Senator James Jeffords (I - VT)

Statement on the Federal Marriage Amendment
July 13, 2004

---

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I find it sad and unfortunate that the Senate is spending crucial time on this divisive issue, driven so obviously by partisan politics rather than sound public policy. We know this amendment has no chance of passage, so why are we here? Just a week after Secretary Ridge detailed the real threats that the Nation faces right here at home, why are we instead debating the vague and questionable dangers to the institution of marriage. We should be working to fund homeland security, but that bill languishes while we launch into a cultural war.

As of today, the Senate has passed only 1 of the necessary 13 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2005. We need to fund veterans health care, educational programs, worker protection, job training, Head Start, environmental preservation, crop insurance, and food safety. We need to reauthorize our Nation's welfare programs. Our highways crumble while the Transportation bill is stalled and we take no action.

These are the priorities of the American people. But instead of facing these most basic responsibilities, we are here today to make judgment calls about people's personal lifestyles. I must ask, where are the priorities of the majority leadership? How is it that we have to come to use the Senate floor as a warmup for political conventions, bowing to extreme religious agendas rather than the agenda of the American people? How did this happen?

I am afraid the answer can be summed up very easily. We are here because of election year posturing.

I find it ironic that some in this Chamber want to amend our Nation's most sacred and historic document because of

some unfounded and irrational fear. It is ironic because these are the same people who have argued that we should not trample on States rights. Yet they think our States are not capable of deciding how marriage should be defined. I believe our States are not only capable but deserving to define marriage in the way they see fit. Every State will bring its own approach, and I am proud the way my State led the Nation in addressing this issue more than 4 years ago.

The Vermont Legislature, a part-time body made up of farmers and teachers, passed the civil unions legislation. They gave gay and lesbian couples all the same legal rights extended to married couples, and the legislature did so in a bipartisan fashion, amid rancorous protests by some who proclaimed Vermont's lawmakers will suffer dire consequences as a result of this decision.

I can tell you today that all of these fears have been unfounded, and my home State is better off for the experience. Having witnessed Vermont's approach, I beg to differ with anyone in this body who argues that States are not able to decide this issue for themselves. Here in the Senate we should be spending our time debating legislation that is inclusive, not exclusive. This body did so when it recently passed a hate crimes bill to extend the definition of hate crimes to those who are targeted solely on sexual orientation, gender, or disability.

We should be focusing our energies on passing bills such as the Employment Nondiscrimination Act and the Domestic Partner Health Benefits Equity Act. I am proud to support these bills, and I am even more proud because they continue in the great American tradition of inclusiveness and tolerance and acceptance.

I will vote against this constitutional amendment, and I urge the majority leadership to take up, rather than push aside, the critical pending legislation that so desperately needs and calls for our attention.

I yield the floor.