Federal Marriage Amendment

FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT-MOTION TO PROCEED-RESUMED

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I think under the previous consent order we would now go to 30 minutes on this side and then over to the Senator from Illinois for the next 30 minutes. We may, in fact, depending on who shows up, try to divide our 30 minutes among several Senators. I ask unanimous consent that we be allowed to do so in case there is any doubt.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am delighted that we are finally beginning to have a real debate on the floor of the Senate on the importance of preserving traditional marriage. Up until this point, I am sorry to say, we really hadn't had much of a debate because our attempts to raise this issue, starting on Friday, had been met mainly with silence from the other side. But we have had a number of Senators-Senators BOXER, REID, now FEINGOLD-who have spoken and stated their objections. I would like to respond briefly. I believe then that Mr. Inhofe, the Senator from Oklahoma, will be here. I will certainly turn to him.

First of all, we are told by the distinguished Democratic whip that Republicans have raised a political issue. I would suggest to you that when judges in Massachusetts and elsewhere threaten to mandate same-sex marriage on the people of this country without the opportunity for the people of this country or their elected representatives to cast a vote or to have a voice in that decision, that is not a vote in favor of democratic government, one preserved by our Constitution that recognizes the sovereignty of a free people, not of a few life-tenured judges or perhaps judges who none of us have had a chance to vote on or to express any disapproval of in terms of judges from Massachusetts who have radically redefined the institution of marriage in that State.

Contrary to the hopeful expressions by some of my colleagues and perhaps others in the media, this is not an issue that can just be confined to one State, the State of Massachusetts, because, in fact, same-sex couples have gone to that State and have taken advantage of this new law and then moved back to their States of residence, 46 different States. And then, of course, we understand the process. And then a number of those have, in turn, filed lawsuits in their home States seeking to force legal recognition on their same-sex marriage that was conducted in Massachusetts in their home State.

This is not an isolated event. This is part of a long-term litigation strategy. Indeed, we know that even as long ago as when the Defense of Marriage Act was passed by this body overwhelmingly-I believe it was 85 Senators who voted in favor of it on a bipartisan basis-there were some Senators back then who, of course, didn't vote for it, such as the Senator from Wisconsin, as is certainly his privilege. But we know that others did not vote for it at the time, including Senator Kerry, who said at the time:

DOMA is unconstitutional, unnecessary, and unprecedented. This is an unconstitutional, unprecedented, unnecessary, and meanspirited bill.

At the same time, of course, 85 of his colleagues in this body on a bipartisan basis sought to express their confidence in the importance of preserving traditional marriage back then. Then, of course, there were other Senators who made the same expression.

Legal scholars have for some time now, including Laurence Tribe from Harvard Law School, Cass Sunstein, and others, expressed their opinion as a legal matter that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, and then we have, most recently, the most recent edition of the Harvard Law Review, which is entitled "Litigating The Defense of Marriage Act, The Next Battleground For Same-Sex Marriage." This literally sets out a roadmap for any lawyer who wants to challenge the preservation of traditional marriage in their State or, indeed, in any State in the United States by seeking a judicial declaration in a court that the Federal Constitution mandates same-sex marriage.

So this is not some political issue that we or the leadership on this side of the aisle dreamed up. This is a debate that has been raging for some time now, at least since 1996, when Senator Kerry, Senator Kennedy, and others expressed on the public record that they believed the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional at the time. They were parroting the statements of legal scholars and others to the same effect.

So this is, in my view, a question of whether we the people have a say. As Abraham Lincoln said, we are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. But what our opponents on the other side of the aisle and on this issue would say is, look, we have four judges in Massachusetts who have laid down the law in Massachusetts, and there is really nothing you can do about it. The fact is, it has now been exported to 46 other States, and there are approximately 10 lawsuits presently pending to seek to force the recognition of those same-sex marriages in those States, and this is part of a national litigation strategy.

I say to those who think we ought to sit on the sidelines and remain spectators and remain silent, we are not going to remain silent, we are not going to stand still, nor did the Framers of our Constitution contemplate the people standing still when, by virtue of the passage of time and experience, or in this case when judges seek to amend the Constitution under the guise of interpretation, none of the Framers, no part of the Constitution contemplates that the people of this country should just remain silent.

If we want a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, this is an important debate. I want to say something before I defer to the Senator from Oklahoma, who wants to speak, just by way of response-and I will reserve the rest of my remarks for the remaining time we have allotted in this 30-minute timeslot.

The Senator from Nevada, the distinguished Democratic whip, has chastised this side of the aisle, the Republican majority leader, for refusing to accept their offer for an up-or-down vote on the Allard amendment. What he didn't tell you is they stipulated that it must be without any amendments being offered on the floor. In other words, their offer attempted to stifle debate and stifle the right of Senators to offer amendments. They know, as we all know, there are other amendments that have been discussed over the last year or so. I think if we want to have a full, fair, and honest debate, since there are concerns there wasn't adequate deliberation in the Judiciary Committee, this is the place to have it. We ought not to try to stifle debate or the right of any Senator to offer an appropriate amendment.

At this point, I will reserve the remainder of our allotted time and ask that the Senator from Oklahoma be recognized.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will be glad to do as the Democratic whip requests and check with the majority leader about the time arrangements.

Mr. REID. If I may ask one other question of the Chair, I was off the floor when Senator Schumer asked consent that he and Senator Feinstein be recognized before 5 o'clock. For how much time?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. For 15 minutes total.

Mr. REID. So that is also something we have to deal with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from Texas is recognized for 30 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am elated that we are beginning to see engagement on this important issue by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I am always impressed with how articulate and forceful an advocate our colleagues on the other side are, particularly the two Senators who have spoken so far this afternoon, Senator Feingold and Senator Durbin, with whom I have the privilege of serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee. There are some important answers to the questions he raised. There are good answers that resolve each and every objection that has been raised to the amendment.

First of all, I would like to respond to the rhetorical question both Senator Feingold and earlier Senator Boxer asked. They said: Why can't we let people live their own lives?

This amendment is not about making it impossible for people to live their own lives. Indeed, I agree we should let people live their own lives. Of course, we don't believe at the same time that they should be able to radically redefine the institution of marriage in the process.

From the very beginning of this debate-and I am grateful this has been a civil, respectful debate-we have made it absolutely clear the American people believe in at least two fundamental propositions when it comes to this issue. First and foremost, they believe in the essential dignity and worth of every human being. But at the same time-and this is not a mutually exclusive concept-they believe in the importance of traditional marriage as the most fundamental building block of a stable society and in the best interest of children. I and others on this side are here talking in support of this amendment and encouraging this debate because we believe very strongly that the positive case for traditional marriage must be made and we should not remain mere spectators on the sideline as judges in Massachusetts or anywhere else seek to amend the Constitution without the American people having a voice in the basic laws that govern our institutions or our lives. That is what this debate is all about.

I found it interesting. Again, I have to hand it to the Senator from Illinois. He is a skillful advocate. He must have been one heck of a lawyer practicing in private practice. I bet he won more than his fair share of his cases. But he speaks of our oath to support the Constitution. Certainly, I believe we all have taken an important oath to support the Constitution of laws of the United States. But I would like to direct my colleague's attention to provisions of the Constitution he may have overlooked in that broad generalization he made earlier about supporting the Constitution.

Indeed, one portion of the Constitution provides that "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . ." That is Article I, section 1. That is part of the Constitution we swore to uphold. And indeed, under that same Constitution, courts are given only judicial powers, not legislative powers. What we find ourselves having to do in this debate is talk about the abuse of that judicial power, to in essence become a superlegislature and dictate a radical redefinition of the most fundamental institution in our society, the American family. But when courts get it wrong-and indeed, this is part of the genius of our Founding Fathers-the Founding Fathers knew that experience, the passage of time, or perhaps even a runaway judiciary might make it necessary for us to invoke another important part of the Constitution that we are here invoking today. That is Article V of the Constitution.

Indeed, to the best of my count, there have been at least six times when the Congress has amended the Constitution in order to overrule an erroneous constitutional interpretation by the Federal courts. So we make no apologies whatsoever in invoking the entire Constitution and the entire process. We make no apology at not sitting back and letting judges dictate what the rules are that govern our society, our families, and future generations.

Senator Feingold and Senator Durbin were concerned about the fact that this amendment did not go through the Senate Judiciary Committee. Actually, I was a little bit confused about Senator Durbin's position. On the one hand, he said it did not go through the committee. On the other hand, he did concede the fact that there were four hearings of the Senate Judiciary Committee on this issue, starting last September, and the most recent of which was on June 22, 2004, when Governor Romney of Massachusetts appeared before our committee to talk about what he, as the Governor of that State, is doing to try to get a constitutional amendment to overrule the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

So we have had four hearings of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I know there have been at least two other committees of the Senate to consider this issue. It is important to put the concerns that were expressed by Senator Feingold and Senator Durbin in that context.

As far as the language we are debating is concerned, the so-called Allard amendment, that was introduced shortly before, I believe the day before the March 23 hearing we had this year on the Federal marriage amendment. Indeed, he had filed his original amendment-and this clarification was merely that-in November of 2003. So no Member of the Senate should be able to claim, in all fairness, of being surprised by this or being blindsided. Indeed, this is an issue that has been much discussed since actually before but at least since the time in November of 2003, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court first handed down its edict rewriting the Massachusetts Constitution to provide a mandate for same-sex marriage.

Now, there has been some concern expressed-and I will point out that the so-called Smith amendment, to which the Senator from Nevada alluded, is the first sentence of the Allard amendment. So it is impossible for me to understand how they can claim to be surprised by an amendment that is just the first sentence of the two-sentence Allard amendment. Insofar as Senator Smith's position, whether he intends to offer it-and I cannot vouch for what Congress Daily says, but it seems to be pretty reliable-there is a lot of concern-and I am one on this side-that we stifle debate by not permitting a discussion of alternative amendments, especially one that makes up the first sentence of this two-sentence amendment on which we are having the motion to proceed.

So there is no surprise. There is no trickery, no attempt to blindside our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This is about having a full, fair, and open debate. I think that is what we are doing.

I believe the Senator from Illinois expressed some concerns about the fact that no Federal court has yet mandated same-sex marriage under an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, and that is true. The fact also is that there are at least four lawsuits currently pending attempting to do exactly that. Indeed, these are the latest lawsuits in a long line of legal opinions rendered by legal scholars, from Laurence Tribe and others, statements by Senator John Kerry and Senator TED KENNEDY as recently as 1996 that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

This language, which I will read from an excerpt out of the Goodridge opinion in Massachusetts-and this is really, to me, very disconcerting. The Massachusetts Supreme Court said:

But neither may the Government, under the guise of protecting "traditional" values, even if they be the traditional values of the majority, enshrine in law an invidious discrimination that our Constitution, "as a charter of governance for every person
properly within its reach," forbids.

In that excerpt, they have in effect defined traditional marriage as invidious discrimination. They went on to say:

For no rational reason, the marriage laws of the Commonwealth discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain.

Here again, they are saying that traditional marriage is a stain on the Constitution, on the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and no rational basis for those laws exists. This is language that I think the people across America would find very shocking. The fact is, they probably have not had the time or the means to try to find this language themselves. That is another reason it is important to have this debate. The Goodridge court goes on to say:

If, as the separate opinion suggests, the Legislature were to jettison the term "marriage" altogether, it might well be rational and permissible. What is not permissible is to retain the word for some and not for others, with all the distinctions thereby engendered.

Translated into English, what the court said is you cannot preserve traditional marriage for some adult couples but not for same-sex couples. But what you could do, in Massachusetts and elsewhere, is eliminate the term "marriage" altogether. Shocking. Shocking.

Now, for those who think that we have somehow on this side of the aisle dreamed up this crisis, this threat, this assault to the American family and traditional marriage, let me read just another paragraph. This, again, is the Goodridge decision out of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, mandating same-sex marriage-four judges:

The separate opinion maintains that, because same-sex civil marriage is not recognized under Federal law and the law of many States, there is a rational basis for the Commonwealth to distinguish same-sex from opposite-sex spouses. . . . We are well aware that current Federal law prohibits recognition by the Federal Government of the validity of same-sex marriages legally entered into in any State, and that it permits other States to refuse to recognize the validity of such marriages. The argument in the separate opinion that, apart from the legal process, society will still accord a lesser status to those marriages is irrelevant. Courts define what is constitutionally permissible, and the Massachusetts constitution does not permit this type of labeling. That there may remain personal residual prejudice against same-sex couples is a proposition all too familiar to other disadvantaged groups. That such prejudice exists is not a reason to insist on less than the Constitution requires.

That is a direct critique and criticism of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 by a vote of 85 Senators in this body on a bipartisan basis. If that isn't a direct signal that the next law under attack is the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, I don't know what is. In fact, we know that at least four cases are presently pending seeking to accomplish just that.

Now, there have been those who have expressed concerns, saying why in the world would we want to pass a constitutional amendment until a Federal court actually strikes down traditional marriage, even though the Supreme Court has, in Lawrence v. Texas, provided the rationale to do so, and that rationale has been adopted by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, interpreting their Constitution; why in the world do we want to amend the U.S. Constitution at this time?

I might interject that I bet old John Adams, who was the principal author in 1780 of that Massachusetts Constitution, never dreamed that four judges on the Massachusetts Supreme Court would so contort the meaning of that document as to create a right to same-sex marriage. That is one reason they didn't talk about it explicitly, either in the State constitution or in the Federal Constitution.

But in terms of why we shouldn't wait to address this matter, I point out that Massachusetts is a good example of why. If we wait until it is too late, it may well take years for the American people, through the amendment process, to correct that error. In the meantime, we know that same-sex marriages will occur as they currently occur in Massachusetts, and those people will not just stay in one State but will move to other parts of the country to seek to have those marriages validated under the laws of their own State. But we do have an example of when States have chosen, based on a preliminary ruling suggesting same-sex marriage, to amend their constitution. So it is not unprecedented by any means.

As a matter of fact, in 1993 and 1996, Hawaii and Alaska courts issued preliminary rulings suggesting that same-sex marriage may be constitutionally required, and it was in 1998 that Hawaii and Alaska preemptively amended their constitutions before the highest court in those States went as far as the Massachusetts Supreme Court did in the Goodridge case. Indeed, in 2000, Nebraska and Nevada preemptively amended their State constitutions before suits were even filed.

I might add, there have been suits filed in Nevada seeking to force recognition of polygamist marriages under the rationale in Lawrence v. Texas and Goodridge, and, indeed, in Nebraska, there has been a Federal constitutional challenge to that State Constitution defense of marriage provision under this rationale of the Lawrence case seeking to have the Federal Government tell Nebraska it cannot recognize traditional marriage.

I want to move to the Allard amendment, which is two sentences. The first sentence basically says marriage is between a man and a woman. The second sentence seeks to preserve the right of the States to deal with the question of civil unions and to reserve that right to them as opposed to having a court mandate it.

I was a little baffled as to why the Senator from Illinois expressed some puzzlement at the meaning of that second sentence when, indeed, during one of the hearings we had in the Senate Judiciary Committee, he asked Professor Cass Sustein of the University of Chicago Law School:

Under this language, please explain whether a State legislature could pass a law to establish civil unions.

Professor Sustein responded:

I believe it could because no State constitution would be affected.

We have heard a number of objections raised that this is a State issue. We have seen charts being trotted out containing the quotations of various public figures. At one time, the Vice President, in a different context, said this should be a matter reserved to the States. And there was a quote from the Vice President's wife, Lynne Cheney, expressing her views, and I certainly respect both of them and their right to express their views. But the fact is this cannot be contained to one State.

It is interesting to hear folks on the other side of the aisle make States rights arguments to folks on this side of the aisle. The shoe is usually on the other foot because they are usually the ones seeking to have the Federal Government tell all the States what they should be doing rather than let each State-what Louis Brandeis once called the laboratories of democracy-work out these various policies.

The truth is, we are not only talking about whether a State should embrace a property tax or a sales tax or perhaps adopt an income tax. In my State, we do not have an income tax, and we are proud of it. We do not want an income tax in the State of Texas. Each State has a right to choose its own policies that way.

I firmly adhere to that and believe the States rights argument is absolutely true. But to suggest we can somehow, as a practical matter, contain this revolution, this radical social experiment mandated by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, in one State denies reality. The fact is people have, indeed, married, they have moved to 46 States and now we have at least 10, maybe more, lawsuits as part of a national litigation strategy to force other States to recognize the validity of that marriage. You would have to be blind to that effort to stand up here and say this is a State matter because it is not.

We know based on the legal arguments of scholars, based on the comments of Senator Kerry back when the Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996-something he did not vote for, by the way, and he now says he supports marriage as only between a man and a woman, but then he says he does not support a constitutional amendment either. He was not for the statute, he is not for a constitutional amendment, but he still claims to be in favor of traditional marriage. I don't know if, again, this is one of the nuances, quite frankly, that evades me of his reasoning process, but you simply cannot have it both ways.

Indeed, for reasons we have talked about already at great length, when as a matter of Federal constitutional interpretation by a court, same-sex marriages are required, no State constitution, no State law, nobody has a choice in that matter because our Federal Constitution, indeed, speaks for the entire Nation and not one State.

So no matter how much well-intentioned individuals may wish we can avoid this debate and say this is a local issue, this is a State issue, we do not need to be talking about it, that defies reality.

I know Senator Durbin had suggested at the close of his comments that this is all an attempt to change the subject; that somehow we do not want to debate what is happening in Iraq, what is happening in the economy. I think the American people certainly know we have debated those issues, and we will continue to debate those issues. Frankly, I am proud of what we have been able to accomplish in Iraq under a joint resolution passed overwhelmingly by this body authorizing the President to remove Saddam Hussein from power in that country, something that had been the policy of this Congress since at least 1998 when the Democrats advocated, and we all agreed-or at least those here at that time-in the Iraq Liberation Act. Regime change was a policy of the American Government under Democrat control, under a Democrat, President Bill Clinton. But it took the present President, George W. Bush, I believe, to follow through after Saddam thumbed his nose at 17 resolutions of the United Nations requiring him to open his nation up to weapons inspectors.

You want to talk about the economy, we are glad to talk about the economy. The economy is roaring back, thanks again to the policies advocated by this side of the aisle and led by President Bush who created more than 1.5 million new jobs this year alone. Indeed, home ownership is at an all-time high. The economy is roaring back, so we are glad to talk about that.

Finally, I have heard Senator Durbin say it before and it makes you chuckle when you hear it-well, it is kind of funny. He says he believes no constitutional amendment should be debated-I cannot remember if he said "debated," "filed" or "passed"-during an election year. We did not choose the timing of the Massachusetts Supreme Court's decision. I suggest what we are arguing for is a debate about the most fundamental institution in our society, and that is not a frivolous matter.
That is an important matter.

Indeed, there are some, including this Senator, who believe it is the most important matter. Of course, those who have made the States rights arguments, all they need to do is read that Constitution once again, that Senator Durbin spoke eloquently about, to recognize not only does it include a constitutional amendment process, but after two-thirds of the Senate and after two-thirds of the House have passed the resolution, three-quarters of the States have to ratify the amendment. So those who want to stand in this Chamber and say, We believe in States rights, we believe this ought to be handled by the States, the States retain a voice, a critical voice, a crucial, an essential voice in this process through the ratification process.

