadler, thank you for coming across the divide and 

joining us here. Please go ahead, sir. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JERROLD NADLER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. NADLER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing and for your leadership on this issue. I also want to thank 

our colleague, the senior Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, for her leadership in introducing the Respect for Marriage 

Act in the Senate earlier this year along with the Chairman and 

with our outstanding junior Senator from New York, Senator Gillibrand. 

I am thrilled to be here today as the author and lead sponsor of 

the Respect for Marriage Act, which now enjoys the support of 119 

cosponsors in the House. Just yesterday, President Obama announced his support for the bill, and I applaud his leadership on 

the issue as well. 

When Congress passed DOMA in 1996, it was not yet possible for 

a gay or lesbian couple to marry anywhere in the world. Fifteen 

years later, much has changed. Six States and the District of Columbia now include gay and lesbian couples in their State marriage 

laws, and there are an estimated 80,000 gay and lesbian couples 

married legally in this country. 

As a result, and as former stereotypes about lesbians, gay men, 

and their relationships have fallen away, public understanding and 

opinion on this issue has shifted dramatically. While 75 percent of 

the public opposed allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry when 

Congress enacted DOMA, a majority of Americans now support 

marriage equality. Once viewed as a fiercely partisan issue, most 

individuals under age 45 who identify as Republican now support 

equal responsibilities and rights for gay and lesbian couples. Recently, in my home State, Republican and Democratic lawmakers 

joined forces and voted to include gay and lesbian New Yorkers in 

our State marriage laws, and they will start getting married legally 

in New York on Sunday. 

This shift in understanding and opinion now makes clear what 

should have been apparent in 1996: the refusal to recognize the 

legal marriages of a category of our citizens based on their sexual 

orientation is unjustifiable. Time and experience have eroded the 

legal and factual foundations used to support DOMA’s passage, and 

meaningful Congressional examination of this law is long overdue. 

Some of Congress’ reasons for DOMA have now been disavowed, 

most notably the claim that Congress can or should use the force 

of law to express moral disapproval of gay and lesbian Americans. 

It is no longer credible to claim that most Americans hold this 

view; and, of course, while once believed a legitimate reason for the 

law, it is now, since Lawrence v. Texas, reason enough to declare 

it invalid. 

DOMA’s supporters still claim that the law should survive and 

argue primarily that DOMA serves a legitimate interest in protecting the welfare of children by promoting a so-called optimal 

family structure—one that consists of a married opposite-sex couple 

raising their biological children. But there is no credible support for 

the notion that children are better off with opposite-sex parents or 

9 

that married gay and lesbian parents do not provide an equally loving, supportive, and wholesome environment. Any legitimate interest in children demands that the children of married lesbian and 

gay couples also receive the advantages that flow from equal Federal recognition of their parents’ State marriages. No legitimate 

Federal interest in the welfare of children is ever advanced by 

withholding protection from some children based on a desire to express moral disapproval of their parents. And it defies common 

sense to claim that it is necessary to harm or exclude the children 

of married same-sex couples in order somehow to protect the children of opposite-sex couples. 

Nor is it accurate to claim that Congress’ only interest in marriage is in its children. Congress routinely allocates Federal obligations and benefits based on marital status and often does so to promote the welfare and security of these adults. These interests are 

not possibly served by DOMA. 

While no legitimate Federal interest is served by this law, 

DOMA unquestionably causes harm, as we will hear from the married gay and lesbian couples who have joined us today. These couples pay taxes, serve their communities, struggle to balance work 

and family, raise children, and care for aging parents. They have 

undertaken the serious public and legal pledge to care for and support each other and their families that civil marriage entails. They 

deserve equal treatment from the Federal Government; in fact, the 

Constitution demands it and the Respect for Marriage Act would 

provide it. 

The Respect for Marriage Act honors the greatest traditions of 

this Nation. The bill does not define marriage but, instead, restores 

our practice of respecting all State-sanctioned marriages for purposes of Federal law while allowing each State to determine its 

own marriage laws. 

Unlike DOMA, the Respect for Marriage Act protects States’ 

rights. Though each State now sets its own marriage law, DOMA 

currently prevents the Federal Government from treating all 

States’ marriages equally. The Respect for Marriage Act would restore equal respect for the marriages of every State. 

The Respect for Marriage Act also honors America’s highest traditions of religious freedom. Religious views on marriage unquestionably differ, with some religions opposing and others solemnizing marriages for lesbian and gay couples. The Respect for Marriage Act allows this diversity to flourish, leaving every religion 

free to marry the couples it chooses without Government interference. 

In authoring this bill, I worked closely with family law experts 

to ensure that the Federal Government once again works cooperatively with the States to support and stabilize American families. 

I am confident the bill strikes the right balance, and I look forward 

to working with all of you to ensure its passage. 

I again thank you for holding this hearing. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you, Congressman Nadler. I know 

that the House has both debates and votes scheduled, so my intention would be, if there are no questions, to allow our three House 

members to go back to the other body, and then I would yield to 

Senator Grassley, who did not have a chance to make his opening 

10 

statement because we changed the schedule. I would yield to him 

for that. But I thank all three of you for being here. I know, especially this week, how hectic a schedule it is on both sides. I appreciate you taking the time to come here. Thank you. 

Senator Grassley. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for respecting my 

lateness of arrival and this courtesy. 

The bill before us today is entitled ‘‘The Respect for Marriage 

Act.’’ George Orwell would have marveled at the name. A bill to restore marriage—would restore marriage as it has been known as 

between one man and one woman. That is the view of marriage 

that I support. This bill would undermine not restore marriage by 

repealing the Defense of Marriage Act. 

The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996, and just think 

of the vote by which it passed the U.S. Senate: 85–14. We do not 

often get votes of 85–14 in the U.S. Senate on controversial pieces 

of legislation. 

Unlike a bill in which one member of a party supports a partisan 

bill of the other party, which sometimes passed for bipartisanship 

around here, this was truly a bipartisan bill, as evidenced by the 

85–14 vote. President Clinton signed it into law. Even President 

Obama ran for election on a platform of support for traditional 

marriage. Until yesterday, he was a supporter of DOMA as well. 

One of the witnesses before us today says that DOMA was 

passed for only one reason: ‘‘to express disapproval of gay and lesbian people.’’ I know this to be false. Senators at the time, such as 

Biden, Harkin, Kohl, or even you, Mr. Chairman, and Representatives at the time like Representatives Schumer and Durbin, as they 

were members of the House at that time, did not support DOMA 

to express disapproval of gay and lesbian people, and neither did 

I. 

Marriage is an institution that serves the same public purpose 

all over the world: to foster unions that can result in procreation. 

It creates incentives for husbands and wives to support each other 

and their children. It exists more to benefit children than adults, 

although many marriages do not involve children. Societies all over 

the world recognize the numerous reasons to extend special recognition to traditional marriage. 

I never thought that I would have to ever defend traditional marriage. It has been the foundation of societies for 6,000 years, not 

only here but around the world, and it is what civilizations have 

been built on. 

Support for traditional marriage cannot be viewed in a vacuum. 

Over the last 50 years, marriage has changed very dramatically. 

Perhaps the divorce laws, inheritance laws, and criminal laws of 

that time needed reform. Like many Members of Congress, I believe in federalism. I do not support the rights of the State—I do 

support the rights of States to make changes in marriage if they 

choose. But I also believe that a State that changes its definition 

of marriage should not be able to impose that change on sister 

States or the Federal Government. 

11 

Section 2 of DOMA adds a statutory enhancement to State authority under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution to maintain their own definitions of marriage. In addition, same-sex couples are not the only couples who 

face the issues that we are going to hear about today from our witnesses. Unmarried heterosexual couples, siblings, and friends who 

live together all can face the same problem, some of which can be 

addressed through other means than this particular legislation, 

and legitimately so. 

I would like to note that one of our witnesses describes the serious threats that were made against ordinary citizens who exercised 

their First Amendment rights to petition the Government for redress of grievances when California judges forced that State to 

adopt same-sex marriage. The minority very much hoped to call a 

witness today at this hearing to testify in support of DOMA. I am 

sure she would have done an excellent job. She declined, however, 

citing as one reason the threats and intimidation that have been 

leveled against not only her but her family as a result of her public 

support of DOMA. She will continue to write on this subject but 

will no longer speak publicly. This chilling of the First Amendment 

rights is unacceptable. 

There are good people of good faith on both sides of this question. 

They should seek to persuade each other through logic and factual 

evidence. They should not resort to threats of violence or seek to 

silence their opponents. And I say the same thing for people that 

want to take bad action against people that are gay and lesbian. 

DOMA is a constitutional law, but it is subject to constitutional 

attack. As one of today’s witnesses shows, the Department of Justice has not performed its constitutional duties to take care that 

laws be faithfully executed during the course of litigation involving 

DOMA. The Department recently argued in another case that the 

courts should rely on unpassed bills in deciding the legality of Government action. This is a ridiculous argument, one which courts 

have never accepted. 

The rule of law requires rulings based on actual laws, not on policy preferences. The Obama administration lost that argument in 

that other case called the Leal case, although, regrettably, four activist judges agreed that somehow they ought to make a decision 

on the fact that Congress might pass a law as opposed to what the 

law actually is. Neither the administration nor any judge should 

rely on an aunpassed bill, S. 598, arguing or deciding the constitutionality of DOMA. Nor should the administration or any judge accept the argument the Justice Department made in the Leal case 

that there is any legal significance to the mere introduction of a 

bill, even if it is strongly supported by the administration. Nor 

should the administration nor any judge be of the erroneous opinion that this Congress will pass S. 598. 

Thank you very much, Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Of course, I would note in the 

other case you are referring to, we do have treaty obligations, that 

any time we enter a treaty it does become the law of the land. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, that is the Supremacy of the Law 

Clause that I take an oath to uphold, so I agree with you on that. 

12 

Chairman LEAHY. And as each one of us has had to at one time 

or another, when we have had a citizen from our State is being 

held by authorities in another country, we have argued they should 

have the right to have somebody from our embassy speak to them 

and advise them of their rights. Of course, in that case the argument was we want—if we ask other countries to do that for our 

citizens, they ought to have the same rights in ours. 

But, in any event, I would ask the staff if they would change the 

names on here, and we will call up the next panel. We will call up 

Ron Wallen, Thomas Minnery, Andrew Sorbo, and Susan Murray, 

and before we start, I will—we will hear the testimony from each 

of them, and then we will open it up to questions. 

I should also note in the audience we are pleased to have Senator 

Gillibrand. As a couple of the witnesses have already noted, she is 

a strong supporter of this legislation and has worked with us and 

worked very hard for its passage, so I am glad to have you here, 

Senator. 

The first witness we will hear from is Ron Wallen. He is a resident of Indio, California. He married Tom Carrollo, his partner of 

55 years, in June of 2008. 

Mr. Wallen, please go ahead, sir. And, incidentally, I should note 

for all witnesses, your whole statement will be placed in the record, 

and once you have the transcript—you will get a copy of the transcript, and if you find that you should have added this line or that 

line, you will have a chance to do that. We want as complete a 

record as we can have. 

Please go ahead, Mr. Wallen. 

STATEMENT OF RON WALLEN, INDIO, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WALLEN. Thank you, Chairman Leahy and members of the 

Senate Judiciary Committee, for inviting me to testify at this important hearing today. I want to especially thank my Senator, Senator Feinstein, for introducing the Respect for Marriage Act. And 

I am honored and appreciate the opportunity to tell my story. 

My name is Ron Wallen. I am 77 years old, and I live in Indio, 

California. 

Four months ago, Tom Carrollo, my husband and partner of 58 

years, died of leukemia. Tom and I first met back in 1953 when 

Tom was 23 and I was 19. And from the first day, we enjoyed a 

sense of togetherness which never weakened in both good times 

and bad. Tom suffered a massive heart attack in 1978. On doctor’s 

orders, we changed our lives, which also resulted in diminished income for us both. And for the next 33 years, our very ordinary life 

was happily spent together surrounded by friends and family until 

Tom’s last illness. 

On June 24, 2008, we were among the lucky couples in California 

to stand before family and friends and legally marry the one person 

we loved above all others. It was a wonderful day, a day of pure 

joy. And as ingrained as our love for each other was, we were still 

surprised by the amount of emotion that came to us when the 

words ‘‘I now pronounce married for life’’ were spoken. Imagine, 

after 55 years together, the two of us were blubbering on our wedding day. 

13 

But even on the day we vowed in sickness and in health, we 

were already facing the worst because Tom had been diagnosed 

with lymphoma, which later morphed into leukemia. Tom’s illness 

was 4 years of pure hell, with more hospitalizations than I can 

count using both hands and feet. Not a month went by that I was 

not rushing him to the emergency room. But we were in it together. Tom did not have leukemia. We had leukemia. And as rotten as those 4 years were, they were made more bearable because 

we had each other for comfort and love and because we were married. 

Since Tom died on March 8, I miss him terribly. And beyond the 

emptiness caused by the loss of the man I have spent my entire 

adult life with, my life has been thrown into financial turmoil because of DOMA. 

Like a lot of retirees, we took a big financial hit in the stock market these past couple of years. But between Tom’s Social Security 

benefit of $1,850, his small private pension of $300, and my Social 

Security check, which was $902, we had a combined steady monthly income of $3,050, which kept a roof over our heads. The rest of 

our living expenses were covered by the income from our diminished investments—not sumptuous, but enough. 

As you know, for married couples in this country, Social Security 

allows a widow or widower to either claim their own benefit or the 

benefit amount of their deceased spouse, whichever is higher. That 

Survivor’s Benefit is often what allows the widow or widower to 

stay in their home at a very difficult time. But DOMA says that 

gay and lesbian married couples cannot get that same treatment. 

Therefore, my reliable income went from $3,050 down to $900 a 

month. The monthly mortgage on my home is $2,078 plus associated HOA and other costs. You do not have to be an accountant 

to see that from the day Tom passed, I have had to worry about 

how to pay that mortgage. 

That additional benefit would have done for me what it does for 

every other surviving spouse in America: ease the pain of loss, help 

during a very difficult transition, and allow time to make decisions 

and plan for my future alone. Yet I could not depend on this after 

58 years with my spouse simply because of DOMA. This is unfair. 

This is unjust. 

Many widows and widowers downsize and make adjustments 

after the loss of their spouse. Downsizing is one thing, but panic 

sale of a home which is underwater is quite another. After a lifetime of being a productive citizen, I am facing financial chaos. Tom 

and I played by the rules as we pursued our own version of the 

American DREAM. We served our country; we paid our taxes; we 

volunteered; we maintained our home; we got married as soon as 

we were legally able to do so. And yet as I face a future without 

my spouse of 58 years, it is hard to accept that it is the Federal 

Government that is throwing me out of my own home. 

You can fix this problem by repealing DOMA. It is a discriminatory law against gay and lesbian couples who have assumed the responsibilities of marriage. All we ask is to be treated fairly, just 

like other loving and committed married couples. I beg you to repeal this law and allow all married couples the same protections. 

14 

‘‘I’d like to add one more thought: Although I am happy to tell 

my personal sad story (of which there must be many thousands 

more,) it should not have been necessary. Basic application of the 

civil rights, privileges, and responsibilities which should be granted 

to all Americans, should, of and by themselves illustrate how 

wrong the Defense of Marriage Act is; how important it is to repeal 

it; and how it should never have been allowed to be passed in the 

first place. This should be obvious to all fair minded persons. 

Again, thank you for inviting me to testify today, and I will be 

happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wallen appears as a submissions 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Wallen. 

Our next witness is Thomas Minnery, senior vice president of 

Focus on the Family and executive director of its lobbying affiliate, 

Citizen Link. And Mr. Minnery reminded me that years and years 

and years and years ago, when we were both younger, he actually 

covered me for one of the newspapers in Vermont. 

Go ahead, Mr. Minnery. Is your microphone on? The little red 

light will go on. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS MINNERY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT 

FOR PUBLIC POLICY, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY, COLORADO 

SPRINGS, COLORADO 

Mr. MINNERY. It is now. Thank you. And, Mr. Wallen, my heart 

goes out to you. My organization is very large. We do a lot of counseling for families to help them thrive in a difficult and complex 

society. We have resources for couples to build healthy marriages 

that reflect God’s design and for parents to raise their children according to morals and values grounded in biblical principles. We 

have 13 international offices. Our radio programs are broadcast in 

26 languages to more than 230 million people around the world 

each day, and, Mr. Wallen, we have resources that I believe can 

help you even in your situation, and if you would permit us, we 

would love to try and be helpful to you. 

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, I believe I represent two groups of people who have not been invited here today 

to testify. The first group of people are those many voters who have 

unapologetically endorsed the traditional definition of marriage in 

State ballot initiatives or referenda. Typically, these votes pass 

with overwhelming majorities, an average of 67 percent majority in 

each of the 31 States where voters have had a chance to register 

their opinions about it. Additionally, 15 more States have passed 

some sort of statute, bringing the total to 44 States that have decided in one form or another, usually by large, overwhelming majorities, that marriage is between one man and one woman. 

One of the bill’s most serious impacts, the bill we are discussing 

today, has been largely ignored. It is the repeal of Section 2 of 

DOMA. That is the section that protects States from being forced 

to recognize out-of-State same-sex marriages. 

The bill’s revocation of Section 2 is an attempt to undermine the 

public policies, laws, and Constitutions of the vast majority of 

States for whom traditional marriage is a settled issue. The only 

possible reason for doing so is to place the issue of marriage once 

15 

again into the hands of judges and to take the issue of marriage 

out of the hands of people who have already spoken so clearly in 

so many States. Should DOMA be repealed, parents in those States 

which have registered their approval of traditional marriages will 

be faced with the problems of coping with marriages of which they 

overwhelmingly disapprove. We need look no further than Massachusetts, the first State to legalize same-sex marriage, to understand what I am talking about. It is this forced political correctness 

that brooks no diversity of opinion that is the problem here. 

National Public Radio featured an interview with a Massachusetts eighth-grade teacher, Deb Allen, who was exuberant about 

her new-found freedom to explicitly discuss homosexual behavior 

with kids after the law passed in Massachusetts. ‘‘In my mind, I 

know that, OK, this is legal now,’’ she said. ‘‘If somebody wants to 

challenge me, I will say, ‘Give me a break. It is legal now.’’ That 

is what she said to NPR. The NPR reporter went on to explain that 

the teacher now discusses ‘‘gay sex’’ with students ‘‘thoroughly and 

explicitly with a chart’’—in the eighth grade. 

I feel like I am also representing parents who have not been invited here to speak who have a sincerely held religious view that 

marriage is between one man and one woman, and they want to 

protect their young children against other views. 

Robb and Robin Wirthlin in 2006 had their 7-year-old son, Joey, 

come home and tell them about a book his teacher had read to the 

first grade class expounding on same-sex relationships. At first, 

they thought that he was mistaken. They requested that the school 

inform them about such presentations, and they were turned down. 

Another couple, David and Tonia Parker, had an even worse result. When they questioned the teaching of explicit same-sex issues 

to their young son, Mr. Parker found himself in jail. ‘‘I am just trying to be a good dad,’’ Parker said after his arraignment. The family acknowledged they were Christians attempting to follow their 

faith. ‘‘We are not intolerant,’’ said his wife. ‘‘We love all people. 

That is part of our faith.’’ 

But, see, the judge who ruled on their case, the case of the Parkers and the Wirthlins, has this to say: ‘‘The sooner children are exposed to those topics of same-sex relationships, the better it is. It 

is difficult to change attitudes and stereotypes after they have developed.’’ Excuse me? Attitudes and stereotypes? These are the sincerely held religious views of their parents, and the judge takes it 

upon himself to believe that these views, sincerely held, should be 

erased from the minds of the children. 

Mr. Chairman, that is my opening statement. I would be pleased 

to take questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Minnery appears as a submissions for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Minnery, and 

it is good to see you again. 

Our next witness is Andrew Sorbo, a resident of Berlin—how do 

you pronounce it in Connecticut? 

Mr. SORBO. Berlin. 

Chairman LEAHY. The same way we do in Vermont. 

[Laughter.] 

16 

Chairman LEAHY. We have a Berlin, Vermont, for those who are 

wondering. Andrew and his late spouse, Colin Atterbury, shared a 

life for nearly 30 years. They were joined in a civil union in 

Vermont in 2004. That is back when Vermont had civil unions before they had same-sex marriage. They were legally married in 

Connecticut in 2009. 

Please go ahead, sir. 

STATEMENT OF ANDREW SORBO, BERLIN, CONNECTICUT 

Mr. SORBO. Thank you, Senator Leahy, Senator Feinstein, and 

Senator Blumenthal, for inviting me to testify before this Committee. 

My name is Andrew Sorbo. I am 64 years old and a resident of 

Berlin, Connecticut. I spent 35 years as a teacher and principal in 

the Catholic and public schools of Rhode Island and Connecticut 

before retiring in 2005. I am here today to talk about how I have 

been hurt by the Defense of Marriage Act after I lost my partner 

of nearly 30 years, the love of my life and my legal spouse, Dr. 

Colin Atterbury, a professor of medicine at Yale University and the 

chief of staff of the West Haven, Connecticut, Veterans Administration Medical Center. 

As a young man of 23, I had mistakenly married, separated, and 

divorced, and expected to spend the rest of my life alone and my 

nights in quiet desperation. But then to my everlasting surprise, on 

July 29, 1979, on a visit to New York City, I met Colin. From our 

first conversation, we knew that we had found our soul mates and 

our partners for life. Although we never expected it to happen in 

our lifetime, we had the opportunity to legalize our relationship 

with a civil and holy union in Vermont on the occasion of our 25th 

anniversary. 

A year later, I retired and shortly afterward Colin was diagnosed 

with pancreatic cancer. For over 3 years, he battled the cancer with 

stoicism and courage, and I nursed him with a strength I was not 

aware that I possessed. In January 2009, we were married by two 

minister friends in a subdued ceremony in the living room of our 

home in Cheshire, Connecticut. Colin died 4 months later, just shy 

of our 30th anniversary. 

Even though we had done everything we could to legalize our relationship and protect ourselves financially, DOMA hung over us 

like a dark and ominous cloud. The financial impact due to DOMA 

came swiftly after Colin’s death. His Federal pension checks 

stopped, so our household income declined by 80 percent. DOMA 

did not allow Colin the same legal right which my other brotherin-law possessed when he retired—that is, the opportunity to accept a smaller monthly pension to allow his spouse, my sister, to 

inherit his pension and maintain her financial security in the event 

of his death. This year, I had to sell our house in Cheshire and 

downsize to a condominium. Leaving our home of 18 years is a moment I will never forget. 

Colin was also denied the right to include me in his medical insurance plan. When I retired as a teacher in 2005, I had no alternative except to pay for my insurance coverage in full at a much 

higher rate than as a spouse. Last year, my insurance payments 

consumed almost one-third of my $24,000 teacher pension. In addiVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Oct 18, 2011 Jkt 070639 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\70639.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
17 

tion, DOMA forced my financial planner to create a retirement 

plan much less advantageous for me than if I had been Colin’s female spouse. 

Another consequence of DOMA is that, unlike my mother when 

my stepfather died, I was unable to inherit my spouse’s Social Security benefits. 

DOMA also interfered with our ability to file joint State income 

tax returns even though we were legally married in Connecticut. 

That process is prohibitively complex for same-sex spouses. Even 

after our civil union in 2004, Colin and I were not allowed to file 

joint Federal income tax returns, a situation that my sister and her 

husband never faced. After Colin died, I was forced to file a separate Federal return for him, and separating our finances at that 

point was exceedingly difficult. 

The damage that DOMA inflicts every day on the lives of decent 

Americans is not only financial but also psychological as well. The 

toll on our belief in the justice and fairness of our society is incalculable. Were Colin sitting by my side today, Colin would implore you 

to remove this insult to our dignity, to respect us as much as you 

do our heterosexual countrymen, and to rescind DOMA. Colin 

would ask that you restore the economic justice that DOMA denies 

us. He would remind you that we are your brothers and your sisters, your aunts and your uncles, your cousins and your friends, 

your work mates and your neighbors, your sons and your daughters, and, yes, even sometimes your moms and your dads. And then 

Colin, the doctor who was a philosopher, would stop to ruminate 

because he was a thoughtful man. He would lower his voice solemnly. He would look every one of you in the eye before saying, 

‘‘Everybody deserves equal treatment.’’ 

Thank you, Senators, for allowing me to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sorbo appears as a submissions 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Sorbo. 

Our last witness on this panel is Susan Murray. Ms. Murray 

lives with her wife, Karen, in Ferrisburgh, Vermont. She is a partner in the law firm of Langrock, Sperry & Wool in Burlington, 

Vermont. That is one of the leading law firms of our State. She 

specializes in family law, appeals, estate planning, and civil rights. 

She was co-counsel in Baker v. State of Vermont, which established 

civil unions in Vermont. 

Ms. Murray, please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF SUSAN M. MURRAY, FERRISBURGH, VERMONT 

Ms. MURRAY. Thank you, Chairman Leahy, my fellow Vermonter, 

and thank you, Senator Grassley, and the other members of the 

Committee, for allowing me to testify here today. 

I am the oldest of seven children. I came from a good Catholic 

family, and I had a great childhood. My mom and dad were completely devoted to us kids. But they were also devoted to each 

other. They were happily married for 51 years before my dad died 

6 years ago. Sorry. So that was my model of a successful marriage. 

That is what I wanted for myself. 

When I realized as a young adult that I was gay, I did not think 

that I would ever have the opportunity to have that same kind of 

18 

a life that my parents had. And then I met Karen Hibbard, and 

I consider myself blessed to have found the person that I wanted 

to be with for the rest of my life. 

