Freewill
Platinum Member
- Oct 26, 2011
- 31,158
- 5,072
- 1,130
Just stumbled upon this, seems like running for President makes on change their fundamental beliefs.
Hillary Clinton on Same-Sex Marriage
DAYS AND I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE MANY SINCERE POSITIONS BEING ADVOCATED ON THIS FLOOR ON REALLY ALL SIDES OF THIS ISSUE, BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY SIDES. THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT AND QUITE SOLEMN RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US. S.J. RES. 40, THIS JOINT RESOLUTION, PROPOSES AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES RELATING TO MARRIAGE. AND SO MAYBE EVEN MORE THAN THE USUAL DEBATE, THIS CALLS FOR EACH OF US TO BE ENGAGED AND TO BE ACCURATE, TO BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT THE POSITIONS THAT WE TAKE WITH RESPECT TO THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT. NOW, A NUMBER OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE COME TO THE FLOOR TO SPEAK ABOUT THE SOLEMN RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE HOLD IN OUR HANDS WITH RESPECT TO AMENDING OUR CONSTITUTION, AND I AM IN AGREEMENT THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS A LIVING AND WORKING, EXTRAORDINARY HUMAN ACCOMPLISHMENT THAT PROTECTS OUR CITIZENS, GRANTS US THE RIGHTS THAT MAKE US FREE. AND WE IN THIS BODY TOOK AN OATH, WE SWORE TO DEFEND AND PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. SO TO CONSIDER ALTERING THIS DOCUMENT, ONE OF THE GREATEST DOCUMENTS IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY, IS A RESPONSIBILITY NO MEMBER CAN OR SHOULD ENTER INTO LIGHTLY. FOR WHAT WE DO HERE WILL NOT ONLY AFFECT OUR FELLOW CITIZENS IN THE YEAR 2004 BUT WILL AFFECT EVERY GENERATION OF AMERICANS TO COME. AS HENRY CLAY ONCE OBSERVED, "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WAS MADE NOT MERELY FOR THE GENERATION THAT THEN EXISTED BUT FOR POSTERITY, UNLIMITED, UNDEFINED, ENDLESS, PERPETUAL POSTERITY." SO WE DO OWE AN OBLIGATION TO THOSE WE REPRESENT TODAY AND TO FUTURE GENERATIONS AS WE EMBARK UPON THIS VERY SOLEMN UNDERTAKING. WE SHOULD NOT AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO DECIDE ANY ISSUE THAT CAN AND WILL BE RESOLVED BY LESS DRASTIC MEANS. WE SHOULD NOT AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO FEDERALIZE AN ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN THE PROVINCE OF THE STATES SINCE OUR FOUND FOUNDING. IN FACT, AS SENATOR KENNEDY REMINDED US, EVEN BEFORE OUR FOUNDING AS A NATION. I BELIEVE THAT MARRIAGE IS NOT JUST A BOND BUT A SACRED BOND BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. I HAVE HAD OCCASION IN MY LIFE TO DEFEND MARRIAGE, TO STAND UP FOR MARRIAGE, TO BELIEVE IN THE HARD WORK AND CHALLENGE OF MARRIAGE. SO I TAKE UMBRAGE AT ANYONE WHO MIGHT SUGGEST THAT THOSE OF US WHO WORRY ABOUT AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION ARE LESS COMMITTED TO THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE OR TO THE FUNDAMENTAL BEDROCK PRINCIPLE THAT IT EXISTS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN GOING BACK INTO THE MYTHS OF HISTORY AS ONE OF THE FOUNDING -- FOUNDATIONAL INSTITUTIONS OF HISTORY AND HUMANITY AND CIVILIZATION AND THAT ITS PRIMARY, PRINCIPAL ROLE DURING THOSE MILLENNIA HAS BEEN THE RAISING AND SOCIALIZING OF CHILDREN FOR THE SOCIETY INTO WHICH THEY ARE TO BECOME ADULTS. NOW, IF WE WERE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT MARRIAGE AND THE FACT THAT SO MANY MARRIAGES TODAY END IN DIVORCE AND SO MANY