Press Conference in Reaction to Vote on Proposed Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage

Federal News Service

HEADLINE: PRESS CONFERENCE IN REACTION TO VOTE ON PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE WITH SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD (R-CO); AND SENATOR JOHN CORNYN (R-TX); AND SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK (R-KS)

LOCATION: SENATE PARK, CAPITOL HILL, WASHINGTON, D.C.

BODY:
SEN. ALLARD: Welcome, everybody. I'm Wayne Allard from Colorado, and we've just finished a vote on the marriage amendment.

Very excited about the way the marriage amendment turned out. We had 48 votes that were for the amendment and 50 that were against. I related before the vote that we thought that we were pretty close to 50 percent. We thought if we got 50 percent we were doing very good. The battle has just begun.

I think as John Paul Jones said in one of his battles, he says, "I've just begun to fight," and that's where we are on this particular issue. Just some two months ago this wasn't on the Senate's agenda for even consideration, and we were able to convince the leadership and our colleagues and everything that this ought to be brought up, that this was an important issue to the people of America. So we think that in itself was a success. We think getting the number of votes that we did on a first try in the Senate was definitely a success.

We think that bringing this up before the American people and letting the American people understand that marriage is being threatened by the courts, that there is a lot of action going on before the courts now that could take away their right to be an active participant in this debate is happening. And I hope that the courts, in following this debate, got the message that there is a lot of concern out there about the power that is being assumed by activist judges.

So I view this as a very good start, and I'm delighted that I was able to get the cooperation I did from my colleagues. I thought the team that we had working on the floor and working with the leadership was just superb, and very pleased obviously to have the president's support to the general principles that were embodied in this particular piece of legislation.

Again, now it gives me great pleasure to introduce to you one of the floor managers, and that's John, Senator John Cornyn from Texas. And then we'll go to Senator Brownback from Kansas.

SEN. CORNYN: Thank you. Well, thank you, Senator Allard, for your great leadership on this important debate.

I think we have succeeded in two very important things. One is debating the importance-discussing the importance of the American family, and preserving the traditional institution of marriage and its importance as a stabilizing influence on our society and an institution that's in the best interests of children. And secondly I believe we've done our job by highlighting the threat to the rights of the American people by activist judges who, under the guise of interpreting the Constitution, have attempted to radically redefine one of our most basic societal institutions.

I want to finally say that I think this debate has been very civil and respectful, and I'm grateful for that. And all along we've said that the American people believe in at least two fundamental propositions. One is the essential dignity and worth of every human being, and secondly that traditional marriage is a positive social good and something that should be preserved and defended.

With that, I'd like to turn the floor over to Senator Brownback of Kansas.

SEN. BROWNBACK: Thanks, John.

Thank you all for being here today. The great debate is engaged. I think we are going to have a long and extended discussion in the country about what is marriage. And it's an important debate. The institution of marriage has declined over the last 40 years. It is central to the creation of strong families. And we've got an important debate that is just now engaged.

I'd say the last vote that we just had, the first vote we've had, the first of I believe what will be a number of different votes in this country, is that we won on substance and lost on procedure. Every senator who spoke, except for one, every senator who spoke supported traditional marriage between a man and a woman, except for one. Everyone did. A number of arguments about timing, about states rights, about timing of bringing this up, about whether it's judicially mature yet or not-and yet everyone except one supported the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman. We won on substance. We lost on procedure-others saying we don't like the timing, we've got questions about states rights, we want to see the courts act before we move the Congress to act. And so that divided the United States Senate.

This is a critical issue. It will continue to be engaged. I want to salute Wayne for bringing this forward-Wayne Allard-and John for managing it, and a number of people that spoke in a very civil debate, which is what the country needs-a civil debate about this important institution. And it will continue; it will continue into the fall. And I think it will be a significant issue in the fall elections as this is further engaged.

SEN. ALLARD: I'd like to introduce Pastor Wynings (sp) of Detroit.

Pastor, come on up.

PASTOR WYNINGS (sp): Thank you, Senator.

I just want to say that again I am encouraged. As we look at what is being challenged, who would have thought that we would have ever had this debate? But I am encouraged. And it is critical for our families that we define what marriage is. And we will continue to fight and support this effort to make sure that it is amended constitutionally.

Thank you, Senator.

SEN. ALLARD: Thank you. Thank you.

Do we have any questions?

Q Senator Cornyn?

SEN. CORNYN: Excuse me. Excuse me.

Q Senator Cornyn, knowing Texas as you know it, could you ever conceive of the state of Texas allowing same-sex marriages?

SEN. CORNYN: The last thing I thought I would be doing when I came to Washington to represent 23 million Texans is to have to defend the institution of traditional marriage, and certainly we've made our choice in Texas by passing our own laws to defend marriage. But the problem, as we highlighted through this debate, is that the right of the voters in the individual states is in jeopardy if the federal courts in particular say that it's unconstitutional to limit marriage to traditional marriages, as the Massachusetts Supreme Court has done. The United States Supreme Court, in Lawrence versus Texas, has provided all the tools that an activist judge needs to reach that logical conclusion, which jeopardizes the rights of people in my state and throughout the United States to have a voice in this most basic, fundamental institution.

Q Senator Allard?

SEN. ALLARD: Yes?

Q Isn't it correct that if there would have been a vote on the amendment itself, that you might have even gotten less votes since some of your colleagues were supporting you on procedural grounds but were opposed to the amendment? Senator Warner said that yesterday I think.

SEN. ALLARD: Well, we don't know until you have the vote, actually, and you're always surprised by one or two individuals on how they might vote, or frequently; it's not unusual to have that surprise. You know, this was an important first step in develop a consensus within the Senate, and I'm very pleased with it.

Q Well, why -- (inaudible) -- gaining ground when, you know -- (inaudible)?

SEN. ALLARD: Well, you know, here's what was proposed. That-number one is they wanted to have-they wanted just an up-or-down vote on my amendment, but in addition to that they wanted to limit any other amendments and they wanted to limit debate to a certain degree. And in order to develop a consensus, I think we needed to have that debate. We needed to have other members have an opportunity to other some other amendments. I can't think of any constitutional amendment that's ever come to the floor of the United States Senate that hasn't had an opportunity to have some amendments to it. So in fairness to the process and the need for us to reach a consensus we need to have a number of different votes, and I would have very much welcomed that.

SEN. CORNYN: Carl (sp), I want to-would just add, to answer that question, is one reason why the majority leader was wise to refuse the offer for an up-or-down vote on Senator Allard's amendment without any further amendments is because it's come to my attention that if there had been an opportunity to vote on a single Senate's amendment that Senator Smith and others had proposed, which is the first sentence of Senator Allard's amendment, that it would have garnered as many as 10 more votes. So we don't really know exactly until the votes are counted what it's likely to be, but I think the majority leader was wise to refuse that restriction on the right of any senator to offer amendments. And as soon as we get a chance to actually have an up-or-down vote on some amendment and an opportunity to debate and file other amendments, we'll never really know what the numbers are.

SEN. ALLARD: And since the process is just starting-I mean, we'll be working for a consensus. Obviously, now we've had the first vote, now we can begin to work with this and build a consensus from here.

Q Do you think you and the members --

SEN. ALLARD: Let me kind of spread this around a little bit.

Q Members of these groups here will use this. You're going to hold members accountable, people running --

SEN. ALLARD: Absolutely. Yeah.

Q -- (inaudible) -- be in ads, that sort of thing?

SEN. ALLARD: well, that's up to them. That's up to other people. I don't have a call on that, you know. But this is an important vote in the Senate. It gets us off to an important start, and I think reflects how people feel about fighting for protecting the traditional family in this country.

Q Senator, the fact that you only got 48 votes, doesn't that actually show that -- (off mike).

SEN. ALLARD: No, I think this is a very strong first vote, and I'm pleased to have that vote. I can reflect back on when we were having votes on the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. You know, that started out with very few votes, barely up to 30, if I remember correctly. And then over time, you know, over several years, then it developed so that it was come within just a couple votes-it passed out of the House, come within a couple votes of passing out of the Senate.

So this is a long process. Nobody on our side, I think, ever felt for a minute that this was going to be a one-shot deal and it was going to be over with at that particular point in time.

I don't know, Congressman DeMint, maybe you want to-he's from the House side-maybe you'd like to make a comment or two-running for office in South Carolina.

REP. JIM W. DEMINT (R-SC): Well, I'm just happy that the Senate is setting a standard for the House in getting this debate started. So I appreciate the chance. All of us as Americans believe that people have a right to live the way they want, but no person, no judge has a right to redefine our basic institutions. That's really what we've gotten started today, the American debate about protecting not just marriage but a fundamental value system that holds up our basic freedoms.

So I'm excited to be a small part of this in the House, and we're certainly going to pursue that debate there. And I know you want to get back to asking these senators a question. So thank you very much, Sam.

Q Senator Allard?

Q In terms of politics --

SEN. ALLARD: Just a minute. Just a minute. Yes, sir? And then Tom. Yes?

Q What's your next step?

SEN. ALLARD: Our next step is to sit down with our colleagues and see where their concerns are and begin go work towards a consensus. I don't expect us to have an opportunity to have another vote this year, because of the limited time frame that we have before we wrap up this session. And I just felt very fortunate to have it at least brought up on the calendar at this point in time, because like I said earlier, you know, a couple of weeks-a couple of months ago it wasn't even on the leadership's-the schedule to be debated on the floor of the Senate.

So I'm just grateful that they gave us the opportunity to get the debate started this year. And I suspect that as we move forward that we'll have more votes in the following years.

Yes, sir?

Q How effective of an issue can this be in the elections if you can't get beyond the 48 votes?

SEN. ALLARD: Well, the thing is is that we know where-now where many of the members of the Senate feel on this very important issue. And you can take this vote with DOMA and I think it tells a pretty good story out there. And, you know, some-and how it gets used in the election, that's up to somebody else other than me. You know, I'm in here in the Senate trying to fight for the traditional family, which I believe is the union between a man and a woman. And I think that that's where I'm focusing my efforts and will continue to focus it. I'm not up for reelection. I don't think there's anybody of us here that we're up for-well, I guess Senator Brownback is up for reelection.

But this really wasn't driven by politics. This was driven by activist courts. I'd much rather have had this come up on May 17th, because I thought that was a very significant day, a much more powerful day, because that was when the state of Massachusetts, through a court edict, began allowing same-sex marriages and disbursing those marriage licenses.

Q Senator Brownback, do you get the sense that some of the Democrats on the other side may not be listening to their constituents, because the petitions delivered here to the Capitol, the phone calls -- (off mike) -- have been for it, and yet it seems like they're voting possibly against the wishes of their constituents?

SEN. BROWNBACK: Oh, I think that was definitely the case. And you see this happen-as this issue matured in various states, this was the way it would occur: Initial vote, it goes down. But there's a lot of people that are activated by that and they say, "Look, I believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman, it should be protected." And then the legislative bodies turn around, and within a month in many of the states, voted it through because their constituents heard and they said I disagree with how you voted.

My office got more calls on this in an intensive period of time, a five-day time period leading up to this, than any issue since I've been in the United States Senate, overwhelmingly in favor of the amendment. I talked to a Democratic colleague that clearly was hearing from those constituents, yet voted the other way.

So I think this will have a maturing process. This is a big country and it's a very active one.

I think you will see this issue churning, and ultimately we will win this fight. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Q (Off mike.)

SEN. CORNYN: Well, I wish we had had an opportunity to go to the amendment and then to consider changes in the language that might have caused a consensus that Senator Allard and Senator Brownback have discussed to grow. But because we were obstructed from the right to go to the amendment because-we just-we don't know what that consensus might have been.

Q But I mean, before (this even getting to the floor ?).

SEN. CORNYN: Well, this is not a new issue. You'll recall it was last September when I first held a committee hearing, a Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution on whether the Defense of Marriage Act was threatened by the United States Supreme Court decision in Lawrence versus Texas. And then the other shoe fell in November of 2003, as I recall. That's when the Massachusetts Supreme Court came out with its blockbuster holding, and indeed that's I believe when Senator Allard and others became energized to go forward with this amendment. So this is not a surprise to anyone, but we've been blocked from having either amendments or an up-or-down vote on any of the amendments that might have been offered, either the original one or any substitutes.

Q Senator, in retrospect was it a mistake not to have the Judiciary Committee consider and massage this before it reached the floor?

SEN. CORNYN: That's a call made-judgment call made by the majority leader and Chairman Hatch, and I don't disagree with it. This could have easily gotten bogged down a lot of different ways along the way, and there would have been many perhaps on the other side of this issue who would have preferred to kill it before it got to the Senate floor.

But we had a good debate. I think it was positive. I think we've been able to discuss the importance of the American family in our society and we've been able to identify the role of activist judges who attempt to rewrite the Constitution under the guise of interpretation. I think it's been a very positive result.

SEN. ALLARD: I think we'll go ahead and bring this to a close. And I would just close with a comment. You know, I think we all feel that time is on our side.

Thank you very much.

SEN. CORNYN: Thank you.

SEN. BROWNBACK: Thanks, Wayne.

SEN. ALLARD: You bet. (Applause.)