Senator Jeff Sessions (R - AL)

Third Statement on the Federal Marriage Amendment
July 13, 2004

---

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Presiding Officer and Senator Allard for his leadership on this issue. I am proud to cosponsor this legislation with him.

I think a constitutional amendment is appropriate, and I believe it is worthy of this Senate to take time to discuss it. I believe it is important for the American people to understand the danger, the threat to marriage as we have known it in this culture and, indeed, as it has been known for thousands of years. It is endangered by the decisions of unelected judges who are not accountable to the public. As a result, it is their States rights that are being eroded through this kind of activity.

The U.S. Supreme Court, as I discussed in some detail last night, through the ruling in Lawrence v. Texas has very clearly--philosophically and as a matter of principle--placed marriage as we have known it in jeopardy. Indeed, Justice Scalia predicted, in dissent, this is exactly where the Court is headed. It is exactly what the Supreme Court of the United States is going to do. It is going to rule consistent with the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. We are on the verge of seeing that happen. If they do not do it next year, or even the year after that, that does not mean that marriage as we know it in America today is not under threat of a Supreme Court ruling. No one in this body would assert with confidence that the Supreme Court, in light of their language in the Lawrence case, is not about to adopt a ruling similar to that of Massachusetts. So marriage is in jeopardy by the U.S. Supreme Court, jeopardy in terms of the way we have defined it traditionally.

This is not an act of the people. It is not an act of any legislature. No State or Federal legislative body that has ever sat has concluded this way. None. None has voted for this kind of definition of marriage.

I will emphasize, first of all, for those who believe that States have the ability to do something by passing a constitutional amendment or a State statute dealing with marriage to affirm traditional marriage, that would be wiped out by one ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court, when it defines the equal protection clause of the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution, trumps any State law.

What we are doing is to protect, defend the rights of the States to adopt legislatively the position they have always adopted. I believe it is an important national issue, as has been discussed by a number of very fine lawyers.

JON KYL, yesterday, in his statement--and Senator Kyl has argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court--delineated the mess we will be in when people move from State to State with children they have adopted. Their relationships are one in one State, another in another State. A national definition of marriage is healthy for the country.

But I tell you, I would admit, we would not be here if it were not for the courts. We would not be seeking a constitutional amendment. We would not be in this debate had we not been placed in a position where the American people have to stand up and defend their democratic powers against an activist judiciary.

Let me add parenthetically, this is what the debate over judges is about; it has been going on in this Congress for several years now. President Bush believes in judges who follow the law, not make the law, judges who do not believe it is their right and that they have the power to impose their personal views on people through their ``definition'' of the Constitution of the United States.

For 200 years plus, we have had an equal protection clause. It is only recently that some judges seem to believe that allows them to redefine marriage.

That is a stunning activist decision. It is the same kind of decision we have seen on the Pledge of Allegiance, the same kind of decision we have seen on many other issues coming before us today. It would be very appropriate that the American people, following the constitutionally approved process of a constitutional amendment, would answer that and say what they think about marriage and how it ought to be defined. The truth is that we will be better off with a fundamental definition of marriage nationally. It is important that we do so because of the action of the courts.

Some say: Well, the American people don't want this. My phones are ringing off the hook. I don't know about Senator Allard or the Presiding Officer. I had my people check. We have had 1,500 calls for this amendment and less than 30 or 40 opposed. The American people are concerned about it, and rightly they should be. Maybe, as with a lot of important issues that come before the Senate, they are not fully informed of what is happening, and this debate will help them become better informed. I don't know.

My colleague, Senator McCain, suggested that the American people don't support this constitutional amendment. I am just looking at some recent survey data. Here is one from June 23-24, 2004. Do you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman: Favor, 57 percent; opposed, 38 percent. That was New Models survey.

Here is one, CBS News-New York Times. Would you favor or oppose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow marriage only between a man and a woman: Favor, 59 percent; opposed, 35 percent. That is March of this year.

I don't think the American people are fully understanding of just how far the courts have moved and just how much the traditional definition of marriage is under attack today. Members of this Congress need to think about that. I don't believe it is going away after this vote. The issue will remain alive. The American people are going to continue to contact their legislators because the matter is important. Marriage is important.

Senator Brownback, who does such a good job, has gone into some detail today and yesterday on how we have seen in Europe and Scandinavia that the adoption of same-sex marriages has furthered the decline in respect for marriage in those countries. And after those acts have occurred, we have seen a substantial surge in the number of out-of-wedlock births in those countries and the decline of marriage. It is rather dramatic.

Just within the last few days, six experts from Scandinavia have written a letter to other European nations and the United States, I suppose, telling them that they ought to be careful when they start tinkering with the traditional definition of marriage. It has serious sociological impacts on the life and culture of those countries. It is time for us to back up a little bit.

