Speaker: Senator Larry E. Craig (ID)
Title: Federal Marriage Amendment
Date: 2004-07-14
Location: Washington, DC
Speech
FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT-MOTION TO PROCEED
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senate Joint Resolution 40, the Federal Marriage Amendment. The Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, has held four hearings on the Federal Marriage Amendment. In addition, other committees have held three more hearings on the FMA. We have heard substantial and compelling testimony on the importance of traditional marriage. The time has come for this body to act. Marriage is an institution cultures have endorsed and promoted for thousands of years. It is important for us to stand up now and protect traditional marriage which is under attack by a few unelected judges and litigious activists.
Last year, the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts announced the Massachusetts State Constitution requires the state to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Through their activism, the court ignored the will of the people and created a new state constitutional right. This violation of the democratic process calls for a response.
I have special sympathy for the plight of the people of Massachusetts, because I see courts deciding cases wrongly on an all-too-frequent basis. Of the cases appealed and decided from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals this term, the circuit with jurisdiction over Idaho, the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned 15 while affirming 9. Judicial activism of the type we see in Massachusetts is not new, but this is a uniquely deep cut to the heart of society. We need to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment to restore the people to their proper and constitutional role as the only sovereign in our great nation.
I am cautious about amending the U.S. Constitution. It has served us well for more than two centuries, and I expect it to last for centuries to come. One reason it endures is its resilience in the face of changing times, thanks in large part to its amendability. We have seen fit to amend our Constitution 27 times on 17 different occasions. Each of these has addressed an issue of importance to the people. Marriage too, is an important issue to the people.
Some opponents speak of this proposed amendment as an attempt to take rights away. That is neither the purpose nor effect of S.J. Res. 40. Amending our Constitution is the way the people can correct the courts when the courts get an issue wrong. For instance, the states ratified the Thirteenth Amendment 7 short years after the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, righting the wrong of slavery that had been perpetuated by the courts.
The amendments to our Constitution blaze a clear trail extending the people's right of self determination. The Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments all extended the franchise to new groups. Yet what good is the franchise, if that voice falls on deaf ears because a few activist judges choose to replace the will of the people with their own? Though I am cautious about amending our Constitution, preserving the sovereign right of the people warrants an amendment and our support.
My colleagues have eloquently set forth many good reasons to support the FMA and I will reiterate only one. We need to pass this amendment for the sake of children. Marriage encourages people to organize in the way that is best for those who may issue from, or enter into, that relationship, according to researchers studying family structures for raising children. This amendment does not criticize or undermine other kinds of families, but it acknowledges society's interest in promoting traditional marriage as the environment for child rearing.
There are several reasons I support this amendment at this time. No fewer than 42 States have defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. This amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the only way to keep this issue in the hands of the people and their elected representatives. This amendment allows the citizens of each state to establish systems to recognize same-sex relationships if they so choose, walking the appropriate line through federalism and separation of powers.
My colleagues and I did not choose the time for this debate. The judicial activists of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court have brought this issue to a head. Passing S.J. Res. 40 will give the people and the states the ability to protect children, bolster traditional marriage as a social building block, and preserve the role of the people as the sovereign in our political system. I encourage my colleagues to also support S.J. Res. 40.
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=111671&keyword=marriage&phrase=&contain=
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
