Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I send to the desk legislation designate the U.S. Post Office located at 222 West 8th Street in Durango, CO, as the Ben Nighthorse Campbell Post Office Building. My dear friend and colleague, Ben Nighthorse Campbell was born in Auburn, CA on April 13, 1933. His mother, Mary Vierra, was a Portuguese immigrant, and his father, Albert Campbell, was a Northern Cheyenne Indian. At a young age, Ben developed a passion for the then newly budding sport of judo. Overcoming numerous, seemingly insurmountable obstacles as a youngster, in college he became the youngest person in the United States to hold the fourth degree black belt. He went on to study in Japan with the most respected judo masters. Ben was never short on determination. One student in particular, was a menacing opponent. He kept his photo on the wall of his room, and shouted to it often, ``I will beat you!''--and he finally did. Ben was named to the U.S. Olympic Judo team in 1964, but an injury caused him to collapse on the floor during the match, which yielded his opponent the bronze medal by default. Ben went on to bring the sport of judo into a specialized system for kids, teaching them self discipline, self control and self respect, as he established one of the first successful clubs for kids. With Campbell's determination and magnanimous spirit, it was only natural that he enter the political arena where his perseverance has in fact left its mark on American history. Campbell likes to view himself as a person of passion and this passion has rattled more than a few formidable foes. As the only American Indian in Congress he found himself, de facto, the representative of all Indians throughout the United States. In his time on the Indian Affairs Committee, he got more legislation passed for Indians than anyone in the Nation's history. Ben is also a renowned jewelry designer, athlete, former truck driver, and trainer of champion quarter horses. He has been married to his wife, Linda, for more than 35 years. He is the father of two grown children, Colin Campbell and Shanan Longfellow. He is a proud grandfather to Luke and Saylor Longfellow and Lauren Campbell. Ben has been one of the most fascinating figures on the political scene, and will be deeply missed when he retires. I am proud to call him friend. It is only fitting that we can honor his legacy by naming this post office after him. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for allowing me the opportunity to speak. Just to get some business out of the way, I have some materials I have submitted at the desk. I ask unanimous consent to print them in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank some 19 cosponsors who are now on this amendment. I thank the majority leader for stepping forward and helping this particular issue. I thank the President of the United States for stepping forward early on and articulating the principles which are embodied in this constitutional amendment. I particularly thank my colleagues, Senators Brownback, Santorum, and Sessions, for joining me in the late-night session last night and for Senators Cornyn and Hatch for helping manage the bill on the floor, as well as Congresswoman Musgrave in the House for her leadership. I didn't come to the decision to introduce this legislation easily. I went through a process of evaluating the issue. I don't think it is unlike what many Members of the Senate are going through right now, or at some point in time went through, because as the initial sponsor of this legislation, I had an opportunity to talk to many Members and I think their response was very much what mine was to start with: Why do we need to amend the Constitution? We all recognize how precious that document is. When anybody comes to you with an issue, to start with, you always wonder why do we need to do that. That is a high standard and we all recognize that. I also remember the debate with the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, which was carried by Senator Nickles on this side, and how important most Members of the Senate--85 Members--felt in that vote that we define marriage as between a man and a woman. In this debate, I wanted to protect traditional marriage. I also had some skepticism about amending the Constitution. But after sitting down with colleagues and scholars and people who were following the courts, I came to the realization that there was a process going on in the courts that I wasn't aware of, that I just had become aware of. I understood the potential of what was going to happen in those courts. It was, when I first got involved, that the courts were going to change the definition of marriage, which we passed by 85 votes in the Senate, and on which close to 48 States passed legislation somehow or other supporting traditional marriage. I thought this should be brought into the legislative branch--that is where the debate should occur--where we have elected representatives having an opportunity to reflect their views and the views of their constituents, whether it is in the Congress or the State legislature. So in visiting with the constitutional scholars, academicians, professors, and whatnot, we began to put together some language for the Constitution, very carefully crafted, and the language has had an opportunity to be changed a couple of times. We brought it back into the Senate and had the staff within the Judiciary Committee reflect their views and the Senators would reflect views, always working toward a consensus. We began to realize more and more clearly what was happening in the courts. As we move through it this year, I think it becomes blatantly evident to us that there is a process going on in the courts that will exclude the American citizens. We need to get them involved. We need to recognize that the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate and three-quarters of the States to ratify. Our forefathers realized that during an issue such as marriage, where a large percentage of Americans of all faiths, all ethnic backgrounds, support the idea of traditional marriage--the effort to change the definition of traditional marriage being between a man and a woman is certainly only being pushed by a minority of the population in this country--the way we can express our views is through a constitutional amendment. That is what we have before us today. In this amendment I have proposed, we define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Mr. ALLARD. I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds to bring my comments to a close.

Mr. ALLARD. Marriage matters to our children; it matters in America. Marriage is the foundation of a free society. The courts are redefining marriage and that will make it impossible for State legislators to address marriage. This amendment puts the issue back in the hands of the people. A vote not to move forward means the court will be the sole voice in this matter. The people will not have a voice. We need to move forward.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I take this opportunity, before we continue with the debate, to talk about how important it is that we debate in an earnest and sincere way the issue of marriage. Marriage does matter. It is important to the American people. We heard earlier comments about how bringing up issues such as class action lawsuits, the marriage amendment, and trade were just wasting the Congress's time. Yet the other side doesn't think it is a waste of time to raise taxes, to increase more laws so we have fewer and fewer rights, to restrict the free enterprise system, and in a sense create more government. In the debate on marriage, we are trying to accomplish a number of things. No. 1, we want to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. No. 2, we want to restrict the action of the court's ability to define marriage. Then, No. 3--and perhaps the most important part of this debate--we want to give the American people an opportunity to debate this through their elected representatives in the Congress here and in the State legislatures. It has been a grassroots type of process from the bottom up. We have heard a lot of concerns from people all over America about the way the courts are dealing with the issue of marriage and their frustrations in not being able to address this issue. We heard a lot of good comments from some of my colleagues yesterday in debating the marriage amendment. In favor, we have had Senators Hatch, Santorum, Smith, Frist, Bunning, Kyl, Cornyn, Sessions, Lott, and Brownback--all explaining why it is important that we move forward in passing this amendment. We have heard pretty much procedural arguments from the other side. Our side was talking about their concern about losing the institution of marriage, that it is basically a fundamental building block of society, and if we want democracies such as the United States to survive, we need to have good, functioning families. If families do well, children do well. We will hear more about that today. Then we will hear about the democratic process in which we allow American citizens to participate. This is the essence of what we were talking about yesterday and the inevitability of what is going to happen through our courts, that there is a master plan out there from those who want to destroy the institution of marriage to, first, begin to take this issue to a few select courts throughout this country at the State level. We begin to see this in States such as Vermont and Massachusetts and a number of other States, and then proceed up through the States; and once they get favorable rulings from a few courts that are dominated pretty much by activist judges and judges who want to ignore the tradition of marriage for thousands of years, and want to bypass the legislative process--then once they have established their basis, they want to take it to the Federal courts, and they will eventually move it to the Supreme Court. We heard arguments yesterday about how Members of this Congress and constitutional scholars believe that the Supreme Court--if it reaches the Supreme Court--by a very slim majority is probably prone to rule in a way that would eliminate the traditional family as we know it. So this is an important issue. It is a very timely issue. We have 46 States that have individuals living in them--at least 46--who have same-sex marriage licenses. They have been granted them as a couple through either Massachusetts or Oregon or California. We have 11 States that have had court cases filed in them today. So the platform for action from those who favor same-sex marriages has been well established. Now, in reaction to that, we have some 48 States that have laws they have passed supporting traditional marriage--that being a union between a man and a woman. At least 10 States have constitutional amendments on the ballot. We have at least 3 States still gathering petitions. So more than 20 percent of the States have constitutional amendments that will be pending before them as we move into the election cycle. Mr. President, I am sympathetic to this idea of federalism. I am sympathetic to the idea that we need to protect the definition of the traditional family. Federalism does not demand that we redefine the family. More important, it does not demand that we stand idly by while the courts redefine marriage for us, without giving us an opportunity to act. This is an important issue, and it is very timely that we have this debate today in the Senate, a debate in which we try to define marriage and limit the rule of the Federal court and we allow States, through a democratic process, to proceed as they see fit toward providing benefits through civil unions or domestic partnerships. Marriage simply should not be left to the courts alone. In my view, a large majority of Americans are with us. Marriage matters. It matters to children and it is a societal building block. I had an opportunity to review the testimony of Governor Romney from Massachusetts. I ask unanimous consent that his testimony be printed in the Record as it was presented to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, if you read carefully through his testimony, he talks about the fundamental change that is happening in Massachusetts and many of the issues that he as a Governor in a State that has a court that actually went contrary to the wishes of the legislature to redefine marriage as something different than a union of a man and a woman. He talked about the effect that this redefinition is having on such basic programs as meals for the elderly and veterans and spousal benefits, burial rights, Medicaid, birth registration process, child support enforcement, inheritance, private sector, how employees are struggling with this particular issue. He makes a very important point that States are porous. So what is going on in Massachusetts has the potential to have an impact on other States, particularly if this gets to the U.S. Supreme Court, or we find the U.S. Supreme Court deciding to overrule DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, and decide that somehow or other it is unconstitutional. Many of us have looked at what has happened in other countries where they have liberalized the marriage laws, particularly the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands. In the Scandinavian countries, for example, for a number of years they have recognized same-sex marriage. As a result of that, there has been a very disturbing trend in that more and more children are born out of wedlock. In fact, if you look at the figures today in some of the Scandinavian countries, well over 50 percent of their children are born out of wedlock. We looked, more recently, at what has happened to the Netherlands--a country which traditionally, before 5 years ago, had a very strong record as far as children being born in wedlock, a country that promoted the idea of traditional marriage. But they have changed; they changed the definition of marriage, and they allow same-sex marriage. They are seeing that now there is an alarming increase in the number of children that are born out of wedlock. We are faced with a challenge from the courts that will fundamentally change this society in America if the Congress does not act. We heard arguments yesterday about the Goodridge case in Massachusetts and Lawrence v. Texas, using the privacy issue, combined with the good faith and credit laws of the Constitution, and how the courts are setting the groundwork to overturn what traditional marriage means in the United States. So it is very appropriate that we have this debate now. It is very appropriate that we have a full debate. I have been rather disappointed that we have not had more actual debate on the meaning of marriage from the other side. We have had debate about procedure, and I think there is a frustration about procedure. But I want the American people to understand that there is a fundamental difference between the way Republicans do business and the Democrats do business. We believe in a bottom-up approach. So we work for a consensus. I spent a long time at the very start of this process looking at a number of proposals on how we are going to amend the Constitution, working with grassroots groups and with my colleagues, and working with constitutional scholars. We eventually came up with a conclusion, with the Judiciary Committee putting the final touches on the amendment, that the kind of language we need is what is now embodied in the amendment that is up before the Senate today for debate. This is where we developed the consensus. When you develop a consensus, that doesn't mean other ideas cannot come forward. As we strive, then, the next step is to strive for consensus on the Senate floor. I have been working personally with Senator Gordon Smith from Oregon. He and I have been working together to strive for consensus. So this idea that all of a sudden we would just deal with the first sentence in this amendment is not anything that is an unexpected result on this side because we recognize that perhaps maybe we cannot get an ideal amendment to move forward, perhaps maybe we have to work toward another version of the amendment that I have introduced that would allow for us to establish a consensus on the Senate floor. That is where Senator Smith has come in with his proposal, and actually he does it at the request of myself and other Members of the Senate because we are working for a consensus. That is what the Senate is all about. So I hope that we can get serious participation from the other side in the debate on this floor; we do have a number of Senators on the Republican side who want to continue to talk about how important marriage is. So my hope is that we can move forward in a civilized and thoughtful manner on how important traditional marriage is to America, and to give the American people an opportunity to participate. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I will yield to my good friend from Missouri, but first I will make a couple points. First, we are just beginning to defend marriage. This debate may go well beyond this year. I anticipate we will have more votes. But the message is, we are just beginning. Second, this is a moderate amendment. We do allow States the opportunity to find civil unions and domestic partnerships. This is not a civil rights union. This is not a civil rights issue. I will have an opportunity later on in our debate this afternoon to talk about these very points. First, I call on my good friend, the junior Senator from Missouri. I served with him in the House, and I am proud to call him my friend. He is doing a great job in the Senate. I yield to the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Talent.

