Marriage Protection Amendment - Motion to Proceed - Continued

MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued -- (Senate - June 06, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise tonight as a cosponsor and a strong supporter of the Marriage Protection Amendment before the Senate.

If you had told me 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago, that I would be standing before the Senate advocating a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, I would have thought you had lost your mind. Why in the world would you ever need to do that, I would have asked? Doesn't it go without saying that men and women get married? Yet tonight I do stand in the Senate advocating a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, nothing else. What was once thought preposterous is now reality. We are faced with this new reality because activist judges throughout the Nation have decided to redefine marriage.

The courts, not the people, not the States, are redefining a fundamental institution of our society, the very foundation of our civilization.

Ironically, this new definition of marriage runs contrary to what a majority of Americans believe. In fact, 45 of the 50 States have either a State constitutional amendment or a statute defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman, nothing else. On average, those measures have passed with more than 70 percent of the voters' support.

Today, the voters in my home State of Alabama--and we will know the outcome later tonight--will vote on a State constitutional amendment regarding marriage. I think I know what the outcome will be in my State. Regardless, no judge should be able to impose his or her will on Alabama or any other State if the voters have decided otherwise.

What appears to be a broad consensus throughout the country for protecting the institution of marriage is being undermined and redefined by activist judges. These judges have struck down numerous State laws intended to protect the traditional definition of marriage. State courts in California, Georgia, Maryland, New York, and Washington have overturned laws or amendments protecting marriage, and a Federal judge in Nebraska invalidated a State amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage.

I have long thought that it was the role of the judiciary to interpret the law, not make the law. However, these activist judges across the country have taken it upon themselves to make laws that, in many cases, redefine the definition of marriage. These judges have taken it upon themselves to make decisions reserved for State legislatures who have worked to be responsive to their constituencies and to define marriage in the traditional sense. The difference is that these activist judges do not have to be responsive to anyone and are accountable to no one.

Abraham Lincoln reminded us in the Gettysburg Address that we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Activist judges, accountable to no one, should not be allowed to govern this country. The basic foundation of our Constitution does not invest total control in the judiciary. It is not government by the judiciary; rather, it is a government by the people. On this issue, the people have spoken and will speak again.

Activist judges should not be permitted to redefine the sacred bond of marriage. For generations, humanity has defined marriage as the union between a man and a woman upon which families are built. It is the institution of marriage upon which our society has flourished.

Mr. President, States, in my judgment, must be allowed to continue to exercise their will. States that pass laws on constitutional amendments should not be overridden by an overactive judiciary that believes it has the power to redefine the moral character upon which our Nation was built. I believe the President recently summed it up when he said:

The union of a man and a woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution. For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure.

Therefore, tonight I stand before you in strong support of this constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov