Gingrey Votes to Uphold Traditional Marriage Marriage Protection amendment gain support but fails to pass House

Gingrey Votes to Uphold Traditional Marriage Marriage Protection amendment gain support but fails to pass House

Floor Speech on Marriage Amendment

U.S. Congressman Phil Gingrey today voted for H.J.Res. 88, the Marriage Protection Act. This legislation provides for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The resolution failed 236 to 187 (Constitutional amendments require a 2/3rds majority to pass), but gained more votes than in previous years, showing increased support for the measure.

"We need to protect the traditional and historical definition of marriage," said Gingrey. "The American people have shown their support for this amendment, time and time again. We've heard - through phone calls, meetings, and the passage of state laws - that Americans want to protect the institution of marriage. I am extremely disappointed that so many of my colleagues failed to heed the people's call."

Twenty states have already amended their constitutions to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, including Georgia. In 2004, 76% of Georgia's voters approved a comprehensive amendment to the state Constitution. In total, 45 states have passed laws defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

"I believe that our Constitution should only be amended under the most pressing of circumstances," said Gingrey. "Unfortunately, the actions of a few activist judges have forced us to seek protection for the institution of marriage. These judges are intent on making laws, not interpreting them, and they must be stopped."

Below are Gingrey's remarks before Congress on the Marriage Protection Act:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. J. Res. 88, the Marriage Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker, the proceeding debate can be either divisive and disrespectful or can be respectful and productive. This Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with exclusion but has everything to do with protecting the traditional and historical definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

And, contrary to what the opponents of this resolution will say today, this Amendment will simply PRESERVE the traditional definition of marriage as it has existed for millennia.

I anticipate there will be those on the other side who will say this Amendment was concocted for political purposes. To the contrary, this Amendment is in response to a few activist judges are trying to throw out the definition of marriage along with over 200 years of American judicial precedent.

These judges and these judges alone made this matter an issue, and they did so without one vote cast in either a legislature or at the ballot box. These activist judges substituted legal precedent and the will of the American people with their own personal desires and political beliefs. Their decision to scrap the traditional definition of marriage has forced us to now consider enshrining the definition of marriage into our Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, like most of my colleagues, I would prefer to not have to address this issue in this manner. Unfortunately, I know my constituents and a strong majority of the American people want us to defend the traditional definition of marriage. A poll by the New York Times, not exactly a bastion of right wing conservatism, found that 59%, I repeat, 59% of Americans favor an amendment to the Constitution stating that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

In 2004, the people of Georgia affirmed with a vote of 76% to 24% that marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. I proudly count myself among that 76%, and I will close this debate by reminding my colleagues that we have an opportunity today to stem the tide of judicial activism and restore the ability of the American people to establish policy that affects them and their lives through their elected representatives.

I also sadly realize this Amendment will probably not have the necessary 2/3 majority to pass, and opponents will cite this as a reason to not even consider the underlying resolution. Well, this vote will serve as opportunity for each and every member of this body to go on record in support or in opposition to protecting the traditional definition of marriage.

And after this vote, each of us will be judged accordingly by our constituents, and I can say with a clear conscious and without hesitation that I will support this rule and I will support the underlying resolution for the sake of the sacred institution of traditional marriage and for the sake of our precious children.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying resolution.

http://gingrey.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=47229