Mark Udall: “I cannot support changing the Constitution along the lines of this proposal--so I will not vote for this resolution.…”

“I cannot support changing the Constitution along the lines of this proposal--so I will not vote for this resolution. Under our federal system, there are many matters where the states have broad latitude to shape their laws and policies in ways their residents think fit, subject to the constitution's provisions that protect the rights of individual citizens. One of those areas has been family law, including the regulation of marriage and divorce--but this amendment would change that. Adoption of this amendment would for the first time impose a constitutional restriction on the ability of a state to define marriage. And it would do so in a way that would restrict, not protect, individual rights that now are protected by at least some state constitutions. In my opinion, this is neither necessary nor appropriate. Some of the resolution's supporters say it is needed so a state whose laws ban same-sex marriages or civil unions will not be forced to recognize such marriages or unions established under another state's laws. They say this could happen because Article IV of the Constitution requires each state to give "full faith and credit" to another state's "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings." But my understanding is that this part of the constitution has not required states to recognize the validity of all marriages of people from other states.”