Jump To • Introduction • Questions Presented For Review • List Of All Parties • Table Of Contents • Table Of Cited Authorities • Jurisdiction • Statement Of The Case • Reasons For Granting The Petition • Appendix A. Opinion of the United States Tax Court, filed July 14, 2000 • Appendix B. Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed April 8, 2001 • Appendix C. House of Representatives Congressional Record, July 12, 1996 • Appendix D. United States Senate Congressional Record, September 10, 1996 • Appendix E. Letter from University of Chicago Hospitals Human Resources Department, November 13, 2000

Appendix C

United States House Of Representatives

July 12, 1996

H7481 This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act." I would have preferred the enactment of a domestic partner law. It would have provided all the protections that gays and lesbians have been seeking over the years. Failure of the State to assure gays and lesbians all the protections under the law require that we pass a domestic partner law. Unfortunately the State of Hawaii Legislature chose not to pass a domestic partner law and in doing so left the matter for the courts to decide. Under this bill, H.R. 3396, same sex marriages, if and when allowed in Hawaii, will be denied equal protection of the laws insofar as the Federal Government is concerned. Even though it is a valid marriage in Hawaii as decided by the Hawaii Supreme Court, these couples will not be allowed to be considered as "spouses" when deciding such things as Federal retirement benefits, health benefits under Federal programs, Federal housing benefits, burial rights, privilege against testifying against partner in Federal trials, visitation rights at hospitals by partners, rights to family and medical leave to care for a partner, and many more programs which allow special rights to spouses. This exclusion would be extremely destructive of the principle of States rights in determining status. C-2

H7482 As people understand, given today's rule, Federal law has a lot to do with their lives, so as far as Federal income tax is concerned and Social Security and pensions and other things, they will not be covered.

H7483 What people have said is, can I regularize this relationship so we are legally responsible for each other. Can I get to the point where if one of us gets very ill we will be protected in out ability to undertake financial responsibilities? Can we buy property jointly? Can we do the other things that people do? Can we decide that one will work and one might be in child rearing; there are people who have children in these relationships. That is what we are asking for. When people get off the subject, allowing Hawaii to have gay marriages without penalizing them federally, and on to something wholly unrelated, polygamy, and attack the unrelated one, it is because they cannot think of any arguments to attack the first one.

H7484 But scapegoating gay men and lesbians for the failure of marriages in this society is very good politics but very terrible social analysis. That is what we are talking about. The Federal Government currently extends benefits, C-3 rights, obligations, and privileges on the basis of marital status. These include Social Security survivor and Medicare benefits, veterans' benefits, Federal health, life insurance and pension benefits and immigration privileges. In fact, the word marriage appears more than 800 times in Federal statutes and regulations, and the word spouse appears over 3,100 times. However, these terms are never defined in the statutes and regulations. This bill proposes to do so.

H7486 I have been thinking a lot about this legislation this week because tomorrow, I am getting married. My fiance and I are going to vow to spend the rest of our lives together - no matter what lies ahead. For that commitment, we will enjoy all the rights and privileges the Government bestows on married couples - from tax breaks to Social Security benefits.

H7487 They are outraged that their tax money could be spent paying veteran's benefits or Social Security based on the recognition of same-sex marriages.

H7488 and if Members believe that the Congress of the United States of America and not an individual State has the authority and the sole jurisdiction and responsibility to decide the use of Federal taxpayer benefits, and if you do not believe it is fiscally responsible to throw open the doors of the U.S. C-4 Treasury to be raided by the homosexual movement, then the choice is very clear, oppose the Frank amendment.

H7491 And that is, whether Members like to hear it or not, the last unfinished chapter of civil rights in this country. It is an attempt to evade the basic question of whether the law of this country should treat homosexual relationships as morally equivalent to heterosexual relationships. That is what is at stake here. Should the law express its neutrality between homosexual and heterosexual relationships? Should the law elevate homosexual unions to the same status as the heterosexual relationsjips on which the traditional family is based, a status which has been reserved from time immemorial for the union between a man and a woman. Unfortunately, this bill went far beyond that simple affirmation, entering uncharted and very troubling constitutional territory, as well as being motivated on the part of some of its advocates by a gratuitous hostility toward gays and lesbians. At best, it is unnecessary - for reasons I'll explain later; at worst, it is dangerous - for reasons I'll explain.

H7492 I also recognize that gay and lesbian couples seek legal recognition and permanence for their relationships and the C-5 rights and responsibilities that flow from those relationships. I hope this society, and its political and legal institutions, can move to accommodate the legitimate needs of gay and lesbian citizens in this respect. No one, I believe, would want, for example, to deny a claim of inheritance, or of participation in terminal health care decisions, for the life-long partner of a gay man or a lesbian woman. Yet, by refusing as part of this legislation even to permit a formal study of disparate treatment of domestic partnerships in these areas, the proponents of this legislation may reveal their real motivation. and because so many advocates of this legislation, by their approach, seem primarily moved to demonstrate a gratuitous disrespect for some citizens based on their sexual orientation.

H7493 Federal policies could be dramatically affected by the Hawaii decision since the Federal Government generally recognizes State documents in granting benefits and privileges to married individuals. Veterans' benefits, labor policies, Federal health and pension benefits, and Social Security benefits are just a few of the areas that would be subjected to substantive revision if Congress does not act soon. I think it would be wrong to take money out of the pockets of working families across America and use those tax dollars to give Federal acceptance and financial support to same-sex marriages. Without the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act, this would be the case.

H7495 Unless this bill is passed establishing a Federal definition of marriage, all Americans will then be paying for benefits for homosexual marriages.

H7497 Mr. Chairman, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act should really be called the Republican Offense on People Who are Different Act because it is nothing more than blatant homophobic gay-bashing.

H7499 The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, it is the prerogative, the authority, the responsibility, and the sole jurisdictional power of the Congress of the United States to determine the reach of Federal laws, Federal benefits, Federal regulations.

H7500 it will not have Federal tax benefits; it will not have pension benefits; it will not have testimonial privilege.

Contribute to G/L Issues

to help with our expenses