Barbara Boxer is a U.S. senator for California.
By Barbara Boxer
September 9, 1996
Regarding the Defense of Marriage Act S.1740. The bill was
debated and voted on September 10, 1996 and passed the Senate 85 to
14:
When I heard that there was going to be a bill before us called
the Defense of Marriage Act, I thought it was going to be about our
families and how they cope with the problems and stresses that most
married people face.
There are financial insecurities with jobs that are ever
changing, pension insecurities with corporate raids on pensions and
inadequate protections in the law, there is pressure to save enough
to afford a home, there is child abuse going on in families, there
is alcohol and drug abuse, there is spousal abuse, there are
pressures from lack of health care …
I thought it was about, perhaps, flexible working schedules so
there could be more time off for school and doctor appointments. I
thought it maybe addressed the issue of child care. It is called
the Defense of Marriage Act. I thought we were going to deal with
those issues, the stresses on marriage. So I was looking forward to
seeing this legislation.
Then, when I see it, it turns out to be something completely
different. It turns out to be about the U.S. Congress getting into
the issue of marriage …
Many of us in this chamber, myself included, have been married
for many years to the same person, and I truly believe that those
of us who are honest about it would never list the possibility of
gay marriage looming on the horizon as a reason there may be stress
in our marriage.
I believe, if we were honest, we would never cite that as a
reason for a problem of stress in our marriage. In any event, gay
marriage is not looming anywhere.
As I said, not one state is considering it, not one state
legislature. No one has asked to do it. There is no bill
pending.
Yes, the Hawaii courts are looking at the issue, but that final
resolution is years away. There is plenty of time for us to have
this debate. But this Congress cannot wait to have this debate.
The Hawaii case is only now about to go to trial. Legal experts
are convinced that given the stakes, the losing side will surely
appeal the case all the way to the state Supreme Court. We are
talking about a long time here.
I have to give my opinion. It is all about the calendar, that is
what I think. It is an election-year ploy to get Senate and House
members to cast a tough vote. We know it is a tough vote.
But I think, when we do this, we do lose something. I think we
lose our soul.
That is what you lose when you scapegoat a group of people, a
whole group of people who have never even asked us to legalize gay
marriage. Scapegoating is ugly. History has seen it too many times
…
When I went into politics 20 years ago, I told my constituents
then and I tell them now I would not always take the popular side
of an issue if I felt it was meanspirited. For me to do that would
be an insult to them and an insult to me. It would diminish all of
us …
So to me, this vote is not about how senators feel about
marriage, and it certainly is not about defending marriage …
It is a diversion from what we should be doing. For example, we
could be using this time to pass President Clinton’s college tax
breaks to ease the stress on our married couples today.
Now that would be defending marriage.