Senator Rick Santorum (R - PA)

Second Statement on the Federal Marriage Amendment
July 13, 2004

---

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I return the thanks to the Senator from Colorado for his willingness to step forward and introduce this legislation. He has carried it with a firmness of purpose and a gentle touch, which is his way, in the way of bringing this issue squarely to the Senate before the American public. He is to be congratulated.

The leader is in the Senate. I thank him for agreeing to bring this bill before the Senate, to have a vote on this constitutional amendment in the Senate, and to have this first public debate about the institution of marriage and the attempt to redefine that institution by the courts.

If I can, I want to start from scratch to answer the question that many have offered today on the other side of the aisle, which is, Why are we here?

Some have suggested we are here because we hate certain people. Some suggest we are here because we are politically motivated to try to rally troops before the election. Some suggest we are here because we want to change the subject to something other than what we have been debating for the last several months in the Senate.

We suggest we are here because we want to preserve an institution that has served civilization well for 5,000 years. While that institution has been shaken, that institution has fissures in the foundation; it is still an institution worth preserving. It is an institution worth rebuilding. It is an institution worth fixing the cracks in that foundation. It is an institution worth shoring up and strengthening that foundation.

It is not an institution that we need to say, because it is broken, because the institution of marriage is not what it once was--I think everyone will accept in this body, those who are fighting for traditional marriage, will say no, the institution of marriage is not what it once was. It certainly has been the glue that has held the family together. Every culture, every civilization known to man, has had an institution of marriage of some bright, ritual symbol that has shown the monogamous bond between a man and a woman. Why? For the purpose of continuing on that civilization and a recognition that children need moms and dads and moms and dads who are in committed relationships is the ideal.

I look at my kids. I am blessed to have seven children, six of which we are raising. I know my children feel safer, feel more secure, more confident, knowing their mom and dad are there and are supportive and loving.

There are lots of people in our society who were raised by single parents who feel that love and support from that single parent. Those single parents in many cases do extraordinary jobs. But even if you talk to single parents and kids raised by single parents and you ask them, wouldn't it have been better, the ideal, if mom and dad were joined together in a healthy marriage, raising you in a safe and secure and stable home? The answer is, invariably, yes.

What we are here to debate is not an abstract concept of what marriage is or what it should be, but it is a real social benefit. I cannot think of anything more we can do--and the Senator from Kansas talked about this--there is nothing more we have focused in on in the last several years than trying to shore up and affirm marriage. Whether it is the marriage penalty or the marriage initiative the

President put forward in the welfare bill, the idea from all the social science data is there are enormous benefits to marriage.

We had a hearing in the Finance Committee, on which I serve. The hearing brought forth witnesses from the left and right. We asked them a series of questions about marriage and its benefits. There was a woman representing the Democratic side of the aisle. She made the argument that raising children by parents in an alternative form is just as good as being raised by a mother and a father in a loving, stable relationship. That argument is over. Yes, it can happen, but it is not the ideal. It is not best for children across the board.

The children do better in school. They have less dropouts, fewer emotional and behavioral problems, less substance abuse, less abuse and neglect, less criminal activity, less early sexual activities, and fewer out-of-wedlock births. And more. The evidence presented was dumped on us overwhelming, the benefits of marriage, irrespective of social or economic condition, the benefits of having a mother and a father contributing their unique nature to the nature of that child.

The evidence is in. The jury is in. Marriage is good. Marriage is a public-policy-desirable goal. Why? Because it benefits children but it also benefits mothers and fathers.

I read yesterday, and I will repeat today, a listing of five things in the sense of the purpose of marriage, what it does to benefit the culture.

No. 1, the bonding between men and women that ensures their cooperation for the common good.

By the way, this article was written by two professors in Canada, a woman professor who is straight and a homosexual man. They wrote this article in support of traditional marriage in opposition to a redefinition of traditional marriage to include same-sex couples. They did so based purely on sociological data, on psychological data, on the overwhelming evidence of the public good of traditional marriage.

No. 1, I mentioned, the important bond between men and women.

No. 2, the birth and rearing of children, at least to the extent necessary for preserving and fostering society and culturally approved ways.

No. 3, bonding between men and children so men are likely to become active participants in family life.

I will stop to focus on that for a minute. We have an initiative in the President's welfare bill, the Father's Initiative, that Senator Bayh and I have championed, responsible fatherhood. Why? Because in our culture today there are crosscurrents about what fatherhood means. In certain subcultures, fatherhood means having children, period. What are the effects in that subculture of the role of the father being simply biological and nothing more?

When fathers are absent versus when fathers are involved: Fathers absent, two times more likely to abuse drugs; fathers absent, two times more likely to be abused; two times more likely to become involved in a crime; fathers absent, three times more likely to fail in school; three times more likely to commit suicide; and five times more likely to be in poverty.

The evidence is in. There is a role for society to encourage fathers to be more than biological fathers,

but to be involved in the rearing of that child, preferably in a committed relationship with the mother. These numbers all go up if you have committed, stable, low-conflict relationships between the mother and the father.

So there is a role for government, as a public policy, for the benefit of children and the community in which they live because these children just do not, through this activity, affect themselves, do they? No, no. When they commit crimes or when they abuse drugs or when they commit suicide or when they live in poverty, that does not just stay with them. So there is a real public policy objective in promoting stable marriages and fatherhood.

No. 4, some healthy form of masculine identity. What does that mean? Well, they go on--which is based on the need for at least one distinctive, necessary, and publicly valued contribution to society. It is especially important today because two other cross-definitions of ``manhood,'' which is the definition of manhood being ``provider'' and ``protector,'' are no longer distinctive now that women have assumed those roles in society.

So what are they saying here? They are saying that men have an identity crisis. The traditional role of the man is no longer the traditional role of the man. You say: Well, what's the big deal? Everybody is equal.

When you rob someone of a role they believe they have, as society in some degree has, then you have a belief among large segments of society that they have no role; they do not have to provide; they do not have to protect; they do not have to nurture. That is not the role anymore for men in society. It simply is to pursue selfish goals, but they are not needed anymore.

We can all go back about the genesis of this and the movement that caused it, but the bottom line is, it is real, and it is reflected in these numbers. So it is important for society to say to men that marriage is good and expected and is healthy and is optimal, and to have laws that say that dropping specimens off at a sperm bank is not fatherhood, but committed relationships with the mother of your children in a marriage that gives you and her and your children security is expected.

Now, I know there are a lot of cultures that do not support that, subcultures in America, but the legal, statutory reflection of the culture should be that ideal. Our laws should reflect the ideal of what is best for that man, for that woman, and for those children.

No. 5, the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults; that is, young men and women who are ready for marriage and to begin a new cycle. This relates the key contributions that men and women make to the upbringing of young men and young women.

As the father of boys and girls, I make different contributions as a father to my girls than I do to my boys. They look at me different. I am different in their minds, and I represent different things that will have an effect on them in their ability to have successful relationships in the future. That is real.

Now, we can all play games that people can substitute, that it does not matter whether it is two men or two women or one man or one woman or no women or no men or whatever, but the fact is, there is a difference. We tend to try to deny that. It is politically correct to say there is not a difference, but the fact is that fathers and mothers

contribute different things to children.

So why did I go through all this? It is important to understand what we are talking about here is very important, and what is being talked about in the courts across America is destroying this very important institution to the American society--to any society.

Now, some have suggested this is not a real assault, that it is trumped up for political purposes. Two of the speakers, remarkably--Senator Clinton and Senator Dayton--both of them said--I will quote Senator Clinton where she says: The Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, has not even been challenged at the Federal level. That is a quote from her statement today. For the record, false. False. Senator Dayton made a similar comment. I think others have made similar comments, except I have the transcripts of these two Senators. False. I submit for the record that there are pleadings in Florida and pleadings in Washington State challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

So the idea that the Defense of Marriage Act is not under assault is not true. The Senator from Colorado a few minutes ago laid out the State-by-State challenges that are going on, some with respect to the Massachusetts marriages, some with respect to the Oregon marriages, some with respect to the New York marriages, some with respect to the California marriages, and we go on and on. And there will be more.

I think there are challenges in 46 States to traditional marriage as being unconstitutional. So to suggest that 46 States--whether it is civil unions or marriages--are being challenged by same-sex couples or whether it is two States where the Defense of Marriage Act is being challenged, that somehow or other that is not a serious threat when one State has already determined that there is a constitutional basis, and in writing the decision referred to a U.S. Supreme Court case decided last year--Lawrence v. Texas--in making the determination that you could not discriminate against same-sex couples with respect to marriage, and we do not believe here that this is a serious assault? What do we need? Do we need all the States and the Supreme Court to decide this issue, and then we say: OK, now we decide. Well, the Senator from New York said her father used to refer to it as closing the barn door after the horse has left.