CHILDREN ARE THEN PUT INTO THE INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT POSITION OF HAVING TO LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF DIVORCE, PERHAPS 20, 30 YEARS AGO, WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEBATING AN AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION TO MAKE DIVORCE REALLY, REALLY HARD. YOU KNOW, TO TAKE IT OUT OF THE STATES' HANDS AND TO SAY THAT WE WILL NOT LIBERALIZE DIVORCE, WE WILL NOT MOVE TOWARD NO-FAULT DIVORCE. WE WILL MAKE IT AS DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE WE FEAR THE CONSEQUENCES OF LIBERALIZING DIVORCE LAWS. NOW, IF ONE LOOKS AT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE NUMBERS OF DIVORCE, THE BREAKUP OF THE TRADITIONAL HE WILL FAMILY, YOU COULD MAKE AN ARGUMENT FOR -- THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY, YOU COULD MAKE AN ARGUMENT FOR THAT. IF WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT MARRIAGE, WHY WEREN'T WE CONCERNED ABOUT MARRIAGE WHEN MARRIAGE WAS UNDER PRESSURE OVER THE LAST DECADES BECAUSE OF CHANGING ROLES, BECAUSE OF CHANGING DECISIONS, BECAUSE OF THE LAWS IN THE STATES THAT WERE MAKING IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE, HUSBANDS AND WIVES, MOTHERS AND FATHERS, TO GETS DIVORCED -- TO GET DIVORCED. WELL, WE SEARCHED -- I DON'T SEE ANYONE IN THE HISTORY OF THE SENATE REPORT HOUSE WHO PUT FORWARD AN AMENDMENT TO TRY TO STOP THE INCREASING NUMBER OF DIVORCES IN ORDER TO STEM THE PROBLEMS AND THE DIFFICULTIES THAT CLEARLY HAVE BEEN VISITED UPON ADULTS CERTAINLY BUT PRINCIPALLY CHILDREN BECAUSE OF THE EASE OF DIVORCE IN THIS SOCIETY OVER THE LAST DECADES. WE DIDN'T DO THAT. I MEAN, WE COULD STAND ON THIS FLOOR FOR HOURS TALKING ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF MARRIAGE, THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ROLE OF MARRIAGE IN NOT ONLY BRINGING CHILDREN INTO THE WORLD BUT ENABLING THEM TO BE SUCCESSFUL CITIZENS IN THAT WORLD AND HOW MANY OF US HAVE STRUGGLED FOR YEARS TO DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF ILLEGITIMACY, OF OUT-OF-WEDLOCK BIRTHS, OF DIVORCE, OF THE KIND OF ANNO-ME AND DISASSOCIATION THAT TOO MANY CHILDREN EXPERIENCE BECAUSE OF THAT. SO I THINK THAT IF WE WERE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT MARRIAGE AND IF WE BELIEVED THAT IT HAD A ROLE IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, WE'VE BEEN MISSING IN ACTION. WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THIS FLOOR TRYING TO AMEND OUR CONSTITUTION, TAKE AWAY AT THE VERY FIRST BLUSH THE IDEA OF NO-FAULT DIVORCE, TRY TO GET IN THERE AND TELL THE STATES WHAT THEY SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T DO WITH RESPECT TO MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE, MAYBE TRY TO WRITE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION ABOUT CUSTODY MATTERS. YOU KNOW? MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE IT BE A PRESUMPTION IN OUR FEDERAL MARRIAGE LAW THAT JOINT CUSTODY IS THE RULE. MAYBE WE OUGHT TO JUST SUBSTITUTE OURSELVES FOR STATES, FOR JUDGES, FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE MAKING THESE DECISIONS EVERY SINGLE DAY THROUGHOUT OUR NATION. BUT WE DID NOT DO THAT, DID WE? CAN ANY OF US STAND HERE AND FEEL GOOD ABOUT ALL OF THE SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES, THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES? WE KNOW THAT DIVORCE LEADS TO A LOWERED STANDARD OF LIVING FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN. AND THEN, OF COURSE, IF WE WERE TO DEAL WITH SOME OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF OUT-OF-WEDLOCK BIRTHS, THE LACK OF MARRIAGE, WE COULD HAVE ADDRESSED THAT IN A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. YOU KNOW, PERHAPS WE SHOULD HAVE AMENDED THE CONSTITUTION TO MANDATE MARRIAGE. SO IS IT REALLY MARRIAGE THAT WE'RE PROTECTING HERE? I BELIEVE THAT MARRIAGE SHOULD BE PROTECTED. I BELIEVE THAT MARRIAGE IS ESSENTIAL. BUT I DON'T FOR THE LIFE OF ME UNDERSTAND HOW AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WITH RESPECT TO SAME-GENDER MARRIAGES REALLY GETS AT THE ROOT OF PROBLEM OF MARRIAGE IN AMERICA. IT'S LIKE MY LATE FATHER USED TO SAY, IT'S LIKE CLOGS THE BARN DOOR AFTER THE HORSE -- CLOSING THE BARN DOOR AFTER THE HORSE HAS LEFT. WE'VE SEEN ALL OF THESE SPEECHES AND THESE CHARTS ABOUT THE IMPACT ON MARRIAGE. WELL, WE'RE LIVING IN A SOCIETY WHERE PEOPLE HAVE ENGAGED IN DIVORCE AT A RAPID, ACCELERATED RATE. AND WE ALL KNOW THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS LED TO THE CONSEQUENCES WITH RESPECT TO THE ECONOMY, TO SOCIETY, TO PSYCHOLOGY AND EMOTION THAT SO OFTEN MARK A YOUNG CHILD'S PATH TO ADULTHOOD. SO WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE? WELL, SOME SAY THAT EVEN THOUGH MARRIAGE HAS BEEN UNDER PRESSURE -- WHICH, INDEED, IT HAS -- AND HAS SUFFERED BECAUSE OF CHANGING ATTITUDES TOWARD MARRIAGE NOW FOR QUITE SOME YEARS, THAT EVEN THOUGH MOST STATES ARE MOVING AS RAPIDLY AS POSSIBLE TO PROHIBIT SAME-GENDER MARRIAGES, THAT WE HAVE TO STEP IN WITH A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. YOU KNOW, THE STATES, WHICH HAVE ALWAYS DEFINED AND ENFORCED THE LAWS OF MARRIAGE, ARE TAKING ACTION. 38 STATES -- MAYBE IT'S UP TO 40 NOW -- ALREADY HAVE LAWS BANNING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. VOTERS IN AT LEAST EIGHT STATES ARE CONSIDERING AMENDMENTS TO THEIR CONSTITUTIONS RESERVING MARRIAGE TO UNIONS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. BUT THE SPONSORS ARGUE THAT WE HAVE TO ACT WITH A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BECAUSE THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THAT CONSTITUTION WILL EVENTUALLY FORCE STATES -- IF THERE ARE ANY LEFT -- FORCE STATES THAT DON'T WISH TO RECOGNIZE SAME-SEX MARRIAGES TODZ. WELL, THAT IS NOT THE WAY I READ THE CASE LAW. YOU KNOW, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE WAY I READ THE CASE LAW IS THAT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE HAS NEVER BEEN INTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT EVERY STATE MUST RECOGNIZE EVERY MARRIAGE PERFORMED IN EVERY OTHER STATE. YOU KNOW, WE HAD STATES THAT ALLOWED YOUNG PEOPLE TO MARRY WHEN THEY WERE 14. AND THEN STATES THAT ALLOWED YOUNG PEOPLE TO MARRY WHEN THEY WERE 16 OR THEY WERE 18. THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE DID NOT REQUIRE THAT ANY OTHER STATE RECOGNIZED THE VALIDITY -- STATE RECOGNIZE THE VALIDITY OF A MARRIAGE OF A PERSON BELOW THE AGE OF MARITAL CONSENT ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN LAWS. EVERY STATE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE A MARRIAGE PERFORMED IN ANOTHER STATE IF THAT MARRIAGE WOULD VIOLATE THE STATE'S PUBLIC POLICY.n AND INDEED THE SUPREME COURT HAS LONG HELD THAT NO STATE CAN BE FORCED TO RECOGNIZE ANY MARRIAGE. NOW, THAT'S WHAT THE CASE LAW HAS HELD, BUT JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WERE NO LOOPHOLES IN THAT CASE LAW, THE CONGRESS PASSED AND THE PRESIDENT SIGNED THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT, KNOWN AS DOMA. THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT HAS NOT EVEN BEEN CHALLENGED AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, AND BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT HAS HISTORICALLY HELD THAT STATES DO NOT HAVE TO RECOGNIZE LAWS OF OTHER STATES THAT OFFEND THEIR PUBLIC POLICY, IT'S ASSUMED THAT ANY CHALLENGE WOULD BE FUTILE. AND SO WHAT IS IT THAT WE ARE REALLY FOAK FOCUSED ON AND-- --FOCUSED ON AND CONCERNED ABOUT HERE? YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS -- AND THERE ARE OTHERS IN THIS BODY WHO ARE MORE ABLE TO DISCUSS THIS THAN I, BECAUSE IT AFFECTS THE LAWS OF THEIR STATES -- BUT AS SENATOR KENNEDY SAID, IN MASSACHUSETTS A COURT DECISION WILL BE CHALLENGED BY A REFERENDUM. IN CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO'S ACTION PERMITTING THE LICENSING OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGES WAS STOPPED BY THE CALIFORNIA STATE COURTS. THE DOMA LAW THAT WAS ENACTED ALREADY PROTECTS STATES FROM HAVING TO RECOGNIZE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LICENSES ISSUED IN OTHER STATES. AND SO I WORRY THAT DESPITE WHAT I DO BELIEVE IS THE SINCERE CONCERN ON THE PART OF MANY OF THE ADVOCATES OF THIS AMENDMENT THAT THEY HAVE RUSHED TO JUDGMENT WITHOUT ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION OF THE LAWS, THE CASE LAWS, THE ACTIONS OF THE STATE, AND THAT THEIR VERY EARNEST, IMPASSIONED ARGUMENTS ABOUT MARRIAGE HAVE CERTAINLY OVERLOOKED THE PROBLEMS THAT MARRIAGE HAS ENCOUNTERED IN ITS PRESENT, TRADITIONAL STATE WITHIN THE LAST SEVERAL DECADES IN OUR OWN COUNTRY. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE TIME OF THE SENATOR HAS EXPIRED. MRS. CLINTON: I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT FOR TWO MORE MINUTES. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED. MRS. CLINTON: SO,
00:15:41
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
MR. PRESIDENT, ALTHOUGH
00:15:43
MRS. CLINTON
WE ALL
00:15:46
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
KNOW THAT THIS AMENDMENT IS NOT LIKELY TO PASS AT THIS
00:15:50
Hillary Rodham Clinton
TIME, BECAUSE CONCERN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE SOLEMN RESPONSIBILITY THAT FALLS TO US WITH RESPECT TO AMENDING IT IS A BIPARTISAN CONCERN, AND THERE ARE MANY ON THE OTHER SIDE WHO WILL NOT TAMPER WITH THE CONSTITUTION TO DEAL WITH THE HEATED POLITICS OF THE MOMENT, YET WE ARE TAKING PRECIOUS TIME AWAY FROM OTHER MATTERS THAT I WORRY ABOUT, THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, MOST PROFOUNDLY THE CHALLENGES THAT WE CONFRONT FROM OUR ADVERSARIES IN AL-QAEDA AND ELSEWHERE THAT WE KNOW ARE PLOTTING AND PLANNING AGAINST US, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT ONCE WE HOLD THE VOTE TOMORROW AND THE STATES CONTINUE TO DO WHAT THE STATES ARE DOING, THAT WE WILL GET BACK TO THE BUSINESS OF BOTH PROTECTING AND SERVING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND SOLVING THE PROBLEMS THAT THEY CONFRONT EACH AND EVERY DAY AND MAYBE WE CAN COME TO SOME AGREEMENT THAT THE FOUNDERS HAD IT RIGHT AND THAT THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED ABOUT MARRIAGE WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF AS THEY TRADITIONALLY HAVE IN THE STATES, WHICH HAVE HELD THE RESPONSIBILITY SINCE BEFORE OUR FOUNDING AS A NATION. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I YIELD THE FLOOR. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM NEW YORK YIELDS THE FLOOR. THE SENATOR FROM COLORADO IS RECOGNIZED. MR. ALLARD: MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD 15 MINUTES TO THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA, THE CHAIRMAN
