House Proceeding 07-18-06 on Jul 18th, 2006 :: 3:04:22 to 3:24:22
Total video length: 3 hours 31 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Download OptionsEmbed Video

Views:832 Duration: 0:20:00 Discussion

Previous speech:

Next speech:

3:00:05 to 3:04:22( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Bob Beauprez

3:04:11 to 3:04:22( Edit History Discussion )

Bob Beauprez: the adoption of this amendment. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield one minute to the distinguished gentlelady from

3:04:22 to 3:04:31( Edit History Discussion )

Janice D. Schakowsky: illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for one minute. ms. schakowsky: i rise today in strong opposition to the constitutional amendment to prohibit

3:04:22 to 3:06:12( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Janice D. Schakowsky

3:04:31 to 3:04:43( Edit History Discussion )

Janice D. Schakowsky: same-sex marriage. if this amendment were to pass, it would mark the first time in history that the constitution has been amended to include discrimination. i believe in marriage. as a stabilizing

3:04:43 to 3:04:56( Edit History Discussion )

Janice D. Schakowsky: force in our society, a nurturing environment for children, as a public expression of the most profound love and devotion, of a commitment between two people to take responsibility for one

3:04:56 to 3:05:06( Edit History Discussion )

Janice D. Schakowsky: another in a legal and personal sense. in sickness and in health. the vast majority of marriages are and of course always will be between one man and one woman. but the same virtues of couplehood

3:05:06 to 3:05:16( Edit History Discussion )

Janice D. Schakowsky: apply to any loving adult. surely the 27-year relationship of my dear friends michael and roger, does not threaten my marriage in any way. the loving family that ann and jackie expanded when

3:05:16 to 3:05:31( Edit History Discussion )

Janice D. Schakowsky: they adopted david, giving him two adoring parents is a good thing regardless of what anyone may say to the contrary though they are free to say it. nothing in the constitution should be established

3:05:31 to 3:05:43( Edit History Discussion )

Janice D. Schakowsky: to exclude them from the rights that they deserve. there are so many pressing issues right now that are working that undermine families . same-sex couples embrace the positive values of families.

3:05:43 to 3:05:58( Edit History Discussion )

Janice D. Schakowsky: let's spend our limited time here as lawmakers helping all american families and not discriminating against any. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: who seeks time? the gentleman from georgia. mr.

3:05:58 to 3:06:12( Edit History Discussion )

Janice D. Schakowsky: kingston: mr. speaker, i would point out that if this amendment does in fact make marriage -- discriminate or -- and the opponents want to make marriage more inclusive, then it is not also true

3:06:12 to 3:06:24( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Kingston: we should and will in turn broaden the definition of marriage so that as mr. forbes from virginia pointed out, it's not merely a matter of one same-sex couple but why are we tripping over

3:06:24 to 3:06:35( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Kingston: the word couple? why can't marriage be three people or four people? why can't it be a combination if that's what we are talking about? i want to point that out to my friends this doesn't just end

3:06:35 to 3:06:45( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Kingston: with being one definition or the other. if you don't want to go with this definition. with that i yield two minutes to the the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx. the speaker pro tempore:

3:06:45 to 3:06:56( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Kingston: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to say amen to everything my colleagues who have just spoken before me, mr. forbes and

3:06:56 to 3:07:09( Edit History Discussion )

Virginia Foxx: mr. beauprez, they make very eloquent arguments. mr. speaker, if members of the house vote as their states have voted on this amendment, this amendment will pass. 45 states have defined marriage

3:06:56 to 3:08:43( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Virginia Foxx

3:07:09 to 3:07:19( Edit History Discussion )

Virginia Foxx: as the union of a man and a woman. as a sociologist i taught and i believe that marriage is the foundational institution of every culture. it is under attack by the courts. it needs to be defended

3:07:19 to 3:07:29( Edit History Discussion )

Virginia Foxx: in this way by defining it as the union of a man and a woman. if it is going to be defined otherwise, it must be done by the legislatures and not by the courts. today we are going to vote

3:07:29 to 3:07:41( Edit History Discussion )

Virginia Foxx: on a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. this is about who is going to determine the definition whether it is the courts or the legislative bodies.

