[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 68 (Friday, May 26, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5393-S5394]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT

  Mr. FRIST. When we come back we will deal with a range of issues. I 
will have a little more to say about that in a bit, but the first issue 
we will come back to has to do with another institution, the 
institution of marriage.
  Throughout human history and culture, the union of a man and a woman 
has been recognized as the essential cornerstone of society. For 
millennia, marriage has served as a public act, a civil institution to 
bind men and women in the task of producing and nurturing their 
offspring. In some eras it has existed apart from romance, love, and 
mutual regard. In ours, we have embraced the ideal of marriage that 
deepens and enriches the bonds of love, that grows with every shared 
memory, endeavor, and challenge: husband and wife, father and mother, 
building a family and a community over a lifetime.
  At its root, marriage is and always has been a public institution 
that formalizes that family bond--its intent to further the community's 
interest in successfully rearing the next generation of healthy and 
prosperous citizens. But now, this fundamental institution is under 
attack. There is a concerted effort underway to redefine marriage 
against millennia of human experience and against the expressed wishes 
of the American people. Activist courts are usurping the power to 
define this social institution. And if marriage is redefined for 
anyone, it is redefined for everyone.
  The threat is real. Just last year voters in 13 States passed by 
enormous margins State constitutional amendments protecting marriage; 
19 States have State constitutional amendments also to protect 
marriage, and 5 more States have amendments pending. In total, 45 
States have either State constitutional amendments or laws to protect 
marriage.
  Tennessee will give voters the opportunity to voice their opinions on 
the sanctity of marriage this November. It is one of seven States with 
similar amendments pending to their constitutions. If a marriage 
protection law passes in Tennessee, we will join those 45 other States 
that have approved legislation that defines marriage as a union between 
a man and a woman and, indeed, no State has ever rejected an effort to 
protect traditional marriage when it has been on the ballot.
  So with this progress at the State level that expresses the 
overwhelming support of the American people, what is the problem? Why 
does it need to come to the floor of this body?
  Voting for marriage on the State ballot is not enough to protect the 
institution. I need to explain. Because same sex marriage advocates 
cannot win at the ballot box, activists are continuing their campaign 
to convince State and Federal courts to rewrite traditional marriage 
laws. Currently, nine States have lawsuits pending challenging marriage 
laws. In five States, courts could redefine marriage by the end of the 
year--California, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Washington.
  In California, Maryland, New York, and Washington, State trial courts 
have already followed Massachusetts and found the definition of 
marriage in their State constitutions unconstitutional. All these cases 
are on appeal.
  Already we have seen a Federal judge in Nebraska overturn a 
democratically enacted Nebraska State constitutional amendment 
protecting marriage. That ruling is now under appeal in the Eighth 
Circuit. Another Federal case in Washington challenges the 
constitutionality of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. The case is 
stayed, pending resolution of litigation in the Washington State 
Supreme Court.
  Because of these attempts to overturn State laws and constitutional 
amendments, this Senate needs to act. The American people deserve a 
full debate on this foundational issue before marriage is redefined for 
everyone. That is why, when we return from the Memorial Day recess, I 
will bring the marriage protection amendment to the Senate floor to 
ensure the definition of marriage endures and remains true to the 
wishes of the majority of the American people.
  The amendment is straightforward. The amendment is simple. It reads:

       Marriage in the United States shall consist only 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.

  That is it. It is simple, straightforward--it is two sentences. The 
truth is, on the question of marriage, the Constitution will be 
amended. The only question is whether it will be amended by Congress as 
the representative of the people or by judicial fiat. Will activist 
judges amend the Constitution or will the people amend the Constitution 
to preserve marriage as it has always been understood?

[[Page S5394]]

  I say the people should have a voice. The American people have a 
right to settle the question of what marriage will be in the United 
States. Marriage is an issue that rightly belongs in the hands of the 
people, of the American people. So before the courts impose a vast, 
untested social experiment for which children will bear the ultimate 
consequence, let the people hold a thorough debate. The matter before 
us is critical. The debate before us is essential. Let it be held now 
for this and future generations of Americans, and let it ultimately 
lead the way forward.


                           MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 435, S.J. Res. 
1, the marriage protection amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent the Senate resume consideration of this 
motion to proceed immediately following any morning business period on 
Monday, June 5.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________