I return the thanks to the Senator from Colorado for his willingness to step forward and introduce this legislation. He has carried it with a firmness of purpose and a gentle touch, which is his way, in the way of bringing this issue squarely to the Senate before the American public. He is to be congratulated. The leader is in the Senate. I thank him for agreeing to bring this bill before the Senate, to have a vote on this constitutional amendment in the Senate, and to have this first public debate about the institution of marriage and the attempt to redefine that institution by the courts. If I can, I want to start from scratch to answer the question that many have offered today on the other side of the aisle, which is, Why are we here? Some have suggested we are here because we hate certain people. Some suggest we are here because we are politically motivated to try to rally troops before the election. Some suggest we are here because we want to change the subject to something other than what we have been debating for the last several months in the Senate. We suggest we are here because we want to preserve an institution that has served civilization well for 5,000 years. While that institution has been shaken, that institution has fissures in the foundation; it is still an institution worth preserving. It is an institution worth rebuilding. It is an institution worth fixing the cracks in that foundation.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the introduction of legislation regarding the institution of marriage.
Share
More from Rick Santorum
I think this puts Republican, particularly two senators in Georgia in a very tough bind to have a president, you know, having voted for the National Defense Authorization Act now, having to decide whether they're going to buck the…
Let's try to make it a an opportunity for unity that he wants to accomplish.
If there's one area that's been telling is in Pennsylvania, we closed the registration gap this summer because we were knocking doors and getting their registrants and the Democrats weren't and it could pay a big difference.
I think the president can talk about death rates, he can talk about, you know, the situation could have been a lot worse.





