Orrin Hatch: “we have heard that this amendment has been compared to prohibition, kiosks, and bumper stickers. We have heard some…”

“we have heard that this amendment has been compared to prohibition, kiosks, and bumper stickers. We have heard some eloquent and passionate speeches in the Senate these past few days. It is obviously an issue many feel strongly about. I make a couple of things clear before we vote on whether we can even debate this amendment postcloture. First, the proponents of this amendment are not seeking a policy change. We are simply trying to preserve more than a 5,000-year-old institution, the most fundamental in all of our society, that a few unelected, activist judges are trying to radically change. Some of my colleagues suggest we do not need a national policy on marriage. Guess what. We have always had one. When my home State of Utah wanted to enter into this great Union, the Federal Government conditioned such acceptance on our adoption of a one-man, one-woman marriage policy. The Federal Government understood then what we still know today, that children are best off having a mother and a father. Most of my colleagues agree. Some argue it does not belong in the Constitution. The Constitution properly deals with foundational questions of how our Nation should be organized. Traditional male-female marriage is the universal arrangement for the ordering of society and ensuring future generations. If a foundational institution such as this is not deserving of our protection in our Constitution, then I don't know what is.”