Marriage Protection Amendment--Motion to Proceed
MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT--MOTION TO PROCEED
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, we will shortly be voting on what will presumably be the 28th amendment to the U.S. 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, so it will fail, as it did 2 years ago. I am pleased that the Senate will reject this amendment.
I am heartened so many Senators have come to the Senate 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. I think it appeals to people's worst instincts and prejudices.
The arguments made by supporters of the amendment simply do not hold up under scrutiny. Supporters argue that Federal courts are basically on the brink of recognizing same-sex marriage and that States may be forced to recognize same-sex marriage performed in other States. Of course, neither of these things have 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.
Supporters talk about traditional marriage but in some ways have very little 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 effect the ability of State legislatures to extend benefits to same-sex couples or enact civil unions, but as I tried to point out in some depth yesterday, even the legal experts who would support this constitutional amendment cannot even agree about its potential effect and scope. We are not talking about putting together a statute; we will put this into the Constitution.
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 volume of marriage in our society. What I still do not 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 marriages threatens the health of their marriages.
This amendment would make a minority of Americans permanent second-class citizens of 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 a historic guarantee of individual freedom.
Gay 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. 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 and suggest the absence of a quorum.
http://thomas.loc.gov/