[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 95 (Wednesday, July 19, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1459-E1460]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 18, 2006

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine 
marriage as something

[[Page E1460]]

other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a 
constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend 
marriage.
  While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, 
government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the 
institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of 
government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state 
recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private 
individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their 
wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their 
faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church and their creator, 
not with receiving their marriage license, thus being joined in the 
eyes of the state.
  If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of 
Marriage Act, which used Congress's constitutional authority to define 
what official state documents other states have to recognize under the 
Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced 
to recognize a ``same sex'' marriage license issued in another state. 
This Congress, I am an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection 
Act, H.R. 1100, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act 
from federal courts' jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas 
legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue 
judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my 
state.
  Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, 
including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts 
to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I 
am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage 
Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is 
forced by a federal court's or another state's actions to recognize 
same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel 
only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I 
respectfully disagree. I also am concerned that the proposed amendment, 
by telling the individual states how their state constitutions are to 
be interpreted, is a major usurpation of the states' power. The 
division of power between the federal government and the states is one 
of the virtues of the American political system. Altering that balance 
endangers self-government and individual liberty. However, if federal 
judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the 
marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for 
me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches.
  Conservatives in particular should be leery of anything that 
increases federal power, since centralized government power is 
traditionally the enemy of conservative values. I agree with the 
assessment of former Congressman Bob Barr, who authored the Defense of 
Marriage Act:

       ``The very fact that the FMA [Federal Marriage Amendment] 
     was introduced said that conservatives believed it was okay 
     to amend the Constitution to take power from the states and 
     give it to Washington. That is hardly a basic principle of 
     conservatism as we used to know it. It is entirely likely the 
     left will boomerang that assertion into a future proposed 
     amendment that would weaken gun rights or mandate income 
     redistribution.''

  Passing a constitutional amendment is a long, drawn-out process. The 
fact that the marriage amendment already failed to gather the necessary 
two-thirds support in the Senate means that, even if two-thirds of 
House members support the amendment, it will not be sent to states for 
ratification this year. Even if the amendment gathers the necessary 
two-thirds support in both houses of Congress, it still must go through 
the time-consuming process of state ratification. This process requires 
three-quarters of the state legislatures to approve the amendment 
before it can become effective. Those who believe that immediate action 
to protect the traditional definition of marriage is necessary should 
consider that the Equal Rights Amendment easily passed both houses of 
Congress and was quickly ratified by a number of states. Yet, that 
amendment remains unratified today. Proponents of this marriage 
amendment should also consider that efforts to amend the Constitution 
to address flag burning and require the federal government to balance 
the budget have been ongoing for years, without any success.
  Ironically, liberal social engineers who wish to use federal 
government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the 
constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of 
marriage is indeed a federal matter! I am unwilling either to cede to 
federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state's 
ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Instead, I 
believe it is time for Congress and state legislatures to reassert 
their authority by refusing to enforce judicial usurpations of power.
  In contrast to a constitutional amendment, the Marriage Protection 
Act requires only a majority vote of both houses of Congress and the 
President's signature to become law. The bill already has passed the 
House of Representatives; at least 51 Senators would vote for it; and 
the President would sign this legislation given his commitment to 
protecting the traditional definition of marriage. Therefore, those who 
believe Congress needs to take immediate action to protect marriage 
this year should focus on passing the Marriage Protection Act.
  Because of the dangers to liberty and traditional values posed by the 
unexpected consequences of amending the Constitution to strip power 
from the states and the people and further empower Washington, I cannot 
in good conscience support the marriage amendment to the United States 
Constitution. Instead, I plan to continue working to enact the Marriage 
Protection Act and protect each state's right not to be forced to 
recognize a same-sex marriage.

                          ____________________