Content
GOP Senators Quotes About FMA
GOP Opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment
Senator John McCain (R-Arizona)
Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-Rhode Island)
Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine)
Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colorado)
Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska)
Senator Richard Lugar (R-Indiana)
Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine)
Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania)
Senator John Sununu (R-New Hampshire)
Senator John Warner (R-Virginia)
John McCain (R-Arizona)
- "The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans."
He added that the amendment "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."
Senator McCain's speech on the Floor—July 13, 2004
- "In a June letter to constituents, McCain said amending the Constitution "cannot be done as a knee-jerk reaction to a tough problem."
"While Senator McCain believes marriage should be limited to a man and a woman, he opposes tampering with the Constitution and wants this issue to be resolved by the states," spokesman Marshall Wittman said from Washington."
Arizona Republic—July 12, 2004
Lincoln Chafee (R-Rhode Island)
- "We have so many more important issues to grapple with. This is just a distraction."
Time.com—June 28, 2004
- "I recognize that many Americans are opposed to same-sex marriage. Nevertheless, I do not believe that amending the Constitution is the appropriate response to decisions by individual states to permit these arrangements. I support civil unions between same-sex couples and believe that each state should be free to make its own decision on this issue."
Senator Chafee's website—Press Release, February 24, 2004.
- "Some moderate Republicans, including Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chafee, do not want to see their party and president make opposition to gay marriage a marquee campaign issue. 'Senator Chafee feels strongly that it shouldn't be made a wedge issue,' says Steve Hourahan, Chafee's press spokesman. Chafee supports civil unions, but is against gay marriage."
Providence Journal—February 14, 2004.
Susan Collins (R-Maine)
- WASHINGTON, DC-- Earlier today, the US Senate considered a motion that would have permitted a vote on a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. Senator Collins cast her vote against the motion, thus voting against such a measure and has released this statement:
It is my strong personal belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.
But principles of federalism dictate that the right and the responsibility to define marriage belong to the states. In addition, 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 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 violence to the latter, as it is the bedrock of our country's unique and highly successful federal system.
We must also not overreact to the decision of a single court in a single state by rushing to amend the Constitution and stripping away from our states a power they have exercised, for the most part wisely, for more than 200 years.
I join the majority of my colleagues in expressing strong support for the Defense of Marriage Act. As long as this Act is law, I see no reason to amend the US Constitution.
The motion to permit a vote on the bill dealing with a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage was defeated by a vote of 50-48.
-Press Release from Senator Collins—July 15, 2004
· On the Senate floor, Collins said that "the 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 violence to the latter, as it is the bedrock of our country's unique and highly successful federal system."
She noted that no state legislature has sanctioned marriage by same-sex couples. "I respect the right of the people of Maine and the citizens of other states to define marriage within their boundaries," she said. "Were I a member of the Maine Legislature, I would vote in favor of a law limiting marriage to the union of one man and one woman."
Portland Press Herald—July 15, 2004
- "States currently possess the authority to decide whether or not to recognize an out-of-state marriage," said Collins, adding that she supports the Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress several years ago. As long as that law is on the books, she said, there is no need to amend the Constitution.
Associated Press—July 12, 2004
- In a written statement, Collins said she supports an existing federal law that "protects the traditional right of states to determine for themselves what constitutes marriage, and defines for federal purposes that marriage will consist of a union between a man and a woman." She said that "as long as this law is on the books, I see no need for a constitutional amendment."
Portland Press Herald—July 13, 2004
Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colorado)
"As a Catholic I do not support gay marriage. Although I consider myself a tolerant person, I believe the traditional union of marriage should be between a man and a woman.
"I voted for the Defense of Marriage Act but I do not believe we should institutionalize a form of discrimination against any minority by amending the Constitution. Clearly, if we do this to one minority we endanger all minorities.
"This is about changing the Constitution, the most sacred of democratic documents the world has ever seen. The 10th Amendment very clearly leaves decisions such as this one to the states. As a person who truly believes in the importance of states rights I could not in good conscience support this proposed amendment."
Senator Campbell's Press Release—July 14, 2004
Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska)
- After Wednesday's vote, Hagel said a federal amendment may be needed if courts curb states' ability to govern on the issue of same-sex marriage. "But not today," Hagel said. "Amending the Constitution, the founding document of our nation, should always be a final option, not a first."
Omaha World Herald—July 15, 2004
- "Sen. Chuck Hagel, has said that he supports efforts by states to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but does not support a U.S. constitutional amendment to do so."
"I am a conservative, and I think amending the Constitution should be used only for very important issues that can't be handled any other way," Hagel said."
Lincoln Journal—February 25, 2004
Senator Richard Lugar (R-Indiana)
- The issue of gay marriage came to the United States Senate in 1996, and I voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act which passed the Senate by a vote of 85-14 and was signed into law by President Clinton. The law ensured that a State does not have to recognize same-sex marriages sanctioned in another state. In 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that gay couples have the right to marry in Massachusetts. Although sometimes in opposition to state law, gay couples in San Francisco, California; Portland, Oregon; and some municipalities in upstate New York have been given marriage licenses by local authorities.
Proponents of a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage argue that the Defense of Marriage Act and all other federal, state, and local laws banning gay marriage may soon be overturned by "activist" judges or various administrative officials at all levels including the United States Supreme Court. They argue that only the overwhelming pre-emptive strike of a Constitutional Amendment will constrain these judges and officials from creating a national situation in which large numbers of gay couples will seek and obtain marriage licenses, thus undermining the faith-based traditional concept that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Specifically, a Constitutional Amendment offered by Senator Allard is to be considered and voted on, promptly, to meet this suggested emergency. But a Constitutional Amendment requires a two-thirds majority of Senators present and voting, and proponents concede that such a majority will not be obtained in a vote this week. In fact, obtaining such a majority would require a strong attempt to gain bipartisan support after careful study of the best legal language. Such study should take account of many other issues, such as civil unions of gay couples and potential tax, property, and insurance benefits, which have been the subject of state and local consideration and action.
In fact, some proponents of the Constitutional Amendment demand that debate and voting should occur now because they wish to put Senators "on record" prior to Federal and State elections. They hope that Presidential and Congressional candidates might be boosted or hurt by such political polarization, perhaps not appreciating that establishment of such "records" may make efforts to achieve a constructive reconciliation on this issue more difficult in the future.
Strengthening of the institution of marriage might well start with recognition that close to half of all marriages between a man and a woman fail in our country with grievous costs to children, as well as those who attempt to provide a safety net to all parties involved. Congress has acted in bipartisan legislation to help to strengthen marriages and to strengthen families. A number of faith-based initiatives now before the Congress deserve closer and more vigorous attention.
In addition, Congress should watch carefully the progress of litigation and state and local legislation in reference to issues surrounding the gay-marriage debate. The Defense of Marriage Act passed with 85 votes. Bipartisan consensus is obtainable when it is sought after careful study of the wisdom of our course of action. The current Allard Amendment will fail because some members will not have confidence that it is the best formulation, even if we should see the necessity of amending the Constitution at this time.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has suggested that an amendment to be offered by Senator Gordon Smith should also be considered and voted upon. Other Senators have suggested that additional amendments and perfecting of Constitutional language should be permitted because Committee debate did not precede the Senate floor debate. Critics charge that a veritable Constitutional Convention is being proposed, but amending the Constitution is very serious business and the final product must be well understood and drafted to meet the myriad of unforeseen consequences.
I will vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the current debate, because the definition of marriage and legal matters surrounding that definition are legitimate issues that likely will require examination by American society and our government. But even as I recognize the importance of the arguments of those Senators who advocate pre-emptive action now, I would observe that their timing could polarize this issue when clearly a great deal more diplomacy and understanding must occur to achieve the super-majority vote that will be required if events cascade to produce the national chaos which proponents predict.
Senator Lugar's Press Release—July 14, 2004
- "A few weeks ago during a visit to our office, U.S. Senator Richard Lugar was asked what he thought of the push for a constitutional amendment to deny certain Americans the right to marry. He called it the product of 'a narrow constituency with a strong agenda.'"
Indianapolis Star—February 29, 2004
Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine)
- In a written statement, Snowe said that the Defense of Marriage Act "protects the rights of states to uphold this same definition of marriage. (The law) has not been overturned by the courts, therefore I believe that a constitutional amendment is unnecessary at this time."
Portland Press Herald—July 15, 2004
- "Well, I don't support a constitutional amendment at this time. We have the Defense of Marriage Act in place. It hasn't been challenged. No suits have been filed in court. And I oppose same-sex marriage and I believe that marriage should be defined as a marriage between man and woman. But I don't think that a constitutional amendment is necessary."
CNN Late Edition—July 11, 2004
Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania)
"It is premature to consider a U.S. constitutional amendment," [Sen. Specter] said, "because the several states involved are dealing with the issue. Massachusetts is moving on a state Constitutional amendment which would be much quicker than action by Congress and 38 states﾿ California is also acting. If the states cannot preserve the tradition of marriage between a man and a woman, I would be prepared to consider a U.S. Constitutional amendment."
Philadelphia Inquirer—February 26, 2004
Senator John Sununu (R-New Hampshire)
"Defining marriage is a power that should be left to the states," Sununu said in a statement following the vote. "Moreover, no state should be forced to recognize a marriage that is not within its own laws, Constitution, and legal precedents.
"Naturally, there exist concerns about what activist courts might do to undermine these rights and the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Clinton in 1996," Sununu added. "But it is premature to amend the Constitution based upon a hypothetical scenario. Furthermore, the language proposed in the Senate would take the responsibility for defining marriage away from the states - an approach which contradicts the intent of the Defense of Marriage Act."
"I believe marriage should be recognized as a legal union between a man and a woman," Sununu added. "If activist judges attempt to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act or force states to recognize non-traditional marriages endorsed by other states, I will support legislation that returns this power to the people as the framers of the Constitution so clearly intended."
Associated Press—July 15, 2004
John Warner (R-Virginia)
Today, I voted in support of the motion to proceed to S.J. Res 40, the Federal Marriage Amendment. The resolution reads as follows:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
Due to the use of certain procedural maneuvers by opponents of the Amendment, at least sixty votes were needed in order for the Senate to even debate this proposed constitutional amendment. Regrettably, despite my support, the final vote to proceed to consideration of the Amendment failed by a vote of 48-50.
In my view, the time honored tradition of marriage between one man and one woman ought to be protected in light of the attacks by certain opportunists in the judiciary. For this reason, I unequivocally support the first sentence of this resolution.
The second sentence of the resolution, however, gives me pause. Despite the statements by many of my colleagues regarding what they believe is the intent of this second sentence, I do not think the sentence speaks with the clarity that the public wants and is entitled to. I do not want to create that confusion. It could lead to considerable litigation.
Perhaps the greatest concern on my part is that this second sentence could lead to some measure of hindrance of the ability of the several States, all 50 of them, to work their will through their legislatures on the very important issues that remain. Namely, this second sentence creates confusion as to whether states will retain the authority to recognize, or not to recognize, other forms of relationships, particularly domestic partnerships.
Despite concerns about the clarity of this second sentence, many Senators, including myself, understand the importance of ensuring that marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. I will continue to work in the United States Senate to support traditional marriage.