We have been together for more than 25 years now, and as soon 

as the State of Vermont—as soon as the Vermont Legislature said 

we could, we got married. We promised to continue to love one another and to be with each other through thick and thin for the rest 

of our lives. 

By now, our lives are completely intertwined, both financially 

and otherwise. But we still cannot file join Federal tax returns, and 

that means we have to pay more in taxes. 

There was a time a few years ago when I was very sick and I 

was in the hospital for 4 days. Karen stayed with me every day and 

every night until I got better. Luckily, I had health insurance 

through Karen’s work, so that helped pay the medical bills. But unlike other married coworkers that she works with, Karen has to 

pay tax on the value of that health insurance coverage for me. That 

value is about $6,200 a year. 

Now, Senators, when we met, Karen had blond hair and I had 

black hair, and now we both have gray hair. And as we get older, 

we are starting to worry about the financial difficulties that we 

may face because the Social Security laws do not provide us the 

full benefits that other couples have. 

All of these things, large and small, add up over time, and it is 

like waves hitting the sand on a beach, over and over. They have 

the effect of eroding our financial security. It is trying to erode 

things that we have worked so hard to build up over time. 

As Senator Leahy pointed out, I am a lawyer by profession. I do 

a lot of family law work and a lot of estate planning work, and in 

that role I have seen firsthand the ways in which the lack of Federal protections hurt same-sex families and the children they are 

raising. So I would like to give you just two examples here today. 

I once represented a woman named Carey. She was a blue-collar 

worker. She worked in a big-box store. She and her partner, Erin, 

really struggled to support themselves and Erin’s two children that 

Erin had from a prior marriage. At one point Carey went to her 

employer and tried to get health insurance for Erin and for Erin’s 

two children, and the company said no. They specifically told her 

that the Federal Government did not require them to insure their 

employees’ same-sex partners or spouses or those spouses’ children. 

So they were not going to offer it. So for this family, the lack of 

health insurance really was very scary. They were essentially one 

illness away from financial ruin. 

And the last case I will tell you about is a tragedy. My client, 

Cheryl, and her partner, Jane, were new parents of an 8-monthold boy. They were totally in love with that little baby. They had 

so many hopes and dreams together for raising that child. They 

had agreed that Cheryl was going to stay home and be a full-time 

stay-at-home-mom to take care of the baby and that Jane would go 

to work to earn money for the family. Now, she had a very modest 

job and made a modest income, but they had a little house, and 

they were making ends meet. 

And then one morning on her way to work, Jane was killed in 

a car accident, and instantly all of that family’s income was gone. 

19 

Cheryl did not even get the basic parent Social Security benefits 

that Jane had paid for through her Social Security taxes. That 

basic Federal safety net was not there for Cheryl and their little 

baby. 

For me as a lawyer, it was heart-breaking to deal with that, to 

see that little baby and to try to help Cheryl deal with her grief 

and with this financial devastation. She ended up losing the house. 

We could not save it for her. 

These are just two examples of the harms that same-sex couples 

have faced, and will face, if DOMA is allowed to remain the law 

of the land. I really hope you will get rid of this unfair law. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Murray appears as a submissions for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. We will go to our questions. 

As a member of the Vermont Bar and a member of the legal community, I have been very familiar with your advocacy, Ms. Murray, 

in the fight for equality. But this is the first time I have heard your 

personal story and what you said about your parents and how their 

marriage was an example to you. And I can certainly relate to that 

and my own parents. 

But you also were in Vermont when we had first civil unions the 

legislature passed. That was a major debate in our State. Then 

subsequently, a few years later, when the Vermont Legislature, the 

elected members debated and passed the same-sex marriage, which 

actually was far less of a—it did not bring about an awful lot of 

controversy from the right to the left in our State. But why was 

it important to you to get married rather than just have a civil 

union? 

Ms. MURRAY. That is a great question, Senator. You know, civil 

unions was created out of whole cloth by the State of Vermont. 

Now other States have borrowed that phrase, but it was brand-new 

back then, and is different. And people did not know what it was. 

When we had a civil union ceremony, we had a big party, and some 

of the people we invited did not know what we were inviting them 

to. They did not understand it. 

But marriage is universal. Everybody understands it—everybody 

in this country and everybody in the world. Everybody knows what 

the marriage vows are, that you take someone for better, for worse, 

for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do you 

part. Everybody knows that. And the childhood that I had and the 

model that I had from my parents caused me to believe in marriage. I believe in its power to bind people and its importance to 

society. And I wanted to declare that publicly. We both wanted to 

declare that publicly for our friends, and our family, so that they 

would be there to support us and so that they understood that we 

were part of that world. 

Chairman LEAHY. Let me ask you, we will have a number of witnesses, we already have had and will have more, who oppose the 

Respect for Marriage Act. Some say they want to fight poverty by 

keeping American families intact. They talk about the problems of 

single-parent households. Now, States have long determined issues 

of marriage. It is rare the Federal courts and the Supreme Court 

20 

stepped in. They did, of course, 40 years in Loving v. Virginia, when it unanimously struck down the miscegenation laws. But I 

think we can say that our Federal Government has had an interest 

in protecting children. We can agree that marriage provides more 

stable and financially secure homes and families for children. 

When practicing family law, do you see any way that DOMA is 

operating to keep families more intact and protected or the other 

way around? 

Ms. MURRAY. It is just the opposite of protection, Senator. Let me 

give you an example. 

Karen and I have friends who live in New York, outside of Albany, a gay male couple. They have adopted three special-needs 

kids, including one who got AIDS because his mother was an intravenous drug user. They have had so many difficulties raising these 

children, really trying times, but they have done a fabulous job 

raising these kids. DOMA undermines their ability to take care of 

these children and to provide these children with the care and support that they need. To the extent they cannot file joint tax returns 

and that increases their tax burden, that is money that these parents cannot use to buy books for those kids, they cannot spend it 

on tutors, they cannot spend it on summer camps. They cannot 

even put money away for the kids’ college educations. 

I think we can all agree in this room that children are this country’s most precious resource. They are our future. And the kids of 

same-sex couples deserve exactly the same protections and benefits 

and that sense of security that every other child in this country deserves, and they are not getting it with DOMA. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Mr. Minnery, earlier this year at the Conservative Political Action Conference in D.C., you made this statement. I believe I am 

quoting you correctly. ‘‘We believe we fight poverty every day in the 

most effective way that poverty can be fought in this country, and 

that is, by keeping families intact.’’ And your report, ‘‘The Value of 

Marriage for Fighting Poverty,’’ attributes child poverty in large 

part to the prevalence of single-parent households in our Nation. 

You suggest marriage would lift a significant number of those 

adults and children out of poverty. 

I think we all agree that marriage provides more stable and financially secure homes and families for children, but does that 

come through if we are denying some parents rights and benefits 

that would make their families healthy and more secure? 

Mr. MINNERY. Well, thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. 

We all, we the people, care about marriage, care about what it is 

because it is the nurturing environment for children. And a mountain of social science data has concluded overwhelmingly that the 

best environment for raising those children, if possible, is an intact 

home headed by a married father and mother. In fact, I put in my 

prepared statement a footnote—— 

Chairman LEAHY. But my specific question, though, if you do 

have parents legally married, if they are same sex, and there are 

children, are those children benefited by saying that in that family 

they will not have the same financial benefits that another family, 

married parents of opposite sex would have? Are those children not 

put at a disadvantage by denying those same benefits to them? 

21 

And I am talking about now a legal marriage under the State laws 

of the State they live in. 

Mr. MINNERY. Without question, those children are certainly better off than had they no parents. But same-sex marriage—— 

Chairman LEAHY. Wait a minute. I do not understand that. They 

would be better off if they had no parents? 

Mr. MINNERY. No. They are certainly better than if they had no 

home headed by parents. But same-sex marriage says a whole lot 

more than that, Senator. 

Chairman LEAHY. I know, but I am trying to go specifically to 

the financial. Are they not disadvantaged by not having the same 

financial benefits that an opposite-sex family would have? 

Mr. MINNERY. Well, as I say, I do not know the details of which 

families you are speaking of. Certainly those families are better 

off—the children are better off with parents in the home. But I am 

saying—— 

Chairman LEAHY. But I am talking about just on—yes or no. And 

this is not a trick question. I am just asking. Please. If you have 

parents legally married under the laws of the State, one of set of 

parents are entitled to certain financial benefits for their children, 

the other set of parents are denied those same financial benefits for 

their children, are not those children—at least in that aspect of finances, are not those children of the second family, are they not 

at a deficiency? Yes or No. 

Mr. MINNERY. It would be yes, as you asked the question narrowly, Senator. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. And I was asking narrowly. I used 

to have a career where I had to ask questions all the time. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Minnery, the testimony we have heard 

appears to me to turn on the operation of Section 3 of DOMA, 

which defines marriage for the purpose of Federal law. DOMA also 

contains Section 2, which, as you mentioned, preserves federalism 

by allowing each State to define marriage for itself without imposing its definition on other States. The bill before us would repeal 

Section 2 of DOMA as well as Section 3. 

Does Section 2 of DOMA have anything to do with the loss of 

benefits that the witnesses have discussed? 

Mr. MINNERY. DOMA was in place well before the couples at the 

table were married, so their situation, Senator, has not changed 

with DOMA. It is the same. And that is why I question the advice 

that Mr. Wallen spoke about when he talked about legal advice 

given to him about how to him. It seems as though the legal advice 

he was talking about assumed that DOMA would be repealed, but 

it seems to me that the legal advice of a competent adviser ought 

to understand the situation that exists. Nothing has changed since 

DOMA passed for these couples. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. Since Section 2 of DOMA has nothing to 

do with anybody’s benefit, what would be the effect of repealing 

Section 2? And what justification do proponents of repealing DOMA 

offer for repealing Section 2? 

Mr. MINNERY. Well, Section 2 is that section of DOMA which excuses States from being required to recognize same-sex marriages 

22 

performed in other States. These are the States that have overwhelmingly determined what marriage is for the citizens of that 

State. Overwhelmingly they have voted for that. And if DOMA 

were to be repealed, presumably same-sex marriages performed 

elsewhere would have to be recognized in those States, those many 

States that have determined that marriage is what it has always 

been in their States. And with that comes a very forced political 

correctness which can get downright nasty. 

In my prepared comments, I speak about a case in Washington 

State in which voters had gone to the polls to try and repeal a civil 

unions measure. They had put that on the ballot by the initiative 

process. Many of the names of those petition signers were released, 

and the threats and the intimidation against them were horrendous, and those threats and intimidation found their way into a 

brief filed in Federal court on behalf of those parents. Most of those 

comments against the petition signers I cannot report here. They 

are too vile. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Can I go on to another question, please? 

Mr. MINNERY. Please. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Minnery, we hear testimony today that 

the social science research shows that the well-being of children 

raised in same-sex marriages is the same as children who are 

raised in traditional marriage. Is that your understanding of the 

research? Is there anything questionable about the studies that 

show that children are just as healthy and well adjusted when 

raised by same-sex parents? 

Mr. MINNERY. Yes, and my written statement goes into that in 

some detail, Senator. I appreciate the question. As I started to say 

before, an overwhelming mountain of evidence shows that children 

do best when they have a mom and a dad, and the studies that 

have analyzed same-sex households are very recent. The conclusions tend to be ambiguous, these sample sizes tend to be small, 

and they tend to be what social scientists call snowball samples— 

that is to say, they are not random samples for inclusion in the 

study. They are people who have been recruited to be in the studies 

by, for example, answering ads in the same-sex publications, bookstores, places where same-sex couples frequent. That is the way 

most of them have been included in studies, and that is not as legitimate as a scientifically random sample. And those samples are 

much better in those studies which are longitudinal and which 

show that a mother and father provide the best environment for 

those children. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Minnery. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

I yield to Senator Feinstein. I have to step out for about 4 or 5 

minutes. I am going to give her the gavel during that time. Then 

Senator Whitehouse will be recognized after that unless another 

member on the Republican side comes. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I am going to step out for a minute two, but 

I will be right back. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. [presiding.] Thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman. I just want to establish some things for the record. 

23 

In 1997, in a case called Boggs v. Boggs, the Supreme Court said, 

and I quote, ‘‘[t]he 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.’’ 

Nothing in this bill would obligate any State, religious, organization, or locality to perform a marriage between two people of the 

same sex, nor would anything in this bill require a State to recognize a same-sex marriage from another State. 

DOMA has never been necessary to preserve States’ rights because a State does not have to recognize a marriage that violates 

its public policy. So I think that is pretty clear. 

I think one of the big discrepancies here in is in the area of 

health coverage. Many Americans get health coverage through 

their employers, and they use those plans to cover families, including spouses. These plans are usually free from tax, so if a business 

pays $2,000 in health premiums for an employee and a spouse, the 

employee does not have to pay income tax on that benefit. DOMA 

removes this tax protection for same-sex couples. Under DOMA the 

employee will have to pay taxes on premiums paid to his or her 

spouse’s health coverage. Plus the employee has to pay any employee contribution after taxes rather than before taxes, like any 

other married couple. This is how DOMA discriminates. So that 

means that same-sex couples are subject to thousands of dollars in 

additional taxes because of DOMA. 

Susan, you are an attorney. Would you like to comment on that? 

Ms. MURRAY. Senator, you are absolutely right. I experienced 

that in my own life, and I have seen it with many of my friends 

and with some of my clients, to the extent people can actually get 

health insurance benefits. Some of them cannot because the companies think that the Federal Government allows them to discriminate and, therefore, they are able to do that. So if they can get access to health insurance, they still have to pay more money for it. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. In the area of gift tax, estate tax, divorce— 

and let me talk about the gift tax for a moment. You know, many 

Americans are generous with their spouses. They give them a piece 

of jewelry, an expensive electronic item, they buy a vacation for a 

spouse. Under Federal law these gifts are not taxed for married 

couples except for same-sex couples because of DOMA. 

I have a constituent from Piedmont, California, by the name of 

Max Kalend. He recently suffered from this aspect. When his husband, Phillip, passed away from an aggressive form of cancer, Phillip’s estate was taxed to the tune of $2 million because of DOMA. 

Could you comment on this issue of the gift and inheritance tax? 

Ms. MURRAY. I would be happy to, Senator. I see this all the time 

in my practice. I can tell you the story of a young couple named 

Jessica and Eileen who came to see me recently. Jessica was lucky 

enough to have inherited some money, a significant amount of 

money, from her parents, but her wife, Eileen, had no money at all, 

and they had two goals: 

One was to provide some financial protections for Eileen, to give 

her some assets, to protect her in the event Jessica passed away, 

and to prepare for all the ups and downs of life as they moved forward and got older. And the other was to try to minimize their 

24 

Federal estate tax, just like any other married couple that comes 

into my office. 

If they were a married couple that was recognized by the Federal 

Government, that would have been a very easy, straightforward estate plan for me to draft. But because of DOMA, I cannot just simply have Jessica transfer assets into Eileen’s name because anything over, right now, $13,000 a year triggers gift tax. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. Obviously I am trying to build a 

record here. Let me speak about veterans’ benefits. ‘‘Don’t ask, 

don’t tell’’ has been repealed, so gay servicemen will soon be able 

to put their lives on the line in service to our country in the military. And they receive a number of benefits on account of their 

service to our Nation. 

For example, if a veteran dies in service, the surviving spouse 

will receive death benefits. If a veteran dies from a disability related to his service, the surviving spouse can receive benefits. A 

veteran’s spouse can also be buried with their deceased spouse at 

a military cemetery. 

Under DOMA the spouses of gay servicemembers would be excluded from these benefits even though those service members performed exactly the same service to our country and put their lives 

on the line for the United States. 

My question is for any witness that would care to answer. Can 

you please comment, to the extent that you know, on the likely impact of DOMA on gay service members and their spouses? 

Ms. MURRAY. Senator, I can tell you briefly from a non-gay case 

that I just had, I do divorce work, and I just represented a woman 

who is divorcing her husband who is active in the military, and she 

is entitled to 55 percent of his pension. He is about ready to retire 

after 20 years in the military. She is divorcing him, and she is getting 55 percent of his military pension. Any same-sex couple is not 

going to have access to that same pension benefit. It is just not 

available to them. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, and I thank all of you 

for being here today. It is very important and I am very grateful. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you 

for your leadership on this issue. I will gladly yield to—— 

Senator DURBIN. No. You go ahead. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. This discussion that we are having is 

so often a clash between ideology and just human stories that what 

I would like to do is to take my time and echo the testimony of Ron 

and Andrew and Susan with some stories from Rhode Island. 

David and Rock wrote to me from Providence. ‘‘We now both 

have active and busy careers, a teenager thinking about college, 

and the financial challenges of college tuition and shrinking retirement assets. We are involved in the community and in our church. 

We have the concerns of most families. In fact, if we were a heterosexual couple, ours would be the story of a conservative American 

family: the importance of education, the importance of faith, delaying marriage until financially stable, marriage followed by a shared 

household, followed by child rearing.’’ 

‘‘And then there is DOMA. We carry our marriage documents, 

adoption documents, and medical care proxy documents when we 

25 

travel. I am ineligible for inclusion in military family benefits. We 

are not eligible to file joint income tax. We are ineligible for spousal Social Security benefits in the event of the death of one of us. 

It is time to end this discriminatory policy.’’ 

Carol and Anne write: ‘‘We have been together since 1987 and 

have had 20 foster children. For 30 years, I have worked at the 

same company and paid taxes and been a model citizen. For 23 

years, Anne has taken care of children in need. At one high school 

we were known as ‘the ladies,’ and educators heaved a sigh of relief 

when they knew a tough child had us as their foster parents. With 

kindness and patience and compassion, our efforts have made great 

changes in 20 young lives. We are doing our best to make this a 

better world. Please pass the Respect for Marriage Act and reverse 

DOMA. We want to be able to tell our foster children, ‘We are married 100 percent.’ ’’ 

Bill and Ernie write: ‘‘We live in Cumberland, Rhode Island, and 

we have been a couple for over 20 years. We live quietly and go 

about our business without bothering anyone. I was born 59 years 

ago and Ernie was born 55 years ago. We have been citizens of the 

United States all our lives, but since the passage of DOMA, our 

Government has seen fit to take rights away from us. Why is this? 

We have not hurt anyone. Ernie’s and my union will not cause 

harm to anyone. It makes no sense to set us outside the protections 

of Federal law to make us less than full citizens of the United 

States. Please ask your colleagues in the Senate to support the return of our civil rights. It is the only civil thing to do.’’ 

And, finally, from a story in the Providence Journal about Pat 

Baker and Deborah Tevyaw, Pat has been in public service for a 

long time. She is a 51-year-old correctional officer. It says here, 

‘‘She was never a gay rights activist, but after doctors diagnosed 

her with incurable lung cancer in December, she got an added jolt. 

The Federal Defense of Marriage Act precludes Tevyaw from collecting the Social Security benefits Baker earned for a surviving 

spouse.’’ 

The story continues: ‘‘The discovery stunned Baker, leading her 

to embark on what may well be her first and last act of bravery 

in the name of marriage equality.’’ 

The story concludes: ‘‘They are not entitled to the full scope of 

protections with regard to end-of-life issues, disposition of remains, 

who is considered next of kin, who gets to make decisions on medical care, organ donations, and more. Noting that the couple has 

spent thousands of extra dollars trying to put in place such protections, Loewy said, ‘I hope it is a reminder to the legislators that 

this is not abstract. This is a really tragic illustration of how these 

vulnerable situations are made so much more difficult because 

these same-sex couples are not treated like everybody else.’ ’’ 

I could not improve on those comments from Rhode Island couples, and I thank everyone for their attention and look forward to 

working particularly with Senator Feinstein on passage of her bill. 

Again, I want to recognize her leadership, and I want to recognize 

the leadership of our chairman. There have been many occasions 

when this hearing room has been made the fulcrum of progress for 

this country as a result of his leadership. This is another such occasion, and I want to recognize him for that. 

26 

Chairman LEAHY. [presiding.] Thank you very much, Senator 

Whitehouse, and I think we have all been fortunate with the leadership you have shown, and Senator Feinstein and others have 

shown here. 

Senator Franken, you are next. Please go ahead, sir. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. It is early bird. 

Senator FRANKEN. Because I would grudgingly yield to Senator 

Durbin. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to especially thank the witnesses who have shared their personal stories 

with us. What you are doing here is very important not just for the 

millions of Americans directly affected by the so-called Defense of 

Marriage Act but for our entire nation. 

DOMA is an injustice. It is an immoral and discriminatory law. 

Our nation was founded on the premise that all people are created 

equal and that all persons should receive equal treatment under 

the law. 

Our society may be different than it was then, but these principles remain the same. That is why I am an original cosponsor of 

the Respect for Marriage Act, and that is why I think the day we 

repeal DOMA will be a great day in this nation, akin to the ratification of the 19th Amendment and the passage of the Civil Rights 

Act. And I think that Congressman Lewis’s presence here spoke to 

that in a very powerful way. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter the rest of my opening statement into the record. 

Chairman LEAHY. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Franken appears as a submissions for the record.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Mr. Minnery, on page 8 of your written testimony, you write: ‘‘children living with their own married biological 

or adoptive mothers and fathers were generally healthier and 

happier, had better access to health care, less likely to suffer mild 

or severe emotional problems, did better in school, were protected 

from physical, emotional, and sexual abuse and almost never live 

in poverty, compared with children in any other family form.’’ 

You cite a Department of Health and Human Services study that 

I have right here from December 2010 to support this conclusion. 

I checked the study out. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. And I would like to enter it into the record, 

if I may. 

Chairman LEAHY. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The study appears as a submissions for the record.] 

Senator FRANKEN. And actually does not say what you said it 

says. It says that nuclear families, not opposite-sex married families, are associated with those positive outcomes. 

Isn’t it true, Mr. Minnery, that a married same-sex couple that 

has had or adopted kids would fall under the definition of a nuclear 

family in the study that you cite? 

Mr. MINNERY. I would think that the study, when it cites nuclear 

families, would mean a family headed by a husband and wife. 

Senator FRANKEN. It does not. 

27 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. The study defines a nuclear family as ‘‘one or 

more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all the children 

in the family.’’ And I frankly do not really know how we can trust 

the rest of your testimony if you are reading studies these ways. 

Ms. Murray, I recently read about a Minnesota same-sex couple 

with two daughters. The working partner and their daughters 

could get health insurance through that partner’s employer, but 

they could not afford to cover the non-working partner, who is 

named Shannon, because every contribution they or their employer 

made to Shannon’s coverage would be fully taxable under Federal 

law. 

Now, Shannon and her partner cannot get married in Minnesota, 

but even if they could, DOMA would mean that their situation 

would remain the same. According to one estimate, because of 

DOMA, same-sex couples pay $1,069 more annually for health coverage than opposite-sex employees. As Senator Feinstein mentioned, you have had to go through this. 

Can you tell us how same-sex couples end up paying or coping 

with these disparities? 

Ms. MURRAY. Senator, a lot of them simply do not get health insurance, and they end up in the emergency room. My partner is a 

physician assistant and works in an emergency room in Burlington, 

Vermont, and she sees these couples coming in when they cannot 

afford insurance. So our system is paying, at least on an emergent 

basis, for these folks’ health care, and anything that their kids are 

not getting, if their kids are not covered, they are not getting regular checkups nor are the partners. That is a huge problem that 

we have on a long-term basis in terms of health care. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you very much, and thank you to all 

the witnesses, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Using our usual early bird rule, Senator—— 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, almost all of them. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Coons is next. Senator Coons. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Chairman Leahy. Thank you to you 

and to Senator Feinstein for your long and determined work on repealing DOMA. And thank you to the members of our panel today 

who have shared with us searing personal stories of their experiences as veterans, teachers, and attorneys. They represent, I know, 

thousands of our constituents, our colleagues, our classmates, our 

friends who have gone through similar suffering, loss, and mistreatment through DOMA. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to look at Senate bill 598 and 

to consider the impact DOMA has had on legally married couples 

who have been denied access to all sorts of different Federal programs, benefits, rights, and privileges. And as Ms. Murray mentioned, they are like waves on a beach that just drive away the possibility of equality, even to those legally recognized couples. 

To me, this hearing is fundamentally about equality and whether 

or not we as a Nation think it is OK to deny some American citizens the same rights and privileges afforded to other citizens. Do 

we really think it is OK for our Federal Government to say we simVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Oct 18, 2011 Jkt 070639 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\70639.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
28 

ply do not like who you love? And my question here is how we can 

have an answer that is anything other than emphatically no. 

Equality for all is supposed to me, in my view, equality for all, and 

I do not see what business it is of our Federal Government to reach 

into Americans’ hearts and judge them for whom they love, particularly when their States have empowered them to marry. 

I am tired of it being the law of this land that it is OK for the 

Government to discriminate against Americans solely based on 

their gender, identity, or sexual orientation. I am tired of seeing 

kids grow up in a country where their Government tells them discrimination is OK, and I think it is no wonder that we continue to 

see kids being bullied in school and see so many LGBT children 

take their own lives because they have given up hope, because in 

my view this law simply encourages discrimination. 

I think we have bigger problems in this country than going out 

of our way to continue to discriminate against and deny rights to 

Americans. And we have heard today some of these witnesses have, 

I think, movingly testified about how same-sex marriage is at real 

harm from DOMA. In my view, others have testified here and elsewhere about how somehow same-sex marriage threatens or hurts 

heterosexual marriage, and I do not know about my colleagues, but 

my wedding ring and my marriage did not magically dissolve or 

disappear just because New York passed a same-sex marriage bill 

last month. In my view, S. 598 is about restoring rights. It is not 

about taking them away. It is about righting these wrongs and 

moving on. 