I would also note parenthetically that we have not adopted the socialist model of Europe. Our economy is stronger. Our unemployment is less. Our growth rate is higher. Our economy is healthier than Europe. We have not followed their mentality on national defense and we have the strongest military in the world and we have the strongest capability in the world. So why would we want to adopt their ideas about marriage? It would be the wrong thing for us to do.

The fact that we have resisted in those areas tells me that we are not on an inevitable decline in marriage.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time of the majority has expired.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. SESSIONS. We need to think about those issues and consider seriously the direction this country intends to take on marriage. That is all I am saying. I urge my colleagues to realize this is a significant vote. What we say indicates what this Nation, what this culture thinks about marriage.

I am going to talk in a moment about why it is important. But I do believe it is not disputable that adopting a same-sex marriage culture undermines and weakens marriage.

We had two articulate African-American leaders speak to a group of us a few days ago. They pointed out how hard they worked to sustain marriage in their churches and in their communities, how important they believe it is that there be stable, strong families so that children can be raised in that environment, and how hard they have worked at it and how frustrated they are that we would think about changing the definition of marriage because they are convinced that it would undermine the classical marriage relationship.

Let me just say one more thing parenthetically. I do not believe this debate should be negative. I do not believe it should put down any person, any group of people who have alternative lifestyles. Our Nation allows people to express themselves and live as they choose. I do believe, however, that it is important for us to have as the marital relationship in our country the ideal relationship of a man and a woman. That is what we have always done, and that is what we ought to proceed with now.

I do not believe it is appropriate for me to judge someone else's behavior. That is between them and their Lord. One wise thinker talked about the Scriptures. He said: The Scriptures say we should not be greedy, that we should not be violent. The Scriptures say we should not be angry. All of us violate all kinds of values, principles, moral rules of behavior that our Creator has set for us. So I am not here to judge anybody or condemn anybody. They must live and make their own judgments about how to behave. I have certain beliefs about proper standards of behavior, but I am not able to say I am any better than anybody else who may or may not fail to act in a proper way.

Let's talk about why marriage is important. If we are at a point where we are convinced that this judicial change could further weaken the institution of marriage, then what impact will that have on the people of this country? What impact will that have on the quality of life and the health and vitality of our next generation of young people?

I had the privilege to chair a hearing recently in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. It was entitled ``Healthy Marriage: What Is It and Why Should We Promote It.'' It was a very excellent hearing. I learned an awful lot.

We asked three questions. First, is marriage good? Is it a good thing? Second, if marriage is good, should the Government involve itself in promoting that good? And finally, significantly, can the Government make any difference in marriage in a culture?

After listening to a distinguished panel of witnesses, I determined that the answer to each of these questions is yes. First, we know that marriage is a social good. Children are more likely to be healthy in two-parent homes, and there is less government dependence when people are in families led by married parents.

Second, while government should not be involved in the decision to marry--of course, that is an individual decision--once that decision is made, government should be on the side of supporting marriage, affirming marriage, certainly doing nothing to undermine marriage or reduce its power, its legitimacy, and its sanctity in society.

Government is often on the side of promoting social good. For example, government incentives exist for home ownership. Why? Because we believe home ownership makes for a more stable community. It allows families to generate wealth and create wealth and have something to live in in their old age. That is a good goal and we promote it. We have tax breaks for charitable giving because we want to encourage charity. We have government grants, loans, and tax breaks to encourage people to enhance their education. We have government incentives for preventive health care.

Finally, government can make a difference. Positive examples of government involvement in helping marriage include the Oklahoma marriage savers initiative, as former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating testified at our hearing. The marriage savers community policy is something we studied carefully. In the community that has a marriage savers policy, it has strengthened marriage.

I thought the most dramatic testimony came from Dr. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead. I will talk about her testimony in a moment. We also heard from Roland Warren and Dr. Wade Horn, who testified on a number of issues.

All right. So if we continue the European model of deemphasizing the importance of classical marriage, defining it down, if we follow that direction and that further undermines marriage in a society, will it hurt our society? Will we be diminished by it?

Let me share with you some of the facts that have been assembled by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Ph.D., director of the National Marriage Project. Ten years ago, she wrote an article that was voted one of the most significant articles in the second half of the 20th century. The title was, ``Dan Quayle Was Right.'' It had to do with former Vice President Dan Quayle's speech in which he questioned the blasé way we treat divorce in our society, and he raised aggressively the importance of marriage. He was roundly condemned and made fun of at that time. Dr. Whitehead later wrote her article. She said she took a lot of criticism. She had criticism from colleges and universities about the data that she had reported from various studies around the country. She noted that she doesn't hear criticism today. Nobody disputes the data. No one disputes that a two-parent traditional family is a healthy, positive force for our society. That is why it is perfectly legitimate for any government to provide laws that further that. That is what we want to do.

