Federal Marriage Amendment

FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT-MOTION TO PROCEED

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to talk about the Federal marriage amendment before the Senate. It is important that we focus on this very important issue and look at the reason we are taking it up.

Some people come up to me and say: Why are we doing this now? We already have the Defense of Marriage Act. Additionally, people say: Is this such a pressing issue that it needs to be discussed right now?

I cosponsored this amendment because if we wait until the Defense of Marriage Act is taken through the courts and potentially declared unconstitutional, questions would arise about what marriage is in our country.

I do not think many would disagree that the traditional concept of marriage is what must be protected. Traditional marriage has been the foundation of our families for generations, in fact, centuries. It is best for our children now, and is the best chance our children have for brighter futures.

Inevitably, single-parent households exist due to death or an inability to keep marriages together. But it is proven, that if possible, a married couple, a man and a woman, raising a family give children the best chance to succeed in their lives.

Today, same-sex couples from 46 States have traveled to Massachusetts, California, and Oregon to receive marriage licenses with the intention of returning to their respective States to challenge their State's laws. Forty-two States have specific laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. My State of Texas has such a law.

Activist judges and lawyers have been using the judicial system to undermine the traditional definition of marriage without public consent or debate. This is not just an attack on our families, but also on our democratic form of government. Elected representatives of the people are supposed to make the laws of our country.

In 1996, Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act-it was passed 85 to 14 on the Senate floor-to protect marriage by allowing States to refuse to recognize an act of any other jurisdiction that designates a relationship between individuals of the same sex as a marriage.

I have heard arguments that DOMA would not withstand a full faith and credit Constitutional challenge, but we continue to see courts, such as the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and officials in California deny the laws of this country and their particular States.

I do not think the Constitution should be amended lightly. I would like to see our Constitution amended only when it is absolutely necessary to correct a fundamental problem. However, this is one of those times. This is one of those times when we have judges acting as legislators. This must be stopped and can only be stopped by the Constitution.

The full faith and credit clause of our Constitution says:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

The full faith and credit clause should not be used by the courts to validate marriages because marriages are not legal judgments, they are civil contracts. Unfortunately, we are witnessing a change where activist judges are making laws with their judgments, and the full faith and credit clause faces enormous challenge.

Currently, there are 11 States facing court challenges to their marriage laws. Recent court decisions indicate that neither State attempts to define marriage nor DOMA may be sufficient to protect the ability of States to define marriage. At least seven States will have State constitutional amendments on their ballots in 2004 to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

In my State of Texas where the legislature passed a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman, controversy now exists about how State courts must treat civil unions. The State attorney general has said that Texas does not recognize Vermont civil unions, and, therefore, no divorce or separation must be granted in Texas for this union.

These are just a few of the questions that are beginning to arise because of the acts of judges in Massachusetts and local officials in California.

It is very important that elected representatives make this decision. People must have the right to hear the discussion, talk about it, and be represented by their elected officials. That is the issue here.

I do not think we will have the votes on Wednesday to proceed to this critical issue, but this is an important step toward starting the debate. Marriage between a man and a woman that produces children and strong families is fundamental to our society and demands this safeguard. This is the core and fabric of our society.

I hope in the next few days, weeks, and months we have a civilized debate. This is not about being anti-homosexual. Not at all. I think everyone believes gays and lesbians should have the ability to lead their lives as they choose, as should all consenting adults. But we don't want to tear down traditional marriage and the American family. We need to protect traditional marriage. We should not allow some States to impose their definition of marriage on other States. States must have the right to accept or reject anything that has not been demonstrated the will of the people through their representatives.

I appreciate being given the time to speak on this issue. It is an important issue for our country, and I hope we will carefully consider the ramifications if we do not take action to protect traditional marriage and the American family.

I yield the floor.