Senator Mark Dayton (D - MN)

Statement on the Federal Marriage Amendment
July 13, 2004

---

Mr. DAYTON. Thank you, Mr. President.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.......

With those immortal words 228 years ago, the signers of the Declaration of Independence set forth the founding principles of this country. They chose the word ``unalienable'' to mean that those rights were God-given. They were rights with which every person was born, not to depend upon the attitudes or ideologies of any government.

Eleven years later, after winning their War of Independence, after trying one unsatisfactory design of government, after many discussion, debates, arguments, and compromises, others signed their name to our United States Constitution. It was a remarkably farsighted document--deserving of the word ``visionary''. It was intended to define, provide, and protect the rights of American citizens and the structure of their democratic government.

Unfortunately, their founding principles and idealism had some glaring deficiencies. When they said all men were created equal, they meant only men, and only white men. It took 130 more years before those constitutional rights were extended fully and equally to all citizens--to African-Americans, to women, and to everyone else. Those constitutional amendments signaled only the starting points, not the finish lines, to full opportunities, equal protections, and freedom from discrimination, harassment, and assault. Those paths were difficult, often dangerous, and sometimes even fatal for their travelers. Slowly, too slowly, unevenly, yet inexorably This country has progressed toward the realization of those God-given rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, for every American citizen.

The life that God gives each of us; the liberty to be as God made us; and the right to pursue our individual needs, goals, and fulfillments--whatever necessary ingredients of our happiness. We receive no assurances of happiness, but the promise we have the God-given right to pursue it.

Today, we are a Nation of 293 million citizens. That is a lot of very different people pursuing a lot of very different forms of happiness. It is an enormous and continuous challenge for government to permit life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and to decide where limits must be established.

The Constitution requires, however, that those limits must apply fairly and justly--and that those liberties can only be taken away for a compelling reason and through a due process.

People's differences are no longer legitimate reasons. Not different colors of skin, different religious beliefs, different genders, nationalities, or physical characteristics. People don't have to like other people's differences, but they must allow and tolerate them.

Allowing and tolerating differences is what separates democracies from dictatorships. Even dictatorships allow behaviors and beliefs which conform to their ideas and ideologies. However, they will not permit or tolerate behaviors and beliefs which differ from theirs. Those groups of people are persecuted, punished, and even murdered for their differences.

It is sometimes difficult for those of us who live in democracies to allow other beliefs and behaviors, which we dislike or disapprove of. It is especially difficult if those other beliefs or behaviors differ from our own moral or religious views. Although our Constitution separates ``church and state,'' we do not willingly give up or even compromise our strongly held beliefs based upon our religious teachings or moral values.

Many Americans who oppose gay and lesbian relationships or marriages believe they are called to do so by God, by Jesus Christ, by the Bible, or by another religion's instructions. Recently, I reread the Bible's New Testament, which provides the foundation and instruction for my Christian faith. I reluctantly bring the Bible into this debate, because I often hear people, who denounce homosexuality, claiming that ``the Bible'' or ``the New Testament'' supports their views.

However, in the entire New Testament, there is only one reference to same-sex relationships, in Chapter Two of Paul's Letter to the Romans. Jesus Christ does not mention them even once in any of the four Gospels.

Instead, His overriding instruction was to love thy neighbor as thyself. That was his second great commandment, which superseded all the rest.

Jesus also warned several times to beware of false prophets. How could they be identified? He said that they spread hate, instead of love.

I do not understand how some religions developed their strong prejudices against gays and lesbians--prejudices which are not only unsupported by Jesus' teachings in the Bible, but which even violate his instructions to love one another, as I have loved you, to judge not, lest ye be judged, to spread love, not hatred.

Yet the discrimination against gays and lesbians in this country has been filled with judgment and hatred.

Thousands of American citizens have been fired from their jobs, evicted from their homes, harassed, threatened, assaulted, even murdered, because of their sexual orientations. Some other Americans have spread that hatred and caused that harm, while professing their own religious piety and moral superiority.

Who has the authority to dispute that every human being is God's intentional creation; that we are different because God made us different, not superior, not inferior, just different, equal in the sight of God, equal in the U.S. Constitution?

There is a better way to resolve this widespread concern about the effects of couples' State court decisions on marriage--decisions which are being resolved by the legislatures and the people of those States, and which contrary to the ``marriage is under terrorist attack'' hysteria, as some politicians are promoting, do not threaten either the Federal laws or the State laws against same-sex marriages.

As others have noted, a 1996 Federal law, called the Defense of Marriage Act, already does what the proponents of this constitutional amendment want to do.

The Defense of Marriage Act was passed ``to define and protect the institution of marriage.'' That law states:

In determining the meaning of any act of Congress or of any ruling, regulation or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ``marriage'' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

The law goes on to say that no State shall be required to recognize a same-sex relationship treated as marriage anywhere else. That is the law of the United States of America, unchallenged Federal law. How much more protection could the institution of marriage need from the Congress? None.

The proposed constitutional amendment has not one whit of additional legal protection to what the Federal law already provides, so why are we being subjected to this charade of politicians' piety, an oxymoron if ever there was one? It is an election year, a Presidential election year. It is no coincidence that the defense of marriage law was passed in 1996, another Presidential election year.

One can only wonder how marriage managed to make it through the 2000 Presidential election without something being done to it then.

That is really what is going on. This political ploy is not about ``saving marriage''; it is about saving politicians' jobs. Thank goodness we have Senator so and so, they will say back home, to save us from the heathen hordes. Thank goodness we have the President saving us, too. We may not have jobs or health care. We cannot afford prescription drugs or gasoline. They are bankrupting the Federal Government with deficits, they are destroying our credibility throughout the world, they made a mess of Iraq, they cannot find weapons of mass destruction or Osama bin Laden or whoever shut down Congress with anthrax or ricin, but they are defending marriage--again and again and again and again. Let's reelect them.

It is a tragic day in America when politicians exploit the Constitution of the United States to get themselves reelected. It is a tragic day for millions of Americans who are being exploited by those politicians. This is a hurtful, hateful, harmful debate for America, one that only will get uglier, meaner, more divisive, and more dangerous if it moves on to State legislatures as the constitutional amendment requires.

It must be stopped here and now. That is why I will vote against the constitutional amendment. If my colleagues really do want to save marriage for now and for posterity, turn it over to the authority of established religions. In the many wedding ceremonies which I attend, marriage is described as an institution created by God. Yet those services conclude with ``whom God has joined together let no one cast assunder.''

If marriage belongs to God, as I believe it does, then our separation of church and state government should not interfere with its administration by the properly chosen religious authorities. Instead, government should adopt a different term to use for the legal rights and responsibilities under a civil contract, which I believe any two adults should equally be able to enter into. Giving marriage back to the churches, synagogues, and mosques and separating it from government is marriage's salvation and society's solution.

Let us direct our efforts to protecting America from al-Qaida. Leave the Constitution alone and leave marriage to God.

I yield the floor.