Date: 2006-07-18
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. where to begin? We have heard the argument that somehow we shouldnt bring constitutional amendments to the floor. we shouldnt amend the Constitution. It is a very interesting argument when you realize there are two ways to amend the Constitution. one is the formal process that is contained in the Constitution itself. which we are embarking upon today. and the other one is by activist judges. People dont like to hear that. They seem to say judges have the right to amend the Constitution. to give new meaning to the words of the Constitution. to actually give the opposite meaning to the words of the Constitution and we have to accept that forever. because if we do anything opposed to that. we are somehow changing the Constitution. even though we are following the exact requirements of the Constitution itself. The second thing that is said is wait a second. no court has declared marriage to be unconstitutional in the traditional sense. so we should wait until that happens. In other words. if we take an anticipatory action. somehow we are unconstitutional. How have we changed the terms of the debate when we are talking about a traditional definition of marriage that has stood the test of time for thousands of years. has been understood by every single one of our Founding Fathers at the time of the formation of this country. that somehow we are the ones that are upsetting the apple cart. when. in fact. it is those who wish to change this traditional definition in a radical way? They say. well. the Federal Government should not be involved in it. And yet we pointed out historically the Federal Government has been involved in defining marriage. refusing to allow at least the State of Utah to become a State until they accepted that definition of marriage. What we are talking about is changing the fundamental vision of marriage that is in our civil structure. a preferential treatment that is allowed under our laws for marriage. understood traditionally. And they say. well. we passed DOMA so you dont have to worry. Yet. many who are saying that argued on the floor of the House that DOMA was unconstitutional. Professor Lawrence Tribe has said it is unconstitutional. Many of the organizations who are against this particular amendment have argued in court that it is unconstitutional and believe it is only inevitable until they overturn it by way of their particular lawsuits brought against it. So the question here is really. do you believe there is reason to maintain the traditional definition of marriage. allowing it to be the essential unit of our society. not that there arent other units of society. but the essential unit of our society that has withstood the test of time? That is the simple question before us. We never asked for this debate. This debate began with. yes. activist judges who said. wait a second. times have changed and. therefore. the traditional notion of marriage is out the window. Why? Who said so? Because of what? This is not a question of discrimination as some have argued on the other side. unless they are saying we are discriminating against bigamy and polygamy. because the United States has spoken. as I said before. in saying the traditional definition of marriage is enshrined in our institutions and in our law.