Marriage Protection Amendment

MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT -- (Extensions of Remarks - October 04, 2004)

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which would mark the first time in our Nation's history that the Constitution would be amended to restrict the civil rights of a specific group, rather than to expand rights.

I do not support changing the definition of marriage, and in fact, I voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act. But like former Republican Congressman Bob Barr, who authored that bill, I oppose this Constitutional amendment. I believe that each state should have the ability to decide family matters for themselves, rather than having the federal government dictate what they must do.

I strongly support recognizing civil unions to give partners the right to access of health benefits, visiting rights at hospitals, pensions, and other benefits granted to committed married partners. These are rights that other Americans are able to take for granted, and frankly it's difficult to believe that in the 21st Century we need to fight to guarantee those rights. But this amendment would prevent civil unions and domestic partner benefits, again, forbidding states and the District of Columbia to decide for themselves whether they want to allow those benefits.

It is wrong to casually amend our Constitution simply to score a political point. This vicious debate is below the dignity of the House. I hope my colleagues will reject the politics of hate and intolerance, and oppose this amendment.