Senator Wayne Allard (R - CO)

First Statement on the Federal Marriage Amendment
July 13, 2004

---

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I take this opportunity, before we continue with the debate, to talk about how important it is that we debate in an earnest and sincere way the issue of marriage. Marriage does matter. It is important to the American people.

We heard earlier comments about how bringing up issues such as class action lawsuits, the marriage amendment, and trade were just wasting the Congress's time. Yet the other side doesn't think it is a waste of time to raise taxes, to increase more laws so we have fewer and fewer rights, to restrict the free enterprise system, and in a sense create more government.

In the debate on marriage, we are trying to accomplish a number of things. No. 1, we want to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. No. 2, we want to restrict the action of the court's ability to define marriage. Then, No. 3--and perhaps the most important part of this debate--we want to give the American people an opportunity to debate this through their elected representatives in the Congress here and in the State legislatures.

It has been a grassroots type of process from the bottom up. We have heard a lot of concerns from people all over America about the way the courts are dealing with the issue of marriage and their frustrations in not being able to address this issue.

We heard a lot of good comments from some of my colleagues yesterday in debating the marriage amendment. In favor, we have had Senators HATCH, SANTORUM, SMITH, FRIST, BUNNING, KYL, CORNYN, SESSIONS, LOTT, and BROWNBACK--all explaining why it is important that we move forward in passing this amendment.

We have heard pretty much procedural arguments from the other side. Our side was talking about their concern about losing the institution of marriage, that it is basically a fundamental building block of society, and if we want democracies such as the United States to survive, we need to have good, functioning families. If families do well, children do well. We will hear more about that today. Then we will hear about the democratic process in which we allow American citizens to participate. This is the essence of what we were talking about yesterday and the inevitability of what is going to happen through our courts, that there is a master plan out there from those who want to destroy the institution of marriage to, first, begin to take this issue to a few select courts throughout this country at the State level.

We begin to see this in States such as Vermont and Massachusetts and a number of other States, and then proceed up through the States; and once they get favorable rulings from a few courts that are dominated pretty much by activist judges and judges who want to ignore the tradition of marriage for thousands of years, and want to bypass the legislative process--then once they have established their basis, they want to take it to the Federal courts, and they will eventually move it to the Supreme Court.

We heard arguments yesterday about how Members of this Congress and constitutional scholars believe that the Supreme Court--if it reaches the Supreme Court--by a very slim majority is probably prone to rule in a way that would eliminate the traditional family as we know it.

So this is an important issue. It is a very timely issue. We have 46 States that have individuals living in them--at least 46--who have same-sex marriage licenses. They have been granted them as a couple through either Massachusetts or Oregon or California. We have 11 States that have had court cases filed in them today. So the platform for action from those who favor same-sex marriages has been well established.

Now, in reaction to that, we have some 48 States that have laws they have passed supporting traditional marriage--that being a union between a man and a woman. At least 10 States have constitutional amendments on the ballot. We have at least 3 States still gathering petitions. So more than 20 percent of the States have constitutional amendments that will be pending before them as we move into the election cycle.

Mr. President, I am sympathetic to this idea of federalism. I am sympathetic to the idea that we need to protect the definition of the traditional family. Federalism does not demand that we redefine the family. More important, it does not demand that we stand idly by while the courts redefine marriage for us, without giving us an opportunity to act.

This is an important issue, and it is very timely that we have this debate today in the Senate, a debate in which we try to define marriage and limit the rule of the Federal court and we allow States, through a democratic process, to proceed as they see fit toward providing benefits through civil unions or domestic partnerships. Marriage simply should not be left to the courts alone.

In my view, a large majority of Americans are with us. Marriage matters. It matters to children and it is a societal building block.

I had an opportunity to review the testimony of Governor Romney from Massachusetts. I ask unanimous consent that his testimony be printed in the RECORD as it was presented to the Committee on the Judiciary.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Testimony of Hon. Mitt Romney MAKE A LINK HERE TO ROMNEY'S TEST.!!!

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, if you read carefully through his testimony, he talks about the fundamental change that is happening in Massachusetts and many of the issues that he as a Governor in a State that has a court that actually went contrary to the wishes of the legislature to redefine marriage as something different than a union of a man and a woman. He talked about the effect that this redefinition is having on such basic programs as meals for the elderly and veterans and spousal benefits, burial rights, Medicaid, birth registration process, child support enforcement, inheritance, private sector, how employees are struggling with this particular issue. He makes a very important point that States are porous. So what is going on in Massachusetts has the potential to have an impact on other States, particularly if this gets to the U.S. Supreme Court, or we find the U.S. Supreme Court deciding to overrule DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, and decide that somehow or other it is unconstitutional.

Many of us have looked at what has happened in other countries where they have liberalized the marriage laws, particularly the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands. In the Scandinavian countries, for example, for a number of years they have recognized same-sex marriage. As a result of that, there has been a very disturbing trend in that more and more children are born out of wedlock. In fact, if you look at the figures today in some of the Scandinavian countries, well over 50 percent of their children are born out of wedlock. We looked, more recently, at what has happened to the Netherlands--a country which traditionally, before 5 years ago, had a very strong record as far as children being born in wedlock, a country that promoted the idea of traditional marriage. But they have changed; they changed the definition of marriage, and they allow same-sex marriage. They are seeing that now there is an alarming increase in the number of children that are born out of wedlock.

We are faced with a challenge from the courts that will fundamentally change this society in America if the Congress does not act. We heard arguments yesterday about the Goodridge case in Massachusetts and Lawrence v. Texas, using the privacy issue, combined with the good faith and credit laws of the Constitution, and how the courts are setting the groundwork to overturn what traditional marriage means in the United States.

So it is very appropriate that we have this debate now. It is very appropriate that we have a full debate. I have been rather disappointed that we have not had more actual debate on the meaning of marriage from the other side. We have had debate about procedure, and I think there is a frustration about procedure. But I want the American people to understand that there is a fundamental difference between the way Republicans do business and the Democrats do business. We believe in a bottom-up approach. So we work for a consensus. I spent a long time at the very start of this process looking at a number of proposals on how we are going to amend the Constitution, working with grassroots groups and with my colleagues, and working with constitutional scholars.

We eventually came up with a conclusion, with the Judiciary Committee putting the final touches on the amendment, that the kind of language we need is what is now embodied in the amendment that is up before the Senate today

for debate. This is where we developed the consensus. When you develop a consensus, that doesn't mean other ideas cannot come forward. As we strive, then, the next step is to strive for consensus on the Senate floor. I have been working personally with Senator GORDON SMITH from Oregon. He and I have been working together to strive for consensus.

So this idea that all of a sudden we would just deal with the first sentence in this amendment is not anything that is an unexpected result on this side because we recognize that perhaps maybe we cannot get an ideal amendment to move forward, perhaps maybe we have to work toward another version of the amendment that I have introduced that would allow for us to establish a consensus on the Senate floor.

That is where Senator Smith has come in with his proposal, and actually he does it at the request of myself and other Members of the Senate because we are working for a consensus. That is what the Senate is all about. So I hope that we can get serious participation from the other side in the debate on this floor; we do have a number of Senators on the Republican side who want to continue to talk about how important marriage is.

So my hope is that we can move forward in a civilized and thoughtful manner on how important traditional marriage is to America, and to give the American people an opportunity to participate.

I yield the floor.