CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
SENATE
July 14, 2004
FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT-MOTION TO PROCEED
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, when the Supreme Court in Massachusetts issued its ruling on marriage it did what no court ought to do. It set itself apart from and above the State and Federal legislatures, and went so far as to order the Massachusetts Legislature to produce a remedy in a time period it knew was unworkable and unfair. Even if the legislature is able to draft a change in the law that is acceptable to the court it will be impossible to bring the issue before the voters to obtain their consent and approval of the legislature's intrusion on the important tradition of marriage.
Regardless of what we may believe about the institution of marriage, the process of amending the Constitution, or the rights of same-sex couples to marry, there is no question that this is not what the Founding Fathers intended when they originally drafted the Constitution and established the principles of separation of powers and the right of the governed to have a voice in the laws that are written to govern them. The amendment we have before us is an attempt to remedy that situation and provide guidance and direction from the people of the States to the courts on this matter.
As we begin our consideration of this issue, we cannot help but frame the argument in terms of our own experience of marriage and our memories of the marriage of our own mother and father.
I was fortunate to have a pair of remarkable parents who worked hard and did everything they could to raise their family with a strong awareness of the principles and values of the time. One of those principles was undoubtedly the bonds that tied them together as man and wife. I know I am not the only one with such memories of growing up, or later, repeating much of the same modeling when we had families of our own. Now, as a grandfather, I am watching the traditions repeat themselves as my son and his wife raise the next generation of our family.
Simply put, that is what this legislation means to me-providing the generations to come with the same kind of advantages I had in my own life. It is not about denying rights to any group-it is about ensuring marriage, and its importance in our society continues to be encouraged and promoted.
As I have listened to the debate, I have heard it said that this is an issue that the States, not Congress, ought to be deciding. I could not agree more that the States need to be heard on this issue. That is why we are pursuing the remedy of a constitutional amendment in this matter. Even if we were to pass this legislation, however, it would still require the consent of three-fourths of the States.
In other words, the debate we begin here will be finished by the States. That way we will ensure that such a radical departure from our traditions and the norm of the institution of marriage will not be changed by the ruling of a court, but by the will of the people who will make their will known through their State legislatures.
One argument that has been raised in opposition to the legislation before us has to do with the rights of same-sex unions as defined by those States that have established civil unions. This bill will do nothing to change or alter that process. The States can continue to establish these programs as determined by the will of the people of the States that produce them.
This line of reasoning tries to obscure the point that a marriage is quite different from a civil union. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman in a partnership aimed at producing children and nurturing their growth and development. It is not about social acceptance, or about economic benefits, or an exercise in civil rights, as some would try to lead us to believe. A civil union, on the other hand, is a legal agreement that establishes a partnership between two people of the same sex to ensure their rights as "partners" are preserved in the eyes of the law. A civil union is concerned with matters like the right to an inheritance, retirement, death benefits, health insurance and the like. Marriage is concerned with matters involving the birth and raising of children. That is the main difference between the two. Simply put, life comes from the marriage of a man and a woman. No life can come from a civil union.
Society clearly has an interest in promoting and encouraging marriage and the life it produces because it is the cornerstone upon which all our institutions are based. The family is also the main building block that helps form the very structure of our society. If all politics is local, you cannot get any more local than protecting and preserving the institution of marriage and the family unit it creates. The family is the basic unit from which neighborhoods are developed and strong communities are created. That is why society must continue to promote marriage and to afford it all the protections it can. Again, marriage is more than just a bond between a man and a woman, it is the basis from which life is created and children become a part of our world.
I have often heard it said that if we do not do a good job of raising our children, nothing else we accomplish during our lives will matter very much. Studies have shown that a child is better prepared for life if that child is raised in a loving, caring environment, with a father and a mother. The bonds that are formed, and the lessons learned about life from mom and dad help a child to understand his or her role in the world. It also helps a child begin to develop relationships with members of the opposite sex. A mother and father serve as role models for a child that help children understand their own role in the world as it shapes their relationships with their peers as they grow up and become adults.
Some may try to respond to those points by promoting the cause of same-sex parents. That argument tries to change the subject because that is not what this legislation is about. It is about protecting the definition of marriage as it was developed and handed down to us for more generations than any of us could count.
If we abandon marriage, we abandon the family. And when we convert marriage into a civil right for the sole purpose of indulging a perceived "protected sphere of individual sexual autonomy," as some courts have tried to do, we abandon hope, not just for ourselves, but especially for future generations. If we lose our connection across the generations that have held marriage dear for so long and, as a result, the hearts of fathers and mothers are no longer turned to their children, and the hearts of children are no longer turned to their fathers and mothers, we will have suffered a great and terrible loss, indeed.
It was just over 10 months ago that I came to the Senate floor to announce the birth of my latest hope for the future, my grandson Trey. I shared my dream of his future and welcomed him into this world of promise and hope and love.
A number of my colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, came to me after that speech and shared with me their own hopes for the future as seen in the pictures of their grandchildren. My conclusion from those conversations is that all moms and dads, grampas and grammas know what it means to have that connection-the ties that bind each generation of each family together.
From where did that connection come? It was taught to us as we learned about families from our own parents and grandparents who took us under their wing and taught us what it means to be a part of a family. Simply put, they led the best way, by example, and what they taught us continues to guide us and direct us today. As I look back on those days I can see that I was their hope for the future, and they were willing to sacrifice today so that I might have a better tomorrow. It would be a tragedy for the courts to take that same opportunity away from me and my grandchildren.
The legislation we are considering today has one goal in mind-to protect the definition of marriage as it was developed and handed down to us from generation to generation. The enactment of this amendment will ensure that we pass that gift on to our children and our children's children, just as we received it.