I am a person of faith. My family and I worship regularly, and 

I am raising children in what might be considered a traditional 

marriage. But I do not think that my faith, which informs my politics, empowers me to have a monopoly on the interpretation of the 

will of God. And in my view, it is expressly not appropriate for the 

Federal Government to discriminate against couples based on who 

they love. 

So, in my view, the Defense of Marriage Act is just wrong. It is 

wrong and needs to be repealed. And I am grateful to the Chairman and to the witnesses before us for having laid out in clear, 

compelling ways how DOMA has harmed them directly. 

I would be grateful if I could take a moment to ask some of the 

witnesses about the symbolic harm that DOMA has also imposed 

on you because you have spoken in compelling ways about financial 

loss, loss of a home, loss of survivor’s benefits, loss of health benefits, loss of respect. But I would be interested in hearing, if I could, 

further about the symbolic power of DOMA in your lives to any of 

the three witnesses—Ron, Andrew, or Susan—who testified to your 

financial loss. 

‘‘Senator Coons, although I cannot say there there have been any 

instances of crowds chasing me down the streets with brickbats, 

nor psychologically taunting me personally, I can definitely say the 

DOMA affects all gay and lesbian couples (indeed all gays and lesbians) in the following way: We are constantly hearing about children being harassed because they are or are presumed gay—sometimes to the tragic point of suicide; we know that gays and lesbians 

are treated with scorn in many ways and in many situations; we 

know that children of gay parents have difficulty explaining to 

29 

their friends about the ‘‘differentness’’ of their family; we know that 

gay and lesbian parents often have difficulty enrolling their children in schools, or that once enrolled, have difficulty as parents at 

meetings in those schools—the list is endless. How in the world can 

we expect to spread the message of love, of civil acceptance of differences, of showing how discrimination is wrong, of creating a society in which harmony is paramount in our relationships with 

each other, when our very own government singles out gay and lesbian couples as something ‘‘different’’ and not worthy of the same 

rights as their heterosexual brothers and sisters? I submit that 

DOMA’s evils go way beyond the problems of we individuals who 

have personally sustained difficulties.’’ 

Mr. SORBO. Senator, I am glad to be able to respond to that. I 

was a teacher and principal, as I told you, for 35 years. Every day 

of my career, I led my students in the Pledge of Allegiance, and 

that Pledge of Allegiance ends ‘‘with liberty and justice for all.’’ For 

35 years, every day, when it came to those words, I stood in front 

of my students with a blank face, but inside I knew it was not true. 

I knew as a history teacher that it had not been true for blacks, 

it had not been true for women, it had not been true for mixed-race 

couples. And I knew that it was not true then for same-gender couples. And I had to stand before them and say that. 

I also had every day of my career, until the very end when I finally got the courage to admit who I was, to always use the pronoun ‘‘I’’ to my students when they would ask me questions that 

probed into my personal life. ‘‘I was going on vacation.’’ ‘‘I did this.’’ 

I could not say ‘‘we’’ because the next question was: ‘‘Well, who is 

the other person? ’’ And I knew that would lead to lots of problems. 

So it is a good question, Senator, because the financial aspect of 

this is only one aspect of the harm that DOMA does and the discrimination against gay people. It is an insult to our dignity and, 

as I said in my testimony, our sense of equality. I grew up in a normal household. My father died when I was a year old, but ‘‘normal’’ 

in that my mother, my sister, and I had a loving home. And my 

mother brought me up to be as ethical as possible. I knew from her 

example the difference between right and wrong, that it was wrong 

to discriminate against the black people who lived in the housing 

project that I lived in in Providence, Rhode Island. And I believed 

as a person who studied history and loved history from the time 

I was a child that this country that is supposed to be the shining 

beacon on the hill, according to the people who settled the Massachusetts Bay Colony, this country was formed on ideals of equality 

and justice. And we have had to struggle to fight every generation 

to extend that idea of freedom and justice to more and more 

groups. And my group, my community, is the latest to have to fight 

for that. 

I am appalled and I am baffled at how representatives of our 

country in the Senate and the House cannot see the historical perspective on this, that some of our own representatives and Senators 

who are there to protect the minority are allowing us to become the 

victims of the majority, which to me is unconstitutional. And I am 

sorry to say that I cannot understand how they do not see that 

they are the philosophical descendants of those who defended slavery, who defended laws against mixed-race couples, and who deVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Oct 18, 2011 Jkt 070639 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\70639.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
30 

fended the laws that allowed the separate but equal status that 

Representative Lewis so eloquently spoke of in his testimony. 

Thank you. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Mr. Sorbo, and sometimes it takes 

a history teacher to help us see our way clearly to the future. I, 

too, found Congressman Lewis’ testimony very moving, and yours 

equally so. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness is Senator Blumenthal—our next witness? Our 

next one to question—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I hope not a witness, Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman LEAHY. No, no. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I would yield to Senator Durbin, if—I 

would be delighted to yield, not grudgingly. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Durbin, did you wish to—then Senator 

Blumenthal, of course, a valued member of this Committee, former 

Attorney General of the State of Connecticut. Senator Blumenthal, 

please go ahead. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for 

your leadership and Senator Feinstein’s and other members of the 

Committee who have joined in this cause, and thank you to all of 

the witnesses who are here today particularly to Mr. Sorbo from 

the town of Berlin, Connecticut. It is a small town, but there are 

those of us who love it. 

I want to say at the very outset my thanks to all of you for giving 

a face and a voice to some abstract and seemingly complicated 

principles of constitutional law and basic liberty and rights. You 

have given a face and a voice in terms of the practical consequences of the Respect for Marriage Act, and I regard this hearing as a really historic day for our Nation. Nations, like people, are 

judged by their capacity for growth, and I think today marks another step in the growth of our Nation and the progression toward 

recognizing some principles that go to the very core of what makes 

our Nation the greatest in the history of the world. So I thank all 

of you for being here today. 

You know, for me, some of these questions are much narrower 

than the constitutional issues that are being debated in the courts 

because what really matters here is the respect for Connecticut’s 

law. And, Mr. Sorbo, you were married under Connecticut law. Respect for Connecticut law means that the Federal Government 

should recognize that law and give it the kind of sanctity that the 

Founders of this Nation meant for the laws of our States to have. 

States do have the prerogative to establish the rules that surround marriage, just as they do inheritance and divorce. And so for 

the Federal Government to discriminate against some marriages in 

the way that it does is also disrespect for Connecticut’s law as well 

as Connecticut’s people and Connecticut’s marriages. 

So in order to illustrate some of the practical consequences here, 

I think you mentioned the effect on your ability to Colin’s IRA. I 

wonder if you could expand a little bit about how you were unable—and most people do not think of IRAs as being a function of 

31 

Federal law—how you were unable to access it as fully as you 

would have been otherwise if DOMA had not existed. 

Mr. SORBO. Senator, after Colin died, I went to our bank to speak 

to a financial adviser about how to transfer all of the assets, which 

we had done everything we could to protect in terms of putting it 

in both of our names. Yale University required Colin to have that 

IRA in his name so that when he passed away—and we tried to 

transfer that over because I had the right of survivorship. We 

spent hours and hours and hours on the phone, and it would have 

been almost a comic program if it had been recorded because my 

financial adviser and I sat there talking to one person after another, and each one of them at Yale had a different opinion about 

what needed to be done, and disagreeing and so on. And it took us 

many, many hours, many days to finally get it transferred over. 

The ultimate result was that I guess they went to one of their 

lawyers—I am not sure—but whoever they went to finally decided 

that they could not recognize our marriage because of Federal law, 

because of DOMA. And so, therefore, we had to transfer that IRA 

into an inherited IRA. 

Now, the difference—I am not an expert on this, but my understanding was that because my marriage was not recognized, it had 

to go over as an inherited IRA, which then I had to begin withdrawing on the December after the year following Colin’s death. 

Now, if I had been a woman, that would not have been the case. 

I could have deferred withdrawing that until, I think it is, 701⁄2. By law you have to begin withdrawing a minimum amount. That 

may not seem like a lot, but that 7 extra years would have allowed 

me to buildup that asset before I began to withdraw from it. And 

that is what my financial adviser would have liked to have done, 

because at my age—I am still fairly healthy. I go to the gym. I try 

to take care of myself as much as I can. And so I am not facing 

large health bills which I might be facing in the future. And, of 

course, inflation is eating up my income. Every retired person 

knows that inflation is the big gorilla in the closet for us. 

So that denied me the ability to do what I could have done and 

what my sister could do, to buildup that asset until she was 701⁄2. Senator BLUMENTHAL. And I think that as you have testified, 

just to complete your story, the practical consequences extended 

also to the Family and Medical Leave Act, retirement and survivor 

benefits under Social Security, and a variety of very practical, sizable consequences to you because of DOMA, which would not have 

otherwise existed, even though under Connecticut law you were 

lawfully married. 

Mr. SORBO. That is correct. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator FEINSTEIN [presiding.] Senator Durbin. 

Senator DURBIN. Is there anyone I can yield to? I guess not. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and 

thanks to the witnesses who are here today. 

There are events in the life of a Senator that are memorable, and 

one of those that comes to my mind was attending the bill-signing 

ceremony where President Obama signed the law which repealed 

‘‘Don’t ask, don’t tell.’’ It was a day of great celebration and relief. 

32 

The rabbi who gave the invocation that day—I remember his 

words—said, ‘‘When you look into the eyes of another person, if you 

do not see the face of God, at least see the face of another human 

being.’’ And I thought to myself that that really is what this conversation is all about: recognizing our own frailties and weaknesses 

and strengths, but seeing in the face of every person another 

human being. 

The woman who gave the invocation that day was someone I had 

never met and still have not met but have admired and told her 

story many times—retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Margarethe 

Cammermeyer. This was a woman who served as a combat nurse 

during Vietnam, risking her life for our men and women in uniform, and progressing through the ranks to the status of colonel, 

and then answering honestly one day on a questionnaire that she 

was lesbian, and for that she was discharged from the service. 

There was never any suggestion that she had ever done anything 

wrong or ever failed in her duty to her country, but she was the 

victim of outright discrimination. 

Senator Grassley was kind enough to mention my name in his 

opening statement—I thank him—and mentioned the fact that I 

voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. That is true. And others did 

as well. I will not use that as an explanation or excuse. But I recall 

when a former Congressman from Illinois named Abraham Lincoln 

was challenged because he changed his position on an issue, and 

his explanation was very simple. He said, ‘‘I would rather be right 

some of the time than wrong all of the time.’’ 

That is why I am an original cosponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act that Senator Feinstein has introduced. I believe that this 

is eminently fair and gives to those who are in a loving relationship 

an opportunity to receive benefits which they deserve. 

Mr. Minnery, I have read your testimony. I was not here when 

you presented it. But if we are truly interested in the welfare of 

children—and we are—it seems to me that denying basic financial 

resources to a loving couple who have adopted a child is not the 

way to help that child. In fact, I think we can find that in many 

instances families that struggle financially have a tougher time 

raising children—not all the time, but many times. It just makes 

a lot more sense for us to change the law when it comes to Federal 

benefits, so that a same-sex relationship that is recognized in a 

State is also recognized by our Federal Government across the 

United States of America. 

I would just close by saying that I know that this is an issue 

which has evolved in America. The feelings of most Americans, the 

majority today, about same-sex marriage have changed, and I think 

they have changed for the better. This bill would not mandate any 

religion to change its beliefs. This bill would not mandate any 

State to change its laws. What it does is say that as a Nation our 

Federal Government is going to recognize the rights of same-sex 

couples to the basic benefits which they are entitled to. This could 

have been a hearing under my Subcommittee for the Constitution, 

Civil Rights and Human Rights, but Chairman Leahy asked if he 

could make it a full Committee hearing. I am glad he has so that 

more of my colleagues could come here and speak and be on the 

record in support of the Respect for Marriage Act. 

33 

Thank you, Senator. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator Durbin. 

Let me thank the witnesses. We have a vote at 12 o’clock. There 

is another panel coming up, so I am going to move on. I hope that 

is agreeable. But let me thank everyone. I have been in a lot of 

these. This was very good testimony, and I think all of us will remember it. So thank you all very much, and we will move on to 

the next panel. 

Senator COONS. [presiding.] I would like to thank the Chairman 

for asking me to lead the deliberations of this Committee for the 

second panel. First I would like to begin by asking the members 

of the second panel to please rise, raise your right hand after me, 

if you would, as I administer the oath. Do you solemnly swear that 

the testimony you are about to give to the Committee will be the 

truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. SOLMONESE. I do. 

Mr. NIMOCKS. I do. 

Mr. WHELAN. I do. 

Mr. WOLFSON. I do. 

Senator COONS. Thank you. Please be seated, and let the record 

reflect the witnesses have taken the oath of this Committee. 

First we will welcome Joe Solmonese, president of the Human 

Rights Campaign. With more than a million members and supporters, the Human Rights Campaign is our Nation’s largest advocacy organization for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered civil 

rights. Prior to joining HRC, Joe was chief executive officer of 

Emily’s List. A native of Attleboro, Massachusetts, Joe lives in 

Washington, D.C., and is a graduate of Boston University. 

Mr. Solmonese, please proceed, but let me first remind all witnesses, if I could, to please limit your opening remarks to 5 minutes. Your full statements will be placed in the record in their entirety. And as Senator Feinstein just recognized, there is a noon 

vote which may well require us to do a little juggling to manage, 

but thank you. 

Mr. Solmonese, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JOE SOLMONESE, PRESIDENT, HUMAN 

RIGHTS CAMPAIGN, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. SOLMONESE. Thank you, Senator Coons and members of the 

Committee. On behalf of the Human Rights Campaign and our 

more than 1 million members and supporters nationwide, I want 

to thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony in today’s historic hearing. And I also want to thank Senator Feinstein for her 

leadership on this legislation and on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in California and all across the country. 

Every week I have the opportunity to travel this country and to 

speak with members of my community, with their families, with 

their friends, with their religious leaders, and with their employers 

about the distinct difficulties that they face in the form of discrimination. Now, today I have the privilege of bringing their stories and 

their concerns before this Committee. 

Gay and lesbian couples work hard. They work hard to provide 

for their families, they work hard to provide quality health care, 

34 

they work hard to plan for retirement and to save for college—just 

like their family and friends, just like their neighbors and coworkers. But they do so in a country that still refuses to recognize them 

as equal. And for those who are lucky enough to live in States that 

do permit them to marry, they still face a Federal Government that 

treats their marriages as if they do not exist. 

So on behalf of the tens of thousands of married same-sex couples in this country, including myself and my husband, I urge Congress to pass the Respect for Marriage Act and to end the Federal 

Government’s disrespect for and discrimination against lawfully 

married same-sex couples. 

DOMA harms thousands of families as they try to manage the 

day-to-day issues of their lives. Families like Rachel Black and Lea 

Matthews from the Bronx, who are here today with their beautiful 

daughter, Nora. Rachel and Lea met in college in Mississippi and 

have been together for 13 years. With marriage now a reality for 

gay and lesbian couples in New York, Rachel and Lea are thrilled 

and excited to at long last tie the knot. But for gay and lesbian couples like them, the joy of finally being able to marry is tempered 

by the fact that DOMA remains in the way of true equality. Rachel 

and Lea worry every day about the important protections that they 

will be denied, like unpaid leave from work for one to care for the 

other if she gets sick, or the ability to continue health coverage for 

their family if one of them gets laid off. 

DOMA means that the many protections the Federal Government provides for the health and security of American families remain out of reach for same-sex couples and their children. It keeps, 

for instance, gay and lesbian Americans from sponsoring their 

spouses for immigration to the United States, forcing binational 

couples to choose between love and country. It deprives surviving 

same-sex spouses of crucial Social Security benefits earned by their 

loved ones through years of hard work. Senator Feinstein asked 

about the impact of DOMA on ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’’ It even bars 

the spouse of a gay or lesbian service member or veteran from 

being buried with him or her in a veterans’ cemetery. 

As you have heard today, particularly from those who have felt 

firsthand the hardship imposed by DOMA, the impact of this discriminatory law is real, and it is unconscionable. It is long past 

time for the Federal Government to end its discrimination against 

lawfully married same-sex couples. Congress must repeal this law 

enacted solely to treat gays and lesbians unequally, and so I urge 

you to pass the Respect for Marriage Act and to ensure that all 

American families have the full respect and protection of their Federal Government. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Solmonese appears as a submissions for the record.] 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Mr. Solmonese. 

We now turn to Mr. Nimocks. Mr. Austin Nimocks is senior legal 

counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. Mr. Nimocks’ practice focuses on the definition of marriage, parental rights, voters’ rights, 

and religious liberty. ADF is closely involved in defending DOMA 

against legal challenges, and Mr. Nimocks earned both his bachelor’s and J.D. from Baylor University in Waco, Texas. 

35 

Mr. Nimocks, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF AUSTIN R. NIMOCKS, SENIOR LEGAL 

COUNSEL, ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. NIMOCKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Grassley, and members of the Committee, for the privilege and invitation of testifying here today. 

Mr. Chairman, as debates rage these days regarding budget deficits, debt ceilings, and jobs, I am pleased that this body is taking 

some time to discuss mothers and fathers—arguably, the two most 

important jobs in our society. 

This legislation also gives us the opportunity to look at an important query that is oftentimes overlooked: Why is Government in 

the marriage business? 

Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, Congress enacted Federal 

DOMA in 1996 by an 84-percent margin. Enacting it, it stated as 

appears as a submissions for the record. ‘‘[a]t bottom, civil society 

has an interest in maintaining and protecting the institution of 

heterosexual marriage because it has a deep and abiding interest 

in encouraging responsible procreation and child rearing. Simply 

put, Government has an interest in marriage because it has an interest in children.’’ This truth remains today, and Americans agree. 

As evidenced by likely the most extensive national research survey ever conducted on Americans’ attitudes about marriage, completed in May of this year, we know that 62 percent of Americans 

agree that ‘‘marriage should be defined only as a union between 

one man and one woman.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, marriage is not just a mere law or creature of 

statute but a social institution that has universally crossed all political, religious, sociological, geographical, and historical lines. As 

put by the famous philosopher, Bertrand Russell, a self-described 

atheist, ‘‘But for children there would be no need of any institution 

concerned with sex. It is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.’’ 

Accordingly, marriage between one man and one woman is a 

longstanding, worldwide idea that is a building block of society. 

Marriage does not proscribe conduct or prevent individuals from 

living how they want to live. And individuals marry, Mr. Chairman, as they always have, for a wide variety of personal reasons. 

But today’s discussion should not be about the private reasons why 

individuals marry, but about the policy of our country as a whole 

and the Government’s unique interest in this public institution. 

Because the Government’s interest in marriage is different from 

the reasons why individuals choose to marry, entrance to marriage 

has never been conditioned upon a couple’s actual ability and desire to find happiness together, their level of financial entanglement, or their actual personal dedication to each other. Rather, 

marriage laws stem from the fact that children are the product of 

the sexual relationships between men and women and that both fathers and mothers are viewed to be necessary for children. 

Thus, throughout history, diverse cultures and faiths have recognized marriage between one man and one woman as the best way 

to promote healthy families and societies. The studies and science 

36 

you have heard about over a long period of time demonstrate that 

the ideal family structure for a child is a family headed by opposite-sex biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. 

But some, Mr. Chairman, are asking you to ignore the unique 

and demonstrable differences between men and women in parenthood: no mothers, no fathers, just generic parents. But, Mr. Chairman, there are no generic people. We are composed of two complementary but different halves of humanity. As our Supreme 

Court has stated, ‘‘The truth is that is that the two sexes are not 

fungible. Inherent ‘differences’ between men and women, we have 

come to appreciate, remain cause for celebration.’’ 

This body should also disavow any notion that repealing Federal 

DOMA is a constitutional mandate. Mr. Chairman, in 1967, the Supreme Court decided the case Loving v. Virginia. In that case, the 

Supreme Court struck down a race-based marriage law that prohibited whites from marrying anyone of color. In so ruling, the Supreme Court talked about marriage as ‘‘fundamental to our very 

existence and survival,’’ discussing the timeless and procreative aspects of marriage. 

Just 5 years later, the Supreme Court, in 1972, substantively 

upheld a decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court that marriage 

laws like Federal DOMA are not unconstitutional and rejected a 

claim for same-sex marriage. Mr. Chairman, not one single Justice 

of the United States Supreme Court found the constitutional claims 

against marriage worthy of the court’s review. 

Marriage between a man and a woman naturally builds families 

and gives hope that the next generations will carry that family into 

the future. And while some may argue, Mr. Chairman, that times 

have changed, they cannot credibly argue that humanity as a gendered species has changed. Men and women still compose the two 

great halves of humanity. Men and women are still wonderfully 

and uniquely different, and men and women still play important 

and necessary roles in the family. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, because of the fundamental truth 

that children are the product of sexual relationships between men 

and women and that men and women each bring something important to the table of parenting, this Government maintains a compelling interest in protecting and preserving the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. 

Thank you for the time and privilege, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nimocks appears as a submissions for the record.] 

Senator COONS. Next we will hear from Ed Whelan. Mr. Whelan 

is president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Mr. Whelan is 

a regular contributor to National Review Online. Mr. Whelan has 

served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the Office of Legal 

Counsel as well as General Counsel previously to this Committee. 

Mr. Whelan earned both his undergraduate and law degrees from 

Harvard University. 

Mr. Whelan, please proceed. 

37 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD WHELAN, PRESIDENT, ETHICS AND 

PUBLIC POLICY CENTER, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. WHELAN. Thank you, Senator Coons. My thanks also to Senator Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley for inviting me to testify 

before this Committee in opposition to S. 598, which is 

misleadingly titled the ‘‘Respect for Marriage Act.’’ 

Far from respecting marriage, this bill would empty the term of 

any core content. It would redefine marriage for purposes of Federal law to include anything that any State, now or in the future, 

recognizes as a marriage. 

The effect and the evident purpose of the bill is to have the Federal Government validate so-called same-sex marriage by requiring 

that it treat as marriage for purposes of Federal law any such 

union recognized as a marriage under State law. The bill would require taxpayers in the States that maintain traditional marriage 

laws to subsidize the provision of Federal benefits to same-sex 

unions entered into in other States. 

Further, the principles invoked by advocates of same-sex marriage in their ongoing attack on traditional marriage clearly threaten to pave the way for polygamous and other polyamorous unions, 

one of the current projects of the left. Under the bill, any 

polyamorous union recognized as a marriage under State law 

would have to be recognized by the Federal Government as a marriage for purposes of Federal law. Thus, the foreseeable effect of 

the bill would be to have the Federal Government validate any 

State’s adoption of polyamory and to require taxpayers throughout 

the country to subsidize polygamous and other polyamorous unions. 

S. 598 would also repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. That proposed repeal is wholly unwarranted. DOMA was approved by overwhelmingly majorities in both Houses of Congress and was signed 

into law by President Clinton in 1996. DOMA does two things. 

First, it reaffirms the longstanding understanding of what the term 

‘‘marriage’’ means in provisions of Federal law—the legal union of 

a man and a woman as husband and wife. Second, in a genuine 

protection of values of federalism, it safeguards the prerogative of 

each State to choose not to treat as a marriage a same-sex union 

entered in another State. It thus operates to help ensure that one 

State does not effectively impose same-sex marriage on another 

State or on the entire Nation. At the same time, it leaves the citizens of every State free to decide whether or not their State should 

redefine its marriage laws. 

It is a profound confusion to believe that values of federalism 

somehow require the Federal Government to defer to, or incorporate, the marriage laws of the various States in determining 

what ‘‘marriage’’ means in provisions of Federal law. 

Now, it is worth noting that of the eight current members of this 

Committee who voted on DOMA in 1996, seven voted for DOMA. 

Those seven include Chairman Leahy and Senator Kohl, as well as 

Senators Schumer and Durbin, who voted for DOMA as House 

members. Among the many other prominent Democratic Senators 

who voted for DOMA in 1996 were Vice President Joseph Biden, 

Harry Reid, Patty Murray, Barbara Mikulski, and too many others 

to name in the short time I have. 

38 

Now, I am not claiming that Senators cannot change their mind, 

but this list of supporters of DOMA suffices to refute the empty revisionist claim that DOMA somehow embodies an irrational bigotry 

against same-sex couples. 

DOMA’s reservation of spousal benefits to the union of husband 

and wife reflects the longstanding judgment that that relationship 

with its inherent link to procreation and child rearing is especially 

deserving of support. People are obviously free to dispute that judgment, but no one who voted for DOMA can plausibly claim to be 

surprised by how it has operated. And while it is natural that everyone would hope for more Federal benefits for themselves, no one 

can plausibly claim that DOMA somehow disrupted his or her own 

financial planning. DOMA was enacted 8 years before the Massachusetts Supreme Court first imposed same-sex marriage in this 

country, so there was never a time when anyone in a same-sex 

union had any reasonable basis for believing that that union would 

entitle him or her to Federal spousal benefits. 

Moreover, it is wrong to assert, as some do, that the definition 

of marriage has always been purely a matter left to the States. Our 

predecessors understood what too many Americans today have forgotten or never learned or find it convenient to obscure, namely, 

that the marriage practices that a society endorses have real-world 

consequences that extend far beyond the individuals seeking to 

marry and that shape or deform the broader culture. That understanding underlay the 19th-century effort to combat polygamy, 

which was recognized to be incompatible with democracy. That is 

why Congress, in its separate enabling acts for the admission to 

statehood of Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Utah, conditioned their admission on their including anti-polygamy provisions 

in their State constitutions. That history makes it all the more jarring that supporters of this bill would require that Federal law 

treat as a marriage—and require Federal taxpayers to subsidize— 

any polygamous marriage recognized by any State. 