By the way, this is a remarkably similar strategy to that which was used in the 1950s and 1960s with respect to the issue of abortion. What happened in that case was a little different. Instead of the courts imposing abortion on the States--although that may have been done; I am just not aware of, maybe as well as I should be, the history--but I do know certain legislatures throughout the country began changing the statutes with respect to abortion, which, of course, 50, 60 years ago was basically illegal in every State in the country. Over time, just a few States changed their law. This created conflicts between the States as to how they were going to deal with this issue.

The same thing is happening here State by State. At a minimum, there will be more States because there are certainly a lot of liberal justices of supreme courts in the various States around the country. There will be more States that will ``find'' this constitutional right either within the Federal or State constitution or both.

There will be another State and another State that will accept a redefinition of marriage. And the conflicts that will result as a result of that are reflective of the one case I just submitted, which is the Washington State case. In the Washington State case, a lesbian couple married in Canada where they have such laws and came to Washington State and filed bankruptcy. So they wanted distribution of assets based on marriage. And the State of Washington just said: We have to figure out whether or not this is constitutional, whether we have to accept this or whether the Defense of Marriage Act bars us from doing so.

We will get this in State after State after State, and there will be conflicts. There will be court decisions all over the place. The Supreme Court will have to come in and say: We didn't want to do this. We feel our hand is forced--just like Roe v. Wade--that this is an issue that cannot have this kind of disparity of unequal treatment between States, and we will then settle it for everybody, which will, of course, mean a complete redefinition of marriage. You don't have to have a crystal ball to figure this one out.

We can sit back. This is the great, this is the classic just sit back; say what you believe the public wants to hear; profess your allegiance to traditional values, and then let someone else do the dirty work for you. And it will happen. It will happen. Maybe more dramatically, the court may say we are going to take this on and do it ourselves. There seems to be a majority in the court to do that. But even if they are not aggressive, eventually it is a done deal.

And everyone will come out here and profess: No, the States can deal with it. The States can handle this. We are for States rights. To hear the Senator from Massachusetts talk about States rights, I thought maybe the ceiling would fall. Issue after issue, time after time, Members on that side of the aisle vote continually to take power from the States, continually to federalize every issue.

But when it comes to something as irrelevant, something as unimportant as the family and marriage, no, no, we can't deal with this. No, this is in the general State purview, as if passing major education reform isn't a State issue. That is a State issue. As if doing welfare isn't a State issue. State issue. Transportation, State issue. Health care, welfare, all of these issues which we spend most of our time and an increasing portion of our money on are all under the purview, under this Constitution, of the States, and we have no problem dictating to the States how to run their schools, how to run their hospitals, how to run their welfare departments. But not when it comes to protecting this fragile institution, this institution that is so out of favor within the popular culture.

Listen to the music. Do you hear affirming things about the treatment of women in the music in the popular culture today? Do you hear songs about commitment and marriage in the popular culture today? Do you see movies reaffirming the traditional role of fathers raising their children and responsible actions on the part of parents and would-be parents? This is an institution that is swimming against a toxic tide of popular culture that wants to just drown it.

As the justices from Massachusetts said, speaking for our culture, I believe, marriage is a stain on our laws that

must be eradicated. That is how Hollywood views marriage. That is how the music industry views marriage. That is how the media views marriage.

What are they writing about here? Are they writing about this marriage debate? No, they are writing about the conflict between Republicans in trying to get a vote on the floor of the Senate. Give me a break. One AP reporter writes this story, and he is a decent man. I know he can't be this uninformed.

What are we trying to accomplish on the floor of the Senate? We have two amendments on this side of the aisle. It has not been unknown that there have been actually as many as three amendments on this side of the aisle. This is not unknown to anybody. What do we want to do? Well, we can't put forward both so we put forward one, the one that we believe is our best, our optimal solution. By the way, that is done with frequency in the U.S. Senate, where you come forward with what you want to accomplish. And if you can't get that done, what do you do? You offer plan B, what you think will get something accomplished but not as much as you want.

And so we wanted to offer plan A. And if plan A didn't work--A, Senator Allard's amendment--then we would offer plan B, which happened to be GORDON SMITH's amendment.

That is not confusion or division. It is simply a time-tested, age-old strategy in every dealing that I am aware of in life, which is you try to get as much as you can. And if you can't, you take plan B and try to get as much as you can there. But that is not what people write. They don't want to write about the substance of the marriage debate, which by and large has not really been engaged in here.

The substance on the other side of the aisle when it comes to this issue is that, No. 1, it is political. No. 2, we should be talking about homeland security. I am for homeland security. But there isn't enough money in the world that you can spend to secure the home more than marriage. You want to invest in homeland security? You invest in marriage. You invest in the stability of the family. That is what this amendment is.

I hear from speaker after speaker: There are more important things to debate on the floor of the Senate than the family. Think about that. There are more important things to debate: homeland security, spending more money, which, by the way, won't be spent until October 1 of next year. Spending a few billion more dollars is more important than preserving the traditional family in America. No, they haven't been debating the substance.

I asked the Senator from Alabama earlier, I don't believe anybody has come forward and said they are not for traditional marriage. I think I am wrong. I was handed Senator Kennedy's speech.

Senator Kennedy said: I happen to be someone that supports the court decision in Massachusetts. I am proud of them. I happen to support the court decision in Massachusetts. I am proud that four justices redefined and forced the Massachusetts legislature to rewrite their laws, and they are the only ones who are allowed to do that, forced the legislature to rewrite their laws with respect to marriage. I am proud of them.

Do we hear any comment about this agenda? What is this agenda? I am proud that four unelected judges can usurp the authority of the legislative branch and roll them and force them to do something that the people of Massachusetts don't want. I am proud of them.

I don't think John Adams would have said the same thing. I don't think Jefferson or Madison would have. One of my colleagues referred to Madison, that he would be with Madison. I don't think Madison would see it as the role of judges to rewrite the Constitution when they have a hankering to do so. I think Mr. Madison would have a big-time problem with what he would see as an abuse of article V. Article V is an amendment of the constitutional process. Nowhere in there do I see Mr. Madison talking about judges changing the Constitution when they feel like it. But, you see, as the Senator from New York, Senator Clinton said, ``I am in agreement that the Constitution is a living and working accomplishment.''

My question is, who is doing the living? You see, I thought from article V that the living part was those of us here in the legislature, those of us across the States who would determine when it is appropriate to institute new rights or obligations in the Constitution. That is what I thought this living, dynamic document was. But that is not what those who oppose this amendment believe the Constitution is, no. The living that is going on is not the American public doing the living. Oh, no. It is a few hand-picked judges who have the right to breathe life into the Constitution. See, they are the ones who get to change the Constitution, without going through this complex, sort of long, drawn out, tedious, expensive process of getting two-thirds of the votes here in the Senate, and two-thirds of the votes in the House, and three-quarters of the State legislatures.

By the way, in responding to an earlier comment of a colleague on this side, it is not three-quarters of the United States, it is three-quarters of the state legislatures by a majority vote.

By the way, from everything I have seen, and from every poll I have seen across America, those votes are probably there. The problem here is in this great institution that is supposed to be a reflection of American values, 99 to 1, we are all for traditional marriage. But it is like a mirror in this case because it is not real. You can sort of look at that reflection and try to touch it, but it is not real, it is only a reflection because they are not voting that way.

If you want to protect traditional marriage, you should vote for cloture and for one of these constitutional amendments that will be offered. The Hippocratic oath says, ``First, do no harm.'' My question to those who are going to vote ``no'' tomorrow is, what harm do you believe a constitutional amendment does to the institution of marriage, which you say you support? You support the definition within this constitutional amendment that marriage is between one man and one woman. All but one Senator said they support that. There may be more who don't. I suspect maybe a lot more, but I don't know. Probably a few more are right now sort of staying low, saying all the right things, what the polls indicate is popular, and have their fingers crossed and are thinking let this issue pass; let this issue pass by and let it quiet down, and then let the courts do what we want them to do. Then we will get what we need.

But if they don't feel that way, if they are truly in support of traditional marriage, which many profess they are--and I argue I would probably agree most are in favor of

traditional marriage--then what harm do we do by putting language into our Constitution to protect that institution which everybody says they are for? What harm is done? Do we harm the Constitution? Do we cheapen the Constitution?

Someone suggested this doesn't rise to the level of a constitutional amendment. I remind people what the last constitutional amendment was. It is fun reading. It is always good to pick up the Constitution. I know Senator Byrd carries one and hangs out with it all the time. I will read the 27th amendment:

No law varying the compensation for the services of Senators and Representatives shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Congress cannot get pay raises until after the election. Big deal. By the way, I know one Senator said, ``I am going to stand with James Madison.'' That is what the Senator from Arizona said. The 27th amendment--do you know what it is called? The Madison amendment. James Madison, the architect of the Constitution, had an amendment that said Congresses cannot receive pay raises. A big, weighty issue. The fate of the country hangs in the balance. ``I will stand with James Madison.'' Do you know what Madison said? If you believe enough in something, you put it in the Constitution if that is the only way you fix the problem. I don't believe anyone can look at the legal state of play in this country and say there is any other real option.

A philosopher named Christopher Lash said: ``Every day we get up and we tell ourselves lies so we can live.'' What did he mean by that? Well, there are certain things we have to tell ourselves so we can go on and do what we want to do, certain truths we have to ignore so we can go on and live our lives.

There are all these people dying and suffering in Africa from AIDS, and we tell ourselves there is not much I can do about that so I will go on with my day. There are 1.2 million children dying from abortions in this country. We tell ourselves that is a tragedy, but there is nothing I can do, so I can go on and have my breakfast. We all do it. I do it. Everybody does it. We tell ourselves little lies so we can feel comfortable with the decisions we make to go on with the life we want to live and make the decisions that make us feel comfortable.

The Senate tomorrow is going to tell itself a little lie--that we don't need to do this, that families will be OK without us, and the States can handle the issue. Now, some will say they don't believe that is a little lie. They will say they disagree with that. We can all rationalize whatever decision we want to make. We can all make our case. In the history books, when this time is written about, we will be able to make our case. We will be able to say, you know, had I known this was going to happen, I would have voted differently. I would have stood with Mr. Madison and voted for that amendment. But how was I to know? How was I to know this was the beginning of the end of marriage, and the beginning of the end of the family in America, and the beginning of the end of the freedom we hold in this country so dear, where Government doesn't run and have to take care of every need because nobody else is around to do it.

If you look at the socialist countries that have gone in the direction of destruction of the family, you only need to look at the imposition and heavy weight of government. Why? Because there is no one there to pick up the pieces. You can say, if I had known, if I had only known. Every day we get up and tell ourselves lies, so we can live. The problem is this lie hurts the future lives of millions of children in America.

And they are going to have to live with the consequences of the lie you tell.

We have an opportunity to do something so simple, so basic, so natural: Simply affirm what this country has known for hundreds of years, what the Western World has known since its inception, and simply put in a document that represents the best of America the ideal that children deserve moms and dads; that the glue of the family, marriage, is worth a special place. Do we not believe that marriage, that glue that binds men and women and children together, deserves a special place right next to limiting pay raises of Members of Congress? Is that a special enough place? Is it not a special enough place for something that we know is essential for the future of America?

We debate a lot of important issues here, but there is nothing--nothing--more important than the future survival of this country. That is what we are here for. We took that oath of office. Why? To preserve and protect. That is our job. We have other jobs outside this Chamber, but within this Chamber our job is the preservation of these United States.

I do not see how anyone can possibly imagine a whole nation without whole families. Yet we will choose tomorrow to risk everything. Think about this. We will choose tomorrow to risk everything. Why? What is worth this risk? What is worth this experiment in sociology heretofore unseen? What is worth that much?

I ask the silent chairs on the other side of the aisle: What is worth this much not to give marriage a chance? As broken and as battered and as shattered as the institution is, let's use this opportunity, in a time of horrible, divisive politics, to band together and say there is one thing on which we can agree: that men and women should bind together to have children and raise them in stable families. Can we at least agree on that?

What will the answer be? What will all of God's children say tomorrow? No. No. No, I can't go that far; sorry, got too many other things to worry about; too political an issue; too divisive an issue; too intolerant an issue; just trying to bash people; you don't really care about families; this is simply about politics. The lies we tell ourselves every day just so we can live.

I come here not because I want to win an election, not because I want to bash anybody or hurt anybody. I come because this is good for America. This is the foundation of everything that makes America great, and it is worth saving. Give it a chance. Don't snuff out this candle that is just barely keeping the light on. Give it a chance. I accept the fact that it is in trouble. I accept the fact that we have darn near blown it, but don't use that as an excuse to do nothing. This is not about hate. This is about giving our children the best chance of having a bright tomorrow.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.