Metavid

Video archive of the US Congress

House Proceeding 07-18-06 on Jul 18th, 2006 :: 1:42:14 to 1:49:08
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:875 Duration: 0:06:54 Discussion

Previous speech: Next speech:

Jack Kingston

1:36:19 to 1:42:14( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Jack Kingston

Jack Kingston

1:42:05 to 1:42:14( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Kingston: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of marriage -- excuse me, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro

Jerrold Nadler

1:42:14 to 1:42:27( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of marriage, in support of families and in support of national unity. i rise against this

Jerrold Nadler

1:42:27 to 1:42:40( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: proposed constitutional amendment, against the drumbeat of election-year demok demagoguery. this amendment does not belong in our constitution. it is unworthy of our great nation. the senate couldn't muster

Jerrold Nadler

1:42:40 to 1:42:52( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: a simple majority to consider it much less the reck zit 2/3 to adopt it. we've amended the constitution only 27 times in our history. the first 10 of them the bill of rights and 1791.

Jerrold Nadler

1:42:52 to 1:43:03( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: constitutional amendments have always between used to enhance and expand the rights of citizens, not to restrict them. the bill of rights which was added in 1791 protected freedom of speech,

Jerrold Nadler

1:43:03 to 1:43:13( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, the right to be secure in our homes. 10 amendments protecting individual rights and liberties. we amended the constitution to permanently wipe away

Jerrold Nadler

1:43:13 to 1:43:27( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: the stain of slavery, to expand the right to vote, to expand the rights of citizenship and to allow for the direct election of senators. now we are being asked to amend the constitution again

Jerrold Nadler

1:43:27 to 1:43:39( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: to single out a single group and to say to them for all time you cannot even attempt to win the right to marry. this amendment was introduced last month. we have never held hearings on it.

Jerrold Nadler

1:43:39 to 1:43:52( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: the judiciary committee has never considered it. never. don't let anyone tell you that the judiciary committee considered it in 2003. we didn't. that was a different amendment we considered.

Jerrold Nadler

1:43:52 to 1:44:03( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: but what's a constitution between friends when there is an election coming up? from what precisely would this amendment protect marriage? from divorce? from adultery? no. evidently the threat to marriage

Jerrold Nadler

1:44:03 to 1:44:17( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: is the fact that there are millions of people in this country who very much believe in marriage, who very much want to marry, but who are not permitted to marry. this amendment, contrary to

Jerrold Nadler

1:44:17 to 1:44:29( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: what we've heard, doesn't block activist courts from allowing people of the same sex to marry. it would also prevent from fellow citizens from deciding democratically to permit them to do so

Jerrold Nadler

1:44:29 to 1:44:41( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: through the democratic process or through a referendum of the people. and why is it requisite on congress to tell any state that the people of that state may not make up their minds for

Jerrold Nadler

1:44:41 to 1:44:54( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: themselves on this question? why is it necessary for the federal government to amend our constitution to say to massachusetts which is going to held a referendum on this subject in 2008, you

Jerrold Nadler

1:44:54 to 1:45:05( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: may not do so because we have decided this for you? mr. speaker, i've been searching in vain for some indication of what might happen to my marriage or to the marriage of anyone in this room

Jerrold Nadler

1:45:05 to 1:45:18( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: if loving couples, including couples with custody of children, are permitted to enjoy the blessings of matrimony. if there's a member of this house who believes that his or her own marriage

Jerrold Nadler

1:45:18 to 1:45:30( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: would be destroyed by someone else's same-sex marriage somewhere in america, i'd welcome an explanation of what he or she thinks would happen to his or her marriage and why. are there any takers?

Jerrold Nadler

1:45:30 to 1:45:42( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: anyone here who wants to get up and say why they believe their marriage would be threatened if two other people are permitted to marry? the overheated rhetoric -- i didn't think so. the

Jerrold Nadler

1:45:42 to 1:45:51( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: overheated rhetoric we've been hearing is reminiscent of the bellicose fear mongering that followed the supreme court's decision almost 40 years ago in loving versus virginia, which struck

Jerrold Nadler

1:45:51 to 1:46:01( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: down state prohibitions against interracial marriage. the supreme court had overstepped its authority, we were told. the supreme court had overridden the democratic will of the majority. the

Jerrold Nadler

1:46:01 to 1:46:14( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: supreme court had signed a death warrant for all that is good and pure in this nation. fortunately, we survived as a nation, and we are better for it. we are better for that supreme court

Jerrold Nadler

1:46:14 to 1:46:29( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: decision. i believe firmly that in the not too distant future people will look back on these debates with the same incredulity with which we view the segregationist debates of years past.

Jerrold Nadler

1:46:29 to 1:46:45( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: and i think the public opinion polls are indicative. opposition to gay marriage is a direct function of age. the older people are the more people are set in their ways of the old discriminatory

Jerrold Nadler

1:46:45 to 1:46:55( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: practices, if you take a poll of people under 35 years old, 75% are in favor of gay marriage. and that's a trend for the future because democrat grasks is destiny. mr. speaker, gay marriage

Jerrold Nadler

1:46:55 to 1:47:06( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: does more than it purports to do. it not only allows people of the same gender to marry even if the law was approved by the legislature or referendum, it would preclude any state from

Jerrold Nadler

1:47:06 to 1:47:18( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: extending medical visitation privileges or inheritance rights, for example, to same sex couples. that's what the incidence thereof in the amendment means. proponents of this amendment have already

Jerrold Nadler

1:47:18 to 1:47:28( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: tried to use a similar prohibition against same-sex marriage to attack in court domestic partner benefits. so when they tell you this is only about marriage, don't believe it. no court

Jerrold Nadler

1:47:28 to 1:47:40( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: has required that a marriage in one state be recognized in another, so don't believe anyone who tells you that this amendment is meant to protect your own state laws. the defense of marriage act,

Jerrold Nadler

1:47:40 to 1:47:52( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: which passed this congress and which the president signed in 2006, says no state can impose its marriage laws on another. there are many loving families, mr. speaker, who deserve the

Jerrold Nadler

1:47:52 to 1:48:02( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: benefits and protections of the law. they don't live just in new york or san francisco or boston, they live in every one of the 435 congressional districts in this gait. they're not from outer

Jerrold Nadler

1:48:02 to 1:48:14( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: space, they're not a public menace, and they do not threaten anyone. they're our neighbors, our co-workers, our friends, our siblings, our parents, and our children. they deserve to

Jerrold Nadler

1:48:14 to 1:48:25( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: be treated fairly. they deserve the rights, the same rights as any other family. i regret that this house is being so demeaned by this debate. it saddens me that this great institution would

Jerrold Nadler

1:48:25 to 1:48:37( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: sink to these depths to have what we've already heard on this floor, what we will hear, which amounts to pure bigotry against a minority population, even on the eve of an election. we know

Jerrold Nadler

1:48:37 to 1:48:44( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: this amendment is not going anywhere. we know this is merely a political exercise. shame on this house for playing politics with bigottory. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time

Jerrold Nadler

1:48:44 to 1:48:56( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: -- with bigotry. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston:

Jerrold Nadler

1:48:56 to 1:49:08( Edit History Discussion )

Jerrold Nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. and i wanted to yield to the primary author of h.res. $8 but before doing so i wanted to point out from my friend from new york that 16 states have recently passed

Jack Kingston

1:49:08 to 1:49:17( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Kingston: marriage protection amendments, and on an average, they've passed by 71.5%. so with that, let me yield to the gentlewoman from colorado, mrs. musgrave. the speaker pro tempore: how much time does the

Personal tools

MetaVid is a non-profit project of UC Santa Cruz and the Sunlight Foundation. Learn more About MetaVid

The C-SPAN logo and other servicemarks that may be found in video content are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Metavid