U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) issued the following statement on the Federal Marriage Amendment on the floor of the Senate today:
"Mr. President, most Americans believe, as I do, that the institution of marriage should be reserved for the union of a man and a woman. But only a very small majority, and perhaps not quite a majority, support the idea - at this time - of amending the Constitution to prohibit the states from changing the legal definition of marriage to include any union other than that between a man and a woman. I know that Americans who support a federal marriage amendment feel very strongly that same sex marriages judged lawful by the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and permitted, for a brief period, unlawfully, in certain other localities, threaten the institution of marriage as a core value of our culture. I know also that many of the opponents of the amendment believe it is purposely divisive, discriminatory and intended to deny some Americans their right to the pursuit of happiness. And I know that many, many of those Americans who do not presently support the amendment, but oppose same-sex marriage do not perceive it is urgently necessary to address this issue by means of amending the most successful and enduring political compact in human history.
"This close division of public opinion assures us one thing, Mr. President. A federal marriage amendment to the Constitution will not be adopted by Congress this year, nor next year, nor anytime soon until a substantial majority of Americans are persuaded that such a consequential action is as vitally important and necessary as the proponents feel it is today. It is perfectly appropriate for Americans who do feel that strongly today to call the offices of their elected representatives and urge them to support the amendment. But their efforts would be better spent trying to convince a supermajority of the public to share their urgency because until they do there will not be a supermajority in Congress and among state legislatures willing to amend our Constitution.
"By my count, there is not at this time even a small majority of senators who would vote for Senator Allard's amendment, much less the 67 votes required by the Constitution. That won't change, Mr. President, unless public opinion changes significantly. The founders, wisely, made certain that the Constitution is difficult to amend, and, as a practical political matter, can't be done without overwhelming public approval. And thank God for that. Were it any easier I fear we could not make the claim for the Constitution's enduring success that I have just made.
"Many, if not most, Americans have reasoned that there is no overriding urgent need to act at this time. And they are right to do so. The legal definition of marriage has always been left to the states to decide, in accordance with the prevailing standards of their neighborhoods and communities. Certainly, that view has prevailed for many years in my party where we adhere to a rather stricter federalism than has always been the case in the prevailing views among our friends in the Democratic Party. Some fear that the decision in Massachusetts will ultimately result in the imposition of different views on marriage in communities where the traditional view of marriage is considered singular and sacred. But there really is insufficient reason presently to fear such a result.
"I supported the Defense of Marriage Act adopted by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. As my colleagues know, the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, was proposed in response to a decision by the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii which concluded that a law banning same-sex marriages may violate the Equal Protection Clause of Hawaii's constitution. DOMA provides states an exemption from the 'full faith and credit' clause so that each state would be able to decide for itself whether to recognize same-sex marriage. The law neither compels a state to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state, nor does it prohibit states from recognizing such marriages. It simply protects each state's right to choose how it will define marriage. Currently, 39 states have defense of marriage laws in place. And thus far, there has yet to be a successful challenge to DOMA in federal court. Mr. President, I think the Defense of Marriage Act represents the quintessentially federalist and Republican approach to this issue. The constitutional amendment we are debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans. It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed, and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them, and which they feel capable of resolving should it confront them, again according to local standards and customs.
"If a constitution is to be amended, Mr. President, it should be a state constitution. According to a report by the Heritage Foundation, an organization not known for its liberal sympathies, 'the best way to defend against a state court that might seek to overturn state public policy or force recognition of another state's marriage policy is to amend the state constitution to establish a state constitutional marriage policy.' At this time, sixteen states have pending constitutional amendments to protect marriage, and at least three others are expected to introduce such amendments soon. Colleagues who have told me of actions taken in this city or that county to impose a legal definition of marriage that conflicts with the prevailing view of marriage in their state have a far less draconian remedy at hand to correct the injustice than amending the United States Constitution - it is in their state legislatures. What evidence do we have that states are incapable of further exercising an authority they have exercised successfully for over 200 years? The actions by jurists in one court in one state do not represent the death knell to marriage. We will have to wait a little longer to see if Armageddon has arrived. If the Supreme Court of the United States rejects the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional; if state legislatures are frustrated by the decisions of jurists in more states than one, and if state remedies to such judicial activism fail; and finally, if a large majority of Americans come to perceive that their communities' values are being ignored and other standards concerning marriage are being imposed on them against their will, and that elections and state legislatures can provide no remedy then, and only then, should we consider, quite appropriately, amending the Constitution.
'Again, Mr. President, I know passions run high on this issue. Americans who support the federal marriage amendment do so very forcefully. They want this vote. But they should also know, and we should make sure they do know that it will never be adopted until many more Americans feel as strongly as they do. I believe they have every right to demand a vote, even if the outcome is well-known. There are, of course, many other urgent priorities left to address in this Congress, not the least of which concern the physical security of this country, as Secretary Ridge has recently reminded us. But I have in the past supported legislation I knew lacked the necessary votes to prevail, and still insisted on a vote. In those cases, however, I had much broader public support for the legislation than exists for this proposed amendment. Still, I would normally be inclined to support any procedural motion to allow proponents their vote. But a procedural vote is unlikely to succeed, as we all know. Thats why I supported the Democratic Leader's offer of a unanimous consent agreement to allow an up or down vote on Senator Allard's amendment. I would very much like an up or down vote on the amendment. That offer was rejected, and it seems at the moment that the only vote on this issue that we're going to be allowed will be a procedural vote. I would not want to obscure my position on this issue, Mr. President, by voting to proceed to the amendment, and then, following that vote's failure, having no further opportunity to take my stand by voting, and to be held accountable by my constituents for that vote. So, I am inclined at this time, if this will be our only vote in this debate, to cast a vote that reflects my position on the federal marriage amendment proposed by Senator Allard.
"I refer to Federalist Paper 45 to explain my vote, in which James Madison wrote 'the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State. I stand with Mr. Madison on this question, and against a federal marriage amendment that denies the states their traditional right and their clear opportunity to resolve this controversy themselves."
~end~
####
|