A historic Senate hearing on a possible repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) revealed a large divide on beliefs about the definition of marriage but also showcased opposing arguments on a subject traditionalists say is often misunderstood — the purpose of marriage and government’s role in it.
The June 20 hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee marked the first time any Senate or House committee ever held a hearing on overturning the 1996 law, which defines marriage for federal purposes as between a man and a woman and gives states the option of not recognizing another state’s gay “marriages.” Gay groups view its reversal as the first step toward redefining marriage in all 50 states.
The Respect for Marriage Act (S. 598), endorsed by President Obama, would overturn the 15-year-old-law DOMA. It has very little chance of passing in the current Congress.
“I think what we have is a situation where a lot of folks simply don’t understand what marriage is,” said Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
Whelan, who supports the ’96 law, said marriage logically is tied to procreation and childrearing, which can only lead to a traditional definition. Austin R. Nimocks, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, made a similar argument. Nimocks’ group also supports DOMA.
“Entrance to marry 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,” Nimocks said, refuting common arguments for redefining marriage. “Rather marriage laws stem from the fact that children are the product of the sexual relationships between men and woman, and that both fathers and mothers are viewed to be necessary for children.”
The government has an interest in defining marriage as between a man and a woman, Nimocks said, because it has an interest in the future generation and it recognizes the unique and complementary differences of mothers and fathers. He quoted the 1996 Senate Judiciary Committee report which argued that society has a “deep and abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation and childrearing.”
“While some may argue that times have changed, they cannot credibly argue that humanity, as a gendered species, has changed,” Nimocks said. “Men and women still compose the two great halves of humanity, men and women are uniquely different, and men and women still play important and irreplaceable roles in the family.”
Opponents of DOMA, though, argued that the law has prevented same-sex couples from receiving the federal legal benefits of marriage. The federal government does not recognize the “marriages” from the five states — soon to be six — where gay “marriage” is legal. Several gay individuals testified before the Senate committee.
“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,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest homosexual organization. “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.”
Whelan added that the Respect for Marriage Act, as written, would force the federal government to recognize polygamous relationships in a state where they were legalized.
“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,” Whelan said, using the term for group relationships. “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 … to subsidize [these] unions.”
The hearing allowed each side to highlight different sections of DOMA. Opponents said it should be overturned so same-sex couples could receive federal benefits, while supporters said the law is needed to protect states’ rights. (BP)
Share with others: