Senator Rick Santorum (R - PA)

Third Statement on the Federal Marriage Amendment

July 13, 2004

---

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I just want to read article V and make clear what the Senator from Alabama is saying. When it comes to amending the Constitution, the first two words, if we are going to change the Constitution of the United States, the first two words are ``The Congress.''

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution....

Shall propose amendments. It is the role of Congress to simply propose amendments. So what we are doing here today is not passing. We are simply proposing this to the American people.

..... shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

What this amendment says is to change the Constitution of the United States, we propose and the people dispose.

What is happening in Massachusetts, across this country, and in the court across the street in the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court has taken this power unto itself which was clearly left to the people. That is what we are trying to address. We are trying to let the people speak.

In the end, this debate simply is about letting the American people decide for ourselves what this rather important institution in our country is.

Again, I can think of nothing more foundational in our society than the building block of that society which is the family.

The American people have a right to make a decision. Every Member who has gotten up and talked has said they want to simply leave it to the State courts. But let me assure you, these decisions will not ultimately be made by the States. They will be made by the State courts. We have seen it in case after case after case. The courts will trump the legislatures.

Again, ultimately, even if some States can hold back the tide, other States will not. If we have a hodgepodge or patchwork of different marriage laws in this country, I will assure you the Supreme Court will not stand aside and let that continue. It will be a legal nightmare. We will have to find conformity. Conformity will certainly be to permit this new form of marriage; thus, the end of the family as we know it.

I know the Senator from Kansas and many others--the Senator from Texas and I have even pointed out--I know some are saying, What do you mean the end of the family? Won't we enhance marriage by allowing more people to marry? Won't marriage be enhanced if we allow more people to participate in that sacred bond? The evidence is in.

In the places where we have seen the introduction of civil unions and same-sex marriages, marriage rates decline dramatically. Why? Because marriage loses its meaning. Marriage is no longer about families. By the way, what goes up? The rate of out-of-wedlock births. This is common sense, isn't it?

What are we doing here? If marriage is simply about affirming one's own self-worth or affirming one's affection toward somebody else, if that is all it is, when those feelings go away, why stay married? If that is all it is, if it is all about me and my happiness, when I am not happy anymore, then I am not married anymore. If it is about me, then obviously it is not about them, the children. They only happen to come along. If marriage is simply about me, in the case of heterosexual marriage, if it is about me, and that is what a lot of divorce laws as a culture have trained us to believe marriage is about, then it is nice to have kids. It is a great thing to have kids--sometimes, some will say. Why stay married? If I am not happy because marriage isn't about children, it is about me, we reinforce that. We put a big neon sign, ``Marriage is about me. Marriage is about self. Marriage is about making me feel

good. And if I don't feel good anymore, then I will not be married anymore.'' That is all marriage is about. How can you argue it is about anything else? If any two people can get married whether they can have children or not, why stop at two?

I mean if what we are doing, if marriage is a civil right as someone suggested--not in this Chamber, but I suspect one of these days will be mentioned in this Chamber, that marriage is a civil right--then why isn't it a civil right for three, or four, or five? If it is a civil right, why limit it to two? If I need to express my love to three people instead of one, if that is what fulfills me and makes me happy, then why shouldn't I be allowed to do that?

This is a very slippery slope.

The bottom line is, as I mentioned over and over again with respect to the reasons for marriage, self-affirmation is fairly low on the list of marriage importance in society. Why do we have such a legal institution? Why do we create laws that govern marriage? Why do we do that, if we didn't believe there was a societal good to be accomplished by it? Why do we give it elevated status?

You sort of have to ask this question: Is it because we go around affirming love between two people? Why don't we want mothers and daughters to be married and give them special treatment? There are a lot of daughters who take care of moms who are sick, who are elderly, who sacrifice a lot to take care of their parents and don't get the benefits they would otherwise get if they were married to their mother. Why not give them, the people who are struggling, the right to marry so they can get the benefits of marriage? If they are going to argue that marriage is about affirming the love of two people, why not? But marriage is much more from the standpoint of society and the reason we have an institution of marriage. That is a minor part of this discussion. The reason we have legal statutes for marriage is because it is about having and raising children and stable families and bonding men and women together so they can provide for the common good. There are great benefits to society with marriage.

We know if we cheapen marriage as other countries have done, fewer heterosexuals will be married, more children will be born out of wedlock, and more government will be needed to repair the dissolution of the family as a result of it. Why? For what? What great positive impact will change the definition of the marriage act? What great contribution will be made to society? Will we be able to welcome a loving society? Some will suggest we will. I don't know if we will. I think we are a loving, welcoming society with maybe the exception of the unborn. We are not particularly welcome to one-third of the children conceived in marriage who end up being killed by abortion. But beyond that, I think we are a pretty affirmative and tolerant society--not that there are not people who aren't tolerant, not there are not people who do and say hurtful things.

By and large, we have come a long way in our society. I think it is a good thing we have become tolerant of people. Tolerance does not mean we need to change a fundamental institution that provides healthy environments for children and destroys the chance for children to have the ideal or make it a lot less likely.

I think if you look at Netherlands, Scandinavia, and look at numbers in Canada and other places, it has an impact.

