13 July 2004
Senator Barbara Boxer
On the Federal Marriage Amendment
Mr. President, after today, we have 27 legislative days until adjournment 27 legislative days to deal with the most pressing issues facing this country.
There were three developments in the last few days that underscore the work that needs to be done.
First, we were all summoned to the secret briefing room here in the Capitol and told that we were under a real threat of attack from al Qaeda between now and election day.
In a public appearance, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said: Credible reporting now indicates that al-Qaeda is moving forward with its plans to carry out a large-scale attack in the United States in an effort to disrupt our democratic process.
Second, there was a new report released showing that the intelligence of this country is in disarray. The intelligence was wrong. It was misused. It was misinterpreted. It was ignored. And it appears to me that pressure was brought to bear to skew that intelligence.
And now comes news that discussions are being held within the Administration about whether and how to possibly postpone elections if there is an attack. To even consider postponing our elections, the most ardent symbol of American democracy, because of threats made by terrorists would be nothing short of allowing fear to rule our country. America is too great and too strong and too brave for that.
If this Administration is so concerned about the possibility of terrorist attacks disrupting U.S. elections, the priority should be how to best defend against those attacks, not how to close polling places.
And what is it exactly that we should be doing to make Americans safer? We should be passing the Port Security bill and the Rail Security Bill, both of which were approved by the Commerce Committee unanimously in April. We should be passing the Transit Security bill, which was approved by the Banking Committee in May. We should be passing the Nuclear Plant Security bill, the Chemical Plant Security bill, and the First Responders bill, all of which were approved by the Environment and Public Works Committee last year. These bills would make people here at home safer but have not been considered by the full Senate.
On aviation security, the Administration is cutting the number of air marshals, and they are not training enough pilots to carry weapons in the cockpit. The Administration is also slow-walking putting countermeasures on commercial aircraft to protect against shoulder-fired missiles, which we know from FBI warnings that the terrorists have.
The COPS bill---that would put 50,000 additional cops on the beat---is stalled in the Judiciary Committee, and furthermore, the Administration has proposed to cut the program by 87% and prohibit new hires. And the Administration s budget cuts firefighters assistance by one third and provides no funding for the SAFER Act to hire 75,000 new firefighters.
We could be working on those bills to improve our safety instead of worrying about two people of the same gender who have decided to care about each other.
So there you have it. In the face of all this, what does this Administration want us to do?
A constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage a constitutional amendment that denies millions of Americans equal rights because, even if it does not say so explicitly, it will mean those in domestic partnerships or civil unions will not get equal rights or equal responsibilities.
An analysis by David Remes, a partner and legal expert at a well-respected law firm here in Washington, has concluded that this Constitutional amendment will guarantee legal challenges to civil unions and domestic partnerships.
And many have noted, including the American Bar Association, that the language of the Constitutional amendment is so vague that the amendment could be interpreted to ban civil unions and domestic partnerships and the benefits that come with them.
This constitutional amendment is divisive to this country. It is completely unnecessary. And it enshrines discrimination in the constitution the constitution a document meant to expand rights.
We have never amended the Constitution to deny rights and to deny equality.
In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year, University of Chicago Law School Professor Cass Sunstein noted that all of the amendments to the Constitution are either expansions of individual rights or attempts to remedy problems in the structure of government. The sole exception was the 18th Amendment that established Prohibition and that attempt to write social policy into the Constitution was such a disaster that it was repealed less than 15 years later.
The list of adopted Constitutional amendments is short but impressive.
There are the first ten amendments the Bill of Rights that guarantee important liberties to the American people from freedom of speech and the press to the right to be secure in our homes to the freedom of religion.
There are the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments that undo the terrible injustices of slavery, ensure African-Americans the right to vote, and guarantee everyone the equal protection of the laws.
There is the 19th Amendment that gave women the right to vote the 24th amendment that banned poll taxes to further ensure minorities the right to vote and the 26th amendment that gave 18 year olds the right to vote.
Quite an impressive list a list that seeks to expand freedom and equality.
There is a children s song that goes: One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just doesn t belong. Well, this proposal before us today doesn t belong in the Constitution.
That is why so many organizations 127 have come out against this amendment. Many of these groups have absolutely no interest in the debate over same-sex marriages. But they share one common goal: preventing discrimination from being written into our Constitution.
Let me mention just a few.
The Japanese American Citizens League, which says, The Japanese American community is keenly aware of what it means to be the target of government sanctioned and implemented discrimination and mistrust. . . . we believe discrimination in any form is un-American.
The National Council of La Raza;
The National Black Justice Coalition;
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund;
The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights;
The Labor Council for Latin American Advancement;
The American Jewish Committee;
The National Council of Jewish Women;
The NAACP;
The National Asian Pacific American Women s Forum; and
The National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, which says that this would be the first time in history that an amendment to our Constitution would restrict the rights of a whole class of people, in conflict with its guiding principle of equal protection.
These Americans know first hand what it is like to face discrimination. The last thing they want to see is discrimination enshrined in our Constitution.
The Constitution is a gift we have inherited from those giants among men who wrote it 217 years ago. As written, it was not perfect and we have had to amend the Constitution from time to time. But, it should never be used to take away rights from decent, loyal Americans. It should never be used to make a group of Americans permanent second-class citizens.
Mr. President, this Constitutional amendment is so flawed, it could not pass the Judiciary Committee. The leadership had to bypass the Committee in order to get the bill before the Senate. I understand why that happens sometimes around here with various bills. But, this isn t just another bill. This is an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
This Constitutional amendment is so flawed and so mean spirited, it never made it out of Committee, it does not have the necessary 67 votes to pass the Senate, and it may not even have a majority of the Senate in favor of it.
This amendment would make it impossible for states to say to two people who love each other, care for each other, and are willing to die for each other that they have equal inheritance rights, equal hospital visitation rights, equal benefits under the law. That s outrageous.
Marriage is not a federal issue. It is a matter of state law. And, for some, it is a religious issue. Some religions recognize same-sex marriages, and some do not. And many religious organizations oppose this amendment, including the Alliance of Baptists, the Episcopal Church, and the 216th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church.
My state has a domestic partnership law. California s law is, I believe, a start. It gives same-sex couples many of the same rights and responsibilities as married couples. It is not perfect, and we need to do more. But even this imperfect law has meant so much to so many people in California. And for this Congress to take that away from them by amending the Constitution is wrong and mean spirited.
My state has made its decision. Other states are making their decisions as well. And what is wrong with that? Marriage law has never been the province of the federal government.
Four years ago, Vice President Cheney said: The fact of the matter is we live in a free society and freedom means freedom for everybody. And I think that means that people should feel free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It s really no one else s business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that s appropriate. I don t think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area.
Well now the Vice President has bowed to his political pollsters.
So, Mr. President, why is this being done when there are so many important issues to deal with in just 27 legislative days? The majority knows they don t have the votes, so why do they bring it up? Why are they going through this pointless and mean spirited exercise?
Is it to send a message to a portion of our population that they are not worthy? Is it to send a message that certain Americans are inferior?
Maybe. Maybe not. But that is exactly the message that is being sent.
Some have said that the reason for this amendment is because the American family is in such a fragile condition, and that children are hurt when marriages suffer.
One of my colleagues says that marriage is under assault from gay relationships.
Well I must tell you straight from my heart not one married couple has ever come up to me and said their marriage was under assault because two people of the same gender down the street care about each other.
If we were truly concerned about strengthening marriages and strengthening families in this country, we would pass an increase in the minimum wage.
We would pass a bill to make sure people had the same health insurance that members of Congress have. We would pass a bill to make sure that all children have a high quality education.
And instead of freezing the number of kids in after school programs, we would allow them to partake in programs that keep them safe until mom or dad comes home from work.
Some have said that this amendment is needed to stop activist judges, but not one federal judge has ruled on the issue of same-sex marriage.
And if the Republicans are against activist judges, why did they confirm James Leon Holmes, who said, regarding a woman s right to choose, that concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with the same frequency as snow in Miami.
Where was the concern about activist judges when President Bush gave a recess appointment to William Pryor, who said that the federal government should not be involved in the business of public education nor the control of street crime and who called the Voting Rights Act an affront to federalism.
Where was the concern about activist judges when President Bush gave a recess appointment to Charles Pickering, who worked to reduce the sentence for a man convicted of burning a cross on the lawn of an interracial couple.
And what about activist judges who stopped a state recount in the recent presidential election and decided that election?
The hue and cry about activist judges is an all-too-familiar smokescreen to cloak the real motive behind this Constitutional amendment.
If this was really about activist judges, we would be debating this after a federal judge had actually acted. But that would make the timing inconvenient because no federal judge will be acting before the Democratic Convention.
What is really going on here the real motive here is crass, cold, hard politics. This is being done to distract attention from the real issues facing this country. This constitutional amendment is being used as a weapon of mass distraction.
And this constitutional amendment is being used as a tool for the upcoming political campaigns. Shame on us.
The Constitution should never be used as a political football or as an applause meter before an election.
It truly is a disgrace on the Senate to play politics with the Constitution, and I hope and pray that the American people see this for what it is.
Mr. President, we are all God s children. No two of us are alike we have different color eyes; we have different color hair; we have different color skin; we are different genders; and yes, we have different sexual orientations.
We are all different, and yet we are all united behind the common cause of freedom, justice, and equality.
This Constitutional amendment is an attempt to use our diversity to divide us instead of to unite us.
And it is brought to you by a President who said he would be a great uniter a healer that he would change the tone in Washington.
Well he hasn t; it is as bad as I ve ever seen it.
This Constitutional amendment is an attempt to appeal to our prejudice instead of our compassion our hate instead of our hopes our fears instead of our dreams. This Constitutional amendment is an appeal to what is the worst in us instead of an appeal to what is the best in us.
In his first Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln appealed to the better angels of our nature. This amendment flies in the face of these words.
So regardless of what you think about gay marriage regardless of whether you are for or against domestic partnerships and civil unions, which I support strongly regardless of whether you support or oppose the law in your state this Constitutional amendment should be soundly defeated.
I urge my colleagues to do the right thing. I urge my colleagues to put the Constitution above any possible political gain.
I urge my colleagues to put the Constitution above their own political well-being.
That is the measure of a true patriot.
Voting against this Constitutional amendment is the right thing to do.
And turning our attention to the awesome, challenging and difficult issues facing America s families is what we must do for the good of the Senate, for the good of our constituents, for the good of our country.
Copyright 2004 by Buffalo Report, Inc.