[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15414-15415]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          FEDERAL MARRIAGE ACT

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it speaks volumes that the Senate 
Republican leadership has taken this disgraceful detour into right-wing 
campaign politics when so much genuine Senate business is still 
unfinished, and so little time is left to get it done.
  We can't pass a budget. We are far behind in meeting our 
appropriations responsibilities. So far, in fact, we have passed only 1 
of the 13 appropriations bills for the next fiscal year that begins on 
October 1. We may not see any of these bills acted on, on or before the 
August recess. Even in the wake of the al-Qaida terrorist threat 
announced last week by Secretary Ridge, the Senate leadership refuses 
to proceed with debate and votes on the Homeland Security 
appropriations bills.
  We know many higher priorities should be worked on. Since President 
Bush took office in 2001, health insurance premiums have soared 43 
percent. Tuition at public colleges has risen 28 percent. Drug costs 
have shot up 52 percent. Corporate profits have risen by over 50 
percent. Yet private sector wages are down six-tenths of 1 percent 
since President Bush took office, and there are 3 million more 
Americans in poverty.
  The Senate Republican leadership has consistently failed to address 
these and many other urgent priorities. It has taken no action to fix 
America's broken health care system. It has blocked passage of the 
Patients' Bill of Rights. It has refused to allow a vote on raising the 
minimum wage. It has still not scheduled a vote on renewing the 
existing ban on assault weapons, which will expire September 13.
  Rather than deal with these urgent priorities, the leadership is 
engaging in the politics of mass distraction by bringing up a 
discriminatory marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution that a 
majority of Americans do not support.
  Conservative activist Paul Weyrich explained the partisan GOP 
strategy in a recent e-mail newspaper. President Bush has ``bet the 
farm on Iraq'' he wrote, and the best solution to his declining poll 
numbers is to ``change the subject'' to the Federal marriage 
constitutional amendment. Weyrich acknowledged that doing so might cost 
the President votes from gay and lesbian Republicans, but he is not 
troubled about it. ``Good riddance,'' he wrote.
  We all know what this issue is about. It is not about how to protect 
the sanctity of marriage or how to deal with activist judges. It is 
about politics. I might say, of the activist judges, of the seven 
judges who drew the decision in Massachusetts, six of them were 
appointed by Republicans.
  This is about politics, an attempt to drive a wedge between one group 
of citizens and the rest of the country, solely for partisan advantage. 
We have rejected that tactic before, and I am hopeful we will do so 
again.
  I am also hopeful that many of our Republican colleagues, those with 
whom we have worked over the years in a bipartisan effort to expand and 
defend the civil rights of gay and straight Americans alike, will join 
us in rejecting this divisive effort. There is absolutely no need to 
amend the Constitution on this issue. As news reports from across the 
country make clear, Massachusetts and other States are already dealing 
with the issue and doing it effectively and doing it according to the 
wishes of the citizens of their State. No State has been bound or will 
be bound by the rulings and laws on same-sex marriages in any other 
State.
  The Federal statute enacted in 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act, 
makes the possibility of nationwide enforceability even more remote. 
Not a single State or Federal court has called the constitutionality of 
that act into question.
  Furthermore, not a single church, mosque, or synagogue has been 
required or ever will be required to recognize same-sex marriages. As 
the First Amendment makes clear, no court, no State, no Congress can 
tell any church or any religious group how to conduct its own affairs. 
The true threat to religious freedom is posed by the Federal marriage 
amendment itself, which would tell churches they cannot consecrate a 
same-sex marriage, even though some churches are now doing so.
  Given these indisputable facts, the proponents of the Federal 
marriage amendment have built their case upon a tower of speculation 
and conjecture--an attempt to conjure up a national crisis where none 
exists.
  This is a wholly insufficient basis for even considering a proposed 
constitutional amendment on the Senate floor, much less voting for it. 
If it is not necessary to amend the Constitution, it is necessary not 
to amend it.
  I urge my colleagues to show respect for our country's Constitution 
and its principles and traditions, and not play partisan campaign 
politics with the foundation of our democracy. I urge them to reject 
this discriminatory and unnecessary proposal.

[[Page 15415]]



                          ____________________