House Proceeding 07-18-06 on Jul 18th, 2006 :: 2:34:46 to 2:40:10
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:421 Duration: 0:05:24 Discussion

Previous speech:

Next speech:

2:32:29 to 2:34:46( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Sam Graves

2:34:24 to 2:34:46( Edit History Discussion )

Sam Graves: mr. speaker, i now yield five minutes to the distinguished gentleman from massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frank: mr. speaker, first let's

2:34:46 to 2:34:54( Edit History Discussion )

Barney Frank: be very clear, this is not an attempt to restrain judges. there have been two sources of opposition to same-sex marriage . a large number of people who bear -- have been opposed to it because

2:34:46 to 2:40:10( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Barney Frank

2:34:54 to 2:35:05( Edit History Discussion )

Barney Frank: they heard it would lead to social disruption. that's a common theme when we deal with issues involving particular groups in our society against whom there's been discrimination. i invite

2:35:05 to 2:35:16( Edit History Discussion )

Barney Frank: people to go back and read the debates over the american disabilities act, to read what people like pat robertson said. i remember this debate 30 years ago in massachusetts when we were talking

2:35:16 to 2:35:29( Edit History Discussion )

Barney Frank: equal rights amendment. yes, i understand there are people who are opposed to same-sex marriage who do not in any way feel themselves prejudiced against gay men and lesbians but who worry about

2:35:29 to 2:35:42( Edit History Discussion )

Barney Frank: the social consequences. i think here we can point to the facts. we had full civil uneons in -- unions in vermont in 2000. we had same-sex marriage in massachusetts for over two years. in no

2:35:42 to 2:35:57( Edit History Discussion )

Barney Frank: case is there the slightest evidence of social disruption. secondly, i want to talk about the -- let me say, though, that's one wing of the opposition. there's another wing of the opposition, the

2:35:57 to 2:36:08( Edit History Discussion )

Barney Frank: people who are motivated by this, who really frankly dislike the fact that we exist. and disliking the fact we exist individually they are particularly distraught at the notion that we will associate

2:36:08 to 2:36:22( Edit History Discussion )

Barney Frank: with each other in various ways. i want to address now the people who are worried about the social consequences. i invite people to look at the evidence. there were no negatives. i want to go

2:36:22 to 2:36:29( Edit History Discussion )

Barney Frank: back to the judges. because in massachusetts what we have seen is thousands of people have had their lives enriched by being able to love each other in a legally connected way. and it's

2:36:29 to 2:36:45( Edit History Discussion )

Barney Frank: been a good thing for them and zero negative consequences. i believe the political community in massachusetts through the elected legislature, maybe through a referendum i hope it doesn't

2:36:45 to 2:36:57( Edit History Discussion )

Barney Frank: come to that, will support this. be very clear. this amendment says that even if the people of massachusetts after four years of same-sex marriage being in existence vote to ratify it by

2:36:57 to 2:37:07( Edit History Discussion )

Barney Frank: a majority, their vote does not count. this amendment cancels out a referendum. in california where the legislature voted for it, if a governor should be elected in november who would

2:37:07 to 2:37:22( Edit History Discussion )

Barney Frank: sign that bill this amendment says no legislature, no governor we the federal government will decide. it's not about restraining activist judges, it's about overruling any decision. the question

2:37:22 to 2:37:33( Edit History Discussion )

Barney Frank: is why do it? usually if people are going to benefit from something, enjoy it we would let that happen in the absence of harm. clearly that's valued as same-sex marriage. there are men and women,

2:37:33 to 2:37:47( Edit History Discussion )

Barney Frank: millions of us, who for reasons we don't understand, nobody does in my judgment, feel an attraction to people of the same sex. what many of them have said is, you know what, we would like to

2:37:47 to 2:38:00( Edit History Discussion )

Barney Frank: have our love put into a legally connected context. we want to be legally bound to each other as we are emotionally and morally. who is that hurting? well, we are told that it hurts marriage.

2:38:00 to 2:38:15( Edit History Discussion )

Barney Frank: here's where the illogic comes in. people get up and say we have to be against letting two women marry because it's very important that men and women marry. there is no connection. nothing here

2:38:15 to 2:38:26( Edit History Discussion )

Barney Frank: threatens heterosexual marriage. it is just the most illogical argument i ever heard. if two men are attracted to each other and want to live together legally, how does that endanger heterosexual

2:38:26 to 2:38:37( Edit History Discussion )

Barney Frank: marriage? the argument is we must ban same-sex marriage to protect heterosexual marriage, literally makes no sense whatsoever. no one is showing me what the connection is. as a matter of fact,

2:38:37 to 2:38:52( Edit History Discussion )

Barney Frank: of course, people will have an example of people of same-sex living together. if that somehow destabilizes heterosexual marriage that's what happened. if the gentleman would want me to yield

2:38:52 to 2:39:05( Edit History Discussion )

Barney Frank: i would be happy to yield. >> does the gentleman see a society allowing preferential status in some ways to the traditional marriage between tween a man and a woman? because that toe me

2:39:05 to 2:39:17( Edit History Discussion )

Barney Frank: is what it comes down to. mr. frank: i would say to the gentleman this. i think we give preff rex status to people who are married to people who aren't. how does allowing two men to have that

2:39:17 to 2:39:28( Edit History Discussion )

Barney Frank: status interfere with the status? i assume you give a preferential status because you want to give people incentive to marry. let's do that. let's give people incentive to marry. if you are a heterosexual,

2:39:28 to 2:39:40( Edit History Discussion )

Barney Frank: strongly attracted to someone of your own sex and not at all interested in the idea -- strongly attracted to someone in the opposite sex, not attracted to the idea of someone in your same

2:39:40 to 2:39:51( Edit History Discussion )

Barney Frank: sex, how does the existence of that undermine this? i think we should give a preference to heterosexual marriage. we should incentive advise -- incentivize it. how does the existence of

2:39:51 to 2:40:10( Edit History Discussion )

Barney Frank: same-sex marriage discourage or retard heterosexual marriage? would anyone want to answer that question for me? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman

2:40:10 to 2:40:27( Edit History Discussion )

W. Todd Akin: from georgia. mr. kingston: i yield 3 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from missouri. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. aiken: thank you, mr. speaker. the debate

2:40:10 to 2:44:28( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: W. Todd Akin