Search Form
First, enter a politician or zip code
Now, choose a category

Public Statements

Marriage Protection Amendment

Location: Washington, DC

MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT -- (House of Representatives - September 30, 2004)

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 801, proceedings will now resume on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 106) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.


Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, although I will not be present when the House convenes on Thursday, September 30, 2004, for consideration of the H.J. Res 106, the Marriage Protection Amendment. I oppose it, just like Vice President DICK CHENEY, because it undermines the principles of federalism espoused by most Republicans and interferes with the rights of States that have been recognized since the founding of our country.

Furthermore, we should not change the Constitution for the purpose of singling out one group for discrimination. A constitutional marriage amendment is also unnecessary given that the Defense of Marriage Act already defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Finally, the argument that the Marriage Protection Amendment is needed to stop activist judges and courts from forcing the American people to accept gay marriage is unfounded, a fact evidenced by the numerous marriage-related bills-both in favor of and against same-sex marriage-currently pending in more than two dozen State legislatures around the country.

That is why, if I were present, during the vote for H.J. Res. 106, I would have voted against the Marriage Protection Amendment. In light of the fact that the first Presidential Debate is being held in my congressional district on Thursday, I must remain in Florida.


Skip to top

Help us stay free for all your Fellow Americans

Just $5 from everyone reading this would do it.

Back to top