Marriage Protection Amendment - Motion to Proceed - Continued
MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued -- (Senate - June 06, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wanted to spend a few minutes here to respond to the allegations made on the other side of the aisle that the protection of marriage is not important enough for the U.S. Senate to take a day or two to debate and then to vote on a constitutional amendment. I really am astonished to hear our friends on the other side of the aisle take that position because, frankly, I think the American people disagree with them and agree that marriage is important. I think they agree that when it comes to social experimentation by our courts, by a handful of activist judges who think they know better than the American people what is good for us, that they want that kind of experimentation to stop unless, of course, it is authorized by a vote of we, the people, rather than imposed upon us from on high by judges. This kind of experimentation when it comes to living arrangements and now with the institution of marriage are not without costs, and, most often, the individuals who pay the price for that kind of experimentation are America's children.
I just can't disagree more with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who seem to think that the preservation of our society's most basic institution--the institution of marriage--isn't important enough for our time and it is not important enough to take the time to discuss this issue and talk about what the solution might be to preserve the power of we, the people, to determine the laws and policies that affect our lives, and certainly the next generation of our children. I think this time is important, this issue is important, and we will find out when we vote on this issue who it is that believes that the American people should make these sorts of decisions and not a handful of activist judges such as occurred in Massachusetts, and now with a decision out of the Federal court in Nebraska holding that State's constitutional provision that limits marriage to one man and one woman unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution.
I don't know who it was that woke up 200 years or more after the Constitution was written and decided that the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution discrimination when it comes to marriage between one man and one woman. Obviously this is an issue that we have not initiated, we haven't brought up, but this is a fight that has been brought to us, those of us who believe it is important to preserve traditional marriage.
Mr. President, I would ask if I might be notified after 15 minutes of our 30-minute allotment has been used.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). The Chair will so advise.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would also like to spend just a few minutes examining what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said. For example, this morning our Democratic leader has said that Nevada has the third highest gas prices in the whole country, and he says that taking care of gas prices is more important than preserving marriage between a man and a woman. But I would like to point out that it is because of obstruction on the other side of the aisle that we have been unable to address the importance of access to domestic production of oil and gas in this country. And, because of obstruction on the other side of the aisle, we have been unable to create new refinery capacity that would make more gasoline, increase the supply and necessarily then, under the economic laws, bring down the price. It has been because of the obstruction that we have seen on the other side of the aisle that we have been unable to address that issue. Again, another example of block and blame.
Then we are told that somehow we should be talking about solving the health care needs of the American people. It was just a few weeks ago when our colleagues on the other side of the aisle denied sufficient votes to allow us to consider a small business comprehensive health plan brought up by the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi. If our friends on the other side of the aisle were serious about solving America's health care problems and providing greater access to health insurance, they wouldn't have voted against that bill just a few short weeks ago. Yet, now they want to change the subject, saying we shouldn't be talking about marriage; we should be talking about health care. The fact is they are the ones who blocked our ability to proceed on that important issue and to find a real solution to that problem. But again, it is an instance of block and blame.
Then the Democratic leader this morning said, we ought to be doing something about health care costs. We tried to bring up the issue of health care costs earlier as well, in a case where we have said there ought to be some reasonable limits on noneconomic damages in medical liability cases. That has been tried in my State, the State of Texas, and we have seen medical liability insurance go down into the double-digit range. We have seen more doctors coming into communities where they have been afraid to practice, and we have seen greater access to health care as a result of those efforts. Yet when we tried to change that here in the U.S. Senate, again, we were blocked by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and then blamed when we are debating about the preservation of the institution of marriage and not addressing medical costs by dealing with the medical liability crisis.
Of course, then they also claim that really they ought to be the ones to control the legislative agenda, and that is really what this is all about. But they mentioned the war in Iraq, the energy crisis, the price of gasoline, health care, and said that the priorities of the Republican leadership are misplaced when it comes to addressing America's real needs, but neglecting all the while in pointing out that they themselves are the ones who are the primary reasons why we have been unsuccessful in addressing some critical improvements and reforms in those areas.
Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle need to make up their minds. They are literally schizophrenic--of two minds--when it comes to what to do about our energy crisis in America. They blocked building new refineries; they held up an energy bill for 3 years; they blocked exploration for domestic production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which we know, given modern exploration and drilling techniques, can be done in an environmentally friendly sort of way; and they blocked the President's Clear Skies initiative, which is designed to cut down on emissions and protect the environment.
Rather than demagog the issue, rather than to try and pin blame on the President or the Republican leadership, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would be better served, and certainly the American people would be better served, by working with this side of the aisle in trying to find real solutions, particularly when it comes to our energy needs, to reduce America's dependence on foreign sources of energy and help reduce gas prices. If they are really concerned about energy costs, then they would have made it easier by working together with us to expand clean nuclear energy.
On the issue of the marriage amendment, the Democratic leader this morning said this is an issue that ought to be left to the States. Certainly many States, including my State, have passed a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage. The problem is some Federal courts, notably one in Nebraska most recently, held that very State solution is itself in violation of the Federal Constitution.
The Democratic leader is a distinguished lawyer in his own right. He understands that a Federal court which holds that the Federal Constitution violates the State Constitution, that the Federal decision preempts the State constitutional solution. So again, this is not an issue that we have gratuitously brought up; this is one that has been forced upon us. I think what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would prefer is if we would just be quiet and gradually allow the Constitution of the United States to be amended, but not as it turns out by the American people by voting on a constitutional amendment, but rather by a handful of activist judges who have somehow taken it upon themselves to define what is good for us and in fact what is and is not unlawful discrimination when it comes to our traditional marriage laws.
We know what happens when the American people have a chance to vote on these issues. Overwhelmingly, they vote in favor of preserving traditional marriage because instinctively they know it is the best solution for our society and certainly in the best interests of our children. We have seen too many of our children suffer as a result of social experimentation, certainly by the courts, and we ought to make sure that we preserve the right for we, the people, to make those important decisions rather than allow them to be made by judges who would amend the Constitution themselves under the guise of interpreting the Constitution. How is it that someone can decide after 200 years or more that the U.S. Constitution or even a State constitution modeled after the U.S. Constitution would result in a decision that traditional marriage laws are somehow discrimination is really just beyond me.
As I said yesterday on this floor, it is almost surreal. It is almost as if we have been asked to voluntarily suspend our powers of disbelief. The American people know what we are talking about is important. They know what we are talking about here in terms of preserving marriage and a better future for our children is fundamental to our way of life. It is not frivolous. It is not politics. It is absolutely essential that we do so. They try to raise red herrings like: Well, we ought to be talking about health care, or we ought to be talking about the energy crisis, or we ought to be talking about the medical liability crisis, when the truth is they blocked every opportunity we have had recently to try to do something about those issues. The truth is what they want to do is to try to score political points rather than solve the very real problems that confront our Nation.
Finally, let me just add that recently I know the Democratic leadership in the other House criticized--if you can believe this--criticized the performance of the economy. Are they really complaining that 75,000 new jobs last month, not to mention 33 consecutive months of job gains and more than 5.3 million new jobs created since August of 2003, is the wrong direction for this country? The fact is the economy is doing well. But we need to continue to try to make sure that America remains competitive in a global economy by making sure that we keep taxes as low as possible, and by making sure that we keep our regulatory environment one that can protect us but, at the same time, not kill good business opportunities and job creation in this country. We need to look at our litigation system and make sure that we are not imposing a litigation tax on the American consumer and making it harder for legitimate employers to create those jobs. We need to make sure that we continue to try to work together to solve the very real problems that confront our Nation.
I don't apologize for a minute in saying that I believe we should vote on a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage. I don't think it is a waste of time. I think we can spend a day or two talking about this issue and its impact on our children and on the next generation. I think that is as weighty an issue as we will ever consider here, because it may well determine the long-term direction of our society and the welfare certainly of the next generation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov