The Senate has failed to pass legislation calling for a Constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage and halt the proliferation of same-sex marriages. Despite the current setback, I believe debate on this issue has only just begun, and the topic is bound to fester until Congress assumes its responsibility and deals with it decisively.
Since the dawn of recorded history, marriage has been a loving commitment between a man and woman, but now homosexual interest groups and their activist allies seem determined to redefine marriage. In state after state, they've attacked traditional marriage through the courts, marrying same-sex couples and forcing the issue to a head in Washington.
Like an overwhelming majority of Americans, I believe marriage should remain strictly between men and women. That's why I was an original cosponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which the Senate failed to even consider this week because we didn't have quite enough votes to bring it up for debate.
I was an original cosponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act, too. This law was signed by President Clinton a few years ago with bipartisan support. Back then, a majority in Congress and throughout America felt this law would protect traditional marriage. Unfortunately, the act is not working. Liberal judges are disregarding this act, sanctioning same-sex marriages despite the law and overwhelming public opposition—even in places with state laws designed to protect traditional marriage. The situation is creating perplexing legal questions among states, and it begs for significant action from Washington. A Constitutional amendment is the only way to restrain activist judges. These few now seek to make law instead of interpreting law as written by your elected representatives in Congress - the way our Founding Fathers intended.
Obviously the issue of same-sex marriage transcends the legal debate. This is a subject very important to millions of Americans, and it impacts our entire social fabric. Marriage is the building block of families. Only men and women together can produce children. Children, in turn, need a mother and a father. That's not to say kids can't grow up well in single parent homes, but traditional marriage has always been, and always must be, the ideal environment for raising families.
Some of my colleagues in the Senate say a Constitutional amendment is too drastic. They agree with the majority of Americans who oppose same-sex marriage, but say they can't support a Constitutional amendment. That's expected. Constitutional amendments are heavy stuff. Our Founding Fathers meant for Constitutional amendments to be done only after a lot of very serious thought and legislative deliberation. Amending the Constitution takes time, as it should. But it's done more often than we may think. In fact, there are 27 amendments to the Constitution, almost half of those amendments made during the last century. It's clear that protecting traditional marriage does indeed rise to a Constitutional level.
Others in Washington are frankly just trying to have it both ways. They are using parliamentary procedures and technicalities as cover to avoid taking sides, scared they may offend someone. Well, two out of three Americans already have taken a side, that of opposition to same-sex marriage. Like most Mississippians, I'm on this side because of my personal Christian faith—a faith that, like most faiths worldwide, recognizes and encourages traditional marriage.
Many of you have called my office voicing strong support for the Federal Marriage Amendment and stern opposition to same-sex marriage. I thank each of you for your action. I will continue my efforts to protect traditional marriage. I assure you, as much as some folks want this issue to just go away, it will not. Americans overwhelmingly oppose same-sex marriage, and we favor traditional marriage between men and women. The U.S. Congress should reflect America's people, and our courts must respect America's law. Until this happens, the issue remains unresolved, and it can't remain that way for long. 7/16/04
Senator Lott welcomes any questions or comments about this column. Write to: U.S. Senator Trent Lott, 487 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510 (Attn: Press Office)
Previous Commentsshow
What's this?More like this story
More stories by this author
Support our reporting -- Follow the MFP.
Comments
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.