Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold at the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on the Constitutional Amendment on Marriage March 23, 2004 Mr. Chairman, as I've said at the two prior hearings on this subject, I think it is unfortunate that we are devoting so much time to this issue. I continue to believe that a constitutional amendment on marriage is unnecessary. And I also believe that the effort to rush the amendment through our Committee and bring it to the Senate floor this summer is politically motivated to score points in an election year. That is unfortunate for the American people who are struggling every day with so many more pressing issues – from jobs, to access to health care, to educating their children -- that deserve the Senate's attention and action. The regulation of marriage in our country has traditionally been a matter for states and religious institutions and should remain so. No one – including witnesses who have testified at the prior hearings – has shown that there is a need for federal intervention. Proponents of an amendment argue that it is necessary to amend the Constitution to ensure that no state is forced to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state. But not a single court has forced a state to recognize a same-sex marriage or civil union performed in another state. In fact, as Professor Lea Brilmayer persuasively testified earlier this month, no state, in the history of our nation, has ever been forced to recognize a marriage that was against the public policy of that state. I note also that since our last hearing, the California Supreme Court has ordered city officials in San Francisco to stop performing same-sex weddings, the Attorney General in the state of New York ruled that state law prohibits same sex marriage, and, in Massachusetts, the process for amending the state constitution is ongoing. It appears, in other words, that this effort is ill-timed and ill-advised. We should let states continue to sort these issues out. But the Chairman and many in his party feel differently, and so this hearing was scheduled to consider a specific proposal to amend the Constitution – the Federal Marriage Amendment. I think we can all agree that amending the Constitution is a very serious matter and should be undertaken only after careful deliberation and debate. We should not do this in a haphazard or rushed manner. Yet just yesterday, presumably in anticipation of this hearing, a revised version of the Federal Marriage Amendment was unveiled. It is simply inappropriate to hold a hearing on the text of a constitutional amendment less than 24 hours after that text is introduced. That is not the proper way for the Senate to consider amending our nation's governing charter, which has served our nation well for over 200 years. No hearing should be held when Senators and witnesses have had less than a day to review the legislative language that is the focus of the hearing. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that it would be inappropriate for the Subcommittee on the Constitution to consider this new language until the Committee holds another hearing on it. Mr. Chairman, observing an appropriate deliberative process for amending the Constitution of the United States is particularly important because the stakes are so high. We are talking here about an amendment that would for the first time put discrimination into our governing document. It would dictate to the people of each state how their own constitutions should be interpreted and applied on a subject that has since the beginning of our republic been regulated by the states. I note that the authors of the Federal Marriage Amendment appear to have recognized that the original version of the amendment would not only have prohibited same-sex marriages, it would have barred states from recognizing civil unions or providing some benefits that are available to married couples, such as hospital visitation rights, to same-sex couples. Of course, that is exactly what some proponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment would like to see. It is encouraging that the sponsors do not share that extreme view. No amount of redrafting will convince me, however, that we need a constitutional amendment to regulate marriage. Marriage has been part of human civilization for 4,500 years, or more. It is not under siege; it is not in danger of withering away. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, in FY 2003, approximately 2.2 million heterosexual couples were married in the United States. I hope we in the Senate will get back to the business of trying to improve their lives, and the lives of their children, rather than spending time on a divisive political exercise.

# # #