Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Senate Goings-on
CULTURE & COSMOS
March 30, 2004 Volume 1, Number 33
Broad Range of Senate Witnesses Support
Changing US Constitution on Marriage
The US Senate moved a step closer to amending the US Constitution
last week as the Judiciary Committee held a hearing about mandating that
marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. Not surprisingly the
liberal American Bar Association testified against the proposed federal
marriage amendment saying it "would restrict the ability of a state to
protect the rights of children." Other witnesses disagreed.
Teresa Collett, professor of law at St. Thomas University, said
that states were not restricted in offering "compassionate alternative
legal arrangements to people, without redefining the institutional of
marriage itself." Further Collett said, "what is not understandable is the
constant charge that prejudice and bias motivate those of us who believe
the legal institution of marriage is, and should remain focused on
insuring that children are raised by their mother and father." Katherine
Shaw Spaht, a professor at the Louisiana State University Law Center,
testified that "a union that biologically is the only one that can create
the children" must be defended "if we as a society are to survive."
Reverend Richard Richardson, representing the Black Ministerial
Alliance of Greater Boston, told Senators that "children do best when
raised by a mother and a father the dilution of the ideal has already had
a devastating effect on our community. We need to be strengthening the
institution of marriage, not diluting it." Richardson said, "This
discussion about marriage is not just about adult love. It is about
finding the best arrangement for raising children." Senator John Cornyn
(R-Texas) said in his opening statement that "if the national culture
teaches that marriage is just about adult love, and not about the raising
of children, then we should be troubled, but not surprised, by the
results America needs stable marriages and families."
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said that "the bedrock of American
society is the family, and it is traditional marriage that undergirds the
American family. The disintegration of the family in this country
correlates with many serious social problems." Cornyn later said, "Either
you believe that traditional marriage is about discrimination and
therefore must be invalidated by courts, or you believe traditional
marriage is about children and must be protected by the Constitution."
Cass Sunstein, a professor at University of Chicago Law School,
said that the amendment was an "unfortunate idea" that would "violate the
founders' commitments to constitutional stability." Cornyn said that the
Constitution "cannot and should not be amended casually" but that the
"Founders recognized that situations would arise when an amendment would
become necessary and appropriate."
Spaht of Louisiana State said if a constitutional amendment is not
passed, "the courts will take this issue away from the American people,
and they will abolish traditional marriage. It is really that simple we
are left with no middle ground, no other option than to either acknowledge
defeat or give up traditional marriage, or support a constitutional
amendment defending it." Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said that the
amendment "interferes in a fundamental State matter, and worse yet, it
does so for the purpose of disfavoring a group of Americans." In response
to this charge, Spaht said, "the reason why the defense of marriage is a
federal issue, and not a state issue, is simple: Because the courts have
made it a federal issue."
Copyright---Culture of Life Foundation.
Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.
Culture of Life Foundation
1413 K Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington DC 20005
Phone: (202) 289-2500
Fax: (202) 289-2502
E-mail: clf@culture-of-life.org
Website: http://www.culture-of-life.org
March 30, 2004 Volume 1, Number 33
Broad Range of Senate Witnesses Support
Changing US Constitution on Marriage
The US Senate moved a step closer to amending the US Constitution
last week as the Judiciary Committee held a hearing about mandating that
marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. Not surprisingly the
liberal American Bar Association testified against the proposed federal
marriage amendment saying it "would restrict the ability of a state to
protect the rights of children." Other witnesses disagreed.
Teresa Collett, professor of law at St. Thomas University, said
that states were not restricted in offering "compassionate alternative
legal arrangements to people, without redefining the institutional of
marriage itself." Further Collett said, "what is not understandable is the
constant charge that prejudice and bias motivate those of us who believe
the legal institution of marriage is, and should remain focused on
insuring that children are raised by their mother and father." Katherine
Shaw Spaht, a professor at the Louisiana State University Law Center,
testified that "a union that biologically is the only one that can create
the children" must be defended "if we as a society are to survive."
Reverend Richard Richardson, representing the Black Ministerial
Alliance of Greater Boston, told Senators that "children do best when
raised by a mother and a father the dilution of the ideal has already had
a devastating effect on our community. We need to be strengthening the
institution of marriage, not diluting it." Richardson said, "This
discussion about marriage is not just about adult love. It is about
finding the best arrangement for raising children." Senator John Cornyn
(R-Texas) said in his opening statement that "if the national culture
teaches that marriage is just about adult love, and not about the raising
of children, then we should be troubled, but not surprised, by the
results America needs stable marriages and families."
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said that "the bedrock of American
society is the family, and it is traditional marriage that undergirds the
American family. The disintegration of the family in this country
correlates with many serious social problems." Cornyn later said, "Either
you believe that traditional marriage is about discrimination and
therefore must be invalidated by courts, or you believe traditional
marriage is about children and must be protected by the Constitution."
Cass Sunstein, a professor at University of Chicago Law School,
said that the amendment was an "unfortunate idea" that would "violate the
founders' commitments to constitutional stability." Cornyn said that the
Constitution "cannot and should not be amended casually" but that the
"Founders recognized that situations would arise when an amendment would
become necessary and appropriate."
Spaht of Louisiana State said if a constitutional amendment is not
passed, "the courts will take this issue away from the American people,
and they will abolish traditional marriage. It is really that simple we
are left with no middle ground, no other option than to either acknowledge
defeat or give up traditional marriage, or support a constitutional
amendment defending it." Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said that the
amendment "interferes in a fundamental State matter, and worse yet, it
does so for the purpose of disfavoring a group of Americans." In response
to this charge, Spaht said, "the reason why the defense of marriage is a
federal issue, and not a state issue, is simple: Because the courts have
made it a federal issue."
Copyright---Culture of Life Foundation.
Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.
Culture of Life Foundation
1413 K Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington DC 20005
Phone: (202) 289-2500
Fax: (202) 289-2502
E-mail: clf@culture-of-life.org
Website: http://www.culture-of-life.org
