Sam Brownback: “if Members of the Senate vote as their States have voted on this amendment, the vote today will be 90 to 10 in favor of…”

“if Members of the Senate vote as their States have voted on this amendment, the vote today will be 90 to 10 in favor of a constitutional amendment. Forty-five States have defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. I want to show my colleagues an outdated map. It shows the number of States that have weighed in on the topic of marriage. Yesterday, Alabama voted by 81 percent to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The dark green States are those that have already passed; light green are those where it is pending, and only five States have not defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. So if Senators would represent their States, this amendment would pass 90 to 10. It would pass with the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. And if anybody wants to define it otherwise, it will have to go through the State legislature, not the courts. So there is nothing to oppose in this amendment. If your State wanted to go at it by a different route, it says it has to go through the legislature. It can't be forced by the court. What is wrong with that? I find it a sad prospect that we might not be able to pass this 90 to 10. Marriage is a foundational institution. It is under attack by the courts. It needs to be defended in this way by defining it as the union of a man and a woman as 45 of our 50 States have done. If it is going to be defined otherwise, it must be done by the legislatures and not by the courts.…”