I detail in my testimony how the Obama administration has 

wrongly declined to defend DOMA. I will simply close with the observation that this bill is ill-conceived legislation that should proceed no further. Legislators who genuinely want to respect marriage should defend traditional marriage, not undermine it. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whelan appears as a submissions for the record.] 

Senator COONS. Finally, we welcome Mr. Evan Wolfson. Mr. 

Wolfson is founder and executive director of Freedom to Marry, the 

national campaign to end marriage discrimination. Mr. Wolfson 

was co-counsel in the historic Hawaii marriage case that launched 

the ongoing global movement for freedom to marry and has participated in many other landmark HIV/AIDS cases and gay rights 

cases. Mr. Wolfson earned his B.A. from Yale University in 1978, 

after which he served as a Peace Corps volunteer in a village in 

Togo, West Africa. He graduated from Harvard Law School and has 

appeared before the United States Supreme Court in the case of 

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, and in 2000 was named one of ‘‘the 

100 most influential lawyers in America’’ by the National Law 

Journal. In 2004, Mr. Wolfson was named one of ‘‘the 100 most influential people in the world’’ by Time Magazine. He is the author 

39 

of ‘‘Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People’s 

Right to Marry,’’ which was published in 2004. 

Mr. Wolfson, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF EVAN WOLFSON, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, 

FREEDOM TO MARRY, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 

Mr. WOLFSON. Thank you, Senator Coons, Members of the Committee. As the Senator said, I am Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom to Marry, the national campaign to end discrimination in marriage, and I am also author, as noted, of ‘‘Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People’s Right to 

Marry.’’ I am very pleased to be here with you today to testify in 

support of the Respect for Marriage Act, which would return the 

Federal Government to its traditional and appropriate role of respecting marriages performed in the States. I want to thank Chairman Leahy for holding this hearing, and chief sponsor Senator 

Feinstein, and my Senator, Senator Gillibrand, for their leadership 

in introducing this important legislation in the Senate. 

Fifteen years ago this summer, I was in a courtroom in Hawaii 

along with my non-gay co-counsel, Dan Foley, representing three 

loving and committed couples who had been denied marriage licenses despite being together, some of the couples, for decades. In 

the clear, cool light of the courtroom, we presented evidence, called 

and cross-examined witnesses, and made logical and legal arguments, as did the State’s attorneys. At the end of that trial—the 

first ever on marriage in the world—the court concluded, based on 

that record we compiled, that there is no good reason for the Government to deny the freedom to marry to committed couples simply 

because of their sex or sexual orientation. 

By contrast, Congress compiled no such record and did not wait 

to consider evidence or serious analysis before rushing that same 

year to add a new layer of marriage discrimination against couples 

already barred from marrying. 

DOMA imposes a gay exception to the way the Federal Government historically and currently treats all other married couples. 

DOMA stigmatizes by dividing married couples at the State level 

into first-class marriages and second-class marriages for those the 

Federal Government does not like. But in America, we do not have 

second-class citizens, and we should not have second-class marriages either. 

Much has changed since DOMA’s enactment in 1996. Then, 

same-sex couples could not marry anywhere in the world. Today, 

five States and our Nation’s capital have now ended the denial of 

marriage licenses, joining 12 countries on four continents where 

gay people share in the freedom to marry. 

Tens of thousands of same-sex couples are legally married in the 

United States, as you have heard, many raising children. And as 

of this coming Sunday, when New York State ends its restriction, 

the number of Americans living in a State where gay couples share 

in the freedom to marry will more than double to over 35 million. 

In 1996, opponents could conjure up groundless but scary 

hypotheticals about the impact of the freedom to marry on children, on society, on marriage itself. Those claims were hollow, but 

today there is a mountain of evidence, and it all points in the direcVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Oct 18, 2011 Jkt 070639 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\70639.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
40 

tion of fairness. For that reason, literally every leading public 

health and child welfare association in the country, including most 

recently the American Medical Association, have all concluded, 

based on science, evidence, and clinical as well as personal experience, that the children being raised by same-sex couples are 

healthy and fit, and that these kids and their families would benefit from inclusion in marriage without taking anything away from 

anyone else. 

Today, thanks to the lived experience with the reality of the freedom to marry, even the Republican sponsor of DOMA, former Congressman Bob Barr, believes it should be repealed, stating that, 

‘‘DOMA is neither meeting the principles of federalism it was supposed to, nor is its impact limited to Federal law.’’ 

The Democratic President who in 1996 signed DOMA into law, 

Bill Clinton, has also called for its repeal, as has President Obama, 

who has endorsed this restorative legislation. 

Congressman Barr’s and President Clinton’s journey away from 

DOMA to the freedom to marry and respect for marriage mirrors 

the changed minds and open hearts of the American people. In a 

1996 Gallup poll, only 27 percent of the American people favored 

the freedom to marry, but today, according to Gallup and five other 

recent surveys, support has doubled to 53 percent, a clear national 

majority for marriage, with younger Americans across the board 

overwhelmingly in support. Sixty-three percent of Catholics are for 

the freedom to marry, and opposition is falling amongst all parts 

of the public with accelerating momentum and bipartisan voices, as 

reflected in last month’s historic vote in New York. 

This Sunday many will watch on television as joyous couples declare their love and have their commitments celebrated by family 

and friends and confirmed by the State. Yet as they join in marriage, these couples will become the latest Americans to experience 

firsthand the sting of discrimination by the Federal Government. 

They will endure the intangible yet very real pain of once again 

being branded a second-class citizen and will suffer the tangible 

harm of being excluded from the safety net of protections and responsibilities that other married couples cherish. 

Mr. Chairman, it is time for Congress to end this discrimination. 

Congress can remove this sting, eliminate this pain, end this harm 

by enacting the Respect for Marriage Act. Fairness demands it, and 

the time has come. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wolfson appears as a submissions for the record.] 

Senator COONS. Thank you very much to all of our witnesses on 

this second panel, and I appreciate your following the testimony 

from the first panel, which spoke sort of personally and in moving 

ways about the very real harm suffered by LGBT couples through 

the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and I look forward to hearing your response to questions. But I will first, if I might, defer to 

Senator Klobuchar, who was not able to ask questions of the first 

panel and now joins us for questions of the second panel. Senator. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Senator Coons. I 

was over at a Transportation hearing, so I want to thank all of you 

for being here. 

41 

I was really struck, after hearing the first panel, by just the legal 

entanglements, all of the issues that have arisen in the last few 

years, whether it is someone trying to be at a partner’s bedside 

when they are dying or whether it is some of the other issues that 

the witnesses raised and stories that they told. And it made me 

think about what you were just speaking about, Mr. Wolfson, that 

it has been 15 years since DOMA was enacted, and the legal and 

social landscape has changed since then. And I guess I would ask 

everyone: In your opinion, how has the issue of same-sex marriage 

transformed over the years? What effect has the passage of time 

had on the debate? If you could just answer briefly, Mr. Solmonese. 

Mr. SOLMONESE. Thank you, Senator. I think first and foremost, 

perhaps the most powerful contributors to changing American public opinions on the question of same-sex marriage or the circumstances of our relationships generally were perhaps best displayed in the previous panel: hard-working, committed, loving 

Americans having the opportunity to tell the stories of their lives, 

and more to the point, to really talk about the inequities and the 

injustice that we face in the absence of marriage equality. And I 

think that all across this country, the more opportunities that we 

have had to tell those stories, to help people understand the circumstances of our lives, and in particular, when I reflect on Ron’s 

story in the previous panel, the genuine inequity and despair that 

we face in the absence of marriage equality, I think that most 

Americans—and most Americans to my way of thinking are fairminded and optimistic—cannot help but be moved by these stories 

and cannot help but be moved in the direction of understanding the 

need for full marriage equality. Or in the case of the debate today, 

we should not lose sight of what this conversation is about today, 

the real need to ensure that in those States where same-sex couples enjoy the right to marriage equality, that they be afforded 

those Federal benefits, particularly things like Social Security survivor benefits. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Solmonese. 

Just quickly, Mr. Nimocks, any response on the question about 

the changes over the last 15 years? 

Mr. NIMOCKS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator 

Klobuchar. I do not believe that there have been substantial 

changes in the opinions of Americans across this country about 

marriage as time has passed. We know that the first vote in this 

country occurred in Hawaii in 1998, the last one in Iowa in 2010. 

And what is clear in all those votes in all the 32 jurisdictions 

where Americans have voted upon the question of marriage is they 

have been unanimous that marriage should be the union of one 

man and one woman. And as I alluded to in the poll where 62 percent of Americans agree that marriage should be defined as the 

union of one man and one woman, that is the exact language that 

is going to be on the ballot in 2012 in your home State of Minnesota, and Minnesotans are going to vote on that. And I believe 

Minnesotans will become the 33rd jurisdiction to affirm that. 

The question before the Committee, with respect, is the question 

of marriage, whether it should be the union of one man and one 

woman, whether mothers and fathers are necessary, and I think 

42 

Americans over a large period of time have been very consistent on 

that. 

Thank you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. Whelan, if you could just keep it down 

to 30 seconds, I have another question to ask Mr. Solmonese. 

Mr. WHELAN. Well, I will try to be quick, but yours is a very interesting question, and I hope I can give a somewhat more extensive response than that. 

My perception is, based on the polls, at least, that there has been 

a decline among young people in support for marriage. I think that 

decline reflects a broader collapse in our marriage culture, a collapse that I will emphasize is largely the responsibility of what 

heterosexuals have done to marriage in recent decades. And I think 

what we have is a situation where a lot of folks simply do not understand what marriage is. They do not understand the systemic 

importance of marriage in serving the interests of millions and millions of children who deserve to be raised in the best possible environment. And I think increasingly some folks do not understand 

that when you decouple marriage from the core interest in 

procreation and child rearing, you create a mission confusion that 

inevitably disserves the interests of millions and millions of children yet unborn. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. And maybe, Mr. Wolfson, we can get 

your answer in writing, because I had a quick question here at the 

end, before my time runs out, of Mr. Solmonese, and that is, 

whether the Respect for Marriage Act has any impact on the ability 

of religious organizations or churches to freely express their views. 

Mr. SOLMONESE. Thank you, Senator. As I mentioned before, 

what we are here to discuss today and what is at the heart of this 

legislation really is how the Federal Government treats lawfully 

married people in States where marriage equality is the law of the 

land. It does not require individuals or religious organizations to do 

anything, and as you know, the First Amendment protects the 

rights of churches and religious organizations to determine who 

they will or will not marry and which—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I think that is an important point for some 

people—— 

Mr. SOLMONESE. Yes, it is. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR.—that they—because freedom of religion is 

so important to many people in my State and across the country. 

I know Senator Feinstein had made that point, so I appreciate you 

making that, that this bill does not in any way require churches, 

synagogues, or mosques to recognize or perform same-sex marriages. 

Thank you. I really appreciate it, and I thought the panel before 

this—not that your panel is not stupendous, but I thought that the 

way that they told their stories, their own individual stories, was 

quite moving and also gave us a sense of the legal problems that 

they are encountering because of this law. Thank you. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. 

If I might turn first to Mr. Whelan, in both your testimony and 

Mr. Nimocks’ testimony, there is a suggestion that somehow there 

is an inevitable connection between procreation, parenthood, opposite-sex couples, and then a critical national Federal policy interest 

43 

in promoting marriage as being just between a man and a woman. 

What do you see as the rationale for why Federal law is silent on 

unlimited serial heterosexual marriage with all the pain and difficulty of divorce and its impact on children and child rearing, but 

prohibits one life-long loving, stable same-sex marriage? Help me 

understand that. 

Mr. WHELAN. Well, I think the answer to that, Senator, is the 

same as the answer to why Congress in the mid–19th century took 

action to outlaw polygamy and to condition—or, more precisely, to 

condition the admission of several States on those States’ permanently banning polygamy. 

It is true that within broad bounds the general practice of the 

Federal Government has been to permit variations among State 

laws in terms of what constitutes marriage. At the same time, as 

the anti-polygamy effort illustrates, there is an understanding that 

there is some genuine core, some genuine essence to what marriage 

is, that marriage cannot simply be defined to mean anything. And 

I think what we see here and what 84 of your predecessors in the 

Senate understood in 1996 is that the union of one man and one 

woman is at the very core of what marriage needs to be in order 

to serve the interests of children over the generations. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Mr. Whelan. 

If I might, Mr. Solmonese, your written testimony notes, I think 

quite correctly, that DOMA harms more than just gay and lesbian 

couples. One of my areas of focus on LGBT issues has been participation in and support for the It Gets Better project, which uses the 

Internet to share messages of hope to LGBT youth. 

