Marriage Protection Amendment

MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT -- (Extensions of Remarks - October 10, 2004)

SPEECH OF
HON. TODD TIAHRT
OF KANSAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2004

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 106 offered by Representative Marilyn Musgrave.
The resolution, if passed by two-thirds of both the House and the Senate, and if ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, would amend the United States Constitution with the following language:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

This nation once again finds itself wresting with monumental social questions of family. The way in which we choose to answer these questions will have far-reaching consequences upon ourselves and our descendants.

Throughout recorded history, civilizations have existed and perpetuated themselves with basic principles of social structure. Some cultures have emphasized different principles such as community responsibility while others have emphasized individual responsibility. But all civil peoples have survived and prospered only where raising children was ideally the responsibility of their mother and father.

Over the past century we have seen many changes in American culture. We have witnessed an explosion of new travel opportunities, access to information and advances in medicine. Certainly social norms have shifted. We have made progress, in the truest sense, such as recognizing the fundamental human rights of all people no matter their color or creed. And we have also made egregious regressions such as legalizing the aborting of unborn children. Even in this advanced age, we must continue to wage battles against injustices.

But with all the change the United States has undergone and will continue to undergo-there will always remain the goal to ensure that our children are able to perpetuate life and all things good. Any changes we allow to happen and support through legislation that affects this goal should be scrupulously considered.

The resolution before the House today seeks to articulate what constitutes a marriage-not because we have some new definition, but because a small number of judicial activists and social re-engineers are seeking to impose a new definition and experiment with the structure in which children are encouraged to be raised. If we do nothing and allow the courts to re-define marriage, State and Federal governments will soon have little or no authority to ultimately restrain any imaginable form of marital contract between couples and groups of people and even animals.

It is no secret marriage has been under assault in recent decades. With rising occurrences of extra-marital affairs, divorce, spousal abuse and teenage mothers becoming more commonplace among our population, many wonder why marriage is worth preserving at all. But just because the institution of marriage has experienced turbulent times is no reason to give up on it as the ideal for which we should strive.

I want to emphasize that millions of single moms and dads across this country are struggling to do what is right for their children. They love their children and want them to do well and succeed and someday have an opportunity to have a healthy family of their own. As we debate how to best help sustain the institution of marriage, we should acknowledge that these parents are doing a terrific job raising their children to the best of their ability. They should be commended, especially the single moms who probably have the toughest job in America.

While recognizing the honorable single moms and dads, we should also work to help reduce the number instances where children grow up in homes without both their mother and father as a part of the family.

As a representative to the United States Congress on behalf of the people from the Fourth Congressional District of Kansas, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The preamble to that great document states that two of the Constitution's purposes are to "promote the general Welfare" and "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." I consider how we raise our children and with whom that responsibility lies to be among the most crucial decisions we face in promoting the general well-being of all Americans and our descendants.

As the government seeks to provide for the general welfare of its citizens, I believe it should promote that which provides the maximum protection for our youngest generation. A child is best nurtured and protected when both the mother and father are sharing the responsibility of raising the child.

While not everyone who enters into marriage desires children or is able to have children, the context of their marriage is an example of how a man and a woman should live together in a way where children could be raised and cared for. We all know kids are observant and curious, and they watch how friends, neighbors and relatives live. And most children grow up mimicking the behaviors observed from adults.

So while two people of the same sex may express love for one another, it does not mean that the State has an obligation or duty to grant them marital status. Marriage is a privilege the State should protect, but it is not a right for same-sex partners, multiple partners, or any configuration of people and animals that express love for one another.

Fighting to protect marriage in America will likely be a very long and difficult process, but so is the struggle for a lot of worthy things in this country. Women fought for decades before they were finally allowed to vote. The struggle for slaves to become free and ultimately to have their full civil rights recognized was a terribly long process. But we must not give up. It is my hope that more and more Americans will realize the significance this issue has for all for us as Americans. I hope that as the debate continues on the issue of marriage we will have a growing concern for who this affects most: our children.