[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 64 (Thursday, May 9, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4947-S4948]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______


                        DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT

 Mr. COATS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to cosponsor 
Senator Dole's and Senator Nickles' bill (S. 1740) defining marriage as 
a legal union between one man and one woman.
  Marriage is the institution that civilizes our society by humanizing 
our lives. It is the social, legal, and spiritual relationship that 
prepares the next generation for its duties and opportunities. A 1884 
decision of the Supreme Court called it ``the sure foundation of all 
that is stable and noble in our civilization.''
  The definition of marriage is not created by politicians and judges, 
and it cannot be changed by them. It is rooted in our history, our 
laws, our deepest moral and religious convictions, and our nature as 
human beings. It is the union of one man and one woman. This fact can 
be respected or it can be resented, but it cannot be altered.
  Our society has a compelling interest in respecting that definition. 
The breakdown of traditional marriage is our central social crisis--the 
cause of so much anguish and suffering, particularly for our children. 
Our urgent responsibility is to nurture and strengthen that 
institution, not undermine it with trendy moral relativism.
  The institution of marriage is our most valuable cultural 
inheritance. It is our duty--perhaps our first duty--to pass it intact 
to the future.
  The distortion of marriage is sometimes defended as a form of 
tolerance. But this represents a fundamental misunderstanding, both of 
marriage and tolerance.
  I believe strongly in tolerance, not only for the peace of society, 
but because it is the proper way to treat others. As individuals, we 
should never compromise our moral convictions. But we should always 
treat others with respect and dignity.
  A government, however, has another duty. All law embodies some moral 
consensus. No society can be indifferent to its moral life, because 
there are consequences for us all.
  Every government must set certain standards as sign posts. It must 
create expectations for responsible behavior. Not every lifestyle is 
equal for the purpose of the common good. This does not mean the 
persecution of those who fall short of the standard, but it does mean 
giving legal preference to that

[[Page S4948]]

standard. A tolerant society does not need to be an indifferent 
society.
  A government that values freedom can permit some things that it would 
not encourage or condone. But a government must also promote things 
that are worthy examples and social ideals.
  Government cannot be neutral in the debate over marriage. It has 
sound reasons to prefer the traditional family in its policies. As 
social thinker Michael Novak has written:

       A people whose marriage and families are weak have no solid 
     institutions . . . family life is the seedbed of economic 
     skills, money habits, attitudes toward work and the arts of 
     independence.

  When we prefer traditional marriage and family in our laws, it is not 
intolerance. Tolerance does not require us to say that all lifestyles 
are morally equal, only that no individual deserves to be persecuted. 
It does not require us to weaken our social ideals. It does not require 
a reconstruction of our most basic human institutions. It does not 
require special recognition for those who have rejected the standard.
  It is amazing and disturbing that this legislation should be 
necessary. It is a sign of the times, and an indication of a deep moral 
confusion. But events have made this definition essential. The 
preservation of marriage has become an issue of self-preservation for 
our society. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this 
measure.

                          ____________________