Senator Trent Lott (R - MS)

Statement on the Federal Marriage Amendment
July 12, 2004

---

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Texas for his leadership on this issue and for his comments. To have a former State attorney general of the State of Texas and a former member of the Texas Supreme Court speak on this subject as an enlightened judge and as an authority, in my opinion, on the Constitution, is a very important part of this process. So I look forward to hearing more of his thoughts on this subject as he has talked about the case law, the legal precedents, and what is at stake with this amendment.

I know others have done it, but let me take a moment to read the amendment we are proposing to the Constitution, because there has been a lot of discussion about what we should do. I have seen a number of different amendments or language being proposed, many of them a couple of paragraphs, quite long or complicated. This one is very simple, direct, right to the point and I think does what needs to be done. Some people would say it does not go far enough, but I think this is the careful way the Constitution should be amended.

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

It is quite simple and direct. Will it lead to some court consideration in the future? Surely. But what has caused this problem is the aggressive actions of the activist courts to take decisions in Massachusetts and in other places that have left us no alternative. So I rise today in strong support of S.J. Res. 40, the Federal marriage amendment. It would amend the Constitution to provide specific protection for the institution of traditional marriage. I am an original cosponsor of this measure because I believe marriage should only consist of a union between a man and a woman.

Traditional marriage has existed as a fundamental building block of our society for thousands of years, and we have learned that it provides the best and most stable environment for nurturing the children who become America's and the world's next generations. Now we see the courts have been moving in this area on what I consider a radical quest to sweep away the traditional definition of marriage, one man and one woman, by allowing same-sex couples to marry.

This undemocratic activism by the courts can only be stopped, the future stability of our society protected, and this whole area clarified, by the safeguard of a constitutional amendment. Some Senators have argued that while they support traditional marriage, they do not believe a constitutional amendment is necessary or proper at this time. They maintain the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, is sufficient to protect traditional marriage by allowing individual States to bar the recognition of same-sex marriages that may be allowed in other States. Unfortunately, I am convinced they are incorrect.

When the Supreme Court of Massachusetts directed the Massachusetts legislature to authorize same-sex marriages, the inadequacy of the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, as it is commonly referred to, was exposed. Approximately three-fourths of the States have laws protecting traditional marriage, indicating the democratically enshrined views of the residents of those respective States. But activist courts in many of those States could unfortunately overturn these laws by forcing that State to authorize same-sex marriage or to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other States. Additionally, now that the State of Massachusetts has endorsed same-sex

marriages, the legal system in every other State will be impacted when couples of the same sex are married in Massachusetts but go to other States to seek divorces or probate wills, even if that particular State chooses not to recognize such marriage. This development could obviously create, and is beginning to create, legal chaos in the country.

Furthermore, sadly, it is only a matter of time before the Defense of Marriage Act is overturned by unelected Federal judges who ``find'' rights in the U.S. Constitution which simply are not there, such as the U.S. Supreme Court did in the Lawrence v. Texas case. Therefore, a constitutional amendment protecting marriage is the only way to adequately guarantee the sanctity of this fundamental institution.

Those who oppose the amendment say the U.S. Constitution should only be amended on rare occasions and for crucial reasons, if at all. I agree, and I think this is a rare situation and a critical one. I have been disappointed occasionally over the years that we have not been able to succeed in amending the Constitution. A few years ago we lost in the Senate by one vote to have a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. A few years after that, we actually had balanced budgets and a number of Senators said, see, we do not need it. Well, here we are again.

By the way, there would have been an exception for national emergencies or national security requirements that we are now dealing with.

When we look at the Constitution, wonderful document that it is, the original Constitution turned out not to be perfect. We had the articles of the Constitution and we went through Article V, Article VI, Article VII, and stopped, and then we had the 10 amendments that are referred to as the Bill of Rights. So there were 10 amendments that were soon added, and in the last century alone we added 12 amendments. Most people would say some of those amendments are not exactly earth-shattering amendments. The 27th, being the last one, is one that took almost the entirety of this country's history to get through the process to actually be ratified, but it had to do with the compensation of the services of Senators and Representatives. I will bet if we asked the American people to list the 10 things they think the Constitution should perhaps be amended for, that would not be one of the top 10.

It is a sacred document. It is one we should defend and protect. We take an oath to it. We do not take an oath to the people. We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and I think we should do that.

There are occasions when we should consider the process. They should be in areas that are critical and they should be rare. We have not had a serious debate on a constitutional amendment now for about 6 or 8 years. A constitutional amendment dealing with marriage being between one man and one woman seems to me to be an issue that is important enough for us to have a debate on amending the Constitution.

There are those who say it should not be amended lightly. I certainly agree with that. But our Founding Fathers made sure it would not be done often and that it would not be done lightly. The process for ratification of an amendment is a very difficult and lengthy one. Under the Constitution, within Article V itself, it says it requires a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress to approve a constitutional amendment and three-fourths of the State legislatures must ratify the amendment for it to become a part of the Constitution.

There is one other very difficult procedure in the Constitution in which a convention process can be conducted to get an amendment approved. I know how difficult that is, too, because some years ago I actually joined in a bipartisan effort to try to go through the State legislatures to take advantage of this part of the Constitution to have a convention that would lead to a balanced budget requirement in the Constitution. My own State legislature took that action, as well as several other States, but it soon fizzled out and I do not believe that process has been used in the history of our country. So this is not an issue we should take lightly. It is rare, it is exceptional, and it is one that will take a lot of thought and debate before we get through the process.

Some people say, well, what about federalism? What about the rights of the States? That is what we are talking about.

If we do not deal with this issue that may arise from the full faith and credit clause, some States such as, say, Alabama or Oklahoma are going to have a real problem in dealing with what the courts have directed in the State of Massachusetts.

Full faith and credit says we have to respect each other's laws. But I do think we need clarity in this very critical area. I think the Constitution deserves to be amended when it deals with something so traditional and which is such a vital part of our country and our future.

Marriage is our most basic social institution, and its traditional definition as the union of a man and a woman is intended to be the best environment for rearing children. There is a reason that we have a ``traditional'' definition of marriage: God's design and the resulting evidence of science and common sense clearly demonstrates that the union of a man and a woman is the best, most secure and nurturing atmosphere in which to bring up children.

This does not mean that single parents, foster parents, and others cannot do heroic jobs of raising children--because many children are being raised by these heroes. However, marriage is meant to affirm the ideal model in which to bring up the next generation. Mothers and fathers both matter, and both make critical contributions in the lives of children. A man and a woman united in marriage can uniquely provide the many different attributes that children need as they are reared to become our next generation, and both make important contributions.

I am going to yield the floor at this point, since I am about to lose my voice talking about this subject, but I think this is an issue whose time has come. I commend the leader and Senator Santorum for making sure this issue is debated in the Senate.