Protection of Traditional Marriage Sought

Protection of Traditional Marriage Sought

Idaho Congressmen Mike Simpson and C.L. "Butch" Otter, voted for the Marriage Protection Amendment today. The final vote of 236-187 (an eight vote increase from 2004 vote), passed by a majority but did not acquire the two-thirds vote required to pass a constitutional amendment.

House Joint Resolution 88 stated: "Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

The proposed amendment sought to return the debate where it belongs - to the American people - rather than a few activist judges and advocates of same-sex marriage.

Some try to characterize recognition of traditional marriage's historical and social significance as "divisive" or even "discriminatory." The truth is that the proposed amendment would have barred no behavior and prohibited no private relationship between consenting adults. It sought only to clarify the official position of the United States government regarding the sanctity of marriage.

"While I am always hesitant to amend the Constitution, the actions of a few judges and radical activists have forced supporters of traditional marriage like me to seek a Constitutional amendment as our only recourse," Simpson said. "Dating back to my days in the Idaho State Legislature, I have long believed the institution of marriage must be protected against the actions of those who are determined to alter its long-standing meaning. I firmly believe marriage is only applicable to a union between one man and one woman and will continue working in Congress to ensure the institution is protected."

"It's difficult enough to teach our children the timeless values and virtues they need in a changing world without the influence of social engineers telling us millennia of wisdom and experience is outdated and unfair," Otter said. "It's unfortunate that it's come to this, and I am extremely reluctant to seek any change in our Constitution - the very bulwark of our liberty. But one by one, we are seeing courts reinterpreting the law of the land, relying not on the principles that have strengthened hearth and home for ages but rather on shifting international legal theories that threaten to undermine the foundation of the American family. Make no mistake: The Constitution will be amended. The only question is whether it will be done through the democratic process or by judicial fiat."

http://www.house.gov/list/press/id02_simpson/gay_marriage.html