Editors’
note:
Of
all
the
senators
to
take
part
in
the
debate
this
month
over
the
Federal
Marriage
Amendment,
only
Sen.
Edward
Kennedy
(D-Mass.),
defended
the
Massachusetts
court
decision
on
same-sex
marriage
and
the
dignity
of
gay
couples.
An
excerpt
from
his
speech
on
the
Senate
floor
follows:
THIS
DEBATE
IS
about
politics
—
an
attempt
to
drive
a
wedge
between
one
group
of
citizens
and
the
rest
of
the
country
solely
for
partisan
advantage.
We
have
rejected
that
tactic
before,
and
we
should
reject
it
again.
In
the
Goodridge
case,
the
Massachusetts
Supreme
Judicial
Court
was
interpreting
the
Massachusetts
Constitution,
not
the
U.S.
Constitution.
As
a
rule,
the
federal
government
has
no
authority
to
tell
states
how
to
interpret
their
own
laws
and
constitutions.
The
federal
marriage
constitutional
amendment
would
change
this
fundamental
principle
of
state
sovereignty
by
imposing
a
rule
of
interpretation
on
state
courts.
I
am
certainly
glad
it
was
not
done
at
other
times
of
American
history.
The
Massachusetts
Constitution
was
written
by
John
Adams
in
1780.
He
wrote
it
virtually
himself,
much
of
it
copied
by
the
Constitutional
Convention
in
1787.
In
1783,
the
issue
of
slavery
came
before
the
Massachusetts
Supreme
Court,
and
Massachusetts
has
the
only
constitution
of
all
50
States
that
has
been
interpreted
as
barring
slavery.
We
were
the
first
state
of
all
the
states
to
ban
slavery,
the
only
state
that
banned
it
in
the
constitution
itself
—Massachusetts,
under
John
Adams,
the
only
state,
in
1783.
And
we
had
slaves
in
my
state
for
150
years
before
it.
So
it
is
nice
to
hear
our
colleagues
talk
about
Massachusetts
and
about
our
court
and
our
judges
there.
I
remind
our
colleagues,
of
the
seven
Massachusetts
judges
who
voted,
six
were
and
are
Republicans.
Only
one
is
a
Democrat.
Six
are
Republicans.
I
happen
to
be
someone
who
supports
the
court
decision
in
Massachusetts.
I
am
proud
of
them.
MAKE
NO
MISTAKE,
a
vote
for
the
federal
marriage
constitutional
amendment
is
a
vote
against
civil
unions,
domestic
partnerships
and
other
efforts
by
states
to
treat
gays
and
lesbians
fairly
under
the
law.
It
is
a
vote
against
allowing
states
to
decide
these
issues
for
themselves.
It
is
a
vote
for
imposing
discrimination,
plain
and
simple,
on
all
50
states.
Supporters
of
the
proposed
amendment
claim
that
religious
freedom
is
somehow
under
attack
by
states
that
grant
the
same
rights
and
the
same
benefits
to
same-sex
couples
that
married
couples
now
have.
…
The
true
threat
to
religious
freedom
is
posed
by
the
Federal
Marriage
Amendment
itself,
which
would
tell
churches
they
cannot
consecrate
a
same-sex
marriage,
even
though
some
churches
are
now
doing
so.
The
amendment
would
flagrantly
interfere
with
the
decisions
of
religious
communities
and
undermine
the
longstanding
separation
of
church
and
state
in
our
society.
The
FMA
would
give
the
federal
government
express
authority
to
bar
religious
groups
from
sanctioning
same-sex
marriage
—
and
the
authority
to
punish
those
that
do.
…
TOO
OFTEN
THE
debate
over
the
definition
of
marriage
and
its
legal
incidence
have
ignored
the
very
personal
and
loving
family
relationships
that
would
be
prohibited
by
a
constitutional
amendment.
More
and
more
children
across
the
country
today
have
same-sex
parents.
What
does
it
do
to
these
children
and
their
well-being
when
the
president
of
the
United
States
and
the
Senate
Republican
leadership
say
their
parents
are
second-class
citizens?
The
decision
by
the
Massachusetts
court
addressed
the
many
rights
available
to
married
couples
under
the
state
law,
including
the
right
to
be
treated
fairly
by
the
state’s
tax
laws,
to
share
insurance
coverage,
to
visit
loved
ones
in
the
hospitals,
to
receive
health
benefits,
family
leave
benefits,
and
survivor
benefits.
In
fact,
there
are
now
more
than
a
thousand
federal
rights
and
benefits
based
on
marriage.
Gay
couples
and
their
children
deserve
to
share
in
all
of
these
rights
and
benefits,
too.
Supporters
of
the
amendment
have
tried
to
shift
the
debate
away
from
equal
rights
by
claiming
their
only
concern
is
the
definition
of
marriage,
but
many
supporters
of
the
amendment
are
against
civil
union
laws
as
well
and
against
any
other
rights
for
gays
or
lesbians.
We
have
far
better
things
to
do
in
the
Senate
than
write
bigotry
and
prejudice
into
the
Constitution.
