Hatch draws the line
 
By Lee Davidson
Deseret Morning News
 
WASHINGTON — Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch told the Senate on Monday that same-sex couples should be able to live together like married people, should have insurance and estate benefits like married people, and should be able to visit and care for each other in hospitals like married people.

But Hatch, R-Utah, said he draws the line at actually declaring them married.

"We ought to be able to solve those inadequacies in the law without changing a 5,000-year-plus definition of marriage," Hatch said during continuing debate on whether to pass a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage.

A vote on that is expected this week, possibly on Wednesday. Both sides doubt the two-thirds majority needed for passage can be achieved. But Republicans say it is an urgent issue this election year and hope it will help energize their conservative base.

The proposed amendment would define marriage as between a man and a woman but would permit states to allow "civil unions" or other arrangements to outline legal rights for gay couples.

Utah voters in November will consider an amendment to the state constitution that would effectively ban gay marriages as well as civil unions.

In a Senate speech Monday, Hatch — who is helping guide the debate for Republicans on the proposed federal amendment — decried problems in laws that sometimes prevent gays from visiting or determining care of partners in hospitals or that prevent them from gaining insurance or estate benefits for partners.

Hatch said he is willing to work with liberals to help prevent discrimination against gays and to expand rights and privileges for them. "But I simply draw the line when it comes to traditional marriage," he said.

"Gay people have a right to be free . . . and to live within relationships within their own homes, but that doesn't give them or anyone else the right to define marriage," he said.

Hatch said traditional marriage and intact families with both a father and a mother make children more secure, happy and successful — and have been encouraged by every civilization.

Hatch also attacked assertions by critics who call for definition of marriage to be left to the states and not to be decided by a federal amendment. Hatch said the best way to involve states would be for Congress to pass the amendment by two-thirds majorities and then send it to state legislatures for ratification.

While three-fourths of the legislatures would need to ratify the amendment for it to be added to the U.S. Constitution, Hatch said he bets all 50 would — and noted that 40 already have passed defense of marriage laws. He said without the amendment, the matter likely will be decided by a handful of judges.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., argued that the federal Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Clinton, is sufficient to ensure that no state need recognize any marriage conducted by another state that would violate its own laws. She said the floor debate was a "waste of time."

"Why are we doing this? The only reason I can come up with is because this is political. It is to divide, to drive a wedge into . . . America," she said.

However, Hatch read quotes from a variety of Democratic leaders — including presidential nominee John Kerry — who said in earlier years that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and would likely be overturned but now say it is all that is needed to protect traditional marriage.

Hatch also made some interesting comments about polygamy on Monday — at a time when polygamy has become part of the current debate, sometimes because opponents worry an amendment might make it more likely or because others use the federal outlawing of polygamy as an example of previous federal action on marriage.

Hatch noted that an ancestor, Jeremiah Hatch, had three wives and 30 children. He said they practiced polygamy "because they believed it to be a spiritual principle." But he said The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints dropped the practice — after Supreme Court decisions upheld federal laws against it.

"I dare say that no one would argue that it should ever come back," Hatch said. "I would never argue that it should ever come back, and I have been offended by some people who say there is an argument for it."
 
deseretnews.com
Originally published Tuesday, July 13, 2004
 
Back