Senator Harry Reid (D - NV)

Statement on the Federal Marriage Amendment
July 13, 2004

---

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Reno Gazette-Journal, a newspaper that has been in existence for many years, a Gannett newspaper in Reno, NV, which is certainly not a bed of liberalism, published a very short editorial today. It says:

The plan to redefine marriage in a constitutional amendment could not be a better election year wedge. The fact that Lynne Cheney, champion of conservative causes, parted company with her husband, Vice President Dick Cheney, on same-sex marriage is illustrative of just how divisive it's become.

Typically, vice presidents support their presidents and political wives back their husbands, regardless of personal feelings. This time, the human aspect of the debate was too much for a political wife to overcome.

As the mother of a lesbian, Lynne Cheney, of necessity, would be finely attuned to all the arguments. And no one should expect a parent to disregard an offspring for a political agenda. Anyway, it is debatable that an amendment would help a traditional conception of marriage. And, some Senators indicate they are less than willing to try.

The administration is wading into deep waters, fracturing families, and merging the church and the state. That's not the way the system is supposed to work. It would be best for government to leave this issue alone.

I am not an avid reader of the Washington Times. In fact, I didn't read it today. But it was brought to my attention and I did read the Washington Times:

GOP split on marriage proposals.

Senate Republican leaders, who had been seeking a clear vote on a constitutional amendment on same-sex ``marriage,'' yesterday found themselves outmaneuvered by Democrats and divided over which of two proposals to pursue.

President Bush and Senate Republican leaders support the Federal Marriage Amendment, which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman and restricts the court's ability to rule on the issue. But some Republicans want to vote on an alternative, simpler version--leaving Republican leaders scrambling. .....

Let's understand where we are on this issue. Senator Daschle, in good faith, Friday, came to the floor and said we need to get to the business at hand. There is an important marriage amendment pending about which people on both sides of the aisle have strong feelings. Therefore, it would be better that we vote on the amendment, the one that has been on the Senate floor. We were told at that time by the majority leader that sounded like a pretty good idea, that he would have to check with his caucus.

Surprisingly, Friday we were unable to get that unanimous consent agreement entered. Monday we come back--no deal. In the morning, we were told they want to vote on two constitutional amendments regarding marriage. In the afternoon, we were told they want to vote on three constitutional amendments on marriage.

It is a simple choice. We are willing to vote on the legislation before this body, S.J. Res. 40. Why don't we do that? The reason we are not going to do it is because the majority has decided they want the issue. They do not care how the votes fall; they want the issue. That is wrong. Everyone should understand this is a march to nowhere, and the majority knows that.

I don't know what is happening around here. Class action is an issue for which there were enough Members here--Democrats and Republicans--to pass it. The majority would not even allow a vote--not a single vote--on that issue. They want the issue.

They want to bash Democrats as being opposed to any reform of the tort system.

On medical malpractice, on asbestos, on class action they want the issue. They don't want to resolve the issue. One would think the people in the State of Ohio, in the State of Texas, in the State of Nevada, in the State of Wisconsin, in the State of Illinois, and in every other State would know how Senators feel on the amendment before this body.

They are not going to get that chance because we are going to be forced into a procedural vote. That is wrong.

We are willing to vote on S.J. Res. 40. We have said that. We keep saying that, but, no, the issue is more important than the merits of this matter, which is too bad.