Here are two stories from the 1996 debate:

Bill Would Avert Recognizing Same-Sex Rites

By Chris Casteel
Washington Bureau
Thursday, May 9, 1996
WASHINGTON – Saying they were concerned that Hawaii may soon sanction same-sex marriages, Sen. Don Nickles and Rep. Steve Largent announced Wednesday they were proposing legislation to prevent states from having to recognize those marriages.

The Oklahoma lawmakers and others sponsoring the legislation said they were not seeking to prevent states from allowing homosexual marriages. However, they said they were worried that a clause in the U.S. Constitution might require other states to give “full faith and credit” to other states’ interpretations of what constitutes marriage.

“This legislation outlaws nothing,” said Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga. “It does not outlaw same-sex marriages.”

Instead, Barr said, the bill says states don’t have to recognize another state’s law regarding a marriage between two people of the same sex.

Largent, R-Tulsa, said, “The Defense of Marriage Act is designed to defend the core of what families are – one man and one woman united in marriage. The institution of the family and the institution of marriage have been under frontal assault for years. Society pays the consequences when the family unit is weakened through divorce, illegitimacy, abuse, economic hardship or – in the case of the pending decision of the Hawaii court – redefinition.”

Nickles, R-Ponca City, said he introduced a similar bill in the Senate on Wednesday that was “simple, limited in scope and based on common sense.”

Gay rights groups attacked the legislation on Wednesday, saying it was the product of political extremists.

“This is a calculated national assault on the lives of lesbian and gay people,” said Elizabeth Birch, of the Human Rights Campaign.

Gay Nuptials Bill Sparks Stormy Capitol Debate

By Chris Casteel
Washington Bureau
Friday, July 12, 1996

WASHINGTON – The issue of same-sex marriages sparked verbal warfare Thursday between Oklahoma and Massachusetts lawmakers, first in a Senate committee and then on the House floor.

In the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Don Nickles had a heated exchange with Sen. Edward Kennedy over Nickles’ legislation to define marriage in federal law as the union of one man and one woman, making gay couples ineligible for certain federal tax, pension and health benefits. The bill would also give states the right not to recognize same-sex marriages sanctioned in other states.

Kennedy, D-Mass., said, “The bill before us is called the Defense of Marriage Act, but a more accurate title would be the Defense of Intolerance Act, or, even more accurately, the Defense of Endangered Republican Candidates Act.”

Kennedy said states aren’t required to recognize marriages from other states that are contrary to their own policy.

“What’s left of this bill is its real goal – it’s a mean-spirited form of legislative gay-bashing designed to inflame the public four months before the November election,” he said.

Nickles, R-Ponca City, said, “I don’t consider myself as mean-spirited or intolerant, and I’m somewhat offended by that language. The bill is not intolerant when it defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. I was raised to believe that.”

Nickles noted that President Clinton had pledged to sign the bill and said he didn’t consider Clinton to be intolerant.

“I take a little issue with the terminology you use,” Nickles told Kennedy. “I don’t think that’s helpful.”

Later, on the House floor, as lawmakers were considering the rules that will govern the debate today on a bill similar to Nickles’, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., one of three openly gay congressmen, also took issue with the title of the bill, the Defense of Marriage Act.

“How does the fact that I love another man … threaten you?” Frank said, looking at Rep. Steve Largent and other Republican lawmakers. “Are your relationships with your spouses of such fragility that the fact that I have a loving relationship with another man jeopardizes them? What is attacking you?”

Largent, R-Tulsa, said, “Mr. Frank’s commitment to another man doesn’t threaten my marriage. It threatens the institution of marriage.”

“That argument ought to be made by somebody who’s in an institution,” Frank said, adding that the Republican effort to pass the bill was a “desperate search for a political issue.”

Largent said lawmakers “need to step back from the trees and look at the forest and take a long view of the culture. No culture that embraced homosexuality has ever survived.”

Largent is a co-sponsor of the House version of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is expected to be voted on by the full House today. Supporters say the bill is necessary because of the possibility that a lawsuit in Hawaii could result in same-sex marriages being recognized in that state. If that happens, supporters say, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution could require other states to recognize the Hawaiian marriages.

Nickles said the bill doesn’t prevent states from recognizing gay marriages if they so choose. Opponents say final action in the Hawaii case could be years away and that the only reason for considering the bill now is to score political points with anti-gay voters. Some also contend that exceptions to the Full Faith and Credit Clause have been carved out that give states the freedom not to recognize certain legal actions in other states.

Kennedy and some other senators are planning to offer an amendment to Nickles’ bill that would prohibit employers from firing workers because they were gay. During the Judiciary Committee hearing Thursday, Kennedy asked Nickles if he would support the amendment.

Nickles said he wouldn’t, and he called it a “killer amendment,” one that would lead to the defeat of his legislation. Nickles said he wouldn’t want to tell the Boy Scouts of America that they had to allow gays to be troop leaders.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said the issue of employment discrimination wasn’t about the Boy Scouts, and she asked Nickles whether he would support legislation to prohibit housing discrimination against gays.

Nickles said that he wouldn’t want to require a landlord to lease apartments to gays if most of the other apartments already were leased to traditional families.

Other Democrats on the committee complained about spending time on the issue when other bills, including ones dealing with gangs and illegal drugs, were not being heard.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the chairman of the committee, said he considered the breakdown of the traditional family a high priority.

“I don’t consider protecting traditional marriage and family values as divisive,” Hatch said.

The committee, which did not vote on Nickles’ bill Thursday, also heard from a panel that included attorneys and the heads of religious and other organizations.

Gary Bauer, with the Family Research Council, testified for Nickles’ bill, saying “Ordinary people did not pick this fight. They are not the aggressors. They are merely defending the basic morality that has sustained the culture for a long, long time. Yet good men and women of varying beliefs have been subjected to a barrage of name-calling and abuse simply for saying that marriage ought to be the union of a man and a woman and that the law should protect this vital social norm.”

Mitzi Henderson, national president of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, said she appreciated “honest attempts to strengthen the American family.”

Henderson, whose son is gay, said Nickles’ bill would “add another challenge to my job as a parent.”

“My marriage does not need to be defended,” she said. “What my family needs is a more tolerant America.”

Nancy Zirkin, executive vice president of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said this:
“The filibuster against Magistrate Judge Robert Bacharach is preposterous. He’s a highly qualified nominee with bipartisan support and the endorsement of both of his home state senators, and he’s been nominated to fill a critical vacancy on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“We applaud Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for scheduling a vote on Monday to break the filibuster, and we encourage every senator – regardless of party – to put justice and duty ahead of petty politicking to ensure that Judge Bacharach receives a confirmation vote without delay.

“This seat has been vacant for over two years. To deny a vote on Bacharach would signal a new low for the judicial appointment process, which is impressive given the record amount of obstruction during this term. The courts have important work to do. Let’s honor that, get back to regular order, and let the people of the 10th Circuit have access to justice.”

Heritage Action sent out a memo:
“Although President Obama has made many objectionable judicial nominations, Mr. Bacharach’s qualifications or views are not the principal reason to oppose this vote. Instead, the Senate leadership knows that a vote on his nomination at this time is a violation of the traditions of the Senate, and is simply taunting Republican senators to test their resolve.

“What has come to be known as the Thurmond/Leahy Rule provides that the confirmation of life-time judges (especially Court of Appeals judges) should not proceed in the months immediately preceding a presidential election. The trigger date has varied over the years, but Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was being conservative when he announced on June 13 of this year that the rule was then in effect. The rule both preserves an incoming president’s right to present nominees for open positions, and ensures a lame-duck president cannot – with the help of a lame-duck Senate – load up the federal courts with cronies and ideologues.

“Although the practice originated with late Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC), Democrats have a history of invoking the rule. In March of 2008, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) announced that “the ‘Thurmond Rule’ is a rule that we still follow, and it will take effect very soon here.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) echoed that sentiment by saying, “there is a Thurmond doctrine that says: After June, we will have to take a real close look at judges in a Presidential election year. June is fast approaching, I believe that is the time set forth in the Thurmond doctrine.”

“It is now the end of July, meaning that, according to the Senate Majority Leader, the Thurmond/Leahy doctrine is in effect. This is a clear test of minority rights in the Senate (rights which the majority demanded when they were in the minority), and that no senator should easily forfeit.”

behennacaaf

It’s possible that Republican Sens. Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe could determine whether U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert E. Bacharach, of Edmond, is confirmed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Neither is saying whether they will vote on Monday to break the Republican blockade that has kept the Senate from confirming the magistrate, who has been endorsed by both Coburn and Inhofe and won overwhelming approval last month in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, of Nevada, set up the showdown last week, filing a procedural motion that will voted upon on Monday. That vote will determine whether the Senate can then proceed to consider Bacharach’s nomination.
It will take 60 votes to pass on Monday. There are 51 Democrats and two Independents who typically vote with the Democrats. If all 53 of those senators are present and vote to break the GOP’s election-year blockade, seven Republicans would have to break with their party’s leadership to advance Bacharach’s nomination.
Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, and Glenn Sugameli, an attorney of the Judging the Environment project, told The Oklahoman last week that they expect Republican senators from Maine, Alaska and Massachusetts to vote to help Bacharach. That would be four. They also speculated that the two Arizona Republicans could go along and that Sen. Richard Lugar, of Indiana, and Lamar Alexander, of Tennessee, might join the other Republicans.
Coburn, R-Muskogee, said in an interview Friday that he would make up his mind over the weekend. Inhofe did not respond to requests for comment last week. The vote is scheduled for 4:30 central time and will be on CSPAN2. There will be debate for an hour before the vote.
The New York Times had an editorial Sunday about the vote.

UPDATE:

Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper, is reporting that both of Maine’s senators will vote to advance Bacharach’s nomination. The two Maine Republicans have endorsed a circuit court nominee from their own state who is also being blocked. Here are quotes from Roll Call’s report:

Sen. Olympia Snowe: “I will vote to invoke cloture on the nomination of Richard Bacharach of Oklahoma to be a federal judge on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals because he is highly qualified, having earned the American Bar Association’s highest rating of Unanimously Well Qualified; was approved by voice vote in the Judiciary Committee; and his nomination has bipartisan support, including previous support of his home state Senators.”

Sen. Susan Collins: “I will vote to proceed to the nomination of Robert Bacharach for the 10th Circuit because he is a highly experienced and well-qualified nominee who deserves confirmation,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told Roll Call on Friday. “With very little time until the August recess, it remains my hope that the Senate will confirm Bill Kayatta of Maine, whose qualifications to serve on the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals are equally impressive and whose nomination also has strong bipartisan support.”

Also, Sugameli, attorney with the Judging the Environment project, said Monday that Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, are potential votes for breaking the filibuster.

In the 5th District, currently represented by Rep. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma City, Democrat Tom Guild, of Edmond, said: “I am very pleased that the United States Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act. The fact that Republican and Bush Appointee Chief Justice Roberts cast the deciding vote to uphold the law is an important signal that the country needs to come together in a bipartisan fashion and create jobs and support education, pass the highway bill, and stop college student loans rates from doubling in two days.
“Progressive Republican President Teddy Roosevelt first introduced health care reform more than 100 years ago. However, without a Democratic Congress and President, the Affordable Care Act would have not been possible. The same folks who want to privatize Social Security, and have voted to end Medicare, want to undo the AFA even before it has fully gone into effect.
“The law already forbids insurance companies from refusing to cover children with pre-existing conditions. This will extend to adults with pre-existing conditions in 2014. The law now requires that 80-85% of the proceeds from insurance premiums be spent on those who are insured by each company. It prohibits large percentages to be spent on overhead including astronomic bonuses for health care company CEOs. The law outlaws lifetime caps on payouts to those with health insurance. This will reduce the number of folks who are forced into bankruptcy, because expensive and/or catastrophic health emergencies rack up bills that virtually no families can pay. It also allows families with children to keep their children on their health insurance policies until age 26. This is one of the most family-friend and pro-families laws in recent memory.”

In the 2nd District, where runoffs will be necessary to determine the Republican and Democratic nominees, the two GOP candidates reiterated their opposition to the health care law.

State Rep. George Faught, of Muskogee: “I am extremely disappointed in the Supreme Court’s ruling on ObamaCare, but as I did before in Oklahoma City I am ready to fight again in Washington for our precious freedoms. This ruling allows another huge expansion of federal bureaucracy and intrusion into the lives of individuals. The Court this morning in essence gave the American people two choices: either get used to health control and rationing as the huge federal bureaucracy chokes off our liberties, or completely repeal this outrageous overreach that has already spawned 18,000 pages of new job-killing federal regulations. Repeal can only be accomplished by electing proven conservatives who have demonstrated that they understand the issues and will take the fight to preserve our liberties to Washington.

“The people of Oklahoma spoke loud and clear in 2010 that they did not want ObamaCare in Oklahoma. I took their voice and their fight to the state capital and stopped it in its tracks, when others wanted to give in and take federal money to start implementing ObamaCare. I understand the issues and recognize the assault on our freedom that this represents.”

Markwayne Mullin, of Westville, said, ““This is an extremely sad day for our country.

“This makes us like socialized countries in Europe. Now every almost every American faces a tax increase disguised as a mandate to buy a particular product. This has to be one of the worst precedents in the history of the country.
“Make no mistake, businesses large and small will react to this ruling in a way that is negative to hard-working Americans. The costs are overwhelming. With my business, the choice I have is to employ fewer than 50 people, or pay at least $250,000 a year in what amounts to a new tax for health care compliance. I assure you I’m not the only businessman debating on what direction my company will go.”
“ObamaCare needs to be repealed, plain and simple.
“The only way to get rid of this terrible plan is for the House and Senate to overturn it and for the next president to toss it out. We must send leaders to Congress who will undo this damage and oppose Barack Obama’s socialist agenda. When I go to Washington to represent the good people of eastern Oklahoma, I will work day and night to repeal ObamaCare.”

The two Democrats in the 2nd District runoff, Wayne Herriman, of Muskogee, and Rob Wallace, of Muskogee, told the Oklahoman in interviews earlier this month that they did not support the health care law.

Democrat John Olson, of Tulsa, who is running for the 1st District seat, said, “Today’s ruling creates certainty for thousands of Oklahomans who faced the end of many broadly popular provisions of the health-care reform law.
“The heat and fury surrounding the Affordable Care Act obscured the fact that many parts of the law are broadly supported by Republicans and Democrats alike.
“Surveys show that over 80% of all Americans — from both parties — are in favor of allowing kids to stay on their parents’ insurance, not allowing women with breast cancer to be denied coverage and ending lifetime caps that forced families into bankruptcy.”
“I have said all along that the so-called individual mandate should be called what the Supreme Court has affirmed: a tax on those who choose not to buy insurance. All of us use the health-care system, whether we have insurance or not.
“I look forward to working in Congress to address the flaws in the ACA, and continue to improve and expand the right to affordable health care that we all share.”

Former U.S. Attorney Dan Webber, former Seminole Nation Chief Enoch Kelly Haney and Jeremy Aliason, executive director of the National Native American Bar Association, went first to the White House to meet with Attorney General Eric Holder and White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler about the vacancy rate.

They then went to Capitol Hill to meet with representatives from the offices of Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Muskogee, and Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa.

The Oklahoma senators have cleared two nominees from the state for a hearing: Robert E. Bacharach, a federal magistrate judge in Oklahoma City who has been nominated for a seat on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and John E. Dowdell, a Tulsa attorney who has been nominated for a U.S. district judgeship in Tulsa.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on Wednesday that includes a look at Bacharach and Dowdell.

Webber said the Oklahomans asked that the senators be pro-active in pushing for full Senate action on the Oklahoma nominees if they are approved by the committee.

Webber said Haney also advocated at the White House for more Native American nominees for positions around the country.