Last week, the House of Representatives took up a heated debate on the topic of marriage. Despite the charts, the studies, and the eloquent debates, there was really a quite simple question at hand: Is traditional marriage, a concept now and historically defined as the union of one man and one woman, worth protecting?

The vast majority of Americans believe it is. If you don’t believe me, look at the numbers. Of the 2,300 of my constituents that have written, emailed, or called me regarding amending the Constitution to protect traditional marriage, over 95% support the concept. Furthermore, 44 out of 50 states have enacted laws which provide that marriage shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. 72% of Americans report that they oppose same-sex marriage. And yet, it could only take a few judges to change the definition of traditional marriage for 290 million Americans.

As I debated this bill on the floor of the House of Representatives, I thought back to the time when the foundation was being laid for the Capitol. Can you imagine if we had asked one of the workers for the definition of marriage? Can you imagine further the response they would have had if they were told there would come a day when there would be a debate in the building they were creating to determine if a state could define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman?

Already, over the past ten years, traditional marriage laws have been challenged in courts in over 15 states. In response to these attacks, Congress has enacted legislation to protect traditional marriage through the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Yet now, even this act is under attack. Specifically, in Nebraska, where more than 70% of voters amended the Nebraska Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, the ACLU has sued to overturn DOMA. 

Leading legal scholars from both sides of the political spectrum agree that whether DOMA is constitutional or not, courts will inevitably strike it down. Judge Robert Bork stated in testimony before the House Constitution Subcommittee, “I think DOMA is absolutely a dead letter constitutionally, not because it would be under the original Constitution but because it is under the way this [Supreme] Court is behaving ... I do not see any prospect of sustaining it.” 

It now seems clear that the only way of protecting the right to maintain this nation’s traditional concept of marriage between a man and a woman will be to amend the Constitution. There are those that say protecting marriage is not worth amending the Constitution. I respect their opinions, but disagree. Our notion of marriage between a man and a woman has been the cornerstone of strength of our country and while it may be under attack from all sides, I believe it is worth protecting even if that requires amending our Constitution. In the final analysis, the Constitution as the framers envisioned it will be amended regarding the definition of marriage. The only issue is whether that amendment will be done by a single federal judge or by the elected representatives of the American people.