-9999
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I am glad that I am on the floor today to hear the previous speakers. I think Senator Collins of Maine gave a thoughtful presentation about the substance of this bill and addressed many of the worries and criticisms that were raised on the floor earlier.
I think one thing stuck with me: If there is a protection under Obergefell, it is the same protection under this bill. It is not an expansion of rights.
But I also want to thank the Senator from Wyoming. That was an outstanding statement. It really was, and I join Senator Collins in commending her for saying it. I am sure her position has not been an easy one at home, but it reflects some thoughtful consideration on her part. Most importantly, it reflects her appeal to us in this Chamber and to the Nation to really seize this opportunity for tolerance. If there was ever a time when we needed more of that in this Nation, I can't imagine when it was. We need it now more than ever.
It wasn't but just a few days ago that there was a mass shooting involving those who were at a gay nightclub, and innocent people were killed. Now, more than ever, we need to stand up and say there needs to be tolerance in America, and her statement really touched my heart. I thank her so much for coming to the floor and delivering it.
I take a look at this and say many times I have been critical of Supreme Court Justices, particularly Supreme Court Justice Thomas. We disagree more than we agree. But I, in a way, have to be grateful to him for bringing us to this moment because it was his statement in the Hobbs decision about the possibility of raising questions on other Supreme Court decisions that led us to the introduction of this Respect for Marriage Act.
I thank the Senators who led in that effort. I want to make sure that the Record reflects Senator Baldwin, Senator Collins, Senator Portman, who spoke on the floor earlier, and Senator Sinema and Senator Tillis, the original cosponsors--bipartisan cosponsors--of the Respect for Marriage Act.
What we are considering here is very fundamental. I went back to read Obergefell, and what Justice Kennedy wrote in that majority opinion was the acknowledgement that there is a constitutional protection based on due process and equal protection under the laws for same-sex marriage-- fundamental. He said we don't have to wait on the legislature to spell this out; it already exists. And that, to me, says how powerful this issue is.
My wife and I are blessed to have so many friends who are in same-sex marriages and are wonderful people in so many respects. It has really opened our eyes to the reality of life for so many good Americans who simply want to have the opportunity under the law to marry the people they love.
The vast majority of Americans believe in that. I do, and I think what we are trying to do today is to protect that right as best we can. Maybe what we are doing is not as expansive as Obergefell, but it is a genuine good-faith effort.
Senator Lee, in his amendment, claims that it is necessary for his amendment to protect religious liberty. But he ignores the robust protections for religious liberty already in the Respect for Marriage Act.
The bipartisan substitute has been quoted over and over, but it bears repeating:
Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an individual or organization under the Constitution of the United States or Federal law.
Of course, the free exercise of religion must be protected. No one disputes that, and that is why the bipartisan substitute amendment makes clear that this bill does not override existing religious freedom protections.
I commend those religious organizations that have stepped forward, read this bill carefully, and supported it publicly. It is across the political spectrum and religious spectrum of America. I think they understand the lengths that we went--those of us who supported it, as well as those who wrote it--in putting in provisions to protect the free exercise of religion.
But we must remember that this critical First Amendment right is a shield, not a sword. It cannot and must not be wielded to discriminate against individuals solely based on whom they love. We have seen too many who have tried to turn this crusade the wrong way. I hope today's vote on the U.S. Senate floor makes it clear that we are here to protect civil rights and not enable civil rights violations. We need to protect LGBTQ families and ensure that same-sex marriages are offered the same stability and dignity that all marriages are entitled to.
For these reasons, I oppose Senator Lee's amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Vote on Amendment No. 6482
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source