AMY GOODMAN: I’m Amy Goodman. You’re listening to Democracy Now! The Exception to the Rulers. Three Republican lawmakers have introduced a bill in the House that would keep same-sex marriage from becoming legal under federal law. Reverend Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition helped draft the law, which would leave the issue of recognizing gay marriage up to individual states. Hawaii may become the first state to legalize same-sex marriages, and the legislators want to make sure that no other states nor the federal government would be forced to recognize those marriages. In anticipation of the Hawaii case going to the U.S. Supreme Court, 33 states have taken up bills attacking same-sex unions.

We’re first going to go to Congressman Bob Barr of Georgia, who held a news conference on the Hill yesterday. This is him explaining what the new bill, the Defense of Marriage Act, would and wouldn’t do.

REP. BOB BARR: It does not outlaw same-sex marriages. It does not outlaw anything. What it does do, it stands up for states’ rights. It very establishes — very clearly establishes the right of every state of our union to make this particular decision on its own, by its citizens, in its courts, through its legislative bodies. And it protects it in such a way by saying that no state of the union shall be forced to accept another state’s or the courts of another state’s definition of marriage as being a homosexual marriage or something other than a traditional, historically recognized, well-founded-in-law definition of marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman.

We think that the concept of states’ rights is fundamentally important not only to our system of government, but also to the view certainly of all of us here today, as well as the views generically and generally of this particular Congress of the United States of America, that is the 104th Congress. We believe in states’ rights. And this legislation is very important in that it steps forward and says very clearly that states do have rights, and the citizens of one state who have made a decision, as the overwhelming majority of our citizens believe, to stand up and say that marriage means a union between a man and a woman shall not have that decision, that feeling, that philosophy overridden by the courts of another state that may have a different view, different even from their citizens, and say, “OK, we are going to use the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution as a club to force you to recognize something that you and your courts and your legislative bodies and your citizens do not want to recognize.” We think that’s important. And I think that, clearly, the overwhelming majority of citizens will believe — will believe that it is just as important, and will agree with us.

The second thing that this legislation does is it establishes that for purposes of federal laws, for purposes of federal laws only, the federal government will recognize, through its laws and regulations, that marriage does in fact mean — we’re reaffirming that it means the union between one man and one woman. And clearly, it is within the jurisdiction of the Congress of the United States to make those decisions, how and — how federal laws are applied and the definitions that are used in the application of federal law, such as our tax laws, our immigration laws, our welfare laws and so on and so forth. So, those are the two very limited, but very important purposes, both of which are clearly within the jurisdiction of the Congress of the United States.

AMY GOODMAN: And that is Congressman Bob Barr. He’s a Republican of Georgia. He was standing with Congressman Steve Largent, Republican of Oklahoma, and Congressman James Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin, yesterday on the Hill, when they announced their introduction of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Joining us now to talk about it and the whole issue and the movement is Nancy Buermeyer. She is senior policy advocate for the Human Rights Campaign, the largest lesbian and gay organization in the United States.

Nancy, what is your response to the so-called Defense of Marriage Act?

NANCY BUERMEYER: Well, Amy, I think that this act is nothing more than an election-year ploy to try and divide the country and put into the presidential campaign an issue that does not need to be dealt with for probably two years down the road. There is no state in the country today that recognizes same-sex marriage. So, to preemptively bar or prohibit federal recognition of same-sex marriage is nothing more than an attempt to make this an election-year issue.

AMY GOODMAN: Tell me, yesterday only members of Congress spoke, yet it’s clear that Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition helped write the bill. He wasn’t there yesterday. At least he wasn’t speaking. Tell us who he is. Was he there?

NANCY BUERMEYER: No, but his daughter was there, who is their lobbyist, Andrea Sheldon. She wasn’t actually in the press conference, but she was in the hallway outside. Lou Sheldon is the head of the Traditional Values Coalition. It’s a California-based religious political extremist organization that has made a career out of attacking lesbian and gay citizens across the country on a number of different issues. And this is sort of his latest ploy to use to divide the country, to attack and gay bash against our community, and to raise money doing it.

AMY GOODMAN: What about the fact that through the entire press conference yesterday, the words “gay” or “lesbian,” in fact, were not used? Maybe once, I mean, but clearly this is very forcefully against gays and lesbians. They talked about same-sex unions. Can you talk a little about why?

NANCY BUERMEYER: Well, you know, you probably have to ask them why they would remove that language. But certainly, in the rhetoric that’s been put out by all the organizations that are supporting this kind of legislation, not just at the federal level, but, as you mentioned, it’s now been introduced, I think, into 34 states — I think Pennsylvania just introduced a bill — it has clearly been about attacking the homosexual lifestyle. I mean, that’s been the rhetoric. It hasn’t been hidden. It hasn’t been underground. But, you know, why they chose not to use the specific language in Congress, I’m not sure. I think because they recognize that they are very vulnerable to the kind of claims that we’re making, that this is nothing more than an attack on the lesbian and gay community, and an unwarranted one at that.

