Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS -- (Senate - January 24, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
By Mr. ALLARD (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Lott, Mr. Enzi, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Thune, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Frist, Mr. Talent, Mr. Burr, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Kyl, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Isakson, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Cornyn):
S.J. Res. 1. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to first express my gratitude to the leadership for making the Marriage Protection Amendment a priority in this Congress. The Marriage Protection Amendment is a constitutional amendment that I have introduced today. It is S.J. Res. 1. In the press conference earlier today I indicated I hoped that the designation of the number would reflect its priority with the leadership. I realize that was an overly optimistic request, but I am very pleased we have the support from leadership that we do and that it is among their priority items. We have the complete support of the leadership. They all signed as cosponsors on S.J. Res. 1.
As of this very moment, we have a quarter of the Senate who have signed on as cosponsors. I think that is fabulous. It is certainly a better start than we had in the last session. In the last session, if my memory serves me correctly, I think we only had about 13 or so cosponsors on it, even after we had the debate in the Senate. So even before we have sent out a letter to our colleagues in the Senate, we have 25 original cosponsors. I am excited about that.
So today we have reintroduced the Marriage Protection Amendment in the Senate. The intent and policy goals remain the same as last year. It is the same bill we debated on the floor of the Senate. What it does is define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
The amendment represents a democratic process: the voice of the American people following recent and widespread efforts by activist courts to change this ages-old definition of marriage.
People say, well, what about the rights of the State legislature? What we are trying to do is protect the voice of the American people. The right place for this to be determined is in the legislative bodies of this country, in the Congress of the United States and each and every legislature in every State, and not in the Federal courts. The amendment does restrict the ability of the courts to define marriage. The Marriage Protection Amendment does not override State and local authority. Under the Marriage Protection Amendment, cities, States, and private companies would still be free to determine for themselves civil union, benefit, and partnership definitions.
The Marriage Protection Amendment would not permit the redefining of marriage, a definition agreed upon by every civilization, culture, ethnicity, and religion around the world.
The definition of marriage in itself is not discriminatory. Those who have been opposed to the amendment tried to make that argument in the last session. Even civil rights leaders, Hispanic and African Americans, have said this is not a civil rights issue.
Congress does have a vital role to play in this debate. The policy goals are widely agreed upon. Recent election results illustrate broad support for the definition of marriage.
Mr. President, 14 million voters in 11 States voted for constitutional amendments on November 2, 2004, with an average majority of 67 percent. This reflects great support throughout the country. Some 13 States voted on the ballot issue in 2004.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the information on this chart printed in the RECORD, which illustrates what happened in each one of those elections.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ALLARD. The emphasis here must be on the process, democratic, deliberative, and responsive to the electorate, not to just appointed judges and lawyers. We want the American public to have a say in this debate. Courtrooms are not the place for this important decision about the most fundamental institution of mankind, and that is the definition of marriage. Courts should interpret the law, not write it.
So we are eager to begin to have hearings, to talk about the research, to debate and have constructive dialog on this very important issue. It is important to the American people. It is important we continue to move forward with the momentum that has evolved as a result of our debate last year and the momentum that has evolved as a result of the elections of this past fall.
I am excited about introducing the Marriage Protection Amendment, which is exactly the same amendment we debated on the floor of the Senate last year.
Mr. President, before I wrap up, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Coburn be added as an original cosponsor and Senator Stevens be added as an original cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALLARD. Again, in conclusion, I thank the leadership for their support and my colleagues for their support on this particular amendment. We had a number of elections for Senate seats where this was a very important issue and critical to the election of many of our new Members in the Senate. We have at least five votes that have switched as a result of this election. I think that is the American people having an opportunity to speak their mind.
I can say, this amendment is to protect the voice of the American people. The proper way to have this debate is in the legislative bodies of America. That includes the Congress and each and every legislature.
Again, I thank the leader for his leadership on this particular issue. I also thank my colleagues who showed up at the press conference this morning to talk about this issue, particularly Senator Santorum, Senator Hutchison, Senator Sessions, and Senator Thune who joined me in the press conference. I thank them for their leadership this morning in that press conference.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov