Defending Traditional Marriage: An
Unfortunate Necessity
By U.S. Senator Jon Kyl
Last week's Senate vote against a motion to even begin debate upon, much
less approve, a constitutional amendment on marriage dealt a serious
setback to our society's most stabilizing and important institution. It
also represents a failure of the Senate to accept our responsibility as
legislators to begin to deal with the issue rather than leaving it to
activist lawyers and judges, who are more than happy to fill the void.
A marriage between a man and a woman is universally acknowledged to
provide the best and healthiest environment for raising children. It's
hard to imagine a more fundamental societal issue, or one more deserving
of protection, particularly in this era of high rates of teen pregnancy,
divorce and other signs of social breakdown. Growing up in a traditional
family has overwhelmingly been found to give kids the best shot at success
in school, career and in starting their own families.
Some say we should not deal with the problem nationally, but leave it to
the states. As a nation, we've already grappled with this question and
resolved it -- with broad consensus -- in the debate over whether to admit
Utah as a state, when Congress required Utah to recognize only marriages
between one man and one woman. Moreover, "states' rights" means decisions
by the people of the states and their legislatures -- not by judges.
To the extent that the traditional definition of marriage should be
reconsidered at all -- despite the wisdom and tradition of virtually all
of human history -- that process should take place within the realm of
legislatures or citizens working directly through the ballot or initiative
process. Judges, egged on by activist lawyers, have no business inventing
imaginary provisions in state constitutions, denouncing traditional
marriage as a "stain" that must be washed away, or scoffing at the "mantra
of tradition," all of which was part of the recent decision by the
Massachusetts Supreme Court. Were it not for their lack of judicial
restraint, we wouldn't have arrived at the unfortunate point of having to
consider a Constitutional amendment to begin with.
Nor is it realistic to assume that same-sex marriage can be isolated in
some states but not others, even if one finds such a goal acceptable. The
groups pushing to redefine marriage certainly know this; the most
prominent leader of the same-sex marriage movement, Evan Wolfson, who
helped file the lawsuits in Vermont, Massachusetts and elsewhere, has
candidly made the point. He scoffs at those who think that the nation can
tolerate fundamentally different conceptions of marriage on a
state-by-state basis. As he says on his website, "America is one country,
not 50 separate kingdoms. If you're married, you're married."
Some believe Congress should wait for the courts to declare the federal
Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. The problem is, whether it's
upheld or not, that law didn't stop Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court,
and it won't stop other judges sympathetic to activist groups that are
already seeking to bypass the legislative process and impose their agenda
in more than 11 states. Even assuming the Defense of Marriage Act survives
review by the U.S. Supreme Court, which is by no means a given, simple
logistics make it unavoidable that states will be forced to contend with
the policies of other states in everything from marriage dissolution to
probate.
The constitutional amendment process is the most democratic, the most
grass roots, the most respectful process available for the establishment
of national policy -- with extremely high hurdles, and appropriately
so. It guarantees that the American people have a full and complete
opportunity to speak to the issue, that they can express their views to
their Senators, their Congressmen, and their state legislators. It takes
time. But in the end, if a constitutional amendment passes -- as opposed
to a court decision -- we know that the American people truly want it. And
that is the very foundation of self-government.
