Archive Version of Partners Task Force for Gay and Lesbian Couples Founded 1986. Online 1995-2022 Go here for a brief article on Partners History. Demian, Sweet Corn Productions, demian@buddybuddy.com |
My Relationship — a Threat to Our CountryFederal Hearing Testimony of Keith A. BradkowskiIntroduction by Demian © November 14, 2003, Demian Introduction A hearing was called on September 4, 2003, by Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas), who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on the Constitution Civil Rights and Property Rights. It was called “What is Needed to Defend the Bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act of 1996?” [The act is otherwise known as “DoMA.” See our article: DoMA: Description and the Bill’s Text.] Sen. Cornyn held the hearing declaring that the Senate must consider what steps may be necessary “to safeguard the institution of marriage” in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s pro-civil rights Lawrence vs. Texas ruling, and the cases in Massachusetts and New Jersey that could potentially legalize same-sex marriage. Cornyn and others argue that these recent events may make DoMA vulnerable to Constitutional challenges. The senator, and others, are convinced they need to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. We can only ponder: will there never be an end to this slippery slope? The fact is, DoMA was unconstitutional even before the Lawrence case. While Sen. Cornyn stated that the point of the hearing was simply to gather information on whether or not DoMA would be susceptible to court challenges, witnesses for and against same-sex marriage spoke about the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). [Please see our article: Constitutional Amendment: Codifying Hatred.] This current bill would amend the U.S. Constitution to permanently define marriage as only between one man, and one woman. It would also deny each state the right to decide family law and relationship recognition for itself. Potentially, it could be used to forbid any contracts between same-sex couples or business partners. Since the Bill of Rights, there have been 18 amendments to the Constitution. Except for Prohibition, which was later removed, no other amendment has been made to remove civil rights. Should FMA pass, it would be the first time that an amendment was created to deny rights and protections to a single class of American citizens. Cornyn was the only one of the subcommittee’s five-member Republican contingent to show up for the hearing. Each of the panel’s four Democrats on the committee spoke against the punitively discriminatory FMA. They were: Senators Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). Also appearing was Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the full Senate Judiciary Committee. He, too, spoke out against the constitutional amendment. From Sen. Leahy: “We sit here today in a time of economic troubles at home and deepening problems abroad, and perhaps such a constitutional amendment serves as a handy, if divisive, distraction. But the Defense of Marriage Act — which this hearing has been called to examine — already defines marriage for federal purposes as a union between a man and a woman, and no court has questioned that law. With all of these timely and pressing issues demanding solutions right now, it is difficult to see why this issue demands the attention of Congress, and I fear that it may be politically tempting for some outside the Congress to score political points at the expense of gay and lesbian Americans. To be clear, I do not support the Federal Marriage Amendment nor is it necessary, and I hope and expect that it will be unsuccessful in the Senate if it is introduced here.”Six witnesses also testified at the hearing. Four supported permanently banning same-sex couples from attaining the rights and protections of civil marriage. They were: Rev. Dr. Ray Alexander Hammond, Pastor, Bethel AME Church; Maggie Gallagher, President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy; Gregory S. Coleman of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP; and Michael P. Farris Chairman & General Counsel of the Home School Legal Defense Association and President and Professor of Government of Patrick Henry College. Only two witnesses were allowed to testify against DoMA and the FMA. One was Dale Carpenter of the University of Minnesota Law School, who maintained that FMA goes against the conservative principle of federalism. He stated that the amendment would be “unnecessary, unwise, undemocratic.” Said Carpenter: “The FMA would impose a single, nationwide definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It would prohibit state courts or even state legislatures from authorizing same-sex marriages. Purporting to protect the states from gay marriage, the FMA tramples federalism. ”The other was Keith Bradkowski, whose entire testimony we reprint below.
|
© 2024, Demian None of the pages on this Web site may be reproduced by any form of reproduction without permission from Partners, with the exception of copies for personal, student, and non-commercial use. Please do not copy this article to any Web site. Links to this page are welcome. |