Senator Rick Santorum (R - PA)

Second Statement on the Federal Marriage Amendment
July 12, 2004

---

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I congratulate both the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Texas for their excellent comments and for adding to this debate.

I think one of the main facts we tend to overlook in this institution is the importance of the debate--the importance of engaging in a subject matter and having a colleague focus on an issue and having the American public focus on an issue.

I think in a very short period of time the issue of marriage actually has come to the fore in America--to actually start to think about what marriage is. What is the purpose of marriage? What is it all about, and how does it fit into American culture?

I told the story when the Massachusetts decision was first handed down about being questioned by college students. As the Presiding Officer knows, we are constantly bombarded by high school and college students who come down and visit with us. It is a wonderful thing when you get a chance to stay in touch with what the young mind is thinking and the popular culture they are influenced by.

Once Goodridge was handed down, I would get the question, How do you feel about changing the definition of marriage? I would enter into a discussion. I came up with the idea of asking those young people, before I answered that question, What is the purpose of marriage? Absolutely without fail, for about a 2-month period of time, as I would do that almost on a daily basis when we were in session because the issue was a hot issue at the time, I would get three or four hands going up. The answer would be to affirm the love between two people. That was the answer.

I would ask several other folks, generally speaking, some sort of variation on that theme. There would usually be some young man--usually a young man, occasionally a young lady, in the back, always in the back--who would put his hand up and sheeplishly say something like procreation and rearing of children.

I have to tell you that for a several-month period of time, when that young man or young lady would raise their hand and would say that, the majority of the kids in the group would laugh, which somewhat startled me. Then, of course, I would say I agree with that man in the back or that young lady in the back about the principal purpose of marriage. Yet to many of our young people that was not something which was considered. The only thing that was considered was about them in a sense. Consider yourself. Why do you want to be married? Well, to make me happy, to join me with someone I love. That is what marriage is about. It is about me.

I would suspect, if you went back and talked to your grandmother or great-grandmother, and you asked what the purpose of marriage is, they would probably give you a very different answer. Thankfully, I am getting a different answer now when I ask that question. More and more people

are saying what that sheepish young boy or young girl would say in the back, and there are fewer and fewer laughs when they say it is about children.

I can only give as a reason for that the fact that we have had this debate as to what marriage means and the importance of it to our society. It is like the oxygen we breathe. We breathe it and we know it is there. It is essential to life, but we sort of take for granted that it is just going to be there. That is our bodily function because it is just going to be there. The body politic, the body, the social body, that culture that is in America sort of takes marriage for granted. When we see places where marriage maybe has been taken too much for granted or simply been pushed aside as something that isn't necessary, we see how culture and society suffer greatly.

One of the things I wanted to do in the little time I have here--and I think the Senator from Kansas is here, and I know he wants to speak--is talk about what the purpose of marriage is. Why is this issue so central? We tend to talk about what the need for this amendment is and get sort of wrapped up in the procedure.

I think one of the great blessings of the Senate is an opportunity to debate, educate, and to think through things.

I earlier quoted a study by professors Young and Nathan. I will go through a little bit more of this article. But they lay out in a paragraph of the study the purpose, if you will, the reason for marriage, and why society must encourage it.

As I mentioned in my earlier comments, if society doesn't encourage marriage and fidelity between a man and a woman, the natural inclination is certainly--as I think we have seen in many subcultures in America--not to be faithful, not to be responsible fathers, not to be involved with a woman for a long-term commitment. This is something which, if not nurtured by culture, could cause us to evolve very quickly into a rather self-absorbed, self-centered culture, with men being the principal stirrer of that lethal cocktail in America.

But to quote professors Young and Nathan:

The culture of marriage must encourage at least five things. A, the bonding between men and women that ensures their cooperation for the common good; B, the birth and rearing of children, at least to the extent necessary for preserving and fostering society in a culturally approved way; C, bonding between men and children so that men are likely to become active participants in family life; D, some healthy form of masculine identity which is based on the need for at least one distinctive, necessary and publicly valued contribution to society and is especially important today because the other two cross-cultural definitions of manhood, provider and protector, are no longer distinctive now that women have entered the public realm; and E, the transformation of adolescence into sexually responsible adults so young men and women are ready for marriage and the beginning of a new cycle.

So why do we support marriage? Why do we hold up marriage as a special institution to which we give prestige and esteem, that we support with cultural and social norms, to which we give legal preferences, legal protection? Why do we do this as a culture? Why has every culture in the history of man provided the same kind of nurturing and support for husbands, for men and women to become husbands and wives and fathers and mothers?

We do this for the reasons that are laid out here--at least for these reasons laid out here. Some of them are really interesting, if you dig into them as to how, without this kind of nurturing, we can see very clearly how our society would be harmed.

I haven't heard anybody get up and argue that marriage between a man and a woman is bad. I haven't heard anybody get up and suggest that we should change the definition of ``traditional.'' In fact, I haven't heard anybody here, nor do I expect to hear anyone here, advocate for the States to change the definition of traditional marriage.

One wonders if there is unanimity of opinion as to what marriage is. And I suspect, although I would be happy to hear people come forward and disagree with these elements that I have just laid forth--but if there is agreement as to what marriage is and the purpose and the benefits of society for marriage, why are we so reticent in doing what we know for sure will protect that institution?

Again, Members can make the arguments up and down that there are other ways we can protect marriage: The States can do it, the State courts can do it, the legislatures can do it, the DOMA statute, or the House, which is looking at some sort of limitation of jurisdiction. We can look at a whole variety of different things and say this could work, this might work, this may happen, but ultimately we know for sure one thing will work. A constitutional amendment defining marriage will, without question, work.

We have to ask ourselves, if marriage is this institution so critical to the future of our society, it is so foundational for our children and for men and women to build these bonds for the common good--and after the Senator from Kansas speaks, I will go through chart after chart of the benefits children gain from being in a married family--if we accept that social good, then why is there not overwhelming support for something most people even 10 years ago would have said: This is common sense. Of course marriage is between men and women. We do not have to put that into the Constitution. Everyone agrees with that.

Yes, everyone agrees, but Members will stand up in the Senate and say: We all agree with that, but it does not belong in the Constitution. Marriage is not important enough. Families are not important enough to be protected by our Constitution, to be protected from rogue judges who say things like marriage is a stain on our laws that must be eradicated.

I believe ultimately we will protect marriage. Let's start now. Let's come together and make some commonsense decisions about protecting the institution that is so valuable to this country, that we know is a public good. We can do that starting this week.