<DOC> [109 Senate Hearings] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access] [DOCID: f:92369.wais] S. Hrg. 108-813 WHAT IS NEEDED TO DEFEND THE BIPARTISAN DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT OF 1996? ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS of the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ SEPTEMBER 4, 2003 __________ Serial No. J-108-36 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 92-369 WASHINGTON : 2005 _____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800 Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware MIKE DeWINE, Ohio HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JOHN CORNYN, Texas JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina Bruce Artim, Chief Counsel and Staff Director Bruce A. Cohen, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director ------ Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights JOHN CORNYN, Texas, Chairman JON KYL, Arizona RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois James C. Ho, Majority Chief Counsel Robert F. Schiff, Democratic Chief Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas........ 1 prepared statement........................................... 126 Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin...................................................... 5 Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah, prepared statement............................................. 162 Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts, prepared statement.............................. 166 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont. 3 WITNESSES Bradkowski, Keith A., San Francisco, California.................. 22 Carpenter, Dale, Associate Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, Minnesota................... 19 Coleman, Gregory S., Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, and Former Solicitor General, State of Texas, Austin, Texas............... 16 Farris, Michael P., Chairman and General Counsel, Home School Legal Defense Association, and President and Professor of Government, Patrick Henry College, Purcellville, Virginia...... 18 Gallagher, Maggie, President, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, New York, New York..................................... 13 Hammond, Ray, Pastor, Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church, Boston, Massachusetts.......................................... 10 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Keith Bradkowski to questions submitted by Senators Chambliss, Graham, and Kyl..................................... 48 Responses of Dale Carpenter to questions submitted by Senators Chambliss, Graham, Kyl, and Craig.............................. 50 Responses of Gregory S. Coleman to questions submitted by Senators Chambliss, Graham, Kyl, and Graig..................... 63 Responses of Mike Farris to questions submitted by Senators Chambliss, Graham, Kyl, and Craig.............................. 66 Responses of Maggie Gallagher to questions submitted by Senators Chambliss, Graham, and Kyl..................................... 80 Responses of Rev. Ray Hammond, M.D. to questions submitted by Senators Chambliss, Graham, and Kyl............................ 83 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Abbott, Greg, Attorney General of Texas, Austin, Texas, letter... 87 Alons, Hon. Dwayne, State Representative in Iowa, Hull, Iowa, letter......................................................... 88 American Anglican Council, Rev. Canon David C. Anderson, President, Washington, D.C., letter............................ 89 American Civil Liberties Union, Laura W. Murphy, Director and Christopher E. Angers, Legislative Counsel, Washington, D.C., statement...................................................... 90 Bradkowski, Keith A., San Francisco, California, statement....... 92 Birch, Elizabeth, Executive Director, Human Rights Campaign, statement...................................................... 94 Bruning, Hon. John, Attorney General, State of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, letter............................................... 97 Cahill, Sean, Director, Policy Institute of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, New York, New York, statement.............. 98 Carpenter, Dale, Associate Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, Minnesota, statement........ 105 Chin, Steven J., Reverend, Senior Pastor, Boston Chinese Evangelical Church, Boston, Massachusetts, letter.............. 113 Cizik, Richard, Reverend, Vice President for Governmental Affairs, National Association of Evangelicals, Washington, D.C., letter and attachment.................................... 114 Coleman, Gregory S., Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, and former Solicitor General, State of Texas, Austin, Texas, statement.... 117 de Leon, Daniel, Member, Alianza Ministerial Evangelica Nacional, Santa Ana, California, letter.................................. 128 Dobson, James C., Founder and Chairman, Focus on the Family, Colorado Springs, Colorado, letter............................. 129 The Empowerment Network, Karen M. Woods, Executive Director, letter......................................................... 131 Farris, Michael P., Chairman and General Counsel, Home School Legal Defense Association, and President and Professor of Government, Patrick Henry College, Purcellville, Virginia, statement...................................................... 132 Federal News Service, October 5, 2000, excerpt from 2000 Vice Presidential debate............................................ 152 Gallagher, Maggie, President, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, New York, New York, statement.......................... 153 Hammond, Ray, M.D., Pastor, Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church, Boston, Massachusetts, statement....................... 156 Heidinger, James V., II, President and Publisher, Good News, Wilmore, Kentucky, letter...................................... 163 Jacques, Hon. Cheryl A., Massachusetts State Senator, Boston, Massachusetts, letter.......................................... 164 Knippers, Diane, President, Institute on Religion & Democracy, Washington, D.C., letter....................................... 173 Law Professors, joint letter..................................... 175 Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Wade J. Henderson, Executive Director, Washington, D.C., letter................... 206 LeGaL, Lesbian and Gay Law Association of Greater New York, Thomas Maligno, President, New York, New York, letter.......... 208 McKinney, George D., Bishop, Member, General Board, COGIC International, San Diego, California, letter................... 211 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, JS Online, Katherine M. Skiba, article........................................................ 213 Nadler, Hon. Jerrold, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, statement......................................... 215 Religious organizations, joint letter............................ 219 Renkes, Hon. Gregg D., Attorney General, State of Alaska, Juneau, Alaska, letter................................................. 220 Republican Policy Committee, July 29, 2003, paper................ 221 San Francisco Chronicle, Carolyn Lockhead, article............... 233 Schonfeld, Yoel, Rabbi, Queens Board of Rabbis, Flushing, New York, letter................................................... 236 Shurtleff, Hon. Mark L., Attorney General, State of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, letter........................................ 237 Sider, Ronald J., President, Evangelicals for Social Action, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania, letter................................ 239 Simpson, Alan, former U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming, September 5, 2003, statement................................... 240 Stacey, Judith, Professor, Department of Sociology, New York University, New York, New York, statement...................... 242 State lawmakers and executives, letter, September 4, 2003........ 245 Stenberg, Donald B., Attorney at Law, Erichson & Sederstrom, D.C., Omaha, Nebraska, letter.................................. 250 Syeed, Sayyid M., Secretary General, Islamic Society of North America, Plainfield, Indiana, letter........................... 252 Union of Othodox Jewish Congregations of America, Harvey Blitz, Rabbi Tzvi H. Weinreb, Nathan J. Diament, Washington, D.C., letter......................................................... 253 United Methodist Action for Faith, Freedom, and Family, David M. Stanley, Chairman, Muscatine, Iowa, letter..................... 254 Volokh, Eugene, Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, joint letter................. 255 Washington Post, Bob Barr, August 21, 2003, article.............. 257 Washington Times, Bruce Fein, September 2, 2003, article......... 258 Wilkins, Richard G., Professor, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, statement............................ 259 WHAT IS NEEDED TO DEFEND THE BIPARTISAN DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT OF 1996? ---------- THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2003 United States Senate, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights, of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:06 p.m., in room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Cornyn, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. Present: Senators Cornyn, Sessions, Feingold, Leahy, Kennedy, Schumer, and Durbin. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Chairman Cornyn. This hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights shall come to order. Before I begin my opening statement, I want to thank Chairman Hatch for scheduling this hearing, and I also want to recognize the fact that the August recess is a difficult time to organize a hearing on such short notice, and express our appreciation to the witnesses who have taken special effort to try to be here today. I also want to express my gratitude to Senator Feingold and his staff for working so hard with my staff to make this hearing possible. Today's hearing is entitled ``What Is Needed to Defend the Bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act of 1996?'' I have convened this hearing because I believe it is important that the Senate consider what steps, if any, are needed to safeguard the institution of marriage, which has been protected under Federal law since the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Americans instinctively, and laudably, support two fundamental propositions, that every individual is worthy of respect and that the traditional institution of marriage is worthy of protection. Recent cases and pending cases before courts, both before the United States Supreme Court and in Federal and State courts across the country, have raised serious questions regarding the future of the traditional definition of marriage as embodied in the Defense of Marriage Act. I believe that the Senate has a duty to ensure that on an issue as fundamental as marriage, the American people, through their elected representatives, decide the issue. It is very simple and easy to read the language. DOMA states that marriage is the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and that a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex. That declaration did not break any new ground or set any precedent. It did not eliminate any rights. It simply reaffirmed and protected the traditional definition of marriage, an understanding that is reflected in the statutes, common law, judicial precedents, and historical practice of all 50 States. The Defense of Marriage Act received overwhelming bipartisan support in both Houses. The House of Representatives passed it by a vote of 342 to 67, and the Senate passed it by a vote of 85 to 14. President Clinton signed that bill into law, stating, quote, ``I have long opposed government recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position.'' Since that time, 37 States have passed defense of marriage acts at that level. As the eloquent senior Senator from West Virginia, a sponsor of the Act, said at that time, quote, ``Throughout the annals of human experience and dozens of civilizations and cultures of varying value systems, humanity has discovered that the permanent relationship between man and woman is the keystone to stability, strength, and health of human society, a relationship worthy of legal recognition and judicial protection.'' The question before us now is whether the popular and bipartisan legislation that I referred to a moment ago, the Defense of Marriage Act, will remain the law of the land, as the people intend, or will be overturned by activist courts. The witnesses before us today share their knowledge and analysis of the recent decisions in pending cases and on the importance of protecting traditional marriage both as a social and legal institution. I look forward to hearing their testimony. I recognize that this issue is not without controversy, but I believe that we should not shirk our duty and treat it with less than the seriousness that this issue is due. As representatives serving the people of our respective States, we in this body should not abandon the definition of marriage to solely the purview of the courts. I believe it is our duty to carefully consider what steps, if any, are needed to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. Perhaps no legislative or constitutional response is required to reinforce the current standard and to defend traditional marriage. If it is clear that no action is required, so be it, but I believe we must take care to do whatever it takes to ensure that the principles defined in the Defense of Marriage Act remain the law of the land. With that, I would turn the floor over to the honorable Ranking Member, Senator Feingold. [The prepared statement of Senator Cornyn appears as a submission for the record.] Senator Feingold, I understand the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Senator Leahy, has a brief statement he would like to make. Senator Feingold. Yes. I would like to defer to the Ranking Member, and if I could follow the Ranking Member of the Committee, I would appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Cornyn. Thank you. Senator Leahy. STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT Senator Leahy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This hearing begins another of our friends on the other side of the aisle's exploration of ideas for yet another constitutional amendment. Just this morning, our Committee met for hours on one proposed amendment to our Constitution, actually to the Bill of Rights, which hasn't been amended in over 200 years. There is this one that is now being considered and apparently there are still others to come forward. Usually, we speak of constitutional amendments at a time when there are major crises or changes in our country. I recall when I was a law student in Washington and President Kennedy was assassinated and the concerns because we had no provisions for the President to appoint a Vice President. President Johnson probably could not leave the country. We had the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tem of the Senate who were next in line, both extremely elderly, at least with some question as to their capabilities, and the country realized the need to have a constitutional amendment. That is a matter of great moment, so that a President without a Vice President could, with the normal advice and consent, appoint a Vice President. We had a major constitutional amendment in the last century when the States allowed for the direct election of U.S. Senators, something that has affected all of us who now serve. These were matters of significant importance and something that took us 100 or 200 years of concerns and questions before we reached that point. Now, today, we have enormous economic troubles at home. We have deepening problems abroad, and it raises the possibility of having all these constitutional amendments at a time when some may question their necessity-- whether that is just simply a distraction. Now, the Defense of Marriage Act which this hearing has been called to examine--and I am one who supports the idea of having oversight hearings. I would like very much, for example, if this Committee could find time to do oversight hearings of the PATRIOT Act or on how hundreds of people are being held incommunicado in this country, things like that, or how the Department of Justice has used some of its new powers. I have to assume that at some time we will also reach time for those, but at this time we are having hearings on the Defense of Marriage Act, which did pass overwhelmingly in both the House and the Senate and was signed into law by President Clinton. This already defines marriage for Federal purposes as the union between a man and a woman. No court has questioned that law. In fact, I don't think anybody has seriously suggested that that law is in danger, certainly a law that is on the books which was passed, signed into law by the President and does not appear to be in danger. Yet, we suddenly question, well, maybe we should have a constitutional amendment to reinforce something that doesn't appear to need reinforcement. So, obviously, members of the Republican Party who control the agenda can set whatever they want. They don't have to set hearings on the PATRIOT Act, they don't have to set hearings on the economy, they don't have to set hearings on problems abroad. But I wonder whether this issue really should be demanding so much of the attention of Congress if we don't have time to give attention to all these other issues. Now, I fully respect the Senator from Texas, as I have said many times publicly, and everybody has to decide why they want to do this. But I fear that it may be politically tempting for some outside the Congress to want these hearings to score political points at the expense of gay and lesbian Americans. To be clear, I do not support a constitutional amendment, nor do I feel it is necessary. I hope that it will be unsuccessful if it is introduced. I would also like to note that I am pleased and honored that we have Keith Bradkowski here, whose partner was a flight attendant on American Airlines Flight 11. He is here as a witness today, and I feel sorry for your loss. When we in Congress became aware that partners of gay and lesbian Americans who were killed in the 9/11 attacks--let's not forget a lot of people were killed in those attacks and there were partners of gay and lesbian Americans who were killed. And when we found out here in Congress that they might be denied benefits, the same benefits everybody else was getting from that attack, I wrote to Kenneth Feinberg, the Special Master of the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund, and I urged him to allow compensation claims to be brought by same- sex partners of those who were killed in the attacks. I am pleased that such claims were granted. Along the same lines, I was honored in the 107th Congress to have been able to introduce and help pass S. 2431, the Mychal Judge Police and Fire Chaplains Public Safety Officers' Benefit Act of 2002. This bill provided death benefits to the families of ten fallen heroes of September 11, including, of course, the person that it was named after, Father Mychal Judge, who was gay and stayed there ministering to those who had been injured or fallen on 9/11, who could easily have escaped, but stayed with people who could not escape and was killed himself. He was survived by his two sisters, who under the law at the time were ineligible to receive payments through the PSOB program. It was wrong. We were able to overcome the opposition of a number in the House to change the law and we changed it. So I would only suggest this. We passed the Defense of Marriage Act. Nobody seems to really think that is under attack. There are pressing matters before the Congress. I am not sure why we need to be talking about changing our Constitution to do something that has already been accomplished in Federal law. Frankly, if we have all this extra time, I would hope we would go and do a lot of the oversight that we have not done, especially with a number of the laws that were passed following September 11. But, of course, as I have said before, the Chairman has an absolute right to call whatever hearings he wants and I know that he, with the help of Senator Feingold, will give a very fair hearing. I am going on to the Appropriations Committee to pass all that money that Texas needs. Chairman Cornyn. Thank you, Senator. We appreciate it. Just multiply it by two. Senator Feingold. STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN Senator Feingold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me thank the Ranking Member. My remarks will largely track the good points that he has made. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and your staff for your courtesies and working with me and my staff in preparing for this hearing. That having been said, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I do not believe that Congress should spend time on an issue that should be left to the States and religious institutions. The Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of our Constitution guarantee that religious institutions have the freedom to determine, without government interference, which unions they will recognize. In addition, our Nation has a long tradition of deferring to the States on marriage and family law issues. I feel especially strongly about this, given the many pressing challenges that our Nation faces at home and abroad. We just returned from a month of recess and most of us spent a lot of time with our constituents. I certainly did. I held 21 town meetings in 21 Wisconsin counties, and I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that my constituents were talking to me about the economy, the loss of jobs to foreign competition, skyrocketing gas prices, the war in Iraq and the fact that our troops are still suffering considerable losses on almost a daily basis, the need for Federal help to fund homeland security efforts and equip and train our crucial first responders, and access to health care. The American people should be united to meet these and other challenges, and they are best served if Congress focuses its attention on these pressing matters that are properly within its authority and not a divisive issue that is best left to the States and the courts. In these difficult times, we should be working to bring the country together to solve our problems, not to divide it with controversy. For these same reasons, Mr. Chairman, I voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, in 1996. I believed then, as I believe today, that the issue of marriage is best left to the States. The President and a majority of the Congress disagreed and DOMA became law. Despite my protests, it is the law today. Representative Musgrave has introduced a marriage amendment to the Constitution. Mr. Chairman, if a similar resolution is introduced and considered in the Senate, I would oppose it. I do not believe that Congress should amend the Constitution on this issue. During the 200-plus years since the adoption of the Bill of Rights, as the Senator from Vermont pointed out, the Constitution has been amended only 17 times. The Constitution has never before regulated marriage and I don't think it should begin to do so now. A number of conservative commentators and legal scholars agree with me. Former Congressman Bob Barr, who was the author of DOMA in the House, recently wrote, quote, ``Marriage is a quintessential State issue. A constitutional amendment is both unnecessary and needlessly intrusive and punitive,'' unquote. Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned that amending the Constitution could have the effect of writing discrimination into the Constitution. House Joint Resolution 56, the marriage amendment introduced in the House, defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. But this proposed amendment also states, quote, ``Neither this Constitution nor the Constitution of any State nor State or Federal law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidence thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups,'' unquote. This is wrong. A state should be able to grant rights or protections to same-sex couples if it wants to, and the Federal Government should not interfere with that decision. For example, over 170 State and local governments extend health benefits to the same-sex partners of their public employees. But if the House marriage amendment is ratified, same-sex couples could be denied such rights and protections. As Senator Leahy pointed out, among our witnesses today we will hear from Keith Bradkowski. Keith lost his longtime partner, Jeff Collman, a flight attendant on American Airlines Flight 11, on September 11, 2001. Keith will talk about the protections he has enjoyed as a partner and now as a surviving partner in a committed relationship, and the impact a constitutional amendment could have on his life and on the surviving partners of other patriotic Americans. In the audience today, we have individuals who are in same- sex, committed, long-term relationships--Joe Deutsch, Cheryl Griffin, Wanda Floyd, Frank Benedetti, and Gary Trowbridge. The amendment proposed in the House would prevent States from choosing to give them and other individuals in same-sex, committed relationships the same legal recognition that married couples enjoy. I also want to acknowledge Alice Hogwin, who is also with us today. Her son, Mark Bingham, a gay man, was one of the heroes on Flight 93 who helped to divert that plane from Washington, D.C., on September 11. With the exception of the 18th Amendment instituting Prohibition, which was later repealed, Mr. Chairman, the Constitution has never been amended to limit basic rights. If the Federal marriage amendment is ratified, it would do just that. Our Constitution is an historic guarantee of individual freedom. It has served as a beacon of hope and an example to people around the world who yearn to be free and to live their lives without government interfering with their most basic human decisions. We should not seek to amend the Constitution in a way that will reduce its grandeur. I do look forward to hearing from Keith and all our witnesses as we explore these issues. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Cornyn. Thank you, Senator Feingold. I understand your deeply held beliefs on this subject, as you held, as you pointed out, on occasion of the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act. A couple of things I just want to point out perhaps by way of clarification. First of all, this hearing is not about whether we should adopt a constitutional amendment. In my view, that is premature. What this hearing is about is whether we ought to take whatever steps that may be necessary, and the question is here whether there are any steps necessary to defend an Act that has already passed overwhelmingly by the vote of a bipartisan majority of the Senate and the House, and signed by President Clinton into law. So that is my interest, and I hope the witnesses will address that issue and we will leave perhaps the other issue for a future date or not. Senator Feingold. Mr. Chairman, if I could just make one unanimous consent request? Chairman Cornyn. Sure. Senator Feingold. I ask unanimous consent that following documents be inserted into the record: an op ed by former Congressman Bob Barr; an op ed by Bruce Fein; a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article entitled ``Sensenbrenner Sees No Need for Marriage Amendment''; a San Francisco Chronicle article; a Washington Times editorial; a statement by the American Civil Liberties Union; a statement by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; an excerpt from the 2000 Vice Presidential debate between Senator Joe Lieberman and Vice President Dick Cheney; the testimony of Sean Cahill, Director of the Policy Institute of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; and the statement of Elizabeth Birch, the Executive Director of the Human Rights Campaign. Chairman Cornyn. Without objection, they will be made part of the record. Responding briefly to Senator Leahy's comments, and I guess to some extent the Ranking Member's comments about why we should spend our limited time on this issue, I think all we need to do is to read the newspaper or news magazines or watch television to understand that this is an issue of tremendous interest and concern to the American people. So I do think it is appropriate that we spend our time on this subject, as well as other important subjects that we have had the opportunity to have hearings on; for example, the constitutionality of filibuster of judicial nominees. We will have a hearing coming up soon on the continuity of Congress in the wake of a terrible disaster such as a 9/11 incident which does incapacitate Congress, and how we should respond by way of anticipating that terrible possibility. Under your leadership, Senator Feingold, you have, of course, held hearings on racial profiling by law enforcement. I know there have been hearings on religious liberty, free speech, and the like. But simply stated, the job of the Constitution Subcommittee is to consider potential constitutional issues, and that is what we are going to do today. Finally, I just want to say with regard to the issue of whether this matter ought to be left up to the States, my contention would be that the Congress has already crossed over that bridge in passing the Defense of Marriage Act. So the question is whether that law ought to be sustained or not. I would just for the sake of the record introduce letters from State officials across the country, including my home State of Texas, Utah, Iowa, Nebraska, and Alaska, and perhaps there may be others, that state the importance of this issue from their perspective, and also why they believe a Federal response is required, which, of course, is the subject of this hearing. Without objection, they will be made part of the record. At this point, I would like to ask the distinguished members of our panel to come and take their seats at the witness table. Our panel today is comprised of both legal experts and individuals who feel strongly about the issue of marriage and the fundamental role it plays in our society. I am glad Senator Kennedy could join us, and perhaps we will have other members of the Subcommittee come. I first want to recognize, as I said earlier, that this is an issue that raises strong feelings among many Americans, and I know our witnesses are no exception. Strong passions are what help make this country great. Unfortunately, sometimes strong passions can lead to harsh statements, divisive rhetoric, and destructive politics. We should be able to all agree, however, that everyone on this Subcommittee, on this panel, and in this room deserves respect and deserves an opportunity to state their views, regardless of whether we happen to agree with those views or not. I think, Senator Kennedy, my staff came up with a great quotation, something you said once before which I agree is exactly right. You said, ``There are strongly held religious, ethical, and moral beliefs that are different from mine with regard to the issue of same-sex marriage which I respect and which are no indication of intolerance.'' I believe that that should help set the tone for what we are going to do here today. Our first witness is Reverend Dr. Ray Hammond. Dr. Hammond is Pastor of the Bethel AME Church in Boston, Massachusetts. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Medical School. After serving on the emergency medicine staff at Cape Cod Hospital in Hyannis, Dr. Hammond decided to leave the practice of medicine to join the preaching ministry in 1976. In 1982, he completed his master's of arts degree in the study of religion, focusing on Christian and medical ethics, at the Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. In 1988, he founded the Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church, in Boston, and he continues as its pastor today. He has a long history of involvement with youth and community activities. Most notably, he is President of the Ten Point Coalition, an ecumenical group of Christian clergy and lay leaders working to mobilize the Christian community around issues affecting black youth. Maggie Gallagher is a graduate of Yale University and President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy. She is a nationally-syndicated columnist with United Press Syndicate and the author of three books, including most recently The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially, published by Harvard University Press in 1999. She also operates a Web-based discussion group, or BLOG, on marriage, called Marriagedebate.com, a group which also happens to involve another one of our witnesses, Professor Dale Carpenter. Through her writings, Ms. Gallagher has emerged as one of the most influential younger women's voices on marriage, family, and social policy. We are also honored to have testifying before this Subcommittee a number of legal experts with extensive experience arguing appellate cases in the United States Supreme Court and in Federal and State courts. First is an exceptional attorney with whom I happen to have been acquainted for a number of years in my home State of Texas. Greg Coleman is the former Solicitor General of the State of Texas who served at my invitation when I was attorney general representing the State of Texas in the United States Supreme Court and in appellate courts across the country. He is now the head of national appellate practice for one of New York's most prestigious law firms, Weil, Gotshal and Manges. As a State Solicitor General and State law enforcement official, Mr. Coleman was called upon on a regular basis to analyze litigation risks associated with constitutional challenges to State laws. So I think he is a particularly good witness for the issue we have here today. He notably as a three and 0 record of successfully arguing cases before the United States Supreme Court, as well as other courts across the land. Michael Farris is also an experienced appellate advocate, having personally argued cases in the United States Supreme Court, as well as other Federal courts of appeals and State appellate courts. He is an educator as well. He currently serves as President of and a Professor of Government at Patrick Henry College, in Purcellville, Virginia, where he teaches constitutional law to undergraduates, some of whom, I understand, Professor, are here with you today. He was named one of the most significant 100 faces of the century in education by Education Magazine, and has published a well-regarded high school textbook on constitutional law as well. Mr. Farris is also an ordained Baptist minister who serves part-time as Chairman and General Counsel of the Home School Legal Defense Association. Dale Carpenter, whom I know as a Texan formerly at the Vinson Elkins law firm in Houston, Texas, is currently an associate professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. He teaches in the area of constitutional law, sexual orientation and the law, and commercial law. He also serves on the Advisory Board of the Republican Unity Coalition. He and Solicitor General Coleman, or I should say former Solicitor General Coleman, share one thing in common, both having clerked for a distinguished member of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Edith Jones. After his clerkship, he practiced with the law firm of Vinson and Elkins, in Houston, as I mentioned, and with Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk and Rabkin, in San Francisco. Finally, we are pleased to have Mr. Keith Bradkowski, from San Francisco, California, with us today. He was in a long-term relationship, as we have already heard from two of our members of the Subcommittee, with Jeff Collman, a flight attendant. Mr. Collman served on American Airlines Flight 11, which was headed from Boston to Los Angeles when it was hijacked and flown into the North Tower of the World Trade Center on September 11. Mr. Bradkowski, thank you for being here today to express your views, and I want to join Senator Leahy and others in expressing our condolences for your loss, as well as the other families who lost loved ones in that terrible tragedy of that day. So as you can see, we have a number of distinguished witnesses on our panel today. To ensure we both have the opportunity to hear from each panelist as well as ample time for members to ask questions, I will ask each witness to keep your opening statement to 5 minutes. I know that is short, but we want to make sure that we are able to ask questions. I will promise you this, that your written statement will be made part of the record of this hearing. I will take the opportunity to mention finally that, without objection, we will leave the record open until 5:00 p.m. next Wednesday, September 10, for members to submit additional documents into the record and to ask questions of any of the members of the panel in writing. With that, Dr. Hammond, would you please proceed. Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, could I just add a word of welcome to Dr. Hammond? Chairman Cornyn. Yes, Senator Kennedy. Senator Kennedy. He is highly regarded and respected not only in Boston and our State of Massachusetts, but he has probably done more in terms of reaching out to young people and to potential drop-outs in high schools and to children that were in danger of being involved in adverse social behavior, and has had a really important impact in terms of the reduction of violence in our communities, and also in terms of maintaining very open communications with all of the neighborhoods and the citizens of Boston. He is really a highly regarded citizen of whom we are deeply proud. We appreciate having him. Chairman Cornyn. Thank you, Senator Kennedy, for those additional personal remarks. Dr. Hammond. STATEMENT OF RAY HAMMOND, PASTOR, BETHEL AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS Dr. Hammond. Thank you to the Chairman, and also to Senator Feingold and the esteemed Senator from our home State of Massachusetts, who has indeed been a tremendous friend and supporter to our work with youth. The Chairman has very ably, and I think succinctly summarized some of the rather eclectic aspects of my life history, so I won't go over those again. Let me note that in my capacity as the leader of an African-American congregation in the inner city, as the Chairman has noted, I have a long history of involvement with youth and community activities. I am Chairman of the Ten Point Coalition, an ecumenical group of clergy and lay leaders working to mobilize the greater Boston community around issues affecting black and Latino youth, especially those at high risk for violence, drug abuse, and other destructive behaviors. I am also the Executive Director of Bethel's Generation Excel Youth Intervention Project and a member of several church and community boards, including the Black Ministerial Alliance Executive Committee, Youth Ministry Development Project Advisory Board, Catholic Charities of Boston, the Minuteman Council of the Boy Scouts of America in Boston, City Year of Boston Advisory Committee, and the United Way of Massachusetts Bay. Finally, I am a member of the Advisory Board of the Alliance for Marriage, a diverse, non-partisan coalition composed of civil rights and religious leaders, as well as national legal experts, who are dedicated to restoring a culture of intact families founded upon marriage in America. I am here today to speak about an issue that transcends all political and ideological categories--the importance of marriage and families to the health of our children, the health of our communities, and the health of our society. I find it very encouraging that most polls reveal a high degree of consensus among Americans, regardless of race, ethnicity, or creed, about the importance of families to the health and well- being of our Nation. Moreover, most Americans instinctively understand that there is an integral connection between the institution of marriage and the health of families in our country. After all, in virtually every society on the face of the Earth, marriage and family is, among other things, what makes fatherhood more than a biological event by connecting men to the children they bring into the world. But the American family is in serious trouble today. At present, an historically unprecedented percentage of families with children in our Nation are fatherless. In fact, over 25 million American children, more than 1 in 3, are being raised in a family with no father present in the home. In some inner- city communities, that figure is well above 50 percent. This represents a dramatic tripling of the level of fatherlessness in America over the past 30 years. There is also an overwhelming body of social research data which shows that the epidemic level of father absence in America represents a disaster for children and society. In fact, many of our most serious social problems, from youth crime to child poverty, track far more closely with fatherlessness than they do with other social variables like race, educational level, or the condition of the economy. As compelling as the empirical evidence may be, I don't need to consult social science research studies in order to conclude that the African-American community in particular has paid a heavy price for the modern epidemic of family disintegration. As an African-American male, as a pastor, and as a founder of the Boston Ten Point Coalition, I know that we live in a time of social crisis, and nowhere is that crisis more acute than where I live, the inner city, and no group experiences that crisis more profoundly than the young urban men and women I see and work and worship with. For too many, their world is a topsy-turvy world of a growing number of households struggling to make ends meet, with parents, usually single mothers, striving to hold themselves and their families together while they try to raise boys who will not become fodder on the killing fields called urban streets, and raise daughters who will not become mothers before they become women and before they become wives. Theirs is a world where children face high death rates, low expectations, and a future that is cloudy at best. The problems of America's urban neighborhoods are well- known, but the modern epidemic of family breakdown means that an increasing number of children in every part of America are growing up under similarly difficult conditions. Indeed, for several decades our Nation as a whole has been wandering in a wilderness of social problems caused, among other things, by family disintegration. Tragically, as bad as our current situation may be, it could soon become dramatically worse. This is because the courts in America are poised to erase the legal road map to marriage and family from American law. In fact, the weakening of the legal status of marriage in America at the hands of the courts has already begun. This process represents nothing less than a social revolution advancing apart from the democratic process and against the will of a clear majority of the American people. If allowed to continue, this revolution will deprive future generations of Americans of the legal, social, and emotional road map that they will need to have a fighting chance of finding their way out of the social wilderness of family disintegration. More than ever, we must be clear as a society about the fact that men and women contribute more than their genetic material to our children, our families, and our future. More than ever, we must communicate the need for men and women working together to contribute their time, their love, and their complementary gender differences to the families and children that are the bedrock of our present and our hope for the future. More than ever, marriage must be seen as an institution that goes beyond the contractual giving of rights, and even beyond the emotional celebration of the love of two people for each other. Rather, we must by word and deed make real the role of marriage as the place in which the great divide in the human race, the gender divide, is reconciled as mothers and fathers build their own healthy relationships and model those relationships before the next generation. It is no accident that the union of male and female is the most multicultural social institution in the world. It cuts across all racial, cultural, and religious lines. Significantly, this common-sense understanding of marriage as the union of male and female is so fundamental to the African- American community that over 70 percent of all African- Americans in the United States would currently favor a constitutional amendment to protect the legal status of marriage as the union of a man and woman. Indeed, polls consistently show that the African-American community, along with other communities of color in the United States, lead the way in their support for a Federal marriage amendment to protect the legal status of marriage in America. No one in the Alliance for Marriage believes that saving the legal status in America is sufficient to stem the tide of family disintegration in our country, but we are convinced that protecting the legal status of marriage is necessary for the renewal of a marriage-based culture in the United States. The good news in all of this is that family breakdown is a curable social disease. This is one of the greatest and most prosperous nations in the world, and we can do better than to accept historically unprecedented levels of youth crime and child poverty because more than one-third of our Nation's children are being raised without the benefit of a married family made up of a mother and father. We can and we must rebuild a culture of marriage and intact families in this country while we still have time. Thank you for your time. [The prepared statement of Dr. Hammond appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Cornyn. Thank you, Dr. Hammond. I know Senator Feingold offered some letters that we received on this issue, and I would likewise offer a number of statements and letters we have received from various organizations expressing support for traditional marriage, including the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Southern Baptist Convention, the United Methodist Action for Faith, Freedom and Family, the Islamic Society of North America, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Campus Crusade for Christ, and the Boston Chinese Evangelical Church. Without objection, those statements and letters will be submitted into the record. As I said earlier, we will receive others that we get before the deadline and they will also be part of the record. Ms. Gallagher. STATEMENT OF MAGGIE GALLAGHER, PRESIDENT, INSTITUTE FOR MARRIAGE AND PUBLIC POLICY, NEW YORK, NEW YORK Ms. Gallagher. Thank you. I am here as someone who has spent the last 15 to 20 years of my life in research and public education on the marriage issue, on the problems created by and on coming up with new solutions to family fragmentation, unmarried child-bearing, and divorce. With great respect for the Senators' views, I would like to take a minute to explain that before we can decide how far we should go to protect the normal definition of marriage, we have to decide how important this social institution is and why it is worth bothering about, why it is not a distraction from more pressing affairs, why it is not discrimination, and why it really is a Federal issue. The answer is that marriage is not just a religious institution or a social and cultural value. It really is not only a key social institution, but the key social institution involved in the protection of children. As Reverend Hammond has said, we are in a marriage crisis. Marriage is in a fragile state at this time, for reasons that obviously have nothing to do with gays and lesbians or advocates of gay marriage, but which are intimately associated with the question of how committed we are as a society to the idea that children need mothers and fathers, and that marriage as one of its core purposes is about getting children the mothers and fathers that they need. Now, there is an enormous body of social science evidence that we now have, after 40 years of social experimentation with alternative family forms. To sum up what is not dozens, not hundreds, but literally thousands of different research studies, in pretty much every way that social scientists know how to measure, children, on average, do better when their parents get and stay married in your average, decent, garden- variety, good-enough marriage. There is almost nothing that this Congress is spending money on domestically which is not being driven at least in part and to a significant extent by our high rates of family fragmentation. When men and women don't do this basic thing of getting and staying married and making a decent marriage for their children, children are at risk of pretty much every bad thing that happens to a child in 21st century America. They are somewhere on the order of two to three times more likely to be poor, to experience welfare dependency, to be victims of child abuse, to be victims of sexual abuse, to get in trouble in school, to be held back in a grade, to have conduct disorders, to be special ed students, to drop out of high school. Or if they graduate from high school, they are less likely to either go to college or graduate from college. Years after their parents split up, you can see that children who are raised outside of intact marriages suffer disadvantages in terms of going on and living the American dream in terms of having higher job status and making more money. They are more likely to become involved in premature and promiscuous sexual activity, leading to higher rates of teen pregnancy and unwed pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases. They are less likely as adults to go on and form lasting marriages and enjoy the benefits of lasting marriages if their parents don't get and stay married. They have higher rates of physical illness, higher rates of mental illness, higher rates of suicide, drug abuse. They are more likely to become involved, as Reverend Hammond knows from personal experience, as well as from the social science literature, both with juvenile delinquency and with ongoing adult criminal activity. In short, the evidence is that marriage matters an enormous amount, and particularly for the well-being of children, and that the high rates of family fragmentation and fatherlessness we are experiencing are a serious problem because, first of all, children suffer, because some children are permanently damaged, because a number of children face obstacles that lead to profound differences in equality of opportunity that are not their fault at all, that are based on what their parents did and did not do, and because when families don't stay together and raise their children, inevitably taxpayers and communities pick up the tab both in terms of experiencing high rates of dysfunction that make community life more difficult for everyone in those communities and because such a large proportion of our domestic budget is directed at the problems that are created when the marriage idea doesn't hold. There is a lot of talk about the benefits of marriage. I think it is important to recognize that marriage is not a basket of legal goodies that the government hands out; that the benefits of marriage come from the extent to which law and society and culture and public policy help reinforce this basic idea that the mother and father who make the baby are supposed to stay around and love each other and the baby. All of the benefits that we are describing here come not from the legal structure of marriage, but from the incredible advantages it gives to children when parents get and make that kind of commitment. Now, of course, not every married couple has children, but every husband and wife is capable of giving any child they create or adopt a mother and a father. And we never know when people get married who is going to have children and who is going to create and adopt. Moreover, every man or woman who is faithful to their vows--and married people are more faithful than people who are not married--is not going to be making fatherless children across multiple households. And in that way, even childless marriages help serve and sustain this basic marriage idea. So, for me, and I hope for Congress and the American people, the really important question, the one that has to be answered before we ask any other question, is will unisex marriage help or hurt marriage as a social institution. And I think that it is pretty clear that what we are doing with unisex marriage is making a powerful statement by law and by our Government. The statement we are making is that children do not need mothers and fathers; that, in fact, alternative family forms, motherless or fatherless families, are not only just as good, they are just the same as a mother-father married family. I think that this idea may well have an impact on people who are already married. That, I am not sure of, but I am certain it is going to have a tremendous impact on the culture of marriage that our children and our children's children grow up in. The fallacy is the belief that some people have that we are going to have two kinds of marriage. There is going to be gay marriage for gay people and there is going to be straight marriage for straight people, and they will just go on on their separate tracks. The reality is that if we take this step, this radical legal transformation, there are not going to be two kinds of marriage. There is going to be one kind of marriage, and it is no longer going to be about getting mothers and fathers for children. It will be an open question what this new institution will be about, but I suggest at a minimum it would be an endorsement of the idea that adult interests and desires and affirmation of diverse family forms is more important than this old, kind of stubborn, cross-cultural, multicultural, universal human idea, which is that as a public institution, marriage is about getting mothers and fathers for children. In fact, in the latest data for 2002, 40 percent of our children are being raised outside of intact marriages at this moment. It is morally and socially irresponsible to decide that adult interests in anything is more important than this children's interest in strengthening and recovering the idea that marriage is about getting mothers and fathers for children. Chairman Cornyn. Ms. Gallagher, if I could ask you to sum up for now so we can-- Ms. Gallagher. So just in conclusion, I would say the marriage idea is very simple. It is that children deserve mothers and fathers, and that adults have an obligation to order their intimate lives in order to give children this need. And if we surrender this marriage idea and decide that adult interests are more important than children's interests, there will be a huge price to pay and our children will be the ones that pay. [The prepared statement of Ms. Gallagher appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Cornyn. Thank you very much. Our next three witnesses are going to talk about the legal questions that have been raised by recent court decisions, and perhaps take some divergent views on that, but nevertheless I think it is important to hear from all perspectives. As I said earlier, Mr. Coleman worked with me at the state attorney general's office in Texas, so I know him well. We are glad to have him, Mr. Farris, and Mr. Carpenter address those legal issues. Gentlemen, if I could ask the next to impossible and ask that you try to hold it to 5 minutes, then we will come back with questions and give everybody a chance to explore the matter in as much depth as possible. Mr. Coleman. STATEMENT OF GREGORY S. COLEMAN, WEIL, GOTSHAL AND MANGES LLP, AND FORMER SOLICITOR GENERAL, STATE OF TEXAS, AUSTIN, TEXAS Mr. Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Feingold, Senator Kennedy. If my profession has taught me nothing else, it is at least to shut up when the red light comes on. I appreciate the opportunity to address the Subcommittee today. I do believe that this is a timely issue, that this is not something that has sprung up as a novel issue this year. But rather the question of same-sex marriage is a question that has been unanswered for over 30 years now, when litigation began in the early 1970's challenging traditional heterosexual marriage principles. Most of that litigation has historically been unsuccessful, but in 1993 the Hawaii Supreme Court held that the State marriage statute was subject to strict scrutiny because it discriminated on the basis of sex. Before a final judgment was entered in that case--and lower court, of course, subsequent to that had held that the statute was unconstitutional--the voters of Hawaii passed a State constitutional amendment. That also happened in Alaska, and litigation is continuing now in several States, including my home State of Texas. The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 largely in response to the Baehr case in Hawaii. That Act has two primary principles in it. The first provision substantively defines marriage as between a man and a woman for Federal purposes, and the second is passed pursuant to Congress's full faith and credit authority to define the effect given to a potential marriage in one State in other States, and clarifies full faith and credit principles that I believe have been well established. Recent events, however, have suggested that the Defense of Marriage Act may be and probably is in trouble, and I will focus on two recent United States Supreme Court decisions--the first, Lawrence v. Texas, which came out this June, and the other being Romer v. Evans, which came out in 1996. The first principle that we see in DOMA is the definition of marriage as between man and woman. I believe and it is my professional opinion that that is in some doubt as a constitutional principle after Lawrence. It has been said on this record and elsewhere that Lawrence simply is a matter of intimate conduct within the confines of one's home, but the very first paragraph of the Lawrence v. Texas opinion says that it is not. The first paragraph does define a sense of liberty as freedom within one's home, but then goes on to talk about other spheres outside the home, freedom that extends beyond spatial bounds. And while my written testimony contains much more detail than I can go into now, suffice it to say that the opinion as a general matter does not focus on conduct within the confines of one's home, but rather the opinion goes on at great length defining the freedom and liberty that the Court was attempting to define as a freedom and liberty that is related to one's personal relationships and recognition of those relationships outside the home. While the Court on at least two points in the opinion said that the decision was not about recognizing same-sex marriage, the very fact that it demurred on that issue is a suggestion that the Court is at least thinking about it and recognizing that its opinion might be used in that way in the future. The Romer decision also, I think, suggests that DOMA may be in trouble. In Romer, what was at issue was a constitutional amendment to the Colorado State constitution that prohibited the giving of special preferences, the inclusion of sexual orientation within the enumerated list in the States' and municipalities' anti-discrimination laws. That was not required to be there, but many municipalities had, in fact, included that. The point of the Romer decision is not that the State was ending up with a result that was itself unconstitutional, but the process of directing animus toward a specific group and removing that from the democratic process--that procedural issue became a constitutional violation. But DOMA in its most basic sense is really no different. DOMA takes a principle that I believe exists in the background law of full faith and credit, which is that States generally do not have to recognize marriages that violate a strong public policy and institutes it as a specific statutory provision of Federal law. It would be very simple for a court to say that once we have recognized a freedom and liberty under Lawrence of certain same-sex relationships that Congress acted with the same animus that the voters of Colorado acted with, and that it would thereby be subject to being struck down under the United States Constitution. The question of whether to have a Federal amendment is a question of the courts. There has been much activity, as has already been noted, in the individual States. Many States have already passed something similar to DOMA in their own States or have constitutional amendments. But it is the Federal courts that have been moving toward the point at which they will declare as a matter of United States constitutional law that marriage as between a man and a woman can no longer be sustained as a guiding constitutional principle and that the Constitution requires as a matter of anti-discrimination notions and freedom and liberty that same-sex marriages be recognized. Therefore, the only process that can be undertaken to address that, or recourse that might be taken by the States is through a Federal constitutional amendment. That is why I believe that it is timely to discuss this issue, to make some resolution with respect to where the courts are heading, and to make some ultimate decisions about whether those decisions should be made by the courts or through the democratic process. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Coleman appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Coleman. Mr. Farris. STATEMENT OF MICHAEL P. FARRIS, CHAIRMAN AND GENERAL COUNSEL, HOME SCHOOL LEGAL DEFENSE ASSOCIATION, AND PRESIDENT AND PROFESSOR OF GOVERNMENT, PATRICK HENRY COLLEGE, PURCELLVILLE, VIRGINIA Mr. Farris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. As a point of personal privilege, I would be remiss at a hearing on marriage to not mention the fact that today is my 32nd wedding anniversary. I got married when I was 6 or 7. The specific question the Chairman has posed is whether or not DOMA will survive the ultimate constitutional challenge, and the fact that it has not been successfully challenged yet is of no moment to anyone who understand the basics of law. No one has standing to challenge DOMA until some State legalizes same-sex marriage and then someone tries to attempt to register that same-sex marriage in a second State. So since no State has yet done the first act, DOMA can't be challenged. No one has standing. But we are on the threshold of that moment. As several commentators both for and against the outcome of the same-sex marriage issue have made it quite clear, after Lawrence v. Texas and the pending decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, we are on the doorstep of yet another situation that is like Hawaii and like Alaska, but there is no political rescue in sight in the Massachusetts situation, for example. So we have to seriously consider what are the legal trends that would lead us to a conclusion whether or not DOMA would be held to be constitutional by the courts. Mr. Coleman has done a very good job of saying that. In light of Lawrence, I think anyone that believes that DOMA will be held to be constitutional has a very stiff job ahead of them to make a good defense on that point. Secondly, another way of analyzing the problem is to look at the scholarly journals because there is one singular view that marches through the scholarly journals and the law reviews on the point that announces time after time after time the opinions of professors, law students, practicing lawyers, judges, and the like that DOMA is unconstitutional. I happen to think that they are wrong on it because those writing the opinions are almost without exception advocates of an ultimate solution of same-sex marriage. Nonetheless, it is the dominant view, and I can tell you any person with any degree of looking at the situation would understand that what is the dominant view in the law reviews today will be the dominant view of the courts in a generation. I don't think we will have a generation; I think it will be 5 years at the most that DOMA would last, if it would last that long. But it is without question that the dominant scholarly view--and I have given you the examples of the Nebraska Law Review, the New York University Law Review, one of the law reviews at Yale, and Professor Eskridge of Yale, who said at some point in time DOMA's requirement that the Federal law discriminate against same-sex couples will be constitutionally vulnerable. There is no doubt that DOMA is in trouble. All these law reviews were written, importantly, before the Lawrence case. After that, we simply would double or triple those predictions of doom and gloom for DOMA. Now, I have had the opportunity to see the written testimony of Professor Carpenter, who follows me, that suggests that a constitutional response to this question is anti- democratic. That would be to say that if two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the State legislatures through the process of democracy enacted a constitutional amendment, that is anti- democratic, just as the First Amendment is anti-democratic and all the other amendments are anti-democratic. I find that notion legally preposterous. The trouble is the courts. Senator Feingold in his opening remarks often said that we should leave the issue to the States. But once he said in the full statement that we should leave the issue to the States and the courts. That is exactly the problem--leaving the issue to the courts. The courts are robbing the American people of their fundamental right of self-government. Tyranny, as the Founding Fathers said, is when non-legislators, non-elected legislators make the law. Only our elected officials have the moral integrity to make law over us. In the Founders' era, it was understood that any other form of making law over people was nothing other than tyranny. My Virginia home State flag says ``This Always with Tyrants.'' Tyrants were defined as people who try to rule over us without the proper legislative authority of our elected representatives making law. We are on the verge of a judicial revolution that has got to stop, and it has got to stop before, as Ms. Gallagher adequately points out, they destroy the culture itself. This is about democracy, this is about participation. I welcome all of the debate about this. I wish it would stay in the legislative chambers and out of the courtrooms. [The prepared statement of Mr. Farris appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Farris. Professor Carpenter. STATEMENT OF DALE CARPENTER, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA Mr. Carpenter. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am going to speak on one possible response, a constitutional response, to the purported deficiencies in the Defense of Marriage Act. The theory of the Federal marriage amendment now being proposed seems to be that the States must be saved from themselves, that they must be saved from their own legislatures, that they must be saved from their own courts, and that they must be saved from the people. Whatever one thinks of same-sex marriage as a matter of policy, no person who cares about the Constitution should support this amendment. As a conservative, I believe it is unnecessary, it is unwise, it is contrary to the structure of our Federal Government, it is anti-democratic, and unnecessarily so, and it is a form of overkill. First, even if one opposes same-sex marriage, a constitutional amendment is unnecessary. It is a solution in search of a problem. No State in the Union has ever recognized same-sex marriages. Even if and when a State court did recognize same-sex marriages in its own jurisdiction, that can and should be a matter for a State to resolve internally through its own governmental processes, as, in fact, the States have done, as my good friend Gregory Coleman has pointed out in the cases of Alaska and Hawaii--the States are capable of taking care of themselves, thank you--and as Congress has done through the Defense of Marriage Act, which no court has yet held constitutional, and probably can't because there hasn't been a challenge yet that would have standing. Supporters of the Federal marriage amendment argue that the Full Faith and Credit Clause might be used to impose gay marriage on the country. But the Full Faith and Credit Clause has never been understood to mean that every State must recognize every marriage performed in every other State. Each State may refuse to recognize a marriage performed in another State if that marriage would violate the public policy of the State, and 37 States pursuant to the Defense of Marriage Act have already enacted as their public policy a declaration that they will not recognize same-sex marriages. It is also unlikely, in my view, that the Supreme Court or that the Federal appellate courts for the foreseeable future would declare a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Lawrence v. Texas does not change this. Lawrence involved the most private of acts, sexual conduct, in the most private of places, the home. By contrast, marriage is a public institution freighted with public meaning and significance. If I gave my first-year constitutional law students an exam question asking them to distinguish Lawrence from a decision favoring same-sex marriage, I am confident that all of them could do so and produce an A exam answer. Moreover, if the Court were suddenly to order nationwide same-sex marriage through whatever mechanism of the Constitution, it would be taking on practically the entire country, something it almost never does. We should not tamper with the Constitution to deal with hypothetical questions as if it was part of some national law school classroom. Second, a constitutional amendment would be a radical intrusion on federalism. States have traditionally controlled their own family law. This commitment to federalism is enshrined in the very structure of our Constitution. But here is an important point: Federalism is not valuable simply as a tradition; it has a practical benefit. It allows the States to experiment with public policies in order to determine whether they work. That is happening right now. Contrary to the remarks by Reverend Hammond, much of whose remarks I actually agree with, this is happening democratically in the country right now, not just through the court systems. I am advised that just recently, the California legislature approved a domestic partnership law that will probably be signed by the Governor. That is happening democratically, not just through the courts. Moreover, I would say in response to my friend, Maggie Gallagher, who points that it is necessary for children to be raised in stable homes, that there are hundreds of thousands of children being raised by gay couples in this country. Where are the protections under the law for these children? They need them, too. Repudiating our history, the Federal marriage amendment would prohibit State courts, or even State legislatures, from enacting same-sex marriages. It might even prevent State courts from enforcing domestic partnerships or civil unions. I think we conservatives have a basic question to ask and to answer, and that is this: Given that gap people exist in America and are not going to removed, what is to be done about them? Are we to shunt them to the side, to ostracize, to marginalize them, or are we to bring them into the fabric of American life? I understand why a sexual revolutionary or liberationist or a radical leftist might think we ought to shunt people to the side, but I cannot for the life of me understand why a conservative would reach that conclusion. Third, a constitutional amendment is anti-democratic. And I want to respond here to the remarks by Mr. Farris, who said that there are many parts of our Constitution that are anti- democratic. That is, of course, the case, and it is not sufficient as an objection to a proposed constitutional amendment that it would limit the processes of democracy. But here is what is different about the Federal marriage amendment: It would be the first time in the Nation's history that the Constitution was amended to limit democratic decisions that were designed to expand the rights of individuals and to include people in the fabric of American life. That hasn't been done before, with the possible exception of Prohibition, which is, I think, an instructive exception. Fourth, the Federal marriage amendment is constitutional overkill. It is like hauling out a sledge hammer to kill a gnat. If I have been wrong about everything I have said regarding the supposed court-imposed revolution around the country, the Federal marriage amendment is not narrowly tailored to address that problem. A much narrower amendment, dealing only with preserving States' control on this issue, could be proposed. But in my view, even that narrower amendment would be unnecessary under existing interpretations. To sum up, the Federal marriage amendment is not a solution to any problem that we currently have. Never before in the history of the country have we amended the Constitution in response to a threatened, not existing, State court decision or Federal court decision. Never before have we adopted a constitutional amendment to limit the States' ability to control their own family law. Never before have we amended the Constitution to restrict the ability of the people through the democratic process to expand individual rights. This is no time to start. Chairman Cornyn. Thank you, Professor Carpenter. I want to just clarify one thing before we turn to Mr. Bradkowski. Certainly, Professor Carpenter talked about the Federal marriage amendment and that is fine to do. But just to be clear for the witnesses and for those who may be listening, this hearing is not about any particular amendment. Indeed, none has been filed in the United States Senate. At least my intended scope for this hearing is to talk about sustaining, upholding, defending the Defense of Marriage Act which, as we talked about earlier, passed by wide bipartisan majorities and which was signed by President Clinton. But I understand, Professor Carpenter, your position, and also that perhaps if there was an amendment filed, it would be broader than you would think necessary in order to address the issue. But there might conceivably be some language that you would support. Go ahead. Mr. Carpenter. Mr. Chairman, let me make myself very clear on this. I think if the perceived problem is that States will be required to recognize same-sex marriages in the case, for example, of Massachusetts ordering them, if the fear is that those marriages will be leveraged onto the other States through the Full Faith and Credit Clause or some invalidation of DOMA, I think that fear is hypothetical and exaggerated. So I wouldn't support any amendment right now, but if any amendment were to be offered, it could be much more narrowly tailored to address that specific question. Chairman Cornyn. Thank you for clarifying. [The prepared statement of Mr. Carpenter appears as a submission for the record.] Senator Feingold. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to clarify something as well. Chairman Cornyn. Senator Feingold. Senator Feingold. I understand your repeated cautions that this hearing isn't about a constitutional amendment, but there has been such an amendment offered in the House of Representatives. If it is not supposed to be about this hearing, it is certainly the 800-pound gorilla that is in the room, especially when one of your chosen witnesses has indicated that the courts of this country have run amok. Now, the only remedy for that, Mr. Chairman, is a constitutional amendment. So we can pretend that is not what we are talking about, but, in fact, that is what we are talking about. Chairman Cornyn. Mr. Bradkowski. STATEMENT OF KEITH A. BRADKOWSKI, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Mr. Bradkowski. Good afternoon, Honorable Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Keith Bradkowski and I am a resident of California. I have been a registered nurse since 1983 and have worked for many years in hospital administration. It was on a Tuesday almost exactly 2 years ago that I received a call from American Airlines notifying me that I had lost my life partner, Jeff Collman. Jeff Collman was an American Airlines flight attendant who volunteered to work an extra trip on September 11. His flight would be the first of four flights hijacked, and I know in my heart Jeff died courageously trying to protect the passengers and crew. This is a photo that I wanted you to see so that you could put a name with a face. The last time I spoke with Jeff, who was my soul mate of 11 years, was about 2:00 a.m. Boston time on the morning of the 11th. He had awakened in the middle of the night and uncharacteristically called me on the West Coast to say how much he loved me and he couldn't wait to get home. I believe he must have had some premonition of the events to come and I feel blessed that I had that last moment with him. Jeff was the ultimate caregiver. He often volunteered at homeless shelters on holidays. He would always carry crayons and coloring books to give to children on planes to keep them from getting bored. Personally, I experienced his caring by the trail of Post-It notes he left for me every time he went on an overnight trip. His last note, still on my bathroom mirror, greets me every morning with a ``Guess Who Loves You?'' Jeff and I had exchanged rings and we were married in our hearts. Legally, it was another matter entirely. After his death, I was faced not only with my grief over losing Jeff, who was indeed my better half, but with the painful task of proving the authenticity of our relationship over and over again. With no marriage license to prove our relationship existed, even something as fundamental as obtaining his death certificate became a monumental task, and that was just the beginning. During the years we were together, Jeff paid taxes and had Social Security deducted from his paycheck like any other American. But without a civil marriage license, I am denied benefits that married couples and their families receive as a matter of routine. Jeff died without a will, which meant that while I dealt with losing him, I also had the huge anxiety about maintaining the home we shared together. Without a marriage license to prove I was Jeff's next of kin, even inheriting basic household possessions became a legal nightmare. Married couples have a legal safety net of rights and protections that gay Americans are currently denied. Until Jeff died, I had no idea just how vulnerable we were. Where married couples have security and protection, gay couples are left without a net. Like so many other gay Americans, my mourning and grief were compounded by the stress and anxiety of horrific legal uncertainty and confusion. The terrorists who attacked this country killed people not because they were gay or straight, but because they were Americans. It is heart-wrenching to know that our Government does not protect its citizens equally, gay and straight, simply because they are Americans. Two years ago, we were all united against the common threat of terrorism. Now, less than 2 years later, I am sitting here and being told that my relationship was a threat to our country. Jeff and I only sought to love and take care of each other. I do not understand why that is a threat to some people, and I cannot understand why the leaders of this country would hold a hearing on the best way to prevent that from happening. In closing, I would like to read an excerpt from a letter that Jeff had given me on our last anniversary. ``Keith, we have been through much the past 11 years. Our lives haven't always been easy, but through it all our undeniable love for each other has carried us through. I love you and don't ever forget that. When you are feeling lonely and I am not home with you, just pull out this letter and read my words to you once again and know how much you will always mean to me. With loving thoughts of you now and forever, Jeff.'' I just want to thank you for this opportunity. I am very honored to have had this chance to appear before this Subcommittee. [The prepared statement of Mr. Bradkowski appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Bradkowski. I will start with an opening round of questions and then we will recognize other members of the Subcommittee in turn. Mr. Bradkowski, let me just first say to you that obviously our hearts go out to everyone who suffered the loss of a loved one in the terrible events of 9/11, without exception. As I understand what you are saying, though, you believe that the current law, as reflected in the Defense of Marriage Act defining marriage for purposes of Federal law as the union of a man and a woman, is unfair and should be changed. Is that correct? Mr. Bradkowski. Personally, I disagree with the Defense of Marriage Act. However, it was signed into law. But as other things that have changed in our Constitution, things aren't always the right thing to do. Chairman Cornyn. One of the premises of this hearing is that if there is a change, it ought to occur through the democratic process; that is, through the legislative process by elected representatives rather than by judicial decision which may be at odds with what the legislature as elected representatives of the people might see fit to do. Do you have a position on whether the Congress ought to address any proposed changes or whether it ought to be left up to the courts? Mr. Bradkowski. I believe it needs to be up to the individual States. I will add on to Professor Carpenter's statement that Assembly Bill 205, in California, was passed yesterday and it will be signed into law, I expect, which does expand our legal recognition. I was involved last year in Assembly Bill 2216 which provided intestate line of succession for registered domestic partners in the State of California. Chairman Cornyn. During the course of, I believe, Professor Carpenter's testimony--and Mr. Bradkowski raised the issue again and perhaps there were others who talked about this, whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, whereby if one State recognized same-sex marriage other States might be compelled to recognize it. Let me ask this question of our three legal experts, starting with Mr. Coleman. You mentioned two cases, the Romer v. Evans case and the Lawrence v. Texas case, as the reason why you believe that, while not compelled to do so, a Federal court could hold as a matter of Federal constitutional law that any limitation on the institution of marriage to persons of the opposite sex as reflected in DOMA could be held unconstitutional and in jeopardy. Do you happen to recall who the author of each of those opinions were? Mr. Coleman. I believe Justice Kennedy wrote both of them. Chairman Cornyn. And as I recall, my notes reflect here that Justice Kennedy, Justice Stevens, Justice O'Connor, Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer were in the majority in the Romer case. Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas were in dissent; similarly, in Lawrence, the same lineup, with the exception that Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion and agreed in the judgement. Is that your recollection as well? Mr. Coleman. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Cornyn. Can you explain if it is, in fact, your belief that a protection in terms of the Full Faith and Credit Clause would not address your underlying concerns that a Federal court might, using the tools of those cases, hold as a matter of Federal constitutional law that DOMA is unconstitutional? In other words, let me be clear about the two issues I see we are talking about here. One is the question of whether one State, if it says that same-sex marriages cannot--that marriages should be extended to those, that that could thereby be imposed on another State against its will under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The second issue is whether as a matter of Federal constitutional law the court would say that you cannot do that without regard for the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Mr. Coleman. Mr. Chairman, there are layers of arguments that could be made. Starting with Lawrence, I believe there is a risk in the foreseeable future that any and all Federal laws that distinguish between same-sex and other marriages could be struck down on constitutional grounds. That would invalidate all of the State DOMA-type statutes, as well as the State constitutional amendments. Setting that particular argument aside, there are multiple layers of State statutes and State constitutional amendments with DOMA now. A State statute or State constitutional amendment that declines to recognize same-sex marriages could be subject to a straightforward full faith and credit challenge. DOMA itself is probably not subject to a full faith and credit challenge, although there are arguments that have been made in law review articles that Congress' act in withdrawing or contracting full faith and credit recognition was itself a violation of that constitutional provision. But more generally, under the equal protection principles set out in the Romer case, the Federal DOMA or a State similar statute or a State constitutional amendment could be struck down under equal protection grounds. Even if the background principle was not itself unconstitutional, the overlay of an imposition of a same-sex-specific statute or constitutional amendment declining to recognize them could be struck down and may very well be struck down on equal protection grounds. Chairman Cornyn. Thank you. Mr. Farris. Mr. Farris. Mr. Chairman, there is not a lot of practical difference for equal protection purposes between the law that was struck in Romer v. Evans and DOMA. In Romer v. Evans, the voters of Colorado voted to say we don't want to extend the protections of civil rights legislation on the basis of sexual orientation. The Supreme Court, under an equal protection theory, said that is animus toward homosexuals and that is a violation of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which is kind of reverse incorporation. Nonetheless, I think that the prevailing theory is good law. You have got six Justices of the Supreme Court in 1996 saying that. When there is proper standing to challenge DOMA on equal protection grounds, I see no way of surviving, absent a dramatic change of who is on the Court. So I think full faith and credit is a far less litigated subject than equal protection, making predictions a little more difficult. But there is a sword waiting in the wings that transcends all those full faith and credit concerns, although I think again the dominant legal scholarship of published law reviews opines that the Full Faith and Credit Clause has been inappropriately done in DOMA. Chairman Cornyn. Professor Carpenter. Mr. Carpenter. Let me address both of these questions that you have raised, the question of the Full Faith and Credit Clause and substantive constitutional doctrines that might be used to attack DOMA. On the Full Faith and Credit Clause, I take it that both Mr. Farris and Gregory Coleman agree with that an attack based on the Full Faith and Credit Clause is not terribly likely. The Full Faith and Credit Clause has never been interpreted to require every State to recognize every other State's marriages. Moreover, it has never been interpreted literally. It doesn't literally mean that every State has to recognize the law of every other State. It serves a very, very minimalist gatekeeper function. A State can't impose its own law in a case if it doesn't have any connection to the issues that arise in the case. So it is not going to be a fruitful avenue, in my view--and I think to some extent this is shared by my co- panelists--for attack on DOMA. As to the second issue, the substantive constitutional doctrines that might be used to attack DOMA, there are really one two that we have discussed here. One is the Equal Protection Clause as it was discussed in Romer v. Evans, and the other is the Due Process Clause as it was discussed in Lawrence. So let's take both of those one at a time. Chairman Cornyn. Well, I am sorry that our time is limited. Let me try to hone in on it, and I don't mean to cut you off and I will give you an opportunity to expound on your views. But you do acknowledge that there are those who have claimed that DOMA is unconstitutional. Isn't that right? For example, Patricia Logue, of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, has said, ``I think it is inevitable now'' that courts will strike down DOMA and recognize same-sex marriage. Will Harrell, the Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union in my home State of Texas, said he believes that ``the Lawrence decision opens to challenges the Defense of Marriage Act.'' Certainly, there are organizations like the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal Defense, the ACLU, and other groups who are filing briefs both in the Lawrence case and elsewhere, and making perhaps extra-judicial statements claiming that DOMA is unconstitutional based on Lawrence and Romer. Would you agree with that? Mr. Carpenter. I certainly agree that there is a strong body of scholarship that exists that challenges DOMA on a variety of grounds. But I will tell you this as someone who has toiled on many law review articles. The fact that someone who has written a law review article is no guarantee that a court will ever pay attention to it, I regret to say. Moreover, if the court pays some attention to it, the court is more often than not likely to mangle what the law review article says. Further, if the court doesn't mangle what the law review article says, it is quite as likely to reject what the law review article says as accept what the law review article says. Not every academic fashion in the past 30 to 40 years, if this is what this is, has become the law of the land or been accepted by the courts, and I could give many examples of that. Chairman Cornyn. Finally, let me just ask, and then I will pass the questioning over to the Ranking Member, I noticed that you filed a brief in the Lawrence case with a co-counsel by the name of Mr. Erik Jaffe. Is that correct? Mr. Carpenter. That is correct. Chairman Cornyn. Do you acknowledge that Mr. Jaffe was recently quoted as stating his view that, under Lawrence, courts may begin to strike down traditional marriage laws as unconstitutional? Specifically, he said the ruling ``certainly contains room to make solid arguments for marriage rights'' for same-sex couples. Do you agree with him? Mr. Carpenter. I have enormous respect for Erik Jaffe and we were co-clerks on the brief. I don't agree with his analysis entirely of the Lawrence opinion and I can tell you why. It seems to me that under the Equal Protection Clause, the court is still applying rational basis scrutiny to laws that classify on the basis of sexual orientation. As long as that is the case, it seems to me that for DOMA to survive an equal protection challenge, all that the Government would have to do in defending it is to come up with a legitimate objective that is sought by the legislation and show that the law is rationally related to that legitimate objective. Now, it may be difficult for such a law to pass strict scrutiny, but it seems to me that a plausible argument could be made on behalf of Congress that at least it would pass rational basis scrutiny. And I see nothing in the Romer opinion, nor do I see anything in the Lawrence opinion that suggests that the court now has moved toward applying strict scrutiny to classifications based on sexual orientation. That is not to say that there could not be good arguments for that to happen, but it hasn't happened now. It is an entirely hypothetical possibility and it is great fodder for law review articles, and I will be writing law review articles on it and I hope to get tenure on the basis of some of these writings someday. Chairman Cornyn. We wish you luck in that regard. Mr. Carpenter. I am sure I will need it. Chairman Cornyn. Senator Feingold. Senator Feingold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, just quickly I just want to say to Mr. Bradkowski how much I appreciate your willingness to appear before us. I have been a legislator for over 20 years and have been in many, many hearings. Once in a great while, somebody testifies in a way that defines an issue and I believe you may have done that today. Those 20 years have also taught me to defer to somebody who has twice as much legislative experience as I do, so I am going to defer to Senator Kennedy. Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Senator Feingold. I do want to thank all of our witnesses here today, and also thank Keith Bradkowski for his comments. To talk about sadness and joy and love, these challenges are very, very difficult to do. But I agree with Senator Feingold that you have certainly helped us understand this issue in a very important and significant way. I thank the Chair. I just want to make a very brief kind of comment, and I won't intrude on the time. We have an important briefing, as you know, with the Secretary of Defense on Iraq at four o'clock. I came here, I must say, as all of our members, returning from the August recess and seeing the flames alive over in Iraq; challenged by where we are in terms of our economy; reminded this morning, with the withdrawal of Mr. Estrada, of our constitutional responsibilities and trying to get it right in terms of judicial nominations; perplexed, as many Americans are, by the breakdown in the grid systems that caused blackouts in major areas of my region of the country; troubled by the announcements that were made in the EPA about the permission of these major power facilities to be able to increase their production to 25 percent without complying with previous environmental considerations, which in my part of the country is going to threaten the quality of the air that children will breathe and elderly people will breathe, and will result in the killing of ponds and lakes with acid rain; and wondering about what we are doing over here at this particular hearing that is of such central importance and consequence to our Constitution. With the exception of the equal rights amendment, I have not cosponsored any constitutional amendment. I think all of us are very familiar with some of the very challenging amendments that we had, very emotional and powerful--the flag burning amendment, very, very powerful. I think for a while, there were certainly the votes here in the Senate to pass that, until we had the full consideration of it. I think of the great debates that we had on these constitutional amendments and I wonder what in the world are we doing over here to consider a constitutional amendment on this issue. What in the world are we doing? Looking at the fact, as we are reminded by our panel, that we have had, besides the Bill of Rights, 17 constitutional amendments, the mistakes that were made in the area of Prohibition, what are we being asked to do here that is of such central importance? The 14th Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the post-Civil War amendments--what are we being asked to do here? Now, we know that there are some legitimate concerns that the Government may somehow interfere with the ability of the churches and religious groups to conduct their own affairs. There are some serious concerns. Religious marriage is an ancient institution, and nothing in the Constitution, as I understand it, requires any religion to accept same-sex marriage. If this hearing accomplishes anything, it should make the point completely clear that under the current Constitution, no court can tell any church or religious group how to conduct its own affairs. Unless there is a constitutional amendment, no court will ever be able to require any church to perform or grant sacramental status to same-sex marriage. The law of each State is what determines the legal effects of marriage and civil unions. But far from upholding religious freedom, the proposed amendment--and I agree with Senator Feingold; we are not having this hearing in a vacuum. An amendment has been proposed and taken seriously by a number of political leaders. The proposed amendment would actually undermine these protections by telling churches that they can't consecrate same-sex marriages, even though some churches are now doing so. Last month, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church recognized that ``local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgy celebrating and blessing same-sex unions.'' The proposed constitutional amendment would blatantly interfere with the decisions of local faith communities and would threaten the longstanding separation of church and state in our society. We are all familiar with the General Accounting Office in terms of the benefits and rights and protections that have been referred to here. These rights include the right to file joint returns, share insurance, visit loved ones in the hospital, receive health and family care, survivors' benefits. These would seriously obviously be threatened by the proposed language that is included in this amendment. The amendment would repeal many of these, including laws dealing with domestic partnerships and laws that have nothing to do with such relationships. I believe just as it is wrong for State criminal laws to discriminate against gays and lesbians, it is wrong for State civil laws to discriminate against gays and lesbians by denying them the many benefits and protections provided to married couples. The proposed amendment would prohibit States from deciding these important issues for themselves. The Nation has made too much progress in the ongoing battle for civil rights for gays and lesbians to take an unjustified step backwards. On a bipartisan basis, we have fought for comprehensive Federal prohibitions on job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We have worked to expand existing Federal hate crimes laws to include hate crimes based on this flagrant form of bigotry. This summer, I read a letter to the editor of the New York Times. I clipped it out because I thought at some time it would be worthwhile and useful to mention, and I brought it over to this meeting here. It is signed by Paula Surrey and Steve Gersman, from Auburn, Maine, to the New York Times in the middle of the summer. ``Marrying Kinds,'' it says. ``Having been happily married for 21 years, perhaps we should be grateful to the proponents of the Defense of Marriage Act, but we are not exactly sure against what we are being defended. We always thought that couples protected their own marriage with love, communication, and honesty. Our mothers never told us that the secret of a happy marriage was to be sure that same-sex partners weren't allowed to have them. Love and commitment are special and rare enough in our modern society that we should be offering gay couples or best wishes, not self-righteous moral judgments.'' I thank the Chair for permitting me to make these comments. Chairman Cornyn. Senator Feingold. Senator Feingold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Senator Kennedy. Let me follow up on what Senator Kennedy brought out in his comments. Professor Carpenter, as you know, currently no State grants same-sex couples the right to marry. In Vermont, same-sex couples are given the opportunity to formalize their relationship in a civil union. As far as I know, this is an entirely civil proceeding and does not involve any religious institution in recognizing the relationship. If a State were to permit same-sex couples to marry, wouldn't you agree, as Senator Kennedy was pointing out, that churches, synagogues and other religious institutions would not be affected, that no religious institution could constitutionally be required to perform such ceremonies? Wouldn't you say that is correct? Mr. Carpenter. Yes, I agree. I believe that their right not to perform same-sex unions would be protected by the Free Exercise Clause. Senator Feingold. Do any of the witnesses disagree with that legal conclusion? [No response.] Senator Feingold. Let me move on to something else, then. Mr. Farris and Mr. Coleman, in the Supreme Court's Lawrence decision, Justice Scalia wrote a dissent in which he stated, ``State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision. The Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.'' Do you agree with Justice Scalia's prediction that Federal and State DOMA laws could well be found unconstitutional in light of Lawrence, and therefore you argue a constitutional amendment may well be the only way to prevent the Federal or State courts from reaching such a result? Isn't the logical conclusion of your argument that Congress should actually enact a series of constitutional amendments based on this prediction contained in the dissenting opinion; in other words, a constitutional amendment on bigamy, a constitutional amendment on adult incest, a constitutional amendment on prostitution, a constitutional amendment on adultery, and so on, to protect each State law that Justice Scalia fears will be called into question by the Lawrence decision? Mr. Coleman? Mr. Coleman. No, Senator Feingold, I don't think that Congress needs to do that. What Justice Scalia was doing was pointing out a logical conclusion. He was playing out arguments that the Court was accepting to a logical conclusion. I don't know that any of those types of laws have yet been challenged. Certainly, the petitioners in Lawrence said that they would not be at issue. There was quite a bit in the briefs about those types of issues, but I am not aware of any litigation that has been going on in that connection, as there has been in this case that has been going on for a period of approximately 33 years. Senator Feingold. Mr. Farris. Mr. Farris. Senator Feingold, I don't think it is realistic that we would expect those other issues to get the kind of political traction that same-sex marriage has. But the reality is that if we say that it is unconstitutional to legislate on the basis of morality, a grand number of our laws are in jeopardy, including laws against racial discrimination, laws on the environment, laws on virtually everything because everybody's views of right and wrong may differ. But a law ultimately says what is right and what is wrong, what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. And if morality alone cannot justify these particular laws, then no law can be justified. Basically, what it really means is no laws that the prevailing majority on the Court thinks are inappropriate can be justified. It is the rule of man, not the rule of law. It is a dramatic revolution; it is the most revolutionary opinion, I believe, ever in the history of the Supreme Court, far more than Roe v. Wade and other cases that have been roundly criticized as judicial activism. I would say that perhaps the conservative form of judicial activism that was remedied by the Roosevelt court-packing scheme may be instructive. It just took one serious attempt to change them and they changed the entire philosophy. If there was one serious attempt to fix Lawrence by a constitutional amendment relative to marriage, I think the Supreme Court might wake up and smell the coffee. Senator Feingold. I appreciate your practical assurance or political assurances, but I don't think it escapes the logic of Justice Scalia's dissent. Professor Carpenter, would you like to respond? Mr. Carpenter. Yes, I would. It is important to note what the Lawrence decision said. It did not say that States cannot pass laws that forbid or prohibit some kinds of harm to individuals. The Court was very careful to note that it did not involve a case of rape, it did not involve a case where minors were involved. Ordinarily, when the State defends a law before a court, whether it is a Federal court or a State court, a State ordinarily doesn't just say we are defending the law on the basis of a moral justification; we just have a moral view that this is wrong. Ordinarily, the States defend the law on the basis of some harm that the State can show, some verifiable, quantifiable harm, some way to test the constitutionality of the law and its relationship to the objectives of the State. Lawrence was a very unusual case, especially in the way that Texas argued it. Texas defended its law not on the basis of any health justifications or anything else. It defended its law solely on the basis of a claimed moral judgment of a majority of the people of Texas. And there was simply no way for the Court to falsify a judgment like that and so no way to subject it to any kind of legal analysis. So the idea that we are now going to get rid of environmental laws which involve harm to the entire population, the idea that we are going to get rid of laws that subject people to discrimination in the workforce that have them out of a job or unable to advance within their jobs, I think is a very great over-reading of the Lawrence opinion, and I might say is symptomatic of the general over-reading of the Lawrence opinion that we are seeing from advocates of the Federal marriage amendment. Senator Feingold. I would like to ask a question of Ms. Gallagher. In your testimony, you state ``Marriage is not just a legal construct. It is socially and culturally a child-rearing institution, the place where having children and creating families are actually encouraged rather than merely tolerated,'' unquote. But this strikes me as a rather narrow view of marriage and the different reasons that people decide to marry. At least in these comments, you don't seem to recognize that people in committed, loving relationships may want to formalize that relationship and their commitment to each other even if children are not involved. For example, an elderly man and an elderly woman can decide to marry because they want to formalize a loving relationship without having any intent to have more children or adopt more children. Some couples cannot bear children or don't want to bear children. I don't think their marriages are any less deserving of respect and recognition. Wouldn't you agree that there are perfectly valid and admirable reasons other than having children for couples to decide to marry, and do you think that marriages between a man and woman that do not involve children or the possibility of children are somehow less worthy of protection and respect? Ms. Gallagher. If you will excuse me, Senator, if I can say just very briefly in response to the last issue I think it is important to recognize that marriage is not just one of a set of moral issues that people might be concerned about and disagree with the Supreme Court. My position is that marriage is a necessary social institution, that we do not know of any cultures that survive in the long run without a reasonably well-functioning marriage system, and that cross-culturally, yes, the answer is the reason the marriage idea appears again and again is that every society has to figure out some way to deal with the fact that we need children and it is relationships between men and women that produce children. I think I did address your underlying question, in which I said that, of course, not every married couple has children. Not every married couple wants children, but every husband and wife who marries is capable of giving any children they either create or adopt a mother and a father. And in that way, childless marriages are not contradicting the core idea of marriage as a public institution. As a private institution and as a religious institution, it has many multiple meanings, but the reason we have laws about it, in my opinion, and the reason this particular kind of relationship is, in fact, singled out as a social ideal is because of the importance of giving children mothers and fathers. As I said, in addition, even childless married couples are helping sustain the marriage idea because if they are faithful to their vows, neither the man nor the woman is creating fatherless or motherless children across multiple households. And I think that in that way, even childless marriages between men and women not only contradict, but they sustain the core marriage idea. It is really quite different. We don't know who is going to choose to adopt or create children, and I think it would be intrusive and destructive of marriage as a social institution to say we are going to grill you and determine your fertility expectations. In reality, what people want change. Dear friends of mine adopted a child after 20 years of marriage. So it is not practical to say, well, we are going to determine in advance who wants children and only let those people marry. But it is important that all of the marriages between husbands and wives can do something that no other form of relationship can do, which is to give children mothers and fathers, not just stable relationships, but mothers and fathers. Senator Feingold. I am interested in your answer. It still sounds like you only really define marriage vis-a-vis the reality or possibility of having children. Ms. Gallagher. I think I just didn't do that, actually. Senator Feingold. What is that? Ms. Gallagher. I disagree with that characterization of my remarks. Senator Feingold. Well, everything you just said about childless marriages is related to something to do with the possibility of relating to children either directly or indirectly. And, of course, I share that important function of marriage, but aren't people's marriages which are unrelated to that just as worthy of protection and respect as others? Ms. Gallagher. I think that all marriages are worthy of protection and respect, yes. Senator Feingold. Professor Carpenter, the Constitution Project, a bipartisan group of scholars and respected Americans, has set forth criteria for when amending the Constitution is appropriate. One of the principles they articulate is whether proponents of the proposed amendment have attempted to think through and articulate the consequences of their proposal, including the ways in which the amendment would interact with other constitutional provisions and principles. As I think about my day, I spent all morning dealing with this same issue as it relates to the victims' rights amendment. I have spent the entire day on constitutional amendments and what is an appropriate type of amendment when you consider its relationship to the overall Constitution. Could you discuss how the proposed marriage constitutional amendment would interact with other constitutional provisions and principles? I would be particularly interested in your views on how it would square with the Constitution's equal protection guarantees. Mr. Carpenter. Well, one thing that this proposed Federal marriage amendment would do is injure, intrude upon the very structure of the Constitution, which sets up a Federal Government of limited and enumerated powers and also leaves to the States most of the remaining issues of government, including the most important areas of life--criminal law, family law, and all the rest. This would be the first time in the history of our country when we have effectively amended the very structure of those relationships for reasons that seem to me entirely hypothetical. Now, on the equal protection issue, I think there is also a question here about the ultimate effect of the Federal marriage amendment. It could turn out, if my reading of the Federal marriage amendment is correct, that it not only prevents State legislatures from adopting same-sex marriages, but it would make effectively unenforceable domestic partnership arrangements and civil unions laws because, after all, if there were a dispute about the coverage of a civil unions law or a domestic partnership law, that dispute would have to go to court. A court would then have to declare--that is, it would have to construe the State law in order to grant the legal incidents or some of the entitlements that are associated with marriage to that domestic partnership or to that civil union. I am not the only one who thinks this is a possible ramification of this amendment. Professor Eugene Volokh has written about this on his Internet BLOG and has made a very intriguing argument about it. I am concerned about the reach of this amendment. I think it goes far beyond anything that is being claimed on its behalf. Senator Feingold. Thank you, Professor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Cornyn. Thank you. Let me just remind everybody that there isn't a constitutional amendment that has been filed. The very purpose of this hearing, at least in the U.S. Senate, is to decide whether the Defense of Marriage Act needs to be defended in some way. Of course, we have heard views, both pro and con, as to whether a court has the legal tools, and some have argued that in the Romer and in the Lawrence case they do, to hold the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, and thus undermine the intent of Congress, an overwhelming bipartisan majority. So, again, a constitutional amendment is not before us. As far as the concerns that have been expressed time and time again about whether we are wasting our time by having this hearing today, I would have to say I disagree in the most fundamental way. Congress is conferred many responsibilities and we have to deal and legislate and perform oversight on a lot of different issues. Senator Kennedy mentioned many of them--the environment, war and peace. But, certainly, I don't think marriage is any less deserving of our attention than any of the other of the important issues that the Congress has to deal with. Let me just ask perhaps Dr. Hammond this question with regard to Professor Carpenter's testimony, and I hope I relay this faithfully. I think he said that a moral judgment is not a sufficient basis to prefer one arrangement or another in terms of marriage or sexual relationships. Let me try that again. In the Lawrence case, I think the Court said that purely a moral judgment without demonstration of some harm would be insufficient to sustain the statute at issue there. But as I understood you to say, Dr. Hammond and Ms. Gallagher, you believe that there is actual harm associated with undermining the Defense of Marriage Act which defines a marriage as a union between a man and a woman in terms of its impact on families, and particularly children. Is that a correct understanding of your testimony, Dr. Hammond? Dr. Hammond. Yes, absolutely. Chairman Cornyn. And would you perhaps address the harm that you feel could occur if the Defense of Marriage Act were held unconstitutional? Dr. Hammond. I think it does in a very real sense diminish at least that third dimension I kind of talked about. I think marriage, yes, is very much about benefits, and marriage is very much about a contractual relationship. Marriage is about the love of two people, but marriage is also again a place where that great divide in the human race, the gender divide, really is reconciled, and that is modeled before the generation that is coming. It is about much more than just the two people who are involved. It extends in its impact far beyond that, and I think there is a reason in our history and throughout much of the world that it has not been a mono-sexual institution. And I don't think that that is something we want to re-define and change now. Chairman Cornyn. Do you view the potential, whatever it is, large or small, that the Defense of Marriage Act might be held unconstitutional by the courts at some future date a credible concern in terms of the further undermining of the institution of the family? Dr. Hammond. I certainly have to defer to the debate between the real, real experts here. I think I could say, as is true for many other people, that that is certainly a concern. I live in the State of Massachusetts, where this is a very real issue right now, and what the larger impact of that is going to be, I think, none of us can predict. But we are certainly concerned that DOMA and many of the State bills could be declared unconstitutional. Chairman Cornyn. Ms. Gallagher, let me give you a chance to respond and then I will turn to Senator Schumer for any questions he has. Ms. Gallagher. To me, the redefinition of marriage will just have profound impact on our society and on our idea of marriage in a way that strikes right at the heart of the marriage crisis, which is how committed we are to whether or not marriage is in some key way--the reason we have public support and concern and legal recognition surrounding marriage is not primarily because we think soul mates should marry and love is a good thing, in which case you go down one road. It is really the core public concern about the well-being of children and the way this institution protects children and do we really think that children need mothers and fathers, because what the law and the government will be saying if the courts take this step and will be reflected in institutions from public schools to professional accreditation to everywhere the government is involved on the marriage question--the new image of marriage will be essentially gender-less, unisex. It may still be about adult love, but it will not be about the idea that children need mothers and fathers. You know, if two mothers are just the same as a mother and a father, then a woman and her mother are just the same as a mother and father. The whole effort that I have been engaged in to try to reverse these negative and destructive trends for family fragmentation--courts will drag that to a halt. Chairman Cornyn. Thank you. Senator Schumer. Senator Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess my first question is for Professor Carpenter and it deals with the issue of States' rights. What we have seen in this Congress, in general, is an argument mainly from the other side against Federal laws that impose obligations on States and restrict States' rights. On environmental laws, we hear this all the time; legislation protecting the rights of women or the disabled. The argument has been there may be a need for Federal action, but States' rights trump the others, any Federal desire to impose something. Now, of course, we hear from the other House this constitutional amendment. And, again, I know Senator Cornyn has said it is not in play here. It might be next week for all we know. It is certainly in play in the House. There is certainly a drum beat out in the country to do it. So people are pushing a constitutional amendment that would limit States' rights. I am not a constitutional scholar, but can you comment on this kind of inconsistency here? Mr. Carpenter. Ordinarily, conservatives, people like me, say that it ought to be generally the role of the States to determine important matters very closely related to people, like family law, criminal law, and property law. Now, we have a claim that based on a hypothetical concern that some court someday, some time in the future, might question the legitimacy of DOMA or of the little State DOMA laws, we need to amend the Constitution to change that basic constitutional structure. I think what conservatives ought to recognize is that the States historically in this country have acted as laboratories for change, for trying out policies and seeing if they work. Some of the most important innovations in American law have come from the States. Women's right to vote, for example, limitations on child labor, maximum hours laws, minimum wage laws--those didn't initially come from the Congress. We tried them out in the States, we saw how they worked, and then other States adopted them if they worked and rejected them if they didn't. The States have a role in acting as those laboratories, and they can act as laboratories in this case, too, to find out if all of the terrible things that my friend, Maggie Gallagher, thinks will happen actually happen. I mean, will parents leave their children? Will husbands leave their wives? Will all of this parade of horribles actually happen? Well, let's find out in a couple of States if some form of recognition for same-sex couples actually leads to these terrible results. Senator Schumer. Okay, thank you. Mr. Coleman. Senator Schumer, if I might just very briefly address your question as well? Senator Schumer. Please. Mr. Coleman. I have not spent time studying the proposed amendment in the House, but I think the issue of States' rights and experimentation is something that Mr. Carpenter and I very much agree on. The issue, though, as I have been asked to address it, is what is the likelihood that the Federal courts will exercise their prerogatives and declare that the United States Constitution prevents or prohibits the States from doing what they have traditionally done in the area of marriage. In that sense, the courts have acted as an obstacle to or a break upon the experimentation that has traditionally happened. I think Lawrence is an example of that. Obviously, there were different types of statutes around the country and the Court addressed some of those variations, but ultimately in the end declared that as a matter of Federal constitutional law it was impermissible. Whether one agrees with Lawrence or not, I don't think anyone can disagree with the fact that it did put a stop to any experimentation that might have continued on in the future. So as a matter of constitutional law, the experimentation issue does work for many things, but doesn't work as to a Federal court declaration of what the United States Constitution imposes upon the States. Senator Schumer. Professor Carpenter. Mr. Carpenter. I certainly agree with Gregory Coleman that there are limitations on the power of States to experiment with certain kinds of matters. We would not want States experimenting again with racial segregation. We would not want States experimenting with denying women the right to vote, and so on. When it comes to basic constitutional rights, fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution, certainly States cannot experiment with those, and that was what was at issue in the Lawrence decision. I think the marriage question presents a very different issue having to do with various kinds of State justifications for limitation on marriage. I might add that in the Lawrence opinion, as Gregory Coleman noted, not once but twice the Court said we are not dealing with the question of marriage. Now, Gregory says that the fact that the Court notes this indicates that the Court might be thinking about it. But I have to tell you if the Court had been silent on that issue, I believe that advocates of the Federal marriage amendment would come before this Subcommittee today and say there has been a pregnant silence in the Court's Lawrence opinion about the question of marriage. Senator Schumer. A second question also relating to both what you, Professor Carpenter, and you, Mr. Coleman, have talked about, and this relates to the constitutional amendment. I have a strong feeling against constitutional amendments, in general. To me, the Constitution is a sacred document. I think it is just wonderful. I think the Founding Fathers, when they created it, said America is God's noble experiment. I believe that to this day; we still are. You don't amend it lightly. Just this morning in this Committee--I happen to be sort of more conservative on some of the crime issues, so I believe in defending victims' rights, and have done that when I was a State legislator, as a Congressman and a Senator. There is a proposal to bring a victims' rights constitutional amendment before us, when there is no case that has reached even the court of appeals where victims' rights are abrogated, are declared to be unconstitutional. I sometimes think lower-level courts do maybe go too far on the defendant side and not enough on the victim side, but I am going to vote against that amendment, even though it may not be popular to do, because I don't want to look at myself in the mirror 20 years from now and say I put something in the Constitution that wasn't really necessary, even though it makes us feel good. We are not even close to a stare decisis situation on DOMA. We don't know what will happen in Massachusetts. You are certainly right, Reverend Hammond, that things are close there, and then someone has to have standing and you have to go up through the court of appeals and even to the Supreme Court to see how they will rule on DOMA. So, again, if you could comment on the idea of amending the Constitution, which is making its way through the House and may come here, before there is any ruling that it is needed, and the consequences to our Constitution if we start adorning it with things we might believe in or things we might worry about, but are not cases before the court and that are not necessary. I mean, how many times have we amended the Constitution since the Bill of Rights--17? Professor Carpenter, and then others. Mr. Carpenter. Yes. I heard somewhere that there have been more than 10,000 constitutional amendments proposed. Senator Schumer. You mean in the history of the Senate? Mr. Carpenter. In the history of the country. Senator Schumer. Yes, there is a House. Mr. Carpenter. There is a House. Not all of them have made it to a vote; not many of them have even made it to a Committee hearing. This one may not yet make it to a Committee hearing in the Senate. We will have to see, but it is the case that we have been very reluctant to amend the Constitution. Now, I would go further than you did, actually, and say that with the exception of two extraordinary historical periods in this country, the founding period when we had the 10 original amendments to the Constitution and the period immediately after the Civil War when we had 3 amendments to the Constitution, there have actually really in ordinary times been only 14 amendments to the Constitution in more than 200 years. That is because the system as we have it, a mixture of an enormous amount of power for the States, some power for the Federal Government, and a role for courts in making sure that the legislatures of the States and the Federal Government stay within certain kinds of limits--that system has worked enormously well. It has produced a prosperous and free country, even with all of its problems. We ought to be very reluctant, certainly, if we regard ourselves as conservatives, to touch that document, especially to touch it on the basis of hypothetical fears based on conjecture and ``maybes'' and ``mights'' and ``futures.'' Mr. Farris. If I could just briefly comment, I agree that we should amend the Constitution with great reluctance only with things that are extraordinarily important. I think that Maggie Gallagher has set out the case very well that marriage is that important, that our civilization is at stake. So I think that if we get to the stage of determining that a constitutional amendment is necessary, I for one say that the subject is well worth appearing in the United States Constitution. Senator Schumer. Even if no one has declared DOMA unconstitutional or anything-- Mr. Farris. They have no standing to do so. Senator Schumer. Well, I understand, but what if a statute would do the same job? In other words, to a lot of victims, victims' rights rises to an extremely high level. I have talked to them. I can think of 50 issues that are extremely important to me. We have never traditionally, I don't think--and, Professor Carpenter, you correct me if I am wrong--put in the Constitution things on the basis that we believe in them strongly. We have put them in the Constitution either because you have to overrule a law or to change the structure of the Government. You know, the Senate should not be appointed, should be elected. Presidents should not go more than two terms. That has to be in the Constitution because the structure of the Federal Government was constitutional. So you are advocating, it seems to me, Mr. Farris--and I will give you a chance--a new view of constitutional amendments, which is if it is very important to, let's say, a very large number of Americans, we ought to put it in the Constitution. Isn't that correct? Mr. Farris. That is not a complete explanation, Senator Schumer. Senator Schumer. Go ahead. Mr. Farris. The reality is our principles of self- government are under threat by judicial activism. For all the talk of federalism, Lawrence v. Texas overturned the decisions of the people of the State of Texas through their elected representatives of what they could do on the subject. And now the people that advocated that are advocating federalism. It is hypocrisy at its finest. Now, I would simply say that the only way we can get the democratic consensus for a constitutional amendment is two- thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-fourths of the State legislatures. If that number of people think that the basis of our society is under attack by the judiciary, then by all means we should amend the Constitution. That is what democracy is all about. Senator Schumer. Even if a statute could do the same job? Mr. Farris. No statute will cure judicial activism. Senator Schumer. So, in other words, anything that deals with judicial activism we should put in the Constitution? There are lots of issues that deal with judicial activism. The environment: lots of people have railed against court decisions that extend environmental laws. I have seen some of them myself. Now, should we put a constitutional amendment in? I mean, we have never done this before, as best I can tell. If you can tell which constitutional amendment of the 27 that we have-- Mr. Farris. By the way, we have 11 from the Bill of Rights. One of the 12 original Bill of Rights was ratified in the 1990's by the States. So the talk that we have not ratified the Bill of Rights and it has never been changed is a tiny, technical point. This Congress has gotten around it by--you are not supposed to be able to raise your pay without an intervening election. You have got around it with cost-of- living bills that-- Senator Schumer. That wasn't part of the Bill of Rights. That is dealing with the structure of the Government. Mr. Farris. That is part of the Bill of Rights. Senator Schumer. As much as Senators and Congressmen may think their pay is important, it doesn't rise to the level of freedom of speech. Mr. Farris. Senator, I don't know if you are a betting man, but I will walk with you down to the National Archives and go look at the document with you and look at the Bill of Rights. One of the first two Bill of Rights is the amendment that is now the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. The First Amendment was originally the Third Amendment. The Second Amendment was originally the Fourth Amendment. If you want to stake your reputation on that one, I would be glad to take you on on that. Senator Schumer. You are getting kind of pugilistic here. [Laughter.] Mr. Farris. I am a lawyer. What do you expect? I apologize, Senator, for that, but the lawyer in me came out. Senator Schumer. Or the boxer. Mr. Farris. Whatever. There are multiple criteria for a proper constitutional amendment, one of which is enormous public support and believing that the issue rises to that importance. Second is a threat to our society, and I believe that both are present in this potential amendment. If DOMA will not work, then we need to do something. Senator Schumer. Mr. Farris, I would argue to you you are creating a whole new standard for what a constitutional amendment would be. Ms. Gallagher. Ms. Gallagher. Briefly, I would just like to say that it is often the case that we amend the Constitution out of a sense of crisis or threat. I mean, the only constitutional amendment I saw was lowering the voting age to 18, which is about the structure of Government, but we did it because people thought it would be a good idea to do. There were no court threats. There was just a consensus that this was a good thing to do. Senator Schumer. But, Ms. Gallagher, just one note. You couldn't do that by a statute. Ms. Gallagher. And I would like to say that, in my opinion, and in the opinion of a lot of Americans, marriage is one of a small number of core institutions which is, in fact, integral to the functioning of limited government, of constitutional democracy, and of our civilization, and that we don't have to do it even out of a sense of imminent threat. If it makes sense to two-thirds of the American people to define marriage and get this out of--you know, most Americans are kind of shocked that courts are even thinking about tinkering with this basic definition. I think it is perfectly legitimate for people to say this is what marriage is; we think it is important and let's just clarify this for the future and go on to the other important issues. In my judgment, the FMA which is before Congress--and I am not an expert on law, but the way I read it as an ordinary person, I think it does leave the question of benefits up to the State legislatures. I know there are people who disagree, but in my opinion that is a perfectly reasonable division. Senator Schumer. That is a second issue, but I would just argue to you again that if we use the standard that you argue for and Mr. Farris argues for, we will have a lot of constitutional amendments. And who knows what the consequences will be of using constitutional amendments because you feel strongly when, whether I agree or disagree with you, a statute would do the same job? Ms. Gallagher. I think, fortunately, our Framers made it extraordinarily difficult to amend the Constitution and we don't really need to live in fear that it will be constantly amended if we decide to define marriage. Chairman Cornyn. Senator Schumer, Senator Feingold has to me that I have cheated him by giving you more time to question than he had. So I want to be seen as being fair. Senator Schumer. I can assure you of this, Mr. Chairman: I will not introduce a constitutional amendment to prevent Senator Feingold from being cheated. Chairman Cornyn. I want to give Senator Durbin a chance to ask any questions he may have, but first let me note that on the issue of passing constitutional amendments before a court acts, voters in Nevada, Nebraska, and California each passed constitutional amendments, or statewide initiatives relative to this issue before a court in those States acted. Of course, as someone pointed out in their opening comments, Hawaii and Alaska did. I believe Mr. Coleman mentioned before the final judgment was rendered before the trial court, the people in each of those States passed constitutional amendments on this very issue, preserving traditional marriage. So I think we do have a question of perhaps, as Professor Carpenter mentioned, innovation by the States. While apparently there is some disagreement about the urgency of a constitutional amendment, which we are not considering in this hearing, it is, I guess, a matter of considered judgment and opinion as to what the risk is of DOMA being held unconstitutional and the urgency and importance of the traditional institution of marriage relative to the other important issues that Congress, and indeed the Nation and our culture and society must confront. With that, Senator Durbin, I will turn it over to you. Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the only thing that troubles me about your statement that we are not considering a constitutional amendment is the fact that this is the Constitution Subcommittee. Chairman Cornyn. No constitutional amendment has been filed in the Senate. Obviously, there has been in the House. Senator Durbin. That is true. I voted for DOMA and I haven't read it since I voted for it. I have just read it again today. I can recall what Congressman Barr was offering and what we debated at length, and I look at it and I try to envision why we are here and why we are involved in this conversation. I have heard a lot of reasons, some anticipatory: we had better do something quick or something awful just might happen. That is, I think, a rare premise for amending a constitution. I come to this, as Senator Schumer does, with a sense of humility when you deal with the Constitution. I don't want our generation to take a roller to a Rembrandt. We ought to take care to be certain when we propose changes to this Constitution that they really rise to the level of constitutional necessity. I would certainly say that this conversation is premature to the extreme. It is not bad that we are talking about it, but before we seriously consider amending the Constitution, there are a lot of things that need to be considered. I don't know of anyone that has suggested a national standard imposing gay marriage. I haven't read that anywhere. I mean, I don't know that that has happened. To date, no State has created a gay marriage situation that would run in conflict to DOMA. So at this point in time, there doesn't appear to be any standing for anyone to challenge DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, its constitutionality or its legality. It is still on the books. So I think this hearing is a solution in search of a problem. I would like to address two things, in particular. Ms. Gallagher, you talked about the state of marriage in America, and certainly when you look at the statistics on the number of divorces, roughly half of marriages end in divorce. When you have children of my family's age in their 30's and you are still waiting patiently for them to get married, you start saying what are you waiting for. There is a resistance among some to getting married for a variety of reasons, but some of it is the fear that it won't work, which is being borne by the society. How much of this situation do you think has been driven by the call of homosexuals wanting to be married? How much of this problem has been created by those of different sexual orientation who are seeking a civil union or a domestic partnership? Do you believe they are the ones who are dragging the institution of marriage down? Ms. Gallagher. No, absolutely not. I don't think that they are the driving force behind the current marriage crisis at all. I think, as I said, that this is not created by gay and lesbian activists or by other advocates who are not gay and lesbian of gay marriage. This is not just a gay and lesbian issue. As I said before but will repeat for you, I have devoted most of my public career to the issue of men and women coming together in lasting, good-enough marriages to protect their children and reducing divorce and unmarried child-bearing. That has been my principal concern, but that doesn't answer the question of whether or not, if we do decide to make this legal change to accommodate the interests of adults in alternative family forms, or equal opportunity or equal benefits or anti- discrimination--that doesn't answer what is for me the key question: will this legal change strengthen or weaken marriage as a social institution. I do think that having the marriage law say that two fathers and two mothers are just the same as a mother and father is an additional blow that will make it very difficult to have a marriage recovery because the Government will be on one side of this family debate now and it will be saying that. Senator Durbin. Do you think, then, that would encourage people to have more divorces if we had gay marriages? Ms. Gallagher. I think that children who are raised in a society that does not think it is important to have mothers and fathers will be less likely to get married. They will have more children out of wedlock and they will have more divorces, yes. Senator Durbin. Although you don't think that is a driving force to the current problem, you do believe that it might be a problem in the future? Ms. Gallagher. I think that the problem is how committed we are to the idea that children need mothers and fathers, and marriage is about getting them for children. So, yes, if we change our whole legal structure, if the Government says--I think civil unions and benefits are a separate issue. I have concerns about them, but I think they are a separate issue that deserves its own discussion from the gay marriage issue. But, yes, I think definitely if we redefine marriage so that we say publicly, officially our shared, new idea of marriage is either it has nothing to do with children altogether, which is one theory, or it does have something to do with children, but mothers and fathers aren't key, it is something else we are doing with marriage. Senator Durbin. Reverend Hammond, let me ask you about the issue of discrimination. I don't ask that of you simply because you are a person of color, but I ask you in a historical context. I try to think of my moment of history here in the United States Senate and then reflect on where this country has come since its beginning. Of course, in the beginning of this country, people of color and women and many others were discriminated against, not counted as citizens, not allowed to vote. There was a painful and lengthy process involving a war, as well, where we came to grips with this issue. We haven't resolved either one, obviously, but are coming to grips with the issue of discrimination. Does it trouble you that many of the conversations involving people of different sexual orientation appear to be discussions about discrimination and whether it will be tolerated? Dr. Hammond. It very much troubles me and it is one reason why I have been part of the Scout council, for example, that, contrary to the national policy, decided that it would not adhere to a discrimination policy. I supported that because I don't think gay and lesbian people should be discriminated against in their activities and involvement and memberships, and so on. This is not, from my perspective, against gay and lesbian and people. It is for an institution which has traditionally been understood to be about men and women working together in relationship, and especially for children. Senator Durbin. Then let me ask you this question, and I wasn't here for Mr. Bradkowski's testimony, but I have read it. He speaks about some compelling personal issues involving someone he loved who died and how he was restricted under the current law from grieving and participating in the loss of someone he loved frankly because of some laws that discriminate against that relationship. How do you reconcile that when you hear his story and hear what he has been through? Dr. Hammond. I wouldn't at all disagree, and that is one reason why I think I find the Federal marriage amendment, for example, attractive because I think it does allow for us to correct many of those issues in terms of discrimination. It certainly doesn't abrogate private or State-based remedies for those denials of benefits. I don't see that being a problem at all. What I don't think is an appropriate response is to redefine marriage. Senator Durbin. So I don't want to put words in your mouth, but would you feel that domestic partnership arrangements which have been recognized by some major corporations and by some governments, and civil unions which have been recognized by some governments, would be acceptable inasmuch as it is short of marriage as we traditionally define it? Dr. Hammond. In different States, in different situations, that may be an approach. There may be other legal remedies that people would advocate. I certainly again would not support any attempt to discriminate, but don't think the redefinition of marriage is the way to do it. Senator Durbin. That was very helpful. Mr. Chairman, I really think he comes to the heart of it, doesn't he, when he says in certain States, in certain situations, certain responses are appropriate? Are we at a point now where we want to preempt that kind of conversation and that kind of decision by State and local governments? I hope we aren't. Though I supported DOMA and have my own misgivings and reservations about gay marriage, when I hear Mr. Bradkowski's story, it is one that I have heard over and over again. There are certain things that we should have done to make your grief and sorrow a little less and we didn't, and I think we can without assaulting the institution of marriage. I hope we will. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Cornyn. Thank you, Senator Durbin. I believe Senator Feingold had one final matter. Senator Feingold. I just have another question for Ms. Gallagher and then just a comment. Ms. Gallagher, just last month you wrote, quote, ``Polygamy is not worse than gay marriage. It is better. At least polygamy, for all its ugly defects, is an attempt to secure stable mother-father families for children.'' Do you really believe that a polygamous relationship is a more suitable environment in which to raise children than a loving two-parent household headed by a same-sex couple? Ms. Gallagher. I think that polygamy and gay marriage are both part of the continuum of what happens when you move away from our traditional definition of marriage. This was my attempt to say to people who argued that the problem with gay marriage is that it will lead to polygamy, which is an argument that has been out in the public, I am dissatisfied with that slippery slope argument. I think we need to be able to describe and define what it is about unisex marriage itself that is destructive to marriage, and that column was one of my first attempts to do try to do so. Senator Feingold. But you did say that polygamy is better? Ms. Gallagher. I think that among the really, really, really, really bad ideas, polygamy is at least a cross-cultural marriage option. But I am really against polygamy, as well as same-sex marriage. I would just like to make that clear. I think it is clear from the context of the column. Senator Feingold. Mr. Chairman, if I could just comment briefly because I know you will make concluding remarks, I really do enjoy working with you and I think you are an excellent Chairman and one of the more courteous persons I have ever had the opportunity to work with. Let me just comment on the hearings we have held briefly. I have come and diligently participated in a hearing on the issue of whether the filibuster of judges is unconstitutional, and I would rate the constitutional basis for saying that is unconstitutional to be flimsy, at best. It was sort of my conclusion from the hearing, but I came and I participated. Secondly, I have attended this hearing and certainly understand that at least in theory, it could be the basis for a constitutional amendment under the Constitution Subcommittee, but the Chairman made every effort to say over and over against wasn't about a constitutional amendment. So I am a little puzzled about why we would devote the time to this particular matter at this time if we are not really talking about a potential constitutional amendment. Third, we are about to have, I think, two hearings, which I certainly will participate in, about the issue of continuity of Government, the possibility of a tragedy involving the loss of executive people or members of Congress and what we do in that situation. That apparently would involve a constitutional amendment and I understand that. I guess I would just say, Mr. Chairman, I hope you will consider some of the bills that are in the Judiciary Committee at this time that relate to the very urgent question of the proper balance between the fight against terrorism and protecting our Constitution and the Bill of Rights when it comes to civil liberties. This is very much at the heart of what this Subcommittee and the full Committee should be considering. I am not alone in this, although I was alone when I voted against the USA PATRIOT Act. But since then, questions have been raised about data-mining, and there are a number of bills in the Committee that relate to data-mining. I and Senator Boxer have introduced bills that relate to Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act which relates to getting records at libraries in a way that has never been permitted before. Finally, even a Republican Senator, Senator Lisa Murkowski, has introduced a bill that would repeal major portions of the USA PATRIOT Act. I would simply request that these matters, which I think are right at the heart of our role, and frankly are quite urgent, receive hearings as well. But I do thank you for your courtesies and for the opportunity to participate. Chairman Cornyn. Thank you, Senator Feingold. Obviously, being in the majority has its prerogatives. Senator Feingold. It certainly does. Chairman Cornyn. And the Chairman gets to set the agenda for the hearings, but certainly I hope you feel completely free to make suggestions. We indeed have worked with you on a number of issues and will continue to do that. I guess this hearing has perhaps demonstrated that there are some who believe that marriage is more important than other issues, or at least no less important than many of the other issues that Congress needs to confront. I must say that perhaps my own experience as attorney general in Texas dealing with child support enforcement and the ravages of family disintegration have just made this an important issue for me, perhaps more than it might be otherwise, the importance of making sure children have the benefit of intact families, a loving mother and father, and that they have a chance to be everything that they are capable of being in life. Unfortunately, I think as Dr. Hammond alluded to earlier, he has seen, and perhaps all of us have seen to a greater or lesser extent what happens because of family disintegration. I have been interested to hear not just about the constitutional arguments about whether DOMA is being threatened or not, but also testimony about the harm to traditional marriage, and indeed the Federal policy embodied in the Defense of Marriage Act, which again passed overwhelmingly by bipartisan majorities. Not everybody voted for it. I understand that some have different views, but indeed it is Federal policy. It is the policy of the U.S. Government. And lest anybody think that this issue was perhaps--I have heard several Senators say why are we wasting our time with the issue of marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act. Well, you had to be blind not to see on the newsstands, on July 7, how Newsweek and other popular magazines raised the issue. Everybody seems to be talking about it, and so why not Congress, particularly when we have important oversight responsibilities when it comes to legislation we pass? It may require a constitutional amendment, it may not. We have heard divergent views here, but certainly this is the one place where that debate is entirely appropriate, if it is appropriate anywhere, because indeed this is the only body that can act to propose a constitutional amendment, if indeed it is the collective will of this institution that that is an important enough issue to gain the super-majority of support required to present it to the States for ratification. So with that, let me just say thanks again to all of our panel members and the members of the Subcommittee. I know some of you at least traveled a great distance to be here, and certainly all of you at inconvenience, and we appreciate your willingness to discuss these important issues before the Subcommittee. Before we adjourn, I would like to again thank Chairman Hatch for scheduling the hearing and Senator Feingold for his usual cooperation and dedication. I find that Senator Feingold and I may not vote alike on many issues, but I find him uniformly easy to deal with and civil in all our discussions, and I appreciate that more than I can say. Again, we will leave the record open until 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 10, for members to submit additional documents into the record or to ask written questions of any witness. With that, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:39 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] [Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] [Additional material is being retained in the Committee files.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.225 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.204 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.226 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.209 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.147 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.148 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.149 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.150 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.151 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.152 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.153 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.154 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.155 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.156 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.157 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.158 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.159 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.160 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.161 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.162 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.163 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.164 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.165 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.166 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.167 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.168 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.169 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.170 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.171 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.172 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.173 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.174 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.175 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.176 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.177 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.138 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.139 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.140 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.141 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.142 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.143 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.144 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.145 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.146 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.184 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.185 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.186 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.187 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.178 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.210 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.129 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.131 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.132 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.134 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.135 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.136 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.137 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.190 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.191 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.192 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.194 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.202 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.203 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.211 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.195 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.196 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.197 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.198 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.199 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.179 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.180 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.181 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.182 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.183 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.205 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.206 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.212 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.213 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.214 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.200 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.201 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.215 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.193 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.217 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.218 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.219 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.220 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.221 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.222 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.223 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2369.224 <all>