Marriage Protection Amendment

MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT -- (House of Representatives - July 18, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, the argument on the floor that somehow this is a church issue misses this point entirely. We are talking about the legal implications, and whether or not the Government of the United States can recognize a preferential status for marriage between one man and one woman.

Now, is this unprecedented? No, it is not. Read your American history. The State of Utah was not allowed to become a State until they recognized marriage as being only between one man and one woman. That had to do with whether you could have multiple partners.

This is a different aspect of that question, but essentially the legal basis is the same. And that is what we are talking about here. Those who wish to change this, as these activist judges do, carry the burden of arguing why we should change an institution which has stood the test of time for thousands of years.

There are reasons for this in terms of it being the most stable unit of society upon which our society has found itself in need. That is what we are talking about. It is not discrimination. It is allowing the existence of a definition of the most fundamental unit of society. That is it simply. We are not intruding in the province of churches.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, where to begin? We have heard the argument that somehow we shouldn't bring constitutional amendments to the floor; we shouldn't amend the Constitution.

It is a very interesting argument when you realize there are two ways to amend the Constitution, one is the formal process that is contained in the Constitution itself, which we are embarking upon today, and the other one is by activist judges.

People don't like to hear that. They seem to say judges have the right to amend the Constitution, to give new meaning to the words of the Constitution, to actually give the opposite meaning to the words of the Constitution and we have to accept that forever, because if we do anything opposed to that, we are somehow changing the Constitution, even though we are following the exact requirements of the Constitution itself.

The second thing that is said is wait a second, no court has declared marriage to be unconstitutional in the traditional sense, so we should wait until that happens. In other words, if we take an anticipatory action, somehow we are unconstitutional.

How have we changed the terms of the debate when we are talking about a traditional definition of marriage that has stood the test of time for thousands of years, has been understood by every single one of our Founding Fathers at the time of the formation of this country, that somehow we are the ones that are upsetting the apple cart; when, in fact, it is those who wish to change this traditional definition in a radical way?

They say, well, the Federal Government should not be involved in it. And yet we pointed out historically the Federal Government has been involved in defining marriage, refusing to allow at least the State of Utah to become a State until they accepted that definition of marriage.

What we are talking about is changing the fundamental vision of marriage that is in our civil structure, a preferential treatment that is allowed under our laws for marriage, understood traditionally. And they say, well, we passed DOMA so you don't have to worry. Yet, many who are saying that argued on the floor of the House that DOMA was unconstitutional. Professor Lawrence Tribe has said it is unconstitutional. Many of the organizations who are against this particular amendment have argued in court that it is unconstitutional and believe it is only inevitable until they overturn it by way of their particular lawsuits brought against it.

So the question here is really, do you believe there is reason to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, allowing it to be the essential unit of our society, not that there aren't other units of society, but the essential unit of our society that has withstood the test of time? That is the simple question before us.

We never asked for this debate. This debate began with, yes, activist judges who said, wait a second, times have changed and, therefore, the traditional notion of marriage is out the window.

Why? Who said so? Because of what?

This is not a question of discrimination as some have argued on the other side, unless they are saying we are discriminating against bigamy and polygamy, because the United States has spoken, as I said before, in saying the traditional definition of marriage is enshrined in our institutions and in our law.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, if I could just respond to the question of federalism.

There is a mistake on this floor when people are talking about this being a violation of federalism. Federalism, properly understood, is a check on the power of the Federal Government by the State government and vice versa.

The reason why the federalism issue does not apply here is because marriage and the family is likewise an institution, although a private one, which provides a countervailing source of power vis-a-vis the government, and there are lot of arguments on the floor. It is too bad we do not have a lot more time to talk about it.

The simple question, though, is are we going to fundamentally change the definition of marriage, understood in this country since its founding, and allow a preferential status for marriage properly understood? That is what we are really talking about. It is not discrimination. It is the question of whether you allow the traditional form of marriage to be given preferential status.

Those that argue against this amendment do not want that to be the case anymore. They are the ones that are overturning history and overturning the way things have been done for several hundred years in this country and thousands of years in this culture.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/