I keep coming back to the fundamental right. The hour is late. I apologize to all folks who had to stay here late at night. The morning will come early.

I keep sitting here and wondering why.

Why does a body of people, No. 1, profess publicly to believe that marriage should only be a union between a man and a woman and that this body believes it overwhelmingly; and, No. 2, knows that at least this issue is under contest and in dispute. There is no question about that. One State has changed the law.

To suggest this is not a threat simply is not true. It is obviously under threat. It has been changed in one rather large State.

There are cases in 11 other States, 2 cases challenging the Federal law, and in 46 States there are same-sex couples who are married from Massachusetts or one of the other States that have married people. Are all potential litigants.

Number one we believe marriage is between a man and a woman. We know that institution is under assault. We know that it is a public good and that we are for it. We know that it serves a useful purpose. Then why won't we do something to protect it?

We go down this logical train and we say, yes, all those things are true, but we can wait. Why? What is the point? Why wait? What is going to happen? Things will get worse. Certainly that will happen. Things get worse and then you feel you had the public support necessary to vote. Is that what this is about, getting the public support necessary to do this? Or do we really believe the States can handle it? Are we willing to take that risk? What is the risk if the courts do turn over more and more? We can come back and fix it later. I know a lot of people know this unspoken thing: Time is not on our side.

The culture of what is educating our children at our university, what is polluting our children's mind from Hollywood, what is coming through the mainstream media is not a message in support of traditional marriage.

Let's be honest. Does anybody question that the messages from those places where our children are getting the messages from the popular culture, from the educational establishment, is it all affirming of the traditional definition of marriage? One only needs to look at the polls of young people to know that is simply not the case.

This is simply a timebomb. If we do not bring America's focus and attention on what marriage is and why it is important, and that it should be sustained, we will lose.

Many have criticized me and Senator Frist and others for bringing this up, saying it is premature, saying we are picking a fight for politics or whatever. Let me assure you, if I thought it was not in the best interest of protecting the American people, I would not be here. If I did not think this was critical to the future of America, I would not be here at 10 o'clock at night when I should be home tucking my kids in bed. As Members know, I try to spend time with my kids. There is nothing more important, nothing more important than my kids and my wife, my family. That is why I am here, because there is nothing more important than my family.

I hope tomorrow we get a big surprise. I always believe in that. I remember being here a few years ago and debating the issue of partial-birth abortion, about this hour of the night, trying to override the President's veto in 1996 and then again in 1998. I remember staying up late the night before the vote, saying we are just a couple votes short; maybe if we go out and give it one last good try, we will win. And we didn't.

Do you know what I found? I say to the Senator from Colorado, nobody is more constant, nobody, who I would rather see in the foxhole next to me than the Senator from Colorado. If you looked over there, he would be there. The Senator from Alabama, I say the same to him. These are stalwarts, folks who are not afraid to engage in cultural wars that are not fun to engage in because a lot of people say a lot of bad things about you.

What I say to these Members and anyone listening, losing the vote does not necessarily mean losing the issue. We had a lot of losses on the issue of partial-birth abortion. I can say without fear of hesitation it was the greatest gift that God gave us, because it gave us an opportunity to talk to the American people about this scourge on our Nation. If the President signed this innocuous bill the first time in 1996, signed it and had a bill-signing ceremony, probably it would have been filed, no one would have known, hearts and minds would not have been touched.

I believe our plan is not necessarily the best plan. Victory can come from defeat. In this case, the victory over the last 3 days, thanks to the work of these two fine Members and so many others who have come to the Senate to debate this issue, is an America that is waking up to something that we have forgotten about.

I liken the institution of marriage to oxygen in the air. The human body needs oxygen to survive. Yet we take it for granted as we just breathe. And America as a society needs marriage and families to survive. Yet we take marriage and families for granted as if it will always be. We do a lot to keep good, healthy oxygen to breathe. We do very little to keep families protected, sheltered, and supported.

Just as it is with oxygen, as you climb those high altitudes in Colorado, you find out when there is less and less oxygen, the body does not function quite as well. So it is with marriage. When there is less and less marriage, the body does not function quite as well. When you are climbing that mountain, and many people for years did not know what it was when they went up to the altitudes that they could not perform as well, and, for America, we are climbing that mountain and we are just wondering, Why aren't we doing as well?

This is an opportunity to educate America as to the need for marriage, the need for families, not in a hostile way, not in a negative way. I don't think I have heard a negative word on the floor of the Senate about anybody or anything. We simply have talked about why families and marriage is necessary for America and why children need moms and dads.

It is almost remarkable, but I suspect this is maybe the first real debate about family and marriage in the Senate. I guess in the Defense of Marriage Act we talked, maybe not. But it is a reminder to all how the things that sometimes we take most for granted are things that make us function as a society.

I thank the Presiding Officer for the willingness to stay to this late hour and engage in this very important debate. I hope tomorrow, whatever happens, I don't know what will happen,

that it turns out for the best interests of America's families. I always hope that no matter what we do and how the votes come, that somehow or other it will all work out for the best for America. I believe that. And I ask for the American public to pray for that.

I yield the floor.