3:07:41 to 3:07:55( Edit History Discussion )

Virginia Foxx: the amendment is about how we are going to raise the next generation. how are they going to be raised? it's a fundamental issue for our families and our future. it is an issue for the people. it

3:07:55 to 3:08:05( Edit History Discussion )

Virginia Foxx: is not an issue the courts ought to resolve. we are making progress in america on defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman and will not stop until it is defined and protected as that

3:08:05 to 3:08:15( Edit History Discussion )

Virginia Foxx: union. marriage is about our future. i continue to be struck by the opponents of this amendment who say it's an effort to promote discrimination. the amendment is about promoting our future,

3:08:15 to 3:08:24( Edit History Discussion )

Virginia Foxx: our families, how we raise the next generation, and about allowing a definition of marriage that is as old as the creation of human beings. mr. speaker, i ask all my colleagues to support

3:08:24 to 3:08:31( Edit History Discussion )

Virginia Foxx: the marriage protection amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield

3:08:31 to 3:08:43( Edit History Discussion )

Virginia Foxx: one minute toe the distinguished gentlelady from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank

3:08:43 to 3:08:55( Edit History Discussion )

Barbara Lee: the gentleman for yielding and his leadership. of course i stand in strong opposition to h.j.res. 88. this amendment seeks to enshrine and it does seek to enshrine discrimination into our constitution.

3:08:43 to 3:10:17( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Barbara Lee

3:08:55 to 3:09:05( Edit History Discussion )

Barbara Lee: as a african-american woman and as a person of faith there is no way that i can support discriminating against anybody. the history of our nation has been a long process of bringing people

3:09:05 to 3:09:16( Edit History Discussion )

Barbara Lee: of different backgrounds together. this amendment would take everything that this nation stands for as a beacon of hope, a land of opportunity, and a tolerant democratic society and turn

3:09:16 to 3:09:26( Edit History Discussion )

Barbara Lee: it all on its head. governments should not be in the business of discriminating against its people. pure and simple. governments should not get into the personal lives of individuals. we must

3:09:26 to 3:09:37( Edit History Discussion )

Barbara Lee: reject this and it is a hateful and discriminatory amendment. it takes an extraordinary step that previous amendments have not taken. it bars states from granting pretty much any legal

3:09:37 to 3:09:48( Edit History Discussion )

Barbara Lee: partnership such as civil unions or domestic partnerships. congress is supposed to work to promote a better life for all americans. that means improving our nation's education system, working

3:09:48 to 3:10:02( Edit History Discussion )

Barbara Lee: to provide health care for the 47 million uninsured, ensuring that people have a roof over their heads. we must see this amendment for what it is. it's clearly election year pandering. it's

3:10:02 to 3:10:17( Edit History Discussion )

Barbara Lee: an attempt to create a diversion from the real issues that this congress should be dealing with. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: i would invite the previous

3:10:17 to 3:10:29( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Kingston: speaker, my friend, to watch one of the 527 ads being run against mrs. musgrave if she wants to see hateful speech and one of the most hideous hateful acts i have witnessed on any member of

3:10:29 to 3:10:37( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Kingston: congress. i would invite anybody who is talking about hate to watch the ads that are run against our colleague for sponsorship of this amendment. with that, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes

3:10:37 to 3:10:58( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Kingston: to the gentleman from south carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for two minutes. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i'll be voting for the

3:10:58 to 3:11:13( Edit History Discussion )

Bob Inglis: amendment. i've got questions, though. why now? why this amendment? why now? no court has ordered the state of south carolina to recognize a massachusetts marriage. in fact, it's all within any given

3:10:58 to 3:13:25( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Bob Inglis

3:11:13 to 3:11:25( Edit History Discussion )

Bob Inglis: state. if a court had ordered south carolina to recognize a massachusetts marriage, this amendment would not be failing today on the house floor as we all know it will. it would be passing with a significant

3:11:25 to 3:11:39( Edit History Discussion )

Bob Inglis: margin. i also have a question about why this amendment, why not a federalism amendment? why not an amendment that honors the 10th amendment to the constitution that says that all powers

3:11:39 to 3:11:53( Edit History Discussion )

Bob Inglis: not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states? as it is this amendment is not what it should be. it should be a federalism amendment. it should be an amendment that says,

3:11:53 to 3:12:08( Edit History Discussion )