Mr. ALLARD. Twenty minutes.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we allow the Senator from Texas an additional 10 minutes to discuss the Hispanic conference that she is having here.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I was going to yield some time to the senior Senator from Virginia.

Mr. ALLARD. Let me understand the Senator's request. We have been alternating back and forth.

Mr. ALLARD. We will continue to do that on this side?

Mr. ALLARD. No objection.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield the senior Senator from Virginia such time as he may consume.

Mr. ALLARD. I yield him 10 minutes. It is always a pleasure to be able to recognize him because we all admire the work he does. I am particularly proud to be able to serve with him on the Armed Services Committee. He is the chairman and does a great job.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma, the chairman of our Budget Committee and somebody I would like to recognize in a public way for all of the hard work he has provided for us in the Senate, particularly his hard work on the budget as the chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for a very fine statement. He brings a special perspective to this debate because he was the initial sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Mr. ALLARD. I yield to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. ALLARD. I do not believe it is going to interfere with you. You are next, then I think Senator Brownback.

Mr. ALLARD. You are next.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Kansas. I compliment him in a public way for his leadership on this very important issue.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I will take a moment to talk a little bit about my amendment. The purpose of my amendment is to protect marriage. There has been an editorial written by the Weekly Standard which I would like to share with my colleagues. There are three paragraphs I will recite. I ask unanimous consent to have the editorial printed in the Record. This is the editorial in the Weekly Standard called ``Cloturekampf,'' written by Terry Eastland.

Mr. ALLARD. Also, while I am at it, I would like to add Senator Dole as a cosponsor to S.J. Res. 40.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the editorial states: Nonetheless, it is now unlikely that the states will be able simply to do as they wish on the question of marriage. Under the Massachusetts Constitution, no amendment in response to the supreme judicial court's decision will be possible until 2006, and in the meantime there is no stopping same-sex nuptials, of which there have been thousands so far, including many from out of state. It is only a matter of time before some same-sex couples who have returned home file lawsuits pressing their states to recognize their unions. A basis for their claim will be the federal Constitution's requirement that states give ``full faith and credit'' to other states' judicial proceedings. The federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 offers an authoritative interpretation of the ``full faith and credit'' clause designed to prevent the interstate transmission of same-sex marriage. But the Supreme Court has repeatedly told Congress that it lacks the power to do that, and there is no reason to think that the Court would change its mind. The odds are strong, then, that same-sex marriage will travel via the federal courts to other states. There also remains a possibility that the Supreme Court itself might simply strike down the traditional definition of marriage. Recall that last summer in Lawrence v. Texas the Court, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing, did not merely void the nation's sodomy laws. Kennedy also embraced an amorphous right to sexual liberty (untethered to constitutional text or history) that denies the historic right of the people to enact legislation based on their moral views. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, not incidentally, drew inspiration from Kennedy's Lawrence opinion. The question facing the Senate and, for that matter, the House of Representatives, is whether federal judges should be allowed to decide the issue in the way they are likely to--or whether the American people should be given the opportunity to settle it through a constitutional amendment expressing their longstanding conviction about marriage. Even a failed cloture vote will give the country an idea of which senators understand--and which do not--that the definition of marriage is now an unavoidably national issue, and that, if marriage is to remain the union of a man and a woman, the issue will have to be addressed through a constitutional amendment-- Terry Eastland, for the Editors. This is the gist of many of our arguments we are making today. It has been called to my attention, through press reports, there has been a new lawsuit filed in the State of Massachusetts, that an attorney in Massachusetts has now filed a lawsuit on behalf of eight couples who are asking that the State of Massachusetts repeal their provisions which say they will not recognize same-sex marriages of individuals who come from other States. The Governor of Massachusetts relayed that issue to us during testimony before the committee. They just filed that. So here is another court case that has been filed that is another attack on marriage. That is why I think it is so very important we move forward with this debate. This is not a political debate. It is not driven by politics. It is driven by the courts. Again, we have an organized effort, I believe, by proponents of same-sex marriage who want to undo the idea of a traditional marriage. Right now, we have 46 States that have same-sex couples living there who have marriage licenses. I have been informed there is an organized effort to begin to file cases in those respective States. We have 11 States that have court cases currently filed in them. I was told several days ago that within those 11 States we have about 32 cases that have been filed, total. We have 48 States that have passed laws protecting traditional marriage. I have behind me a chart that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. We had a very fine statement from the Senator from Oklahoma who talked about the need and why he carried that amendment that protected the definition of marriage and allowed States their basic right to defend their position as far as the definition of marriage. This definition has been supported by huge majorities in these States in their legislative bodies. I happen to disagree with my colleague from the State of Arizona. I think a large percentage of Americans are concerned about changing the definition of traditional marriage. I think as they begin to more fully understand, they are going to be more forceful in the message they are sending to the Senate, and I think eventually the Members of this Senate will realize how very serious this particular issue is which is before us today. We have at least 10 States that have constitutional amendments on the ballot, and 3 States that are still gathering petitions. This issue is here before us today. It is an important issue. The people of the United States are concerned about what is happening in the courts. That is the reason we are here today to carry on this debate. There are some profound implications, I believe, to the rearing of children. Marriage matters. I have an article entitled: ``The End of Marriage in Scandinavia.'' It is written by Stanley Kurtz, in the Weekly Standard, and dated February 2, 2004, in which he talks about the impact of redefining marriage in the Scandinavian countries and on children. I ask unanimous consent that article be printed in the Record.