There has been testimony here by several witnesses about public 

opinion. I am not sure what the relevance is of whether 60 or 70 

support today or yesterday. In my view, DOMA, to the extent it enshrines and advances discrimination, has negative secondary impacts not just immediately on the couples from whom we heard 

previously, but also more indirectly, symbolically, in terms of encouraging discrimination and harassment in our broader society. 

Could you speak, Mr. Solmonese, if you would, to HRC’s experience 

and views on how DOMA might have secondary negative symbolic 

effects on LGBT youth and on our culture as a whole? 

Mr. SOLMONESE. Thank you, Senator, certainly. I think there are 

a number of ways, and certainly we heard from the previous panels 

ways in which individuals in our community have faced genuine 

discrimination in the absence of the right to full marriage. 

But one of the things that I think is important to point out—and 

I see this and I experience this as I travel the country and I travel 

to places where it is, for lack of a better term, perhaps more difficult to be a member of the LGBT community, parts of the country 

where I talk to people who just face much more sort of discrimination on a number of fronts. And one of the things that they tell me 

that I think is important to point out is that, for instance, when 

they walk into a hospital emergency room, even in a place where 

civil unions perhaps may be the law of the land, there is sort of 

a process that that admitting person goes through as they evaluate 

the circumstances and the individual family in front of them. ‘‘You 

are not married, and so while you are not married, you know, there 

is sort of a societal disparity there, and I need as an admitting perVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Oct 18, 2011 Jkt 070639 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\70639.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
44 

son in this hospital emergency room to understand what is different about you and what is different about the circumstances of 

your particular life that I need to be aware of.’’ 

You know, parents tell me that they send their children off to 

school nowadays from the household of a civil-unioned family and 

what sort of—beyond the tangible perhaps benefits disparity that 

we talked about here today, you know, what does that mean? What 

does that speak to to that child and the sort of experience that they 

might encounter as having been sent to school from a civil-unioned 

family or from a same-sex-couple family as opposed to from a married household? You know, there is a societal understanding of 

what it means to walk in the door of an emergency room as a married couple or to walk into a PTA meeting as a married couple and 

what that means generally. 

And that is something that I think is important to point out because that is beyond sort of the tangible benefits discrimination 

that we heard about earlier today, something that I hear a great 

deal of as I travel across the country. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Mr. Solmonese, and I just want 

thank everyone who has testified today to the very real impact, the 

negative impact that DOMA has had on married couples, on legally 

married couples in States across this country. I am committed, as 

one of the original cosponsors, to the passage of the Respect for 

Marriage Act, and I am hopeful that the remainder of this hearing 

can be constructive. 

Given there are just a few minutes left in the vote currently 

going on on the floor, I will yield the gavel and the microphone to 

my more senior colleague, Senator Schumer, who will close out today’s hearing. Thank you very much 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Senator SCHUMER. [presiding.] Well, thank you, and I want to 

thank you, Chairman Coons—sounds good right, ‘‘Chairman 

Coons’’ ?—for running this hearing. When I recruit members, I say 

you would be amazed how quickly you move around here up the 

ladder. 

I want to thank our witnesses on this panel and on the previous 

two panels for this testimony, and I am just going to give an opening statement or a statement, and then we will adjourn the hearing. 

I think the powerful testimony of the witnesses we have heard 

today speaks volumes. So, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a few 

brief words about the importance of repealing DOMA. 

Not long after this hearing concludes, in less than 100 hours, gay 

couples from across my home State of New York will be lining up 

outside courthouses and clerks’ offices to officially tie the knot. 

Many of those who plan to say ‘‘I do’’ have been together for decades. They have raised children together, battled illnesses together, 

built loving, lasting lives together. And on Sunday, our State of 

New York will recognize that—that love, that life, that commitment until death do they part—with a marriage license. 

So personally I support marriage equality. I believe one of the 

defining qualities of America has always been our inexorable drive 

45 

to equality. As the French historian Alexis de Tocqueville observed 

when he visited the U.S. in the 1930’s, it is the quality that distinguishes the United States from all other countries. 

Now, we are not here today to discuss the relative merits of marriage equality but another issue of bringing equality. The purpose 

of this hearing—and I want to thank Chairman Leahy—is to examine the real-life impact of the Defense of Marriage Act on same-sex 

married couples. 

It is a fact that when New York begins conferring marriage licenses to same-sex couples this weekend, the Federal Government 

will not be able to give those married couples the same Federal 

benefits that straight couples receive who similarly pledge in the 

eyes of the law to spend their lives together. Instead, in the eyes 

of the Federal Government, these couples will remain strangers, 

with none of the responsibilities or privileges of matrimony. The 

same is true, of course, of couples in five other States and the District of Columbia. 

There are well over a thousands different Federal benefits that 

married gay couples are denied because of DOMA. Unfortunately, 

the effects of this discrimination are most acutely felt in the times 

of vulnerability. Gay couples are denied family medical leave, Social Security survivor benefits, estate tax exemption, and many 

other vital rights that their heterosexual neighbors and friends 

enjoy. This is not right, this is not fair, and something needs to be 

done about it. 

I want to draw my attention to one particular way in which 

DOMA adversely impacts gay couples: the Federal tax exemption 

for health benefits. If a straight married man wants to add his wife 

to his health insurance plan, he can do so without hassle or expense. It is a tax-free fringe benefit. It has been for decades. Now, 

let us say you are gay, legally married in your State, and your employer is kind enough to offer same-sex-partner health benefits. 

That is becoming increasingly common: 83 of the Fortune 100 companies offer them. But because of DOMA, gay employees must include the cost of insurance—and we all know that health care is 

not cheap—in their taxable income. That means that even though 

they are married in the eyes of their State and their company is 

being fair and generous, the Federal Government hits them with 

a heaping tax burden every April 15th. Worse still, the employer 

is required to pay FICA taxes on the benefit. That is right. Because 

of DOMA, major employers are forced to pay—I am looking at that 

side of the room—extra taxes. 

I have a bipartisan bill with Senator Collins to change that. It 

is called the Tax Parity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act. Needless 

to say, were we successful in repealing DOMA, there would be no 

need for the legislation. Our tax parity bill addresses one of a thousands Federal benefits that married gay couples cannot receive 

under law. 

So I hope we will repeal DOMA. CBO came to the following conclusion in 2004: ‘‘If DOMA were repealed, revenues would be higher by less than $400 million a year from 2005 through 2010 and 

by $500 million to $700 million from 2011 to 2014.’’ 

I want to say this: There are three fundamental principles at 

stake here: repealing DOMA makes good fiscal sense, it respects 

46 

States’ rights, and it treats all married people the same. It is fair, 

it makes sense, and it is time. 

And I would say to many in the audience who have waited a long 

time for many things that one of my favorite expressions was what 

Martin Luther King said and what I was proud to repeat over and 

over again at the Gay Pride parade in New York a few weeks ago, 

and that is, ‘‘The arc of history is long, but it bends in the direction 

of justice.’’ 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 

47 


70639.001
48 


70639.002
49 


70639.003
50 


70639.004
51 


70639.005
52 


70639.006
53 


70639.007
54 


70639.008
55 


70639.009
56 


70639.010
57 


70639.011
58 


70639.012
59 


70639.013
60 


70639.014
61 


70639.015
62 


70639.016
63 


70639.017
64 


70639.018
65 


70639.019
66 


70639.020
67 


70639.021
68 


70639.022
69 


70639.023
70 


70639.024
71 


70639.025
72 


70639.026
73 


70639.027
74 


70639.028
75 


70639.029
76 


70639.030
77 


70639.031
78 


70639.032
79 


70639.033
80 


70639.034
81 


70639.035
82 


70639.036
83 


70639.040
84 


70639.041
85 


70639.042
86 


70639.043
87 


70639.044
88 


70639.045
89 


70639.046
90 


70639.047
91 


70639.048
92 


70639.049
93 


70639.050
94 


70639.051
95 


70639.052
96 


70639.053
97 


70639.054
98 


70639.055
99 


70639.056
100 


70639.057
101 


70639.058
102 


70639.059
103 


70639.060
104 


70639.061
105 


70639.062
106 


70639.063
107 


70639.064
108 


70639.065
109 


70639.066
110 


70639.067
111 


70639.068
112 


70639.069
113 


70639.070
114 


70639.071
115 


70639.072
116 


70639.073
117 


70639.074
118 


70639.075
119 


70639.076
120 


70639.077
121 


70639.314
122 


70639.315
123 


70639.078
124 


70639.079
125 


70639.316
126 


70639.080
127 


70639.081
128 


70639.082
129 


70639.083
130 


70639.084
131 


70639.085
132 


70639.086
133 


70639.087
134 


70639.091
135 


70639.092
136 


70639.037
137 


70639.038
138 


70639.039
139 


70639.093
140 


70639.094
141 


70639.095
142 


70639.097
143 


70639.098
144 


70639.099
145 


70639.100
146 


70639.101
147 


70639.102
148 


70639.103
149 


70639.104
150 


70639.105
151 


70639.106
152 


70639.107
153 


70639.108
154 


70639.109
155 


70639.110
156 


70639.096
157 


70639.111
158 


70639.112
159 


70639.113
160 


70639.114
161 


70639.115
162 


70639.116
163 


70639.117
164 


70639.118
165 


70639.119
166 


70639.120
167 


70639.121
168 


70639.122
169 


70639.123
170 


70639.124
171 


70639.125
172 


70639.126
173 


70639.127
174 


70639.128
175 


70639.129
176 


70639.130
177 


70639.131
178 


70639.132
179 


70639.133
180 


70639.134
181 


70639.135
182 


70639.136
183 


70639.137
184 


70639.138
185 


70639.139
186 


70639.140
187 


70639.141
188 


70639.142
189 


70639.143
190 


70639.144
191 


70639.145
192 


70639.146
193 


70639.147
194 


70639.148
195 


70639.149
196 


70639.150
197 


70639.151
198 


70639.152
199 


70639.153
200 


70639.154
201 


70639.155
202 


70639.156
203 


70639.157
204 


70639.158
205 


70639.159
206 


70639.160
207 


70639.161
208 


70639.162
209 


70639.163
210 


70639.164
211 


70639.165
212 


70639.166
213 


70639.167
214 


70639.168
215 


70639.169
216 


70639.170
217 


70639.171
218 


70639.172
219 


70639.173
220 


70639.174
221 


70639.175
222 


70639.176
223 


70639.177
224 


70639.178
225 


70639.179
226 


70639.180
227 


70639.181
228 


70639.182
229 


70639.183
230 


70639.184
231 


70639.185
232 


70639.186
233 


70639.187
234 


70639.188
235 


70639.189
236 


70639.190
237 


70639.191
238 


70639.192
239 


70639.193
240 


70639.194
241 


70639.195
242 


70639.196
243 


70639.197
244 


70639.198
245 


70639.199
246 


70639.200
247 


70639.201
248 


70639.202
249 


70639.203
250 


70639.204
251 


70639.205
252 


70639.206
253 


70639.207
254 


70639.208
255 


70639.209
256 


70639.210
257 


70639.211
258 


70639.212
259 


70639.213
260 


70639.214
261 


70639.215
262 


70639.216
263 


70639.217
264 


70639.218
265 


70639.219
266 


70639.220
267 


70639.221
268 


70639.222
269 


70639.223
270 


70639.224
271 


70639.225
272 


70639.226
273 


70639.227
274 


70639.228
275 


70639.229
276 


70639.230
277 


70639.231
278 


70639.232
279 


70639.233
280 


70639.234
281 


70639.235
282 


70639.236
283 


70639.237
284 


70639.238
285 


70639.239
286 


70639.240
287 


70639.241
288 


70639.242
289 


70639.243
290 


70639.244
291 


70639.245
292 


70639.246
293 


70639.247
294 


70639.248
295 


70639.249
296 


70639.250
297 


70639.251
298 


70639.252
299 


70639.253
300 


70639.254
301 


70639.255
302 


70639.256
303 


70639.257
304 


70639.258
305 


70639.259
306 


70639.260
307 


70639.261
308 


70639.262
309 


70639.263
310 


70639.264
311 


70639.265
312 


70639.266
313 


70639.267
314 


70639.268
315 


70639.269
316 


70639.270
317 


70639.271
318 


70639.272
319 


70639.273
320 


70639.274
321 


70639.275
322 


70639.276
323 


70639.277
324 


70639.278
325 


70639.279
326 


70639.280
327 


70639.281
328 


70639.282
329 


70639.283
330 


70639.284
331 


70639.285
332 


70639.286
333 


70639.287
334 


70639.288
335 


70639.289
336 


70639.290
337 


70639.291
338 


70639.292
339 


70639.293
340 


70639.294
341 


70639.295
342 


70639.296
343 


70639.297
344 


70639.298
345 


70639.299
346 


70639.300
347 


70639.301
348 


70639.302
349 


70639.303
350 


70639.304
351 


70639.305
352 


70639.306
353 


70639.307
354 


70639.308
355 


70639.309
356 


70639.310
357 


70639.311
358 


70639.312
359 

Æ 


70639.313