Marriage Protection Amendment - Motion to Proceed

MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT--MOTION TO PROCEED -- (Senate - June 07, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to speak on S.J. Res. 1, the Marriage Protection Amendment to the Constitution. Let me begin my remarks by stating my position on the issues raised by this amendment.

First, it is my strong personal belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. Second, principles of federalism dictate that the responsibility to define marriage belongs to the States. Third, the proper role of the Federal Government is to ensure that each State can exercise that right and responsibility by preventing, as the Defense of Marriage Act does, one State from imposing its view on others.

The constitutional amendment under consideration would potentially affect two types of relationships that are fundamental to our society. The first is the union between a man and a woman. The second is the compact between the States and the Federal Government. In our zeal to protect the former, we must not do unnecessary harm to the latter, as it is the bedrock principle of our country's highly successful Federal system.

When the Senate considered this amendment in July 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Court had only recently issued its 4-to-3 decision in the Goodridge case. I urged that we should not overreact to the single decision of a State court and rush to amend the Constitution in such a way as to strip away from our States a power they have exercised, wisely for the most part, for more than 200 years. I also opposed efforts to amend the Constitution without evidence suggesting that States could not be trusted to make decisions in this area for themselves.

During the period since our last debate, many States have taken steps to define marriage within their borders. Currently, 45 States have enacted laws or constitutional amendments protecting marriage. Nineteen States have State constitutional amendments limiting marriage to a man and a woman, with 15 States passing State constitutional amendments since our last debate. Twenty-six other States, including Maine, have statutes limiting marriage in some manner. Maine law explicitly states that ``[p]ersons of the same sex may not contract marriage,'' and further provides that Maine will not recognize marriages performed in other jurisdictions that would violate the legal requirements in Maine. Thus, even if lawfully performed in another State, a same-sex marriage will not be valid in Maine.

Voters in at least seven States will consider State constitutional amendments in 2006 and another four State legislatures are considering sending constitutional amendments to voters in 2006 or 2008. And it is still the case, as it was 2 years ago, that no State law has been enacted to allow same-sex couples to marry. Nor has a popular referendum to that effect passed in any State.

I respect the right of the people of Maine and the citizens of other States to define marriage within their boundaries. Were I a member of the Maine Legislature, I would vote in favor of a law limiting marriage to the union of a man and a woman.

This does not mean that Congress can play no role in this area. To the contrary, Congress has two very important roles. The first is to protect the right of each State to define marriage within its own borders, and the second is to define marriage for Federal purposes.

To its credit, Congress did both of these when it enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, in 1996. Signed into law by President Clinton, DOMA enjoyed broad, bipartisan support in both Chambers of Congress, passing by a margin of 85 to 14 in the Senate and 342 to 67 in the House. The statute grants individual States autonomy in deciding how to recognize marriages and other unions within their borders, and ensures that no State can compel another to recognize marriages of same-sex couples. Of equal importance, DOMA defines marriage for Federal purposes as ``the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.'' I strongly endorse both of the principles codified by DOMA.

Even though DOMA has not been successfully challenged during the nearly 10 years since its enactment, many supporters of the marriage amendment point to the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas as presaging DOMA's ultimate demise on constitutional grounds. They argue that DOMA's vulnerability necessitates approving the amendment under consideration.

I reject that argument. The conclusion that DOMA is inevitably destined to die a constitutional death is inconsistent with language in the Lawrence decision. In striking down a Texas statute criminalizing certain private sexual acts between consenting adult homosexuals, the majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy was careful to note that the case before the Court ``does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.''

In her concurring opinion, Justice O'Connor was even more explicit when she observed that the invalidation of the Texas statute ``does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail. ..... Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations--the asserted State interest in this case--other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group.'' These statements persuade me that the Supreme Court is, in fact, unlikely to strike down DOMA. In fact, in August 2004, a Federal bankruptcy court in Washington State ruled to uphold the constitutionality of DOMA, finding that there was no fundamental constitutional right to marry someone of the same sex.

Let me end where I began. This amendment is not just about relationships between men and women but also about the relationship between the States and the Federal Government. I would not let a one-vote majority opinion of a single State court lead us to ascribe to Washington a power that rightfully belongs to the States. To the contrary, our role should be to safeguard the ability of each State to exercise that power within its own borders.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov