On the recordJune 7, 2006
the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, is on his way to the Chamber. I know the time is running. I will speak until he arrives. I wanted to make a point or two based on arguments used in this debate. Mr. President, 45 of 50 States passed either a constitutional amendment or a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman--45 of 50 States. There is only one State in America where same-sex marriage is legal, and that is Massachusetts. No other State, county, city, or anyplace in America permits same-sex marriage. Incidentally, it is ironic that the State with the lowest divorce rate in America happens to also be Massachusetts. There is simply no crisis or controversy before us today that requires amending the Constitution. Another reason I oppose this amendment, as I indicated earlier, is that the language is vague and overbroad. The reference to ``legal incidents'' of marriage is troubling. The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the meaning of the term ``legal incidents'' of marriage. I attended those hearings and questioned witnesses. There was simply no consensus on how the courts might interpret that. Some of the witnesses predicted courts would read it to ban civil unions. Some even think this amendment would be read by the courts to prohibit other efforts to equalize benefits, such as domestic partner benefits, adoption rights, and even hospital visitation rights.…
Source
govinfo.gov