Hillary Clinton on Same-Sex Marriage
DAYS AND I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE MANY SINCERE POSITIONS BEING ADVOCATED ON THIS FLOOR ON REALLY ALL SIDES OF THIS ISSUE, BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY SIDES. THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT AND QUITE SOLEMN RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US. S.J. RES. 40, THIS JOINT RESOLUTION, PROPOSES AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES RELATING TO MARRIAGE. AND SO MAYBE EVEN MORE THAN THE USUAL DEBATE, THIS CALLS FOR EACH OF US TO BE ENGAGED AND TO BE ACCURATE, TO BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT THE POSITIONS THAT WE TAKE WITH RESPECT TO THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT. NOW, A NUMBER OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE COME TO THE FLOOR TO SPEAK ABOUT THE SOLEMN RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE HOLD IN OUR HANDS WITH RESPECT TO AMENDING OUR CONSTITUTION, AND I AM IN AGREEMENT THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS A LIVING AND WORKING, EXTRAORDINARY HUMAN ACCOMPLISHMENT THAT PROTECTS OUR CITIZENS, GRANTS US THE RIGHTS THAT MAKE US FREE. AND WE IN THIS BODY TOOK AN OATH, WE SWORE TO DEFEND AND PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. SO TO CONSIDER ALTERING THIS DOCUMENT, ONE OF THE GREATEST DOCUMENTS IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY, IS A RESPONSIBILITY NO MEMBER CAN OR SHOULD ENTER INTO LIGHTLY. FOR WHAT WE DO HERE WILL NOT ONLY AFFECT OUR FELLOW CITIZENS IN THE YEAR 2004 BUT WILL AFFECT EVERY GENERATION OF AMERICANS TO COME. AS HENRY CLAY ONCE OBSERVED, "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WAS MADE NOT MERELY FOR THE GENERATION THAT THEN EXISTED BUT FOR POSTERITY, UNLIMITED, UNDEFINED, ENDLESS, PERPETUAL POSTERITY." SO WE DO OWE AN OBLIGATION TO THOSE WE REPRESENT TODAY AND TO FUTURE GENERATIONS AS WE EMBARK UPON THIS VERY SOLEMN UNDERTAKING. WE SHOULD NOT AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO DECIDE ANY ISSUE THAT CAN AND WILL BE RESOLVED BY LESS DRASTIC MEANS. WE SHOULD NOT AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO FEDERALIZE AN ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN THE PROVINCE OF THE STATES SINCE OUR FOUND FOUNDING. IN FACT, AS SENATOR KENNEDY REMINDED US, EVEN BEFORE OUR FOUNDING AS A NATION. I BELIEVE THAT MARRIAGE IS NOT JUST A BOND BUT A SACRED BOND BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. I HAVE HAD OCCASION IN MY LIFE TO DEFEND MARRIAGE, TO STAND UP FOR MARRIAGE, TO BELIEVE IN THE HARD WORK AND CHALLENGE OF MARRIAGE. SO I TAKE UMBRAGE AT ANYONE WHO MIGHT SUGGEST THAT THOSE OF US WHO WORRY ABOUT AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION ARE LESS COMMITTED TO THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE OR TO THE FUNDAMENTAL BEDROCK PRINCIPLE THAT IT EXISTS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN GOING BACK INTO THE MYTHS OF HISTORY AS ONE OF THE FOUNDING -- FOUNDATIONAL INSTITUTIONS OF HISTORY AND HUMANITY AND CIVILIZATION AND THAT ITS PRIMARY, PRINCIPAL ROLE DURING THOSE MILLENNIA HAS BEEN THE RAISING AND SOCIALIZING OF CHILDREN FOR THE SOCIETY INTO WHICH THEY ARE TO BECOME ADULTS. NOW, IF WE WERE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT MARRIAGE AND THE FACT THAT SO MANY MARRIAGES TODAY END IN DIVORCE AND SO MANY CHILDREN ARE THEN PUT INTO THE INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT POSITION OF HAVING TO LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF DIVORCE, PERHAPS 20, 30 YEARS AGO, WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEBATING AN AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION TO MAKE DIVORCE REALLY, REALLY HARD. YOU KNOW, TO TAKE IT OUT OF THE STATES' HANDS AND TO SAY THAT WE WILL NOT LIBERALIZE DIVORCE, WE WILL NOT MOVE TOWARD NO-FAULT DIVORCE. WE WILL MAKE IT AS DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE WE FEAR THE CONSEQUENCES OF LIBERALIZING DIVORCE LAWS. NOW, IF ONE LOOKS AT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE NUMBERS OF DIVORCE, THE BREAKUP OF THE TRADITIONAL HE WILL FAMILY, YOU COULD MAKE AN ARGUMENT FOR -- THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY, YOU COULD MAKE AN ARGUMENT FOR THAT. IF WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT MARRIAGE, WHY WEREN'T WE CONCERNED ABOUT MARRIAGE WHEN MARRIAGE WAS UNDER PRESSURE OVER THE LAST DECADES BECAUSE OF CHANGING ROLES, BECAUSE OF CHANGING DECISIONS, BECAUSE OF THE LAWS IN THE STATES THAT WERE MAKING IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE, HUSBANDS AND WIVES, MOTHERS AND FATHERS, TO GETS DIVORCED -- TO GET DIVORCED. WELL, WE SEARCHED -- I DON'T SEE ANYONE IN THE HISTORY OF THE SENATE REPORT HOUSE WHO PUT FORWARD AN AMENDMENT TO TRY TO STOP THE INCREASING NUMBER OF DIVORCES IN ORDER TO STEM THE PROBLEMS AND THE DIFFICULTIES THAT CLEARLY HAVE BEEN VISITED UPON ADULTS CERTAINLY BUT PRINCIPALLY CHILDREN BECAUSE OF THE EASE OF DIVORCE IN THIS SOCIETY OVER THE LAST DECADES. WE DIDN'T DO THAT. I MEAN, WE COULD STAND ON THIS FLOOR FOR HOURS TALKING ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF MARRIAGE, THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ROLE OF MARRIAGE IN NOT ONLY BRINGING CHILDREN INTO THE WORLD BUT ENABLING THEM TO BE SUCCESSFUL CITIZENS IN THAT WORLD AND HOW MANY OF US HAVE STRUGGLED FOR YEARS TO DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF ILLEGITIMACY, OF OUT-OF-WEDLOCK BIRTHS, OF DIVORCE, OF THE KIND OF ANNO-ME AND DISASSOCIATION THAT TOO MANY CHILDREN EXPERIENCE BECAUSE OF THAT. SO I THINK THAT IF WE WERE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT MARRIAGE AND IF WE BELIEVED THAT IT HAD A ROLE IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, WE'VE BEEN MISSING IN ACTION. WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THIS FLOOR TRYING TO AMEND OUR CONSTITUTION, TAKE AWAY AT THE VERY FIRST BLUSH THE IDEA OF NO-FAULT DIVORCE, TRY TO GET IN THERE AND TELL THE STATES WHAT THEY SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T DO WITH RESPECT TO MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE, MAYBE TRY TO WRITE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION ABOUT CUSTODY MATTERS. YOU KNOW? MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE IT BE A PRESUMPTION IN OUR FEDERAL MARRIAGE LAW THAT JOINT CUSTODY IS THE RULE. MAYBE WE OUGHT TO JUST SUBSTITUTE OURSELVES FOR STATES, FOR JUDGES, FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE MAKING THESE DECISIONS EVERY SINGLE DAY THROUGHOUT OUR NATION. BUT WE DID NOT DO THAT, DID WE? CAN ANY OF US STAND HERE AND FEEL GOOD ABOUT ALL OF THE SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES, THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES? WE KNOW THAT DIVORCE LEADS TO A LOWERED STANDARD OF LIVING FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN. AND THEN, OF COURSE, IF WE WERE TO DEAL WITH SOME OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF OUT-OF-WEDLOCK BIRTHS, THE LACK OF MARRIAGE, WE COULD HAVE ADDRESSED THAT IN A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. YOU KNOW, PERHAPS WE SHOULD HAVE AMENDED THE CONSTITUTION TO MANDATE MARRIAGE. SO IS IT REALLY MARRIAGE THAT WE'RE PROTECTING HERE? I BELIEVE THAT MARRIAGE SHOULD BE PROTECTED. I BELIEVE THAT MARRIAGE IS ESSENTIAL. BUT I DON'T FOR THE LIFE OF ME UNDERSTAND HOW AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WITH RESPECT TO SAME-GENDER MARRIAGES REALLY GETS AT THE ROOT OF PROBLEM OF MARRIAGE IN AMERICA. IT'S LIKE MY LATE FATHER USED TO SAY, IT'S LIKE CLOGS THE BARN DOOR AFTER THE HORSE -- CLOSING THE BARN DOOR AFTER THE HORSE HAS LEFT. WE'VE SEEN ALL OF THESE SPEECHES AND THESE CHARTS ABOUT THE IMPACT ON MARRIAGE. WELL, WE'RE LIVING IN A SOCIETY WHERE PEOPLE HAVE ENGAGED IN DIVORCE AT A RAPID, ACCELERATED RATE. AND WE ALL KNOW THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS LED TO THE CONSEQUENCES WITH RESPECT TO THE ECONOMY, TO SOCIETY, TO PSYCHOLOGY AND EMOTION THAT SO OFTEN MARK A YOUNG CHILD'S PATH TO ADULTHOOD. SO WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE? WELL, SOME SAY THAT EVEN THOUGH MARRIAGE HAS BEEN UNDER PRESSURE -- WHICH, INDEED, IT HAS -- AND HAS SUFFERED BECAUSE OF CHANGING ATTITUDES TOWARD MARRIAGE NOW FOR QUITE SOME YEARS, THAT EVEN THOUGH MOST STATES ARE MOVING AS RAPIDLY AS POSSIBLE TO PROHIBIT SAME-GENDER MARRIAGES, THAT WE HAVE TO STEP IN WITH A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. YOU KNOW, THE STATES, WHICH HAVE ALWAYS DEFINED AND ENFORCED THE LAWS OF MARRIAGE, ARE TAKING ACTION. 38 STATES -- MAYBE IT'S UP TO 40 NOW -- ALREADY HAVE LAWS BANNING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. VOTERS IN AT LEAST EIGHT STATES ARE CONSIDERING AMENDMENTS TO THEIR CONSTITUTIONS RESERVING MARRIAGE TO UNIONS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. BUT THE SPONSORS ARGUE THAT WE HAVE TO ACT WITH A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BECAUSE THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THAT CONSTITUTION WILL EVENTUALLY FORCE STATES -- IF THERE ARE ANY LEFT -- FORCE STATES THAT DON'T WISH TO RECOGNIZE SAME-SEX MARRIAGES TODZ. WELL, THAT IS NOT THE WAY I READ THE CASE LAW. YOU KNOW, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE WAY I READ THE CASE LAW IS THAT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE HAS NEVER BEEN INTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT EVERY STATE MUST RECOGNIZE EVERY MARRIAGE PERFORMED IN EVERY OTHER STATE. YOU KNOW, WE HAD STATES THAT ALLOWED YOUNG PEOPLE TO MARRY WHEN THEY WERE 14. AND THEN STATES THAT ALLOWED YOUNG PEOPLE TO MARRY WHEN THEY WERE 16 OR THEY WERE 18. THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE DID NOT REQUIRE THAT ANY OTHER STATE RECOGNIZED THE VALIDITY -- STATE RECOGNIZE THE VALIDITY OF A MARRIAGE OF A PERSON BELOW THE AGE OF MARITAL CONSENT ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN LAWS. EVERY STATE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE A MARRIAGE PERFORMED IN ANOTHER STATE IF THAT MARRIAGE WOULD VIOLATE THE STATE'S PUBLIC POLICY.n AND INDEED THE SUPREME COURT HAS LONG HELD THAT NO STATE CAN BE FORCED TO RECOGNIZE ANY MARRIAGE. NOW, THAT'S WHAT THE CASE LAW HAS HELD, BUT JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WERE NO LOOPHOLES IN THAT CASE LAW, THE CONGRESS PASSED AND THE PRESIDENT SIGNED THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT, KNOWN AS DOMA. THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT HAS NOT EVEN BEEN CHALLENGED AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, AND BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT HAS HISTORICALLY HELD THAT STATES DO NOT HAVE TO RECOGNIZE LAWS OF OTHER STATES THAT OFFEND THEIR PUBLIC POLICY, IT'S ASSUMED THAT ANY CHALLENGE WOULD BE FUTILE. AND SO WHAT IS IT THAT WE ARE REALLY FOAK FOCUSED ON AND-- --FOCUSED ON AND CONCERNED ABOUT HERE? YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS -- AND THERE ARE OTHERS IN THIS BODY WHO ARE MORE ABLE TO DISCUSS THIS THAN I, BECAUSE IT AFFECTS THE LAWS OF THEIR STATES -- BUT AS SENATOR KENNEDY SAID, IN MASSACHUSETTS A COURT DECISION WILL BE CHALLENGED BY A REFERENDUM. IN CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO'S ACTION PERMITTING THE LICENSING OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGES WAS STOPPED BY THE CALIFORNIA STATE COURTS. THE DOMA LAW THAT WAS ENACTED ALREADY PROTECTS STATES FROM HAVING TO RECOGNIZE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LICENSES ISSUED IN OTHER STATES. AND SO I WORRY THAT DESPITE WHAT I DO BELIEVE IS THE SINCERE CONCERN ON THE PART OF MANY OF THE ADVOCATES OF THIS AMENDMENT THAT THEY HAVE RUSHED TO JUDGMENT WITHOUT ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION OF THE LAWS, THE CASE LAWS, THE ACTIONS OF THE STATE, AND THAT THEIR VERY EARNEST, IMPASSIONED ARGUMENTS ABOUT MARRIAGE HAVE CERTAINLY OVERLOOKED THE PROBLEMS THAT MARRIAGE HAS ENCOUNTERED IN ITS PRESENT, TRADITIONAL STATE WITHIN THE LAST SEVERAL DECADES IN OUR OWN COUNTRY. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE TIME OF THE SENATOR HAS EXPIRED. MRS. CLINTON: I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT FOR TWO MORE MINUTES. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED. MRS. CLINTON: SO,
00:15:41
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
MR. PRESIDENT, ALTHOUGH
00:15:43
MRS. CLINTON
WE ALL
00:15:46
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
KNOW THAT THIS AMENDMENT IS NOT LIKELY TO PASS AT THIS
00:15:50
Hillary Rodham Clinton
TIME, BECAUSE CONCERN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE SOLEMN RESPONSIBILITY THAT FALLS TO US WITH RESPECT TO AMENDING IT IS A BIPARTISAN CONCERN, AND THERE ARE MANY ON THE OTHER SIDE WHO WILL NOT TAMPER WITH THE CONSTITUTION TO DEAL WITH THE HEATED POLITICS OF THE MOMENT, YET WE ARE TAKING PRECIOUS TIME AWAY FROM OTHER MATTERS THAT I WORRY ABOUT, THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, MOST PROFOUNDLY THE CHALLENGES THAT WE CONFRONT FROM OUR ADVERSARIES IN AL-QAEDA AND ELSEWHERE THAT WE KNOW ARE PLOTTING AND PLANNING AGAINST US, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT ONCE WE HOLD THE VOTE TOMORROW AND THE STATES CONTINUE TO DO WHAT THE STATES ARE DOING, THAT WE WILL GET BACK TO THE BUSINESS OF BOTH PROTECTING AND SERVING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND SOLVING THE PROBLEMS THAT THEY CONFRONT EACH AND EVERY DAY AND MAYBE WE CAN COME TO SOME AGREEMENT THAT THE FOUNDERS HAD IT RIGHT AND THAT THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED ABOUT MARRIAGE WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF AS THEY TRADITIONALLY HAVE IN THE STATES, WHICH HAVE HELD THE RESPONSIBILITY SINCE BEFORE OUR FOUNDING AS A NATION. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I YIELD THE FLOOR. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM NEW YORK YIELDS THE FLOOR. THE SENATOR FROM COLORADO IS RECOGNIZED. MR. ALLARD: MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD 15 MINUTES TO THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA, THE CHAIRMAN
S ......... 