Bob Inglis: states have the prerogative to define marriage within their boundaries. as it is, we are providing a federal definition of marriage or attempting to do so in this amendment that will fail. i think

3:12:08 to 3:12:23( Edit History Discussion )

Bob Inglis: it's also important to ask why this amendment and to point out that no one should be under the misimpression that we are here mandating, let's say, a biblical definition of marriage. if

3:12:23 to 3:12:38( Edit History Discussion )

Bob Inglis: we were, we would be directing the states only to grant marriage -- to grant divorces on the biblical basis of infidelity. but nobody's proposing such an amendment. why? because we have avoided

3:12:38 to 3:12:54( Edit History Discussion )

Bob Inglis: the dangers of a theocracy. i agree with what my colleague from missouri said earlier, mr. cleveland, this is the church's business. this is the synagogue's business. this is the business of mosque.

3:12:54 to 3:13:07( Edit History Discussion )

Bob Inglis: to figure out what is marriage within their definition. now, when a state gets involved, it's really just about children and the result of divorce. why now? why this amendment? but yet the question

3:13:07 to 3:13:25( Edit History Discussion )

Bob Inglis: is brought up so we vote for it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i now yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from texas. mr. kingston could

3:13:25 to 3:13:42( Edit History Discussion )

Sheila Jackson-Lee: i check on the time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia has 5 1/4. new york has seven minutes. mr. kingston: may i inquire of my friend how many more speakers you have? mr.

3:13:25 to 3:16:24( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Sheila Jackson-Lee

3:13:42 to 3:13:55( Edit History Discussion )

Sheila Jackson-Lee: nadler: unless -- we have one more here whom i hadn't noticed. then i'll close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields two minutes to the gentlelady from new york. ms. jackson lee:

3:13:55 to 3:14:07( Edit History Discussion )

Sheila Jackson-Lee: i ask- the speaker pro tempore: big difference between texas and new york. ms. jackson lee: thank you, mr. speaker. albeit we love all of america. let me say to my colleague on the other

3:14:07 to 3:14:16( Edit History Discussion )

Sheila Jackson-Lee: side of the aisle, i do believe in the separation of church and state as one asks the question that we should be talking about what we believe in. i believe in the 10th amendment. and its

3:14:16 to 3:14:28( Edit History Discussion )

Sheila Jackson-Lee: constitutional premise that the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution are prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respect live --ively -- respectively

3:14:28 to 3:14:40( Edit History Discussion )

Sheila Jackson-Lee: or to the people. my good friend who just spoke from south carolina made a very valid point, that we are now tampering with constitutional privileges that we have yielded to the states. and more importantly,

3:14:40 to 3:14:54( Edit History Discussion )

Sheila Jackson-Lee: the bill of rights and constitution have made it very clear, that it is a document of enhancement, of affirmation of rights. and my concern is that we're now standing on the floor of this

3:14:54 to 3:15:09( Edit History Discussion )

Sheila Jackson-Lee: sacred body denying rights to human beings and americans. we are denying the rights, the privacy rights, civil liberties rights. we're even going so far as to deny visitation rights at hospitals

3:15:09 to 3:15:24( Edit History Discussion )

Sheila Jackson-Lee: and the ability to mourn your loved one. might i say that this past week a dear, beloved friend of mine mourned his partner, mourned his partner and all of the community came to acknowledge

3:15:24 to 3:15:40( Edit History Discussion )

Sheila Jackson-Lee: the leadership of his partner. is his grief or his loss to be degraded on this floor, to be denied? to ask the question whether or not it was a special and sacred relationship? and so i ask

3:15:40 to 3:15:48( Edit History Discussion )

Sheila Jackson-Lee: my colleagues, as we corrected the enslavement of those of us who came here first in the bottle of the belly of a slave boat with the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment, affirmation of rights,

3:15:48 to 3:16:03( Edit History Discussion )

Sheila Jackson-Lee: not denying rights, i will not stand here on the floor today and accept the responsibility of denying rights. and might i say the senate, the other body, has already spoken. they could

3:16:03 to 3:16:16( Edit History Discussion )

Sheila Jackson-Lee: not get a simple majority. why? it is wrong to deny rights to americans. i will not allow the flag to be desecrated by this amendment. defeat this constitutional offering and bring back freedom to

3:16:16 to 3:16:24( Edit History Discussion )

Sheila Jackson-Lee: america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: mr. speaker, i wanted to yield a quick one minute to the gentleman from california to respond

3:16:24 to 3:16:35( Edit History Discussion )

Daniel E. Lungren: for a moment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. lungren: there's a mistake on this floor when people talk about this being a violation of

3:16:24 to 3:17:50( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Daniel E. Lungren

3:16:35 to 3:16:47( Edit History Discussion )

Daniel E. Lungren: federalism. federalism, properly understood, is a check on the federal power of the state government and vice versa. the reason it doesn't apply here is marriage and the family is likewise an

3:16:47 to 3:16:58( Edit History Discussion )

Daniel E. Lungren: institution, although a private one, which provides a count veiling source of power, vis-a-vis the government. there are a lot of arguments on this floor. it's too bad we don't have more time

3:16:58 to 3:17:07( Edit History Discussion )

Daniel E. Lungren: to talk about it. the simple question is are we going to fundamentally change the definition of marriage understood in this country since its founding and allow a preferential status for marriage

3:17:07 to 3:17:18( Edit History Discussion )

Daniel E. Lungren: properly understood? that's what we're really talking about. it's not discrimination. it's the question of whether you allow the traditional form of marriage to be given preferential status.

3:17:18 to 3:17:27( Edit History Discussion )

Daniel E. Lungren: those that argue against this amendment don't want that to be the case anymore. they're the ones that are overturning history and overturning the way things have been done for several hundred

3:17:27 to 3:17:40( Edit History Discussion )

Daniel E. Lungren: years in this country and thousands of years in this culture. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, federalism is the division of power between the

3:17:40 to 3:17:50( Edit History Discussion )

Daniel E. Lungren: federal government and the states. family law, marriage, divorce has always been a matter for the states. this amendment attempts to seize it for the federal government. that's a major change

3:17:50 to 3:17:58( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: in federalism, whatever the gentleman from california may say. it's most certainly an issue of federalism because the federal government has never before gotten into the issue of marriage

3:17:58 to 3:18:08( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: or divorce or anything, it's always been left to the states until this amendment. mr. speaker, i now yield 1 1/2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new york. the speaker pro tempore:

3:18:08 to 3:18:22( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: the gentleman from new york is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. israel: i thank my friend from new york. mr. speaker, i rise to oppose this resolution. mr. speaker, this is not the grave

3:18:22 to 3:18:35( Edit History Discussion )

Steve Israel: crisis that a constitutional amendment demands. i'll tell you what the grave crises are that we should be spending our time on. north korea tested a ballistic missile last week. we are

3:18:22 to 3:20:10( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Steve Israel

3:18:35 to 3:18:48( Edit History Discussion )

Steve Israel: still waiting for a strategy for success in iraq. gas prices are skyrocketing. war is erupting in the middle east. and congress wants the american people to believe that same-sex marriages are

3:18:48 to 3:19:01( Edit History Discussion )

Steve Israel: the gravest threat to their security. we need to be focusing on issues of true security and safety for the american people and not on rhetorical device that's have no substantive meaning

3:19:01 to 3:19:12( Edit History Discussion )

Steve Israel: because the other body already defeated it. mr. speaker, i spent all morning this morning at the national defense university participating in a military exercise with respect to iran's development

3:19:12 to 3:19:23( Edit History Discussion )

Steve Israel: of nuclear weapons. i spent my time trying to figure out how we're going to protect the american people from that threat, and then i come to the floor of the house and we waste time debating

3:19:23 to 3:19:33( Edit History Discussion )

Steve Israel: how are we going to protect the american people from same-sex marriages when we can't even amend the constitution in this session of congress. if we spent more time trying to hunt down

3:19:33 to 3:19:43( Edit History Discussion )

Steve Israel: osama bin laden and less time trying to hunt down people in marriages that we find objectionable, we would all be safer. now, i have a deep respect for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle

3:19:43 to 3:19:58( Edit History Discussion )

Steve Israel: and on the other side of this issue, but i would suggest that the american people want us focused on real security and real safety. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro

3:19:58 to 3:20:10( Edit History Discussion )

Steve Israel: tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: mr. speaker, may i ask the gentleman from new york, i have one more speaker and then we're ready to close, how -- mr. nadler: -- mr. nadler:

3:20:10 to 3:20:22( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: i'm sorry? mr. kingston: i have one more speaker and then i'm ready to close, if you are. mr. nadler: ok. i'd ask we recognize ms. jackson lee for a unanimous consent request and then you have

3:20:22 to 3:20:32( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: your one speaker, i'll close for our side, you close for yours. mr. kingston: with that i yield -- mr. nadler: let me ask how much time we have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from

3:20:32 to 3:20:41( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: new york has three minutes. mr. nadler: how much? the speaker pro tempore: three. three. the gentleman from georgia, 4 1/4. mr. kingston: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes -- mr. nadler:

3:20:41 to 3:20:51( Edit History Discussion )

Sheila Jackson-Lee: mr. speaker, i yield to -- the speaker pro tempore: everyday texas is recognized for unanimous consent request. ms. jackson lee: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that clergy

3:20:51 to 3:21:05( Edit History Discussion )

Sheila Jackson-Lee: for fairness religious leaders opposed to the federal marriage amendment that shows a standing of the religious community of america be submitted into the record. it's entitled we the people,

3:21:05 to 3:21:14( Edit History Discussion )

Sheila Jackson-Lee: and there are over 50 to 100 pages of signatures. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: mr. speaker, i also ask unanimous consent

3:21:14 to 3:21:22( Edit History Discussion )

Sheila Jackson-Lee: because we have groups also who want to be in support of this. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kingston: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida. the speaker pro tempore:

3:21:22 to 3:21:35( Edit History Discussion )

Dave Weldon: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. weldon: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of the marriage protection amendment. and i want to thank congresswoman musgrave for her

3:21:22 to 3:23:45( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Dave Weldon

3:21:35 to 3:21:50( Edit History Discussion )

Dave Weldon: bravery and leadership on this critical issue. marriage is an honored institution in this country and voters have consistently voiced their support for protecting traditional marriage. many

3:21:50 to 3:22:04( Edit History Discussion )

Dave Weldon: state legislatures have already taken action and laws have been passed to establish marriage as the union of one man and one woman. unfortunately, we have seen activist courts taking the

3:22:04 to 3:22:17( Edit History Discussion )

Dave Weldon: legislative power away from elected officials and reversing important laws and, in particular, marriage protections. recent court decisions are threatening traditional marriage, and i might add

3:22:17 to 3:22:33( Edit History Discussion )

Dave Weldon: that there are groups in this country who have made that their agenda. they want to redefine the institution of marriage in the united states and they don't want to do it through the political

3:22:33 to 3:22:45( Edit History Discussion )

Dave Weldon: process, but they want to do it through the courts. and that is why we're here today having this debate. our goal is to preserve the most basic fundamental unit of our society, of every society

3:22:45 to 3:23:00( Edit History Discussion )

Dave Weldon: on the planet, the family. it has been consistently proven that children benefit the most from being raised in a home with a father and a mother present. some people argue that traditional

3:23:00 to 3:23:13( Edit History Discussion )

Dave Weldon: marriages and families are failing anyway and they are not worth protecting. i say if children are benefiting from traditional families, we always must fight, it is always worth protecting.

3:23:13 to 3:23:24( Edit History Discussion )

Dave Weldon: this is why i stand today urging my colleagues to support this important amendment. this issue will not go away, and this is about protecting the clergy so that they can marry men and women

3:23:24 to 3:23:34( Edit History Discussion )

Dave Weldon: and not be forced by courts to do something other than what they want to do. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler:

3:23:34 to 3:23:45( Edit History Discussion )

Dave Weldon: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, there have been a number of points made in this

3:23:45 to 3:23:55( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: debate today with doubtful validity. we're told we should pass this amendment to protect marriage, but against what threat? if henry and steve want to get married, maybe that's a good

3:23:45 to 3:27:33( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Jerrold Nadler

3:23:55 to 3:24:07( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: idea, maybe it's a bad idea, but it doesn't threaten the marriage of anyone else, of any man or whom would want to get married, doesn't affect them in any way. divorce is a threat. some of our

3:24:07 to 3:24:23( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: other threats are threats, but gay marriage is not a threat to a straight marriage. we are told we have to protect children, but children are already in the custody of straight people, of