Sign Up for My E-Newsletter

Send E-Mail to Congressman Stupak

Current Issues

Services For You

Michigan Links

Congressional Leadership

Privacy Policy

Seal of the State of Michigan

Federal Marriage

During the 108th Congress, the U.S. House of Representatives failed to pass H.J.Res. 106, a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, by a vote of 227-186. Due to the fact that this legislation would have amended the U.S. Constitution, its passage would have required a two-thirds majority vote.

I voted against H.J.Res. 106. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. In 1996, I voted for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that was signed into law by President Clinton. While the federal government is not involved in issuing marriage licenses—that is left up to the states and local jurisdictions—I support the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Amending the U.S. Constitution is a very serious matter. I and many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, opposed the constitutional amendment because it codifies discrimination against one class of Americans, and it would deny the states the right to decide this issue. In fact, Michigan voters approved a ballot proposal to ban same-sex marriage at the state level in November 2004.

Our Constitution is the foundation and symbol of democracy and freedom. It should not be used as a tool to discriminate against any American. Vice President Dick Cheney opposed this constitutional amendment. President Bush also argued during the last campaign that this issue was a matter that should be left up to the states. Even the staunch conservative former Republican Congressman Bob Barr, the author of the 1996 DOMA, said that he opposed a Constitutional Amendment on the issue. If we open the Constitution to discriminating against people because of their orientation, what is next? Will there be attempts to place limits on people for such issues as divorce, religious activities, inter-racial marriage, etc.?

Some have argued that this amendment is needed to protect religious freedom. I would argue the opposite. The Constitution already protects churches and places of worship and their practices. No church can be forced to marry or give its blessing to any couple whether they are gay or straight. The First Amendment guarantees that religious communities will always be able to make their own decisions about how they sanction marriage.

The U.S. Senate has also spoken on this issue. They didn’t even have enough votes to bring the proposed Constitutional Amendment to the Senate floor for an up or down vote during the 108th Congress. The U.S. House vote fell far short of the two-thirds necessary to approve this constitutional amendment. Representation Dan Lungren of California reintroduced the proposed Constitutional Amendment during the 109th Congress, on March 17, 2005. The bill was referred to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, where no further action has been taken.

The amendment that was proposed during the last Congress was nothing more than a blatant political attempt to further divide this country during an election year. I voted against the amendment then, and I cannot support it when it is reintroduced for the 109th Congress.