House of Representatives - September 25, 2001

From debate on an amendment to the FY 2002 District of Columbia Appropriations Act that would prohibit the District of Columbia from using its own money or federal funds under the bill to implement a local law extending domestic partner health benefits to city employees.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania who got off the floor invoked religion as a reason to support the amendment that would prevent the District of Columbia's democratically-elected decision on domestic partnership from going into effect, and I know there are religious views of this sort. We have heard them expressed recently in various ways. Indeed, my guess is one could quote from the Taliban at great length about how terrible all of this is.

But the question is not what people in their own individual religious views think, but what a self-governing people in the District of Columbia, self-governing thanks to our grant, but it is a grant that I am proud that we made, should be allowed to go forward.

I now want to talk a little bit about the substance. Here is what we are talking about. It used to be illegal in the District of Columbia for two people of the same sex to express their affection physically. That was illegal, physical intimacy. The District of Columbia repealed that, and to its credit, this Congress allowed that repeal to stand. So understand that according to this Congress, only recently, a few years ago, we allowed the physical expression of intimacy.

So the question now is, do we then follow it up by saying to the people, okay, they can live together and can express their love in a physical way, but by God, if they try to show responsibility, if they try to show that financially they are going to be responsible for each other, if they try to couple their emotional and physical sense with some degree of commitment, we are not going to allow it; because what we are talking about here are two people, one of whom works for the District of Columbia and one of whom does not, one of whom has health insurance and one of whom does not.

So do not think Members are banning people's ability to live together. We are beyond that. This Congress has said the District could make that decision. The question is, once the people live together, do they think it makes sense to say that the person who is working and wants to jointly pay for health insurance cannot do it?

What Members are talking about, let us be very clear, there are people whose lives they do not like, and I am one of those, and I regret that, but I must admit I am far beyond losing sleep about what the Taliban or anybody else thinks about the way I live.

But what I assert is my right to live that way equally and freely as an American, and I implore my colleagues, what motivates them to inflict pain on fellow citizens who have done them no wrong? They just want to live. Can they not let them live?

Our government is about to say that, in times of crisis, they can die for their country, because we are going to put a temporary cessation to the "gays in the military" policy. Let people live and let them die freely.