| Contribute | Volunteer | Contact Us |
June 7, 2006
Mr. President, we will shortly be voting on what would be the 28th Amendment to our Constitution. We all know the outcome of that vote – the amendment will fall well short of the 60 votes required for cloture, let alone the 67 votes required to pass a constitutional amendment, just as it did two years ago.
I am pleased that the Senate will reject this amendment, and I am heartened that so many Senators have come to the floor to speak out strongly against this misguided proposal. But I am saddened that, once again, the Senate has spent several days on such a divisive and unneeded proposal, a proposal that pits Americans against one another and that appeals to people’s worst instincts and prejudices.
The arguments made by supporters of the amendment simply don’t hold up under scrutiny. The supporters argue that federal courts are on the brink of recognizing same-sex marriage, and that states may be forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Neither of these things has happened, and no one has explained why we should do a preemptive strike on the basic governing document of the country to address a hypothetical future court decision.
The supporters talk about “traditional marriage” but have no respect for the traditional role of the states in regulating marriage. If they did, they would not be trying to impose a restrictive federal definition of marriage on all states, for all time.
The supporters argue that this amendment will not affect the ability of state legislatures to extend benefits to same-sex couples or enact civil unions. But, as I pointed out yesterday, even the legal experts who support this constitutional amendment cannot agree about its potential effect and scope.
Supporters rail against “activist judges” but, if this vaguely worded amendment ever passes, it will result in substantial litigation. What are the “legal incidents” of marriage? Is a civil union a marriage in all but name and therefore subject to the amendment? Judges would have to answer these and other questions that the supporters of the amendment have so far failed to resolve. There is certainly a rich irony in that.
We have heard moving speeches – and I do not doubt the sincerity of the speakers – about the central role and value of marriage in our society. But what I still don’t understand, and what the supporters of the amendment have failed to demonstrate, is why we should prevent states from deciding to open this institution to men and women who happen to be gay and lesbian. All over the country, married heterosexual couples are shaking their heads and wondering how exactly the prospect of gay marriage threatens the health of their marriages.
This amendment would make a minority of Americans permanent second class citizens in this country. It would prevent states, many of which are grappling with the definition of marriage, from deciding that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. It may even prevent states from offering certain benefits of marriage to same sex couples through civil union or domestic partnership legislation. And it would write discrimination into a document that has served as an historic guarantee of individual freedom.
Mr. President, gay and lesbian Americans are our neighbors, our friends, our family members and our colleagues. Millions are loving parents in strong and healthy families. Let’s not demonize them. Let’s not play upon fears about them. Let’s not use them as scapegoats for perceived social problems. Let’s allow – in fact, let’s encourage -- states to extend rights and responsibilities to these decent, loving, law-abiding families. We can start today by rejecting this unnecessary, mean-spirited and poorly drafted constitutional amendment.
I yield the floor.
# # #
Read our Ten Things to Know About Russ.
 | |||
| |||