|
|
|
Amendment Isn't Needed, Marriage Law's Author Says By CARL HULSE, NYTimes on the Web, March 31, 2004 WASHINGTON, March 30 — The conservative author of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act urged Congress on Tuesday not to move forward with a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, as he and other conservatives predicted the current law would survive court challenges. Former Representative Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican who was a moving force behind the 1996 law, which allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex unions performed elsewhere, said a constitutional amendment would be an unwarranted intrusion in an area that has historically been left to the states. "Changing the Constitution is just unnecessary — even after the Massachusetts decision, the San Francisco circus and the Oregon licenses," Mr. Barr told the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. "We have a perfectly good law on the books that defends marriage on the federal level and protects states from having to dilute their definitions of marriage by recognizing other states' same-sex marriage licenses." Mr. Barr agreed with conservative legal scholars that the measure, which was adopted with bipartisan support and signed by President Bill Clinton, could withstand inevitable court tests, though they cautioned that a wayward judge could overturn it. Bruce Fein, a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration, said the marriage law "is not constitutionally flawed" because it mainly sets out the doctrine that a state cannot be forced to recognize public policy from other jurisdictions if it conflicts with the state's laws. The hearing is the first of five planned in the House to allow lawmakers to explore a constitutional amendment that President Bush and other advocates say is necessary in the wake of a Massachusetts court ruling in favor of gay marriage and decisions by local officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The House majority leader, Tom DeLay of Texas, said on Tuesday that the hearings illustrated the "methodical approach" the House was taking. But Democrats on the House panel joined colleagues in the Senate who have attacked the amendment as a divisive proposal seized on by Republicans to motivate conservative voters. They said such an amendment would impose second-class status on gay and lesbian families. Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, said, "There are many threats to marriage these days, and half of all marriages end in divorce, but heterosexuals have long succeeded in failing at marriage without any help from lesbian and gay couples." Representative Steve Chabot, Republican of Ohio and chairman of the subcommittee, said that "rogue judges legislating from the bench" and local officials who have disregarded marriage laws in their own states had led to the need for the amendment. "We are here today because of those actions and events, not because of a political agenda or election-year plot," he said.
|
Send mail to
email@gaypasg.org with questions or comments about this web site.
|