Debate in the
U.S. Senate over the proposed constitutional amendment to
ban same-sex marriage wrapped up on Tuesday with 26 senators
chiming in on whether to write discrimination into the
the country's most valued document. And despite
another appeal for passage by President Bush, the
amendment appeared headed toward certain defeat on Wednesday
as supporters could not muster the 60 votes that will
be needed to cut off debate and force an up or down
vote on the measure.
Following are
some excerpts from some of the senators' comments, in order
of when they spoke:
Wayne Allard
(Colorado Republican), the amendment's sponsor:
"Marriage--the union of a man and a woman--has
been the foundation of every civilization in human
history. It is incorporated into the fabric of our
culture and civil life. It is the platform on which
children, families, and communities are nurtured....
My amendment takes the issue out of the hands of a
handful of activist judges and puts it squarely back
in the hands of the people."
Sam Brownback
(Kansas Republican): "[W]e know from all the social
data, in all societies, at all times, that the best place to
raise children is [within] the union of a man and a
woman.... You can raise good children in other
settings, but the best--the optimal setting--is
in the union between a man and a woman, bonded
together for life.... That's something we've got
social data on, but we also know that in our hearts."
Rick Santorum
(Pennsylvania Republican): "When a court makes a
judicial decision, they do so based on a judicial foundation
that has a logical and rational basis to it and has
logical consequences to it.... What Massachusetts did
was the logical [conclusion] from Lawrence v.
Texas.... It is the basis upon which they built their
decision."
Harry Reid
(Nevada Democrat): "This is not what the American people
want to be talking about. With rare exception, they say that
we are wasting the taxpayer's time doing this."
Dick Durbin
(Illinois Democrat): "We're going to spend three or four
days this week on an amendment that doesn't have a chance
[to pass], that ranks 33rd [in] the Gallup poll when
it comes to the interests of the American people....
Why are we doing this? Why aren't we focusing on the
issues that count, if we have so little time [left in the
legislative session]?"
John Warner
(Virginia Republican): "I am concerned that the second
sentence of this proposed constitutional amendment is
unnecessarily vague and could well trample on the
rights [of the states]."
Frank Lautenberg
(New Jersey Democrat): "I have lots of visitors in my
offices in New Jersey and here [in Washington], and not one
of them came in to talk to me about gay marriage. They
came in to talk to me about health insurance. They
came to talk to me about their pensions disappearing."
Russ Feingold
(Wisconsin Democrat): "Gay and lesbian Americans are
our friends, our family members, our neighbors, our
colleagues. They should not be used as pawns in a
cynical political exercise."
David Vitter
(Louisiana Republican): "[Louisiana] passed a state
constitutional marriage amendment...with 78% of the vote.
The folks in Louisiana want those values upheld. They
don't want them redefined radically by activist
courts...courts in other states like Massachusetts.
And make no mistake--that is what is happening."
Orrin Hatch (Utah
Republican): "Yesterday the distinguished Democratic
leader came to the floor...with a laundry list of issues
that we could be addressing instead of this amendment.
[But] ultimately, I think we are capable of chewing
gum and walking at the same time. In two days we will
be taking up floor time to debate a bill to create a
race-based government for the state of Hawaii. I will not
hold my breath waiting for these same folks to argue
then that we should be discussing more pressing
issues."
John Thune (South
Dakota Republican): "Nothing is more fundamental,
nothing is more important to the fabric of the American
society than the family. And that is what this debate
is really all about."
John McCain
(Arizona Republican): "I do not at this time support the
proposed Marriage Protection Amendment. The proposed
amendment would establish in our Constitution a
permanent resolution of debate that is currently and
properly being resolved in different ways in 50 different
states by the peoples' elected representatives."
Jon Kyl (Arizona
Republican): "In July 2004 we were looking only at
Massachusetts. Today state courts in four other states have
followed Massachusetts's lead.... [T]he concern about
the courts intruding into this area is not a
hypothetical future concern but a reality today."
Edward Kennedy
(Massachusetts Democrat): "A vote in support of this
amendment has nothing to do with the protection of marriage.
A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against
domestic partnerships, against all other efforts by
states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the
law. It's a vote to impose discrimination on all 50 states
and to deny them the right to write and interpret
their state constitutions and state laws."
Mark Dayton
(Minnesota Democrat): "[F]or the first in our nation's
history, the proponents of this amendment would add
discrimination to our Constitution. They would tell
one group of people--a social minority--that
equal rights and equal protection do not apply to them."
Tom Harkin (Iowa
Democrat): "The only thing lower than President Bush's
polls right now [is the] standing of Congress. No wonder
why--look at what we're debating here, while all
of these other issues go by the wayside. What about
the real needs and concerns of working American
families?"
Patty Murray
(Washington Democrat): "Why are we spending time on
political games when we have soldiers in harm's way who are
serving us honorably around the world? Don't they
deserve better than this? Why is the Senate bringing
up divisive issues, when we need right now more than
ever to come together as a country and address the
challenges that confront us?"
John Cornyn
(Texas Republican): "This is not an issue that we have
gratuitously brought up. This is one that has been forced
upon us [by the courts]. I guess what our colleagues
on the other side of the aisle would prefer is [that]
we just be quiet and gradually allow the Constitution of
the United States to be amended...by a handful of activist
judges."
Mel Martinez
(Florida Republican): "I believe that this marriage
amendment takes a measured and reasonable approach to the
problem of courts redefining marriage."
Jim Talent
(Missouri Republican): "It's clear that there's a
well-organized and deliberate movement in this country to
redefine marriage, to change our most social
institution, without regard to the right of the people
to govern themselves. Unless we pass a constitutional
amendment, we'll allow the courts of this country to
disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans on an
issue that is of greater importance to them on a
day-to-day basis--because it involves the way in which
their children and other peoples' children are going
to be raised--than most of the legislation that
we debate."
Dianne Feinstein
(California Democrat): "[A]ll family law has
historically been relegated to the states. That's marriage,
divorce, adoption, [and] custody. All aspects of
family law and domestic relations have been the
province of the states. That's what the Supreme Court has
said in case after case.... States are well able to handle
marriage on their own."
Richard Shelby
(Alabama Republican): "[J]udges have taken upon
themselves to make decisions reserved for state
legislatures.... [T]hese activist judges do not have
to be responsive to anyone and are accountable to no
one. Abraham Lincoln reminded us in the Gettysburg
Address that we have a government of the people, by the
people and for the people. Activist judges,
accountable to no one, should not be allowed to govern
this country."
Jeff Sessions
(Alabama Republican): "We are not here because of some
political agenda. [Instead,] traditional, mainstream
Americans were going about their business when out of
the blue, courts began a pattern of rulings that
subverted democratic principles and subverted a long-held
meaning of marriage."
Tom Carper
(Delaware Democrat): "I'm not convinced that, given the
action of my own state and 45 other states and the actions
of the Congress [in 1996 in passing the Defense of
Marriage Act]...that we need to enshrine into the
Constitution...what we've already enshrined into state
laws and federal law."
Barbara Boxer
(California Democrat): "I think [the amendment] is
divisive. I think it's unnecessary.... [T]he proposed
amendment is nothing more than a cynical election-year
ploy." (The Advocate)
