Politics & Power Quote by Judy Biggert

Biggert’s line is lawyerly on its face, but politically pointed underneath: it frames marriage regulation as settled, low-drama housekeeping best left to statutes and states, not the Constitution. The argument isn’t just “we’ve done fine without amendments.” It’s a deliberate narrowing move, trying to demote whatever marriage controversy is in the air to the category of ordinary governance rather than a rights question.

The subtext is an appeal to precedent as a substitute for principle. By citing polygamy, bigamy, and child marriage, Biggert reaches for examples with broad moral consensus, then smuggles in an analogy: if those were handled without constitutional surgery, why elevate today’s dispute to the level of constitutional change? It’s a rhetorical shortcut that relies on the audience feeling that “marriage issues” are basically administrative, not constitutional, and that calls for an amendment are performative overreach.

Context matters because the quote lands in an era when marriage was a proxy battlefield for cultural identity and federal power. Invoking Congress’s historical restraint signals institutional modesty while also implying that prior limits on marriage did not require explicit constitutional authorization. That’s a subtle defense of legislative latitude: government has long policed the boundaries of marriage through ordinary law, so it can keep doing so.

It works because it weaponizes procedural history. The effect is to shift the debate from “Who gets equal recognition?” to “Why are we rewriting the rulebook?” In American politics, that pivot often decides the emotional tone of the room.