Government has a right to further social institutions, to affirm them legally, those institutions that make their society more healthy. This is some of what she said in her statement to the committee:

On average, married people are happier, healthier, wealthier, enjoy longer lives, and report greater sexual satisfaction than single, divorced, or cohabitating individuals.

Well, after that, I went home and thanked my wife for putting up with me all these years. That is a good affirmation of marriage. There are very few matters that are not encompassed in there that are improved by marriage. She went on to say:

Married people are less likely to take moral or mortal risk, and are even less inclined to risk-taking when they have children.

Isn't that a good thing? I think so.

They have better health habits and receive more regular health care. They are less likely to attempt or to commit suicide. They are more likely to enjoy close and supportive relationships with their close relatives and to have a wider social support network. They are better equipped to cope with life crises, such as severe illness, job loss, and extraordinary care needs of sick children or aging parents.

Those are things that come from a marriage. She said:

If family structure had not changed between 1960 and 1998, the black child poverty rate in 1998 would have been 28 percent rather than 45 percent, and the white child poverty rate would have been [less, also].

Children experience an estimated 70 percent drop in their household income in the immediate aftermath of divorce and, unless there is a remarriage, the income is still 40 percent to 45 percent lower 6 years later than for children in intact families.

Mr. President, we know these are statistical numbers. We know many families do an extraordinary job outside of the two-parent relationship. Single moms are some of the most courageous people this country has today. They do a great job in many ways, but it is more difficult. Statistically speaking, we know it is more difficult to be as effective.

I will add some other things.

The risk of high school dropout for children from two-parent biological families is substantially less than that for those from single-parent or stepfamilies. Children from married-parent families also have fewer behavioral or school attendance problems and higher levels of educational attainment. They are better able to withstand pressures to engage in early sexual activity and to avoid unwed teen parenthood.

I think those are important values.

They are significantly more likely to earn four-year college degrees or better, and to do better occupationally than children from divorced or single-parent families.

On average, children reared in married-parent families are less vulnerable to serious emotional illness, depression and suicide than children from non-intact families.

Close to 4 out of 10 American children go through a parental divorce.

Children from married-parent families have more satisfying dating relationships, more positive attitudes toward future marriage, and greater success in forming lasting marriages. ..... [Y]oung men from married families are less likely to be divorced and more likely to be married. ..... In addition, young men from married-parent households have more positive attitudes toward women, children, and family life than men who grew up in nonintact families.

Poverty rates for married couples are half those of cohabitating couple parents and one-third those of noncohabitating single parents in households with other adults.

The traditional family is a protection against poverty. The numbers are indisputable on it. I don't see how we can dispute it. So the question is, Do we agree that the rulings of the courts that threaten traditional marriage will further a decline and disrespect for marriage? Will it weaken the definition of marriage, reduce its power and sanctity and integrity? Is that true? I think it is. If that is so, then that is not good for our culture.

If there are not families here to raise children, if there are not families here to nurture them, if there are not families to educate them, to hug them at night, to take them to church, or to help them with their homework, or to tell them how to get over their anger and forgive people who have wronged them, and to go on and be happy and be strong and courageous and do the right thing, who is going to do that? Is it going to be the government, through increased social taxes and welfare, or a secular institution who, by definition, as we have learned in this body, cannot say anything of a spiritual nature in terms of raising children? Do they have to be raised by some secular State?

Are we going to be better off if that occurs? I don't think so.

I am not talking about partnerships by people who choose to live together. I am talking about the State definition of marriage. Is that important for America? I think it is.

I see the Senator from Kansas. He eloquently, as I indicated earlier, delineated and explained why the redefinition of marriage guarantees that continual erosion of marriage, and if we erode marriage, we erode this culture, and it will hurt children. It will undermine them and it will undermine our strength as a nation, something any State, any nation has a right to be engaged in, and it ought to be engaged in through its elected representatives, the people they elect, and the people should be able to decide this.

I could go on with point after point from Dr. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead. Her scientific, indisputable evidence of the dangers we face if we think we can blithely go along with the idea that marriage is only what makes people feel good, that marriage is only for adults and what they feel at the time and what they would like to do at the time.

People can do what they like to do--they really can--in this country. We are not putting people in jail for that. But they do not need to have a definition of marriage apply to relationships of that kind. The American people have not voted for it. They have never voted for it. They do not favor it now, and I do not believe they are going to vote for it.

The question is, Will we allow them, through this constitutional amendment process, to speak to the unelected judges through the proper amendment process? Will we block it in the Senate? Or are we going to send it out to the States and let the people have a chance to be heard? I think that is what we ought to do. I cannot imagine why we would not want to do that.

A lot of people say: I do not believe in same-sex unions, or I believe marriage ought to be between a man and a woman. It is nice to say that. Why don't you vote for it? Let's have people up here vote for it; otherwise, we are facing a very strong likelihood we will continue to see the courts erode this historic institution that is so important to our culture.

I thank the Chair.