WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Sam Brownback today spoke from the Senate floor in support of the federal marriage amendment and defended the need to protect the future of traditional marriage and American families. Brownback is a cosponsor of the amendment and has long championed issues which protect and elevate marriage and children. Below are select excerpts from his comments:

If the movement for civil unions and same-sex marriage succeeds, we may well be dealing a fatal blow to an already-vulnerable institution. It is possible to lose the institution of marriage in America. And that is precisely the hidden agenda of many in this cultural battle: To do away with the traditional definition of the family entirely.

Once the process of ‘defining marriage down’ begins, it is but a short step to the dissolution of marriage as a vital institution altogether. I thing it is incumbent on this Senate to protect the institution of marriage from attempts to redefine it out of existence, and to vote for this constitutional amendment.

I have no doubt that it is imperative that we act now, by means of a constitutional amendment, to protect marriage. This action has been made necessary not by election year politics, but by the reckless actions of a judiciary bent on radical social experimentation.

Let there be no mistake: The stakes in this battle over the future of our culture are enormous. On our reaction to this threat hinges not only the future of marriage, but our future as a self-governing people. This is not a battle over civil rights; it is a battle over whether marriage will be emptied of its meaning in contradiction to the will of the people and their duly elected representatives. When activist judges show no regard for legal intent or precedent, using their positions to achieve policy goals, they must be resolutely opposed - and impeached when necessary at both the federal and state level. In fundamentally altering the definition of marriage and changing duly approved marriage laws, these judges show contempt for the democratic process itself.

The choice is clear: Either we amend the Constitution and protect the rights of the people to self-determination in this process, or the Constitution will be amended, in effect, by the edict of judges. The time has come to act. If we continue to let activist judges and social radicals determine the fate of marriage, the battle may be lost.

A vitally important part of this debate is to study the social science data regarding what happens when sexuality and children are taken outside of the context of marriage, and what happens when marriage declines as an institution as a result of a culture in which divorce, out-of-wedlock births, cohabitation, and single parenthood have become a social norm. One of the central questions before our society right now is whether this course is desirable and, if not, what can be done to avert it.

Particularly important is what the social science evidence has to tell us about how children have been affected by the weakening of the institution of marriage over the last 40 years. It is incumbent on those of us who deal with public policy issues to investigate this trend and its consequences for society.

A very wise man, the late Democratic senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once wrote that “the central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. Senator Moynihan also wrote that “the principle objective of American government at every level should be to see that children are born into intact families and that they remain so.”

Marriage is at the center of the family, and the family is the basis of society itself. The government’s interest in the marriage bond—and the reason it treats heterosexual unions in a manner unlike all other relationships—is closely related to the welfare of children.

Government registers and endorses marriage between a man and a woman in order to insure a stable environment for the raising and nurturing of children. Social science on this matter is conclusive: Children need both a mom and a dad.

Good children are raised in non-traditional settings. Many healthy children are raised in difficult circumstances and many single parents struggle heroically to raise good children. Still, the social science is clear. The best place for a child is with a mom and a dad. Both are needed, and both must be encouraged.

Study after study shows that children do best in a home with a married, biological mother and father. And the government has a special responsibility to safeguard the needs of children; the social costs of not doing so are tremendous.

This is a crisis for both our children and our country—the fact that so many children are growing up without fathers. It has been exacerbated by the decline of the institution of marriage: