Join Mailing List

SUMMARY OF U.S. SENATE DEBATE CONCERNING PROPOSED FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT

July 9, 2004

U.S. Senate debate over a proposed federal marriage amendment began Friday, July 9. Following the remarks of Republicans who favor such an amendment, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) told Senate President Bill Frist that Senate Democrats are ready to “rock and roll” on the debate.

“We would hope, if the majority leader can get a clearance on that, we can move forward and have a definite time sometime next week for a vote on the resolution itself,” Senator Reid said. “We are ready to move forward on it. … We are ready to rock and roll on the debate of this issue. I simply state again, procedurally we are not going to be in the way.”

In response, Senator Frist announced that the Senate will substantively debate the proposed marriage amendment Monday and Tuesday and would mostly likely bring the issue to a vote on Wednesday, July 14.

A group of Republican Senators spoke Friday in support of a proposed marriage amendment.

Senator Frist said, “Marriage is the union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation, and has been, until this point, one of the great settled questions of human history and culture.”

“The American family is in fragile condition,” Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) said. “I worry that the American family will not be able to sustain itself against this continued attempt to marginalize the importance of traditional families and the importance of every child having a loving and supportive mother and father, which we all know as a matter of common sense, a matter of observation, and as a matter of social science is the optimal situation for a child to be raised and grow up in.”

Cornyn pointed to the November 18, 2003 Goodridge decision in Massachusetts, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared traditional marriage ``a stain that must be eradicated.''

“The Supreme Court, four members, the majority of that court, called it invidious discrimination to limit marriage to persons of the opposite sex, what we call traditional marriage,” Cornyn said. “They said ``limiting traditional marriage between members of the opposite sex lacks any rational basis. This attack on the family and on traditional marriage that occurred in Massachusetts was joined by lawless officials in San Francisco and elsewhere around the country.”

People have married in Massachusetts under Massachusetts law and moved to 46 different States, Cornyn said. At least nine lawsuits have been filed by homosexuals who married in Massachusetts and moved to other states to attempt to force those states to recognize the validity of those marriages.

Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO), who introduced the federal marriage amendment in the U.S. Senate, said: “Traditional marriage is under assault. I say assault because the move to redefine marriage is taking place not through democratic processes such as State legislatures or the Congress or ballot initiatives around the Nation. This assault is taking place in our courts and often in direct conflict with the will of the people, State statute, Federal statute, and even State constitutions.

“Activists and lawyers have devised a strategy to use the courts to redefine marriage. This strategy is a clear effort to override public opinion and the long standing composition of traditional marriage and to force same-sex marriage on society. Over the course of the last 10 years, traditional marriage laws have been challenged in courts across the Nation. Any redefinition of marriage has been driven entirely by the body of government that remains unaccountable and unelected -- the courts.”

According to Allard, Nebraskans passed – with 70-percent support -- a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The ACLU and the Lambda Legal Foundation then sued Nebraska in a Federal court to undermine the will of the voters. Allard said the State of Nebraska may very likely lose the case, a prospect he calls “chilling.”

Senator Frist pointed to research by Stanley Kurtz on how same-sex marriage in Europe has undermind marriage. Frist claimed “our current legal system seems alarmingly out of step with this historical understanding of marriage. Over and against 5,000 years of recorded human experience and social development, the Massachusetts Supreme Court has thrown out the definition of marriage. Marriage is no longer to be understood as a covenant between a husband and wife in the interest of their future children but, rather, the consummation of romantic attraction between any two adults. And they, these judges, appointed lawyers to these positions, imposed this radical change over the strong objections of the people of Massachusetts, the Legislature of Massachusetts, and the Governor of Massachusetts. Indeed, a number of local governments in California and Oregon and New York followed the lead of the Massachusetts court, offering marriage licenses in violation of State laws, in violation of State constitutions.”

Oregon Senator Gordon Smith (Republican), a supporter of homosexual rights, quoted Cicero, who said, "The first bond of society is marriage."

“I believe Cicero was right,” Senator Smith said. “He was not a religious man, he was a secular man. He was a nonbeliever. But he also saw the incredible benefit to building up citizens of Rome through this first bond of society which was then and is still marriage.”

Smith cited judicial activism in his own state. In 1862, Oregon passed a law supporting marriage. But more recently, he said, “four or five county commissioners in one of our counties ignored 142 years of law, ignored 1,000 years and more of human history, and, without notice, without a public meeting, changed the law. To me, this is deeply disappointing and terribly undemocratic. Before this happens again, I think it is appropriate, on an issue this central to our country, to our civilization, to the future, we involve ‘we the people.’ The only way to do that is through a constitutional process.”

Senator Smith said he believes in tolerance and democracy, and adds that marriage needs protection.

“Many will tell you we should leave this alone,” Smith said. “But if you leave this alone, you will leave it to others. And if you leave it to others, they will dictate to the American people what it has to be. The only recourse then available--when a federal judge nullifies all State DOMA or constitutional provisions of the several States, finding an equal protection right to same-gender marriage -- the only recourse then is through the constitutional process laid out by the Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.”

Cornyn cited social science research to support the defense of traditional marriage. Children who are raised in less than optimal situations are exposed to higher risk of social ills, he said. Children without the benefit of intact, mother/father homes are more likely to drop out of school, to engage in drug use and other self-destructive activity, to engage in premature sexual experimentation and pregnancy, and they face other problems that affect their ability to grow up as fully productive and contributing citizens.

“Social science confirms what common sense and simple observation dictate: When the institution of marriage is marginalized, children are at higher risk, as I mentioned before,” Cornyn said. “In short, they are at higher risk for the sort of consequences that will follow them for the rest of their lives. We should not shy away from this debate when it comes to talking about what is optimal, what is in the best interests of American children and American families. I believe that fundamentally is what this debate is about.”

Cornyn said the marriage debate is not about phobias. “I think the American people overwhelmingly believe in the importance of traditional marriage and the traditional family as the bedrock institution of our society and in the best interests of children,” he said. “I don't think there is any conflict there. I think you can believe in both at the same time.”

Allard concurred with Cornyn’s sentiments about the value of traditional marriage.
“A good marriage facilitates a more stable community, allows kids to grow up with fewer difficulties, increases the lifespan and quality of life of those involved, reduces the likelihood of incidences of chemical abuse and violent crime, and contributes to the overall health of the family,” Senator Allard remarked. “It is no wonder so many single adults long to be married, to raise kids, and to have families branching out in every direction. Gays and lesbians have the right to live the way they want to. But they do not have the right to redefine marriage.”

Referring to Senator Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) derision of the proposed amendment, Cornyn says the time to act is now.

“So what people are saying -- if they want us to wait until after the Federal courts declare traditional marriage unconstitutional, if they want us to wait until that time to raise this constitutional amendment--they are, I suggest to you, inviting the same sort of chaos we are seeing happening in Massachusetts. Because once same-sex marriages occur, if months and maybe years later the Constitution is amended to reinstate the status quo of traditional marriage, it may very well be too late.”

Senator Frist concluded: “Marriage is worth the time, energy, and attention of this Senate and of all the American people. The model of the family bound by marriage to fulfill its attendant responsibilities, indeed, is a worthy ideal. The matter before us is critical. The debate before us is essential. Let's hold it with civility and respect. Let the debate be spirited, let it be substantive, and let it be held now in this body, the Senate, for this and future generations of Americans.”