I believe this is an important issue. It cannot be solved at the local level. It is a national issue requiring a national response. It is not premature because to act only after a Federal court mandates same-sex marriage on a national basis under the guise of interpreting the U.S. Constitution, it will take too long for the people to speak and to overturn that decision and we will see something akin to what we see now happening in Massachusetts, despite the fact the people of Massachusetts have, through their representatives, at least initially, chosen to try to overrule that decision by a constitutional amendment.

The problem is that constitutional amendment cannot be effective until 2006. So what happens in the interim? What happens in the interim is what we see happening today, because of a dictate from the bench by four judges which now we see has a national impact.

I reserve the remainder of our time and yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. We have been going back and forth, and I certainly want to accommodate every Senator but I also know the Senator from Pennsylvania has been here as well.

Mr. REID. If I could ask through the Chair, how long does the Senator from Pennsylvania wish to speak?

Mr. SANTORUM. If Senator Lautenberg is speaking 15 minutes, I will speak for 10 or 15 minutes, if we want to go back and forth.

Mr. REID. Maybe we can try this: Following the statement of the Senator from New Jersey, the Senator from Pennsylvania would be recognized for 15 minutes and then Senator Mikulski for 10 minutes. We already have an order in effect that Schumer and Feinstein are to be recognized for 15 minutes total. So they would use their time immediately after Senator Mikulski completes her statement. I ask unanimous consent that be the case.

Mr. CORNYN. I have no problem with that as long as we continue to try to observe the back and forth so each side has an opportunity to speak.

Mr. REID. If I could ask through the Chair, how long does the Senator from Pennsylvania wish to speak?

Mr. SANTORUM. If Senator Lautenberg is speaking 15 minutes, I will speak for 10 or 15 minutes, if we want to go back and forth.

Mr. REID. Maybe we can try this: Following the statement of the Senator from New Jersey, the Senator from Pennsylvania would be recognized for 15 minutes and then Senator Mikulski for 10 minutes. We already have an order in effect that Schumer and Feinstein are to be recognized for 15 minutes total. So they would use their time immediately after Senator Mikulski completes her statement. I ask unanimous consent that be the case.

Mr. CORNYN. I have no problem with that as long as we continue to try to observe the back and forth so each side has an
opportunity to speak.

Mr. REID. We would not go back and forth from MIKULSKI to FEINSTEIN because there is already an order entered regarding FEINSTEIN and SCHUMER, but they only total 15 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. With that exception, I have no objection.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to address the motion to proceed to the amendment now pending before the body, the Federal marriage amendment. One of the arguments that I hear again and again-I guess I am so shocked and amazed that somebody would actually make the argument that I perhaps have not done a very good job in responding to it.

For the record, I think it is important to respond to the argument that has been made twice this afternoon on the floor by the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Maryland, that the constitutional amendment process is for expanding and not limiting rights. In other words, they think the only permissible purpose of a constitutional amendment is to expand, not limit individual rights, presumably including the right to same-sex marriage.

These are the same people who accuse supporters of wanting to "write discrimination into the Constitution." I find the argument disturbing and offensive, but I also find it somewhat revealing. I wish that everyone who was engaged in this debate would take counsel in the words the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, who is in the Chamber, once stated during the course of the debate on the Defense of Marriage Act back in 1996. Even though he did not support the Defense of Marriage Act at that time, he observed that "there are strongly held religious, ethical, and moral beliefs that are different from mine with regard to the issue of same-sex marriage, which I respect and which are no indication of intolerance." I agree with those words.

To those who consider the traditional institution of marriage to be about discrimination, they have already, somehow, made same-sex marriage into a right that is the status quo that those who want to preserve traditional marriage are trying to discriminate against. I don't know whether it is just a technique of argument to try to pin the idea of discrimination or of wanting to limit rights on those who basically want to preserve the status quo as it has existed in our civilization for 5,000 years, and certainly in this country for as long as it has existed or whether they actually have bought into the specious argument that somehow wanting to preserve the institution of traditional marriage for the benefit of the American family and our children is about limiting rights.

It is nothing of the kind. Indeed, both the NAACP and the American Bar Association have testified that they have no position on whether traditional marriage laws should remain on the books.

Now, setting that aside for just a moment, which is rather amazing in and of itself, if marriage were about discrimination, surely both the NAACP and the American Bar Association would oppose it. But it is not, and they did not. To the contrary, religious leaders in every community across America have expressed their support for traditional marriage. They recognize the importance of traditional marriage in their respective communities, including many communities that are all too familiar with the scourge of discrimination.

Indeed, during some of the hearings that we have had on this issue in the Senate Judiciary Committee, we had individuals such as Rev. Ray Hammond of the Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Boston; Rev. Richard Richardson of the St. Paul African Methodist Episcopal Church in Boston; and Pastor Daniel de Leon, Sr., of Alianza de Ministerious Evangelicos Nacionales, otherwise known as AMEN, and Templo Calvario in Santa Ana, CA. Surely, these people, who have fought their entire lives against racial discrimination, and who support traditional marriage, cannot be labeled as bigots or wanting to limit rights or somehow wanting to write discrimination into the Constitution. To the contrary, they understand that it is traditional marriage that represents the status quo.

It was a basic assumption of John Adams when he penned the Massachusetts Constitution but which was rewritten at the hand of four judges on the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

It is those of us who are arguing for this constitutional amendment to preserve the status quo in this country who are doing just that and not attempting to limit rights. Rather, it is telling that those who make accusations are so intolerant of the democratic process contained in article V of the U.S. Constitution that provides a means for the people to express their views and to have a voice, to have a vote on something as important as this.

It is precisely because these activists believe traditional marriage is about discrimination that they believe all traditional marriage laws are unconstitutional and, therefore, must be abolished by the courts. These activists have left the American people with no middle ground. They accuse others of writing discrimination into the Constitution, yet they are the ones writing the American people out of our constitutional democracy.

As I have often said, and I think it is worth saying again, the American people believe in two fundamental propositions, at least, among others: One is the essential dignity and worth of every human being. This is not about wanting to limit rights or wanting to hurt anyone. This is about preserving something that is a positive social good in our society, that has stood the test of time, something that is important to the stability of our civilization, that is important because it is in the best interest of children.

I had the honor for 4 years to serve as attorney general of my State, and Texas is one of the few States where the attorney general has the privilege of enforcing child support obligations. I am very proud of the good work the men and women in my office did to improve our collection efforts by more than 80 percent in 4 years because they were literally able to put food on the table and a shelter over children who did not have that because they were denied the right given to them under our laws to have the financial support to which they are entitled. But it was there I became very aware of the challenges that confront children in a society that cares only about adults and thinks about children only as an afterthought.

We know, as Senator Santorum mentioned, the only place where we actually have some experience, some record of what happens when a radical experiment with the definition of marriage and traditional family takes place is we have this correlation with an increase in out-of-wedlock childbirths and more and more children who are at risk of a whole host of social ills.

As somebody who believes the family first and foremost is there to help those children as they grow, to avoid those risks and to grow up and be productive citizens, I do not think we ought to be taking any chances with the most important and fundamental institution we know of in our society that is designed to operate in their best interest, not coincidentally so that the American taxpayers do not have to continue spending their hard-earned money to provide services that might otherwise be provided by the family, or build more prisons or provide more opportunities for drug and alcohol rehabilitation, other risks that, unfortunately, too many of our children fall trap to today.

I found it very compelling that members of the minority community-African-American and Hispanic communities-particularly those who work in places such as Boston and California and elsewhere, are some of the most passionate about the importance of maintaining the traditional family against this attempt to write them out of our laws and out of our Constitution.

It seems the supporters of traditional marriage are faced with an unhappy task: Either we give up the traditional institution of marriage to those activists who want to rewrite the definition, who see marriage as nothing more than discrimination, or we enshrine traditional marriage with the constitutional protection our children need and deserve.

I believe the traditional institution of marriage is too important to sit on the sidelines or to fail to have this important debate. I believe it is worth defending, and that is why I support this important amendment.

I see the Senator from Massachusetts in the Chamber. I will be glad to yield so he may address the Chamber.