Patrick Leahy: “as I listen to the debate over this constitutional amendment, I am struck by the circular and contradictory arguments…”

“as I listen to the debate over this constitutional amendment, I am struck by the circular and contradictory arguments offered by some supporters of this measure. It is clear even to a casual listener that the arguments from some proponents of this effort to use the Constitution to restrict individual freedom for the first time ever actually make the case for why there is no necessity for it. They must acknowledge that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act remains on the books and has been upheld by every Federal court that has considered it, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Their talking points proclaim that 45 States already passed legislation or contain provisions in their State constitutions that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. They point out that 19 States have in the last 10 years passed referendums to amend their State constitutions and that decisive majorities approved a definition of marriage. These arguments beg the question as to why we are spending several days of a waning session on an amendment that is not only divisive but also unnecessary. To propose a constitutional amendment, two-thirds of each House of Congress must ``deem it necessary.'' That is the constitutional standard for proposing a constitutional amendment. How, in light of this record, could Senators who value individual liberty, respect the States, and understand the Constitution vote any way other than against proceeding to this measure?…”