Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman's time has expired, if the gentleman could finish his question. Mr. NADLER. The real question is, can you show a causal relationship, and you never really showed it. You said, well, it's happening. Mr. KURTZ. Congressman Mr. NADLER. Let me ask you this. The gentlelady then asked, well, in other countries in Europe where there is no gay marriage, the incidence of children being born out-of-wedlock is even higher. That would seem to indicate that whatever is calling it, it's something else. Mr. KURTZ. It's not the incidence isn't higher. I question that. There are high rates of increase at points in other countries. Mr. NADLER. Okay. Mr. KURTZ. In any case, I want to emphasize that all of these other factors which you and everyone else, quite rightly, are happy to agree cause increased out-of-wedlock birth rates-birth control, abortion, women in the workforce, welfare regulations, and the whole series of sorts-the kind of arguments I am making and will be making in the case of the Netherlands in even more detail than in my testimony are in exactly the same order. People showed the correlation and then they tried to show the logical reasons why that correlation should be considered to be causal. I have argued, first of all, that the demographers in the Netherlands have not been able to come up with any alternative explanation. Secondly, I have argued that the gay marriage debate in the Netherlands specifically entailed an argument about whether parenthood was at the core of marriage, and the conclusion that the people of the Netherlands drew was that it was not. And thirdly, demographers and sociologists of the Netherlands agree, no matter what side of the political spectrum they are on, that the out-of-wedlock birth rate in the Netherlands was quite low, artificially low, for the way everything else was there and they all attributed it to a kind of left-over cultural capital, a kind of cultural conservatism there. So if the only cause that was uniformly agreed to was cultural traditionalism, and then you have a decade-long debate where everyone is saying, well, marriage really doesn't have to be all about parenthood, that is no more or less reasonable than the logic behind all of these other causes. So I'm saying, just as there are many other causes, this has now come on line as being yet another cause. Mr. NADLER. But if you show that ten things are happening in Country A and out-of-wedlock births are going up and all the other things you said are happening Mr. KURTZ. Yes. Mr. NADLER.—and 11 things are happening in Country B and exactly the same things are happening Mr. KURTZ. But in the Mr. NADLER.-then that eleventh reason cannot be the major cause. Mr. KURTZ. Well, it's not the major cause- Mr. KURTZ.-in Scandinavia. But in the Netherlands, it is the core cause. In the Netherlands, everyone agrees that none of these other reasons explain that doubling. Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Oliphant is recognized here, and this will be the final Mr. OLIPHANT. Mr. Chairman, just a word. It is always dangerous when lawyers do science, even social science, and what is being asked here is something that is not demanded of Congress in any other area. Mr. Nadler mentioned marijuana. There are lots of statutes in this country against marijuana based on the reasonable supposition that the use of marijuana has consequences that legislatures wish to address. We don't have to wait until there is definitive hard science, causality, with respect to marijuana, and that is the responsibility of a legislative body. What is happening here is we are in danger of taking this issue to a court and a court asks their witness, is there causality, and he says, no, and she strikes it down as unconstitutional, and that is not a position in which the Congress of the United States wants to find itself. You can act based on reasonable supposition, based on what we know about human nature, humankind, and the way we get along in society. Thank you. Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. That concludes the hearing this afternoon. I think the gentleman would like to make a motion. The gentleman is recognized for the purpose Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have two motions, actually. I ask unanimous consent that the American Academy of Pediatrics paper on same-sex parents and adoption be admitted into the record. Mr. CHABOT. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. NADLER. Thank you. May I ask unanimous consent that all Members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and submit additional material for the record. Mr. CHABOT. Without objection, so ordered. I want to thank all four of the panel members for their very helpful testimony this afternoon. It will be taken into consideration as Congress moves forward on this. This is the second of five hearings that we will be having on marriage. Thank you very much. [Whereupon, at 3:56 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE MARILYN MUSGRAVE, A A Citizen's Guide To Protecting Marriage By MITT ROMNEY, governor of Massachusetts No matter how you feel about gay marriage, we should be able to agree that the citizens and their elected representatives must not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage. There are lessons from my state's experience that may help other states preserve the rightful participation of their legislatures and citizens, and avoid the confusion now facing Massachusetts. In a decision handed down in November, a divided Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts detected a previously unrecognized right in our 200-year-old state constitution that permits same-sex couples to wed. I believe that 4-3 decision was wrongly decided and is deeply mistaken. Contrary to the court's opinion, marriage is not "an evolving paradigm." It is deeply rooted in the history, culture and tradition of civil society. It predates our Constitution and our nation by millennia. The institution of marriage was not created by government and it should not be redefined by government. Marriage is a fundamental and universal social institution. It encompasses many obligations and benefits affecting husband and wife, father and mother, son and daughter. It is the foundation of a harmonious family life. It is the basic building block of society: The development, productivity and happiness of new generations are bound inextricably to the family unit. As a result, marriage bears a real relation to the well-being, health and enduring strength of society. Because of marriage's pivotal role, nations and states have chosen to provide unique benefits and incentives to those who choose to be married. These benefits are not given to single citizens, groups of friends, or couples of the same sex. That benefits are given to married couples and not to singles or gay couples has nothing to do with discrimination; it has everything to do with building a stable new generation and nation. It is important that the defense of marriage not become an attack on gays, on singles or on nontraditional couples. We must recognize the right of every citizen to live in the manner of his or her own choosing. In fact, it makes sense to ensure that essential civil rights, protection from violence and appropriate societal benefits are afforded to all citizens, be they single or combined in nontraditional relationships. So, what to do? - have a Act now to protect marriage in your state. Thirty-seven states -- 38 with recent actions by Ohio (63) delineate in the acts themselves the underlying, compelling state purposes. Explore, as well, amendments to the state constitution. In Massachusetts, gay rights advocates in years past successfully thwarted attempts to call a vote on a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. This cannot happen again. It is imperative that we proceed with the legitimate process of amending our state constitution. Beware of activist judges. The Legislature is our lawmaking body, and it is the Legislature's job to pass With the Dred Scott case, decided four years before he took office, President Lincoln faced a judicial decision that he believed was terribly wrong and badly misinterpreted the U.S. Constitution. Here is what Lincoln said: "If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." By its decision, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachuscus circumvented the Legislature and the executive, and assumed to itself the power of legislating. That's wrong. • Act at the federal level. In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. While the law protects states from being forced to recognize gay marriage, activist state courts could reach a different conclusion, just as ours did. It would be disruptive and confusing to have a patchwork of inconsistent marriage laws between states. Amending the Constitution may be the best and most reliable way to prevent such confusion and preserve the institution of marriage. Sometimes we forget that the ultimate power in our democracy is not in the Supreme Court but rather in the voice of the people. And the people have the exclusive right to protect their nation and constitution from judicial overreaching. People of differing views must remember that real lives and real people are deeply affected by this issue: traditional couples, gay couples and children. We should conduct our discourse with decency and respect for those with different opinions. The definition of marriage is not a matter of semantics; it will have lasting impact on society however it is ultimately resolved. This issue was seized by a one-vote majority of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. We must now act to preserve the voice of the people and the representatives they elect. For Immediate Release THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT February 24, 2004 THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. The Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342 to 67, and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 14. Those congressional votes and the passage of similar defensive marriage laws in 38 states express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage. In In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year. In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California family code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California. A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender. And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty. After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity. On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country. The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given |