Posted on 02/25/2004 9:02:37 PM PST by neverdem
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 — Despite President Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, some Congressional Republicans are cool to the idea and say they want to move more deliberately than the White House.
The amendment proposal does enjoy broad support among many Republicans in the House and Senate. But the wariness among others is complicating the already difficult task of moving a constitutional change through the House and Senate. The last successful amendment initiated in modern times by Congress was in 1971, when the voting age was lowered.
Republican lawmakers would have to provide the bulk of the votes to approve any amendment outlawing gay marriages. While they say they want to protect traditional matrimony, many are not yet convinced that an amendment is necessary.
"I am going to listen to all the analyses of why the statute we have on the books will not hold up," said Senator George Allen of Virginia, a member of the Republican leadership, referring to the Defense of Marriage Act. The law, passed in 1996, relieves states of any obligation to recognize gay marriages performed in a state where they are legal.
Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, said he and others were also interested in how the Defense of Marriage Act and state prohibitions on gay marriage played out in the courts.
"I think it is probably going to be a slow process, a deliberate process until there is more of an indication of what direction the courts are going in," said Mr. King, who said he would vote for such an amendment if necessary. "You don't want to vote for a constitutional amendment unless you really have to."
House Republican leaders were carefully plotting strategy on the amendment, hoping to avoid missteps that could lead to an embarrassing defeat if the proposal, which requires a two-thirds majority for approval, were to reach the floor. Lawmakers and aides said the political risk for Republicans in swing and moderate districts was less a consideration than making certain the amendment could prevail.
They said there was no need to rush into what is an extended process and that they needed to reach a consensus among their members and count potential Democratic votes.
"Why take the chance when you can use the time to shore up as many Republicans as you can," said Stuart Roy, a spokesman for House majority leader, Tom DeLay of Texas. "There is no particular reason for haste."
At the same time, many Republicans say they have already concluded that embedding the ban into the Constitution is the only way to keep marriage exclusively between men and women, given recent court rulings and actions by local officials.
"I'm not a fan of going that route," said Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, who has opposed past amendment proposals. "But I think this is preferable to having a couple of judges in one state determining what every other state's policy ought to be."
Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, a main Senate advocate of the amendment, expressed a similar view.
"We cannot simply sit idly by, in my opinion, and let activist judges radically redefine the institution of marriage when it stands in stark relief and defiance of the will of the American people," he said.
Senate Republicans, who will have a hearing on the marriage issue next week, appear more eager to move than the House. Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the No. 3, Senate Republican, has suggested that the amendment could reach the floor in the next few months, though others doubt that timetable.
Constitutional amendments on a wide range of issues are a Congressional staple but almost never advance. Since World War II, Congress has voted in favor of only seven amendments, five of which were eventually ratified by the states. The last addition to the Constitution was the 27th amendment, dealing with Congressional pay, which was ratified in May 1992, two centuries after being approved by Congress in 1789.
Since winning control of the House in 1994, Republicans have pushed a variety of pet constitutional amendments, from a balanced budget to a prohibition against burning the flag. None have cleared both chambers.
"I have always had grave reservations about amending the Constitution," said Representative Jerry Lewis, Republican of California. "We have done so very few times and I think for the right reasons. The founding fathers make it very tough."
Yet amendments that do emerge from Congress stand a strong chance of being ratified. John R. Vile, a political scientist at Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro, said that of more than 10,000 amendments that had been introduced in Congress, just 33 had won the required majorities. But 27 of those were ratified.
"That indicates that, by and large, the hard part is getting the majority in Congress in the first place," said Mr. Vile, who has compiled an encyclopedia on amendments.
I checked, and there really is a Republican in New York, by that name.
I checked, and there really is a Republican in New York, by that name.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were 3 pubbies in New York with the same common name. The problem is that there are probably 5 rats with that same common name.
It's also probable that there are some democrats who are cool to legalizing gay marriage, but somehow I doubt the NYT will go out of their way to find them.
I like to think of myself as way cool. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.