The United States Capitol

MENU

 

Home

Issue Statements

Brief Biography

Constituent Services

Contacting
 Barney

Legislative Information

Today In
 Congress

. . . . . . . . .

Quick Finder


. . . . . . . . .

 


Date Issued   07/15/03 10:34 AM EST
|
Today in Congress

 

news release
from

BARNEY FRANK

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Peter Kovar (202) 225-5931
Dorothy Reichard (617) 332-3920

HOUSE MEMBERS CALL FOR OPPOSITION TO
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE,
Urge Their Colleagues to Follow Cheney’s “States Rights” Campaign Rhetoric

 

Three Members of the U.S. House of Representatives this week sent a letter to their fellow lawmakers urging them to oppose a proposed Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would bar federal recognition of same-sex marriages.

The “Dear Colleague” letter mailed to every Member of the House yesterday by Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) points out that, during the 2000 Vice-Presidential debate, Dick Cheney publicly stated that the same-sex marriage issue ought to be decided by each state, adding that he didn’t “think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area.” The letter concludes by urging “those who share the Vice President’s commitment to federalism to refrain from sponsoring a Constitutional amendment which would repudiate the statement he made” in the debate.



A copy of the letter is below.

#####
 

July 11, 2003



Dear Colleague,

Recently Members have been asked to cosponsor a Constitutional amendment on the subject of marriage. Many of its supporters have sought to portray it as a question of whether or not same-sex marriages should be allowed. In fact, what is most radical about this amendment is not that it defines marriage, but that it takes away from each of the fifty states the right to decide this question and gives it for the first time in our two hundred year history to the federal government.

It should be noted that while some of those supporting the amendment have argued that it is meant simply to prevent judicial actions of one sort or another, the amendment, if adopted, would prevent states by acting through their state legislatures, referenda, or any combination thereof with regard to same-sex unions.

The argument against such a centralized approach was articulated very well during the 2000 Presidential Campaign by one of the major party candidates. When asked by Bernard Shaw to state a position on the subject of same-sex couples, Vice Presidential candidate Dick Cheney responded as follows:

“This is a tough one, Bernie. The fact of the matter is we live in a free
society, and freedom means freedom for everybody. We don’t get to choose, and shouldn’t be able to choose and say, ‘You get to live free, but you don’t.’ And I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It’s really no one else’s business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard.

The next step, then, of course, is the question you ask of whether or not there ought to be some kind of official sanction, if you will, of the relationship, or if these relationships should be treated the same way a conventional marriage is. That’s a tougher problem. That’s not a slam dunk.

I think the fact of the matter, of course, is that matter is regulated by the states. I Think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that’s appropriate. I don’t think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area.

I try to be open-minded about it as much as I can, and tolerant of those relationships.
And like Joe, I also wrestle with the extent to which there ought to be legal sanction
of those relationships. I think we ought to do everything we can to tolerate and
accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into.”

While we acknowledge that we do not find ourselves in complete agreement with the Vice President on all public policy issues, we believe that this answer, given one month before the presidential election, makes a very strong case against a Constitutional amendment which would establish precisely “a federal policy” of the sort that the Vice President opposed.

We urge that those who share the Vice President’s commitment to federalism to refrain from sponsoring a Constitutional amendment which would repudiate the statement he made here.

Sincerely,

REP. BARNEY FRANK

REP. JIM KOLBE

REP. TAMMY BALDWIN

 

#####
 

Seal of the House of Representatives

 

Search on Thomas 

 

 

1  

 

Contact Rep. Frank

 

|| Issues || Biography || Constituent Services || Contact ||
|| Legislative Info || Today in Congress || Links