Judge Robert Bork, Rep. Barney Frank Debate Marriage Amendment In Congressional Hearing
Feature Story by Rob Randhava - 5/25/2004
A U.S. House of Representatives panel heard arguments May 13 on a proposed amendment to the Constitution that would federally prohibit same-sex marriages. The hearing came several days before Massachusetts became the first state to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.Retired judge Robert Bork, a well-known archconservative whose controversial nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court was rejected by the Senate in 1987, was one of three witnesses who spoke in favor of the amendment before the House Constitution Subcommittee. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., argued against the proposal, which also is strongly opposed by leading civil rights organizations including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
Also testifying were Rep. Carolyn Musgrave, R-Colo., the sponsor of the amendment, and Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative legal organization founded by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson.
In his testimony, Bork claimed that the legalization of same-sex marriages in the Netherlands and Sweden has caused a reduction in heterosexual marriage rates and an increase in out-of-wedlock childbirths, and suggested that the same would occur in the United States. Bork also predicted that same-sex marriage would be allowed nationwide unless the amendment was adopted – which he argued was needed to prevent state and federal judges from allowing gay marriage in spite of public opposition. Yet Bork also urged that the language of the amendment, which he drafted, be revised to ensure that states could still enact civil unions laws.
Rep. Frank opened his statement by pointing out that states already have the ability to bar same-sex marriages, and that even Massachusetts was in the process of amending its constitution to prohibit it. He added that the amendment would not only prevent judges from permitting same-sex marriages, but also would prevent state legislatures or even voters from allowing them.
Frank dismissed the predictions made by many supporters of the amendment that society would be harmed by same-sex marriages.
"Every time we deal with antidiscrimination measures," he said, "we hear predictions that chaos will ensue. None of those are ever true."
Frank added that identical arguments were made against civil unions when they were enacted in Vermont four years ago. Today, he noted, civil unions are considered "boring" in terms of their societal impact. Frank predicted that many couples would be married in Massachusetts, and that "most of them will live happily ever after, some of them won't, and that'll be it."
At the end of the hearing, Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., pointed to the text of a resolution adopted earlier that morning by the House that honored the anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, in an effort to show that "not all of us are offended by judge-made law, nor are we required to have a cost-benefit analysis on civil rights."