AMY GOODMAN: Before we talk about the states that have introduced legislation similar to the one that Congressman Barr was talking about yesterday, let’s talk about Hawaii. For people who aren’t aware of the situation, what happened in Hawaii?

NANCY BUERMEYER: What happened in Hawaii is that three couples filed a case saying that it was discrimination against them on the basis of their sex that they were not issued a marriage license. They were all same-sex couples. The Hawaii Supreme Court found that that is — that the state needed to show a compelling interest to show why they were discriminating against these couples in terms of their — in terms of not issuing those marriage licenses.

What gets distorted a lot is sort of the timeline in where we are in the court case. That was not the final decision. All that did was to say that the state had to go back to the lower court and exhibit a compelling interest to continue this discrimination. You know, you hear a lot of rhetoric from the religious political extremists and people like Bob Barr saying that this is going to happen this summer. And, in fact, the trial court — the lower court is only going to have their trial in September. It’s not going to be decided at that level, and it will most assuredly be — will be appealed to the Supreme Court level. And we don’t expect a decision probably until early 1998. So, doing it now is about the elections, not about the imminence of same-sex marriage being legal anywhere in this country.

AMY GOODMAN: What do expect the Supreme Court to rule? Or maybe we can’t say right now based on what the composition of the Supreme Court would be in a couple years.

NANCY BUERMEYER: Well, this is, again, the Hawaii Supreme Court. So, it is a case that’s been brought under the Hawaii state Constitution. So the federal Supreme Court will have no say in this final decision.

AMY GOODMAN: Could it eventually? Could it ever be appealed there?

NANCY BUERMEYER: There will — that particular case, the Hawaii case, will not be appealed to the Supreme Court. What probably will get to the Supreme Court is a case around the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution and whether other states should recognize marriages that are legally performed in a particular state.

But in terms of where we think that case is, I mean, to show a compelling state interest is a very difficult standard, and so we are very hopeful that the Hawaii case will have a positive outcome. But you never know for sure, and it’s not going to happen this summer.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Nancy Buermeyer. She is senior policy advocate for the Human Rights Campaign, the largest lesbian and gay organization in the country. So, you’ve said that 34 states in the country now have introduced legislation that would prevent same-sex marriage from being recognized. What is the climate in these states? Where is this legislation coming from?

NANCY BUERMEYER: Well, the legislation is really a coordinated effort by the Lou Sheldons of the world and the Christian Coalitions of the world and those sort of radical-right organizations to put — to inject this issue into the campaigns for this year. So, it’s been coordinated. They’ve been introduced in states all across the country, everywhere from California to Alabama. Thirty-four is a large number of folks. They have been successful in enacting those laws in eight states to date. But we’ve also been able to defeat them in a number of states, as well. Seventeen states have closed their legislatures or killed the bills without enacting them. So I think that’s really a hopeful sign. But we can expect a continuation of this kind of campaign not just in this legislative session, but probably next year, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: What is your strategy in taking this on, at a state level and also federally, now that it’s being introduced into the Congress?

NANCY BUERMEYER: Well, I think what’s really important is people recognize that this is a brand-new issue for most Americans. Most Americans have not really given a lot of thought to the concept of equal marriage rights for lesbian and gay people. So I think our strategy is to do everything we can to try and keep these laws from being enacted, so that we can keep the public debate open. You know, let’s talk about this. Let’s get an opportunity to educate the public. And these bills do provide that opportunity, because we do go in and have to talk, you know, and fight legislatively. You know, we’re on the defensive, quite frankly. I mean, it’s a tough issue for us. It’s a tough issue for the American public. And, you know, we need to try and fight with all the defensive kind of strategies that we have.

AMY GOODMAN: I was reading a piece in The Advocate about the battle within the gay and lesbian community of those activists who feel that same-sex marriage should very much be pushed and force candidates to take a stand, and those that feel that at this point it should be about education, because at this point in this country, because it’s new to many Americans, there can only be a backlash. What’s your stance?

NANCY BUERMEYER: I think our position is that we want to do as much education as possible. And to the extent that people’s sort of initial — I mean, the polling is really quite interesting, because it shows about a third of people are strongly with us, a third of people are strongly against us, and there’s a huge group of people in the middle that really haven’t thought a lot about the issue, and if they were pushed to answer right now, they’d probably say it’s not a good idea. So I think our strategy is, let’s keep the debate open, let’s give people more education, because it gets them used to the idea, and they can sort of think through this rationally instead of emotionally reacting. And I think that’s the position we would take on this.

AMY GOODMAN: What are the benefits of marriage? I mean, this is a question someone might ask everyone. You have the emotional issues around marriage, and then you also have very legal financial issues that come up around marriage, and benefits.

NANCY BUERMEYER: Right. I mean, one of the issues that’s very important to, I think, all married couples is, you know, something as simple as hospital visitation. There have been a number of cases where gay couples, lesbian couples, who have been together for years, have been denied the right to even see their loved one in the hospital because they weren’t considered immediate family. Those kind of cases are things that I think people need to think about. But there are a range of benefits — you know, hospital visitation, certainly tax implications, immigration implications, inheritance rights. I mean, there’s a whole slew of things that this country and the society grants to people who are married to support a committed, stable relationship.

AMY GOODMAN: Is any of that happening without recognizing same-sex marriage?

NANCY BUERMEYER: Well, there are certain pieces that could be offered in other forms, things like domestic partnership. But in terms of the entire package and sort of the — you know, all of the legal benefits that go along with marriage, marriage is really what — equal rights under marriage is really what’s important. And this federal legislation would absolutely prohibit the federal recognition of any same-sex marriage.

AMY GOODMAN: Nancy, I’m curious. You’re with the Human Rights Campaign. They gave an extremely early endorsement to President Clinton. Now, Julie Drizin, our producer here on Democracy Now!, had a chance to talk to George Stephanopoulos, the spokesperson for President Clinton, at the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Conference last fall and asked him about the president’s position on gay and lesbian marriage.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: The president has had a position on gay and lesbian marriage for quite a long time, and he doesn’t support extending a federal guarantee or federal protection. He just —

JULIE DRIZIN: Why?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: He thinks that we should do everything we can to stop discrimination. He will continue to do that.

JULIE DRIZIN: That’s not discrimination? That does not constitute discrimination?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: The president believes that the sanction — 

AMY GOODMAN: And that is George Stephanopoulos. Why the Human Rights Campaign early endorsement? What’s your response?

NANCY BUERMEYER: Well, I think the response is really clear. I mean, we respectfully disagree with the president on this issue. We will continue to educate not only the president and his administration, but the American public, about these issues.

But if you look at, even on this issue, how the two candidates have dealt with this, President Clinton versus Senator Dole, you know, Senator Dole has used this issue, along with — you know, in pandering to the religious political extremists, as a club against the lesbian and gay community. President Clinton took a position early on. He’s not perfect. We, again, disagree with him and will continue to educate him. But in terms of candidates who would represent this community well as president, there’s no comparison. President Clinton has done a whole slew of things for the lesbian and gay community, including instituting nondiscrimination protections for federal employees, removing sexual orientation as a consideration in security clearances, a number of other issues that have — he has a really strong record on those issues. And Bob Dole — for instance, just yesterday, Senator Nichols also introduced a Senate version of the Defense of Marriage Act, and Bob Dole is the only other co-sponsor of that piece of legislation. So he continues to pander to the religious political extremists, like Lou Sheldon, in his presidential campaign. That is not something President Clinton is going to do.

AMY GOODMAN: And yet you have President Clinton backing off his very first promise: to get rid of the ban on gays in the military. And, in fact, now the “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t whatever” policy has led to more people being kicked out and more people being persecuted in the military at this point.

NANCY BUERMEYER: Well, again, there’s no question that there have been disappointments in the Clinton administration for the lesbian and gay community. But if you look at the overall record, at the things he’s actually accomplished, he has been the best president for the lesbian and gay community that this country has ever seen. He has endorsed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would end workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It’s the first time a president has endorsed a piece of civil rights legislation on the basis of sexual orientation ever. So, yeah, there are things that we disagree with, things we continue to lobby the administration on, but it is a clear-cut decision when you talk about Clinton versus Dole.

AMY GOODMAN: And, of course, you have Bob Dole soliciting a contribution from the Log Cabin Republicans and then giving it back.

NANCY BUERMEYER: Giving it back, right.

AMY GOODMAN: What about other anti-gay legislation? Is the Defense of Marriage Act the first piece at the federal level?

NANCY BUERMEYER: No, it’s not. In fact, as you mentioned, the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is again under attack by Bob Dornan. He’s put a piece of legislation — he’s put a provision in the defense budget to reinstate the old ban. He has introduced a piece of legislation, H.R. 862, which would end any government spending for programs that try to prevent youth suicide, that try to end the transmission of HIV and AIDS, try to end violence against the lesbian and gay community. Jesse Helms has introduced a couple pieces of legislation that would encourage discrimination against federal employees. It’s not the first piece. It has gotten a lot of press because this has become such a big issue. And I think it will be one that we have to reckon with in this Congress.

AMY GOODMAN: Nancy, how can people get in touch with the Human Rights Campaign?

NANCY BUERMEYER: You can give us a call at (202) 628-4160. You could also visit our website. We’re at http://www.hrcusa.org. So, the website. Give us a call. We’re here in Washington.

AMY GOODMAN: And we want to thank you very much for joining us. Nancy Buermeyer is senior policy advocate for the Human Rights Campaign, the largest lesbian and gay organization in the United States.

Democracy Now! is produced by Julie Drizin, with help from Pat Greenfield. Kenneth Mason is our engineer. Special thanks to Bob Daughtry for his support this morning. If you’d like to get in touch with us, you can send us email. We’re at democracy@pacifica.org. That’s democracy@pacifica.org. And for those of you who are not technologically literate or don’t care to be, our address is 2390 Champlain Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20009. You can write to us at Pacifica. I’m Amy Goodman. Join us tomorrow. We’ll be bringing you Jim Hightower and other news on another edition of Pacifica Radio’s Democracy Now!