MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me time.
I also want to thank my colleagues for seeing the great need for this debate, a need which is no longer on the horizon but has reached the forefront as it has begun to affect American families.
It is the right time to discuss a marriage protection amendment. As Members of this Congress, we have a responsibility to look at this critical situation for marriage and the real possibility that the courts are going to redefine marriage.
This constitutional amendment would concretely define marriage as we always have: as the union between one man and one woman. The disintegration of the family is the force behind so many of our most serious social problems. We cannot turn a blind eye to the social trends that are doing the most damage to America's children. The health of American families is built upon marriage, and it affects us all.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and other local courts have ruled in favor of same-sex marriages. These unsound decisions set a dangerous precedent, and that is why a constitutional amendment is necessary. If enacted, it will effectively ban these illegitimate marriages nationwide.
This definition of marriage is not intended to be discriminatory but rather to uphold the sanctity of marriage as an institution. The Marriage Protection Amendment removes the definition of marriage from the hands of the courts and returns this decision to the American people, where it belongs. The Massachusetts decision represents the beginning of what could be a dangerous erosion of this sacred tradition that we must protect.
Will we put our faith in a few unelected activist judges seated on a bench to define marriage, or will we use the most democratic process we have to affirmatively define marriage as it is intended? We must protect the sanctity of marriage now.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and support the Marriage Protection Amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to say amen to everything my colleagues who have just spoken before me, Mr. Forbes and Mr. Beauprez, said. They made very eloquent arguments.
Mr. Speaker, if Members of the House vote as their States have voted on this amendment, the amendment will pass. Forty-five States have defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. As a sociologist, I taught, and I believe, that marriage is the foundational institution of every culture. It is under attack by the courts. It needs to be defended in this way by defining it as the union of a man and a woman.
If it is going to be defined otherwise, it must be done by the legislatures and not by the courts. Today we are going to vote on a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. This is about who is going to determine the definition, whether it is the courts or the legislative bodies.
The amendment is about how we are going to raise the next generation. How are they going to be raised? It is a fundamental issue for our families and for our future. It is an issue for the people. It is not an issue that the courts should resolve.
Those of us who support this amendment are doing so in an effort to let the people decide. We are making progress in America on defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman and will not stop until it is defined and protected as that union. Marriage is about our future. I continue to be struck by the opponents of this amendment, who say it is an effort to promote discrimination. The amendment is about promoting our future, our families, about how we raise the next generation and about allowing a definition of marriage that is as old as the creation of human beings.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the Marriage Protection Amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT