FMA Vote Threatens Daschle's 100% Pro-Gay Rating

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) faces a difficult vote in the Senate when Republicans bring the Federal Marriage Amendment to the floor in the next two weeks. Sponsors of the bill say the constitutional amendment to preserve traditional marriage as the union of one man and one woman is necessary to counter activist judges who have allowed homosexual unions in Massachusetts.

Passage of the FMA is uncertain in the Senate, since it will require 67 votes. Daschle will have to decide whether to allow a floor vote or prevent it with a filibuster. The choice is fraught with peril since the South Dakota senator realizes whatever he does will impact either his chances of reelection or his position as Minority Leader.

Daschle received a 100% rating from the nation's leading gay rights group, the Human Rights Campaign, in recognition of his efforts during the 2001-2002 Senate session. Despite his 1996 vote in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, Daschle has championed causes supported by the homosexual lobby in his role as Democratic leader.

Cheryl Jacques, HRC president said, "The gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community and our allies will hold senators who vote for the FMA accountable with our votes in November."

The group is coming to the aid of its advocate, launching a multi-million dollar ad campaign to support candidates targeted by proponents of FMA. It mentions Daschle as a "high priority target" considering his vulnerability in a close race with Republican John Thune. But Jacques' statement also contained a threat should Daschle vote against the pro-gay agenda.

HRC's board of directors amended its political action committee criteria in October 2003 to support only those candidates who would vote to protect the U.S. Constitution from amendments that would discriminate against GLBT individuals or couples.

Gay marriage has sparked some controversy within the Daschle campaign itself. It was reported that campaign manager Steve Hildebrand was so angry at Rep. Stephanie Herseth's (D-SD) position in support of the FMA that he asked that his contribution to her campaign be returned.

In an article in Tuesday's The Hill, Daschle campaign spokesman Dan Pfeiffer was quoted as saying, "We've heard from almost no one."

It was reported that Daschle spokeswoman Sarah Feinberg indicated the Washington office had not fielded calls about the FMA.

Neither office is communicating with the press on the issue as Talon News calls for comment from both Pfeiffer and Feinberg went unanswered on Tuesday.

Amendments to the Constitution require approval by two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures.

Planned Parenthood's response to the FMA.....

Stop the Marriage Amendment

Dear xxxxxxx xxxxxx,

The U.S. Senate is expected to vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) as early Monday, July 12. To show our deep opposition to the FMA, we are calling on all of our activists to take action now and to participate in our new Flags Across America campaign.

While this constitutional amendment purports to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, it is really much more. The FMA is an effort to undermine the right to privacy in our nation's most sacred document, the Constitution.

Please join our campaign to stop this amendment by downloading a rainbow flag from our Web site and posting it in your window, on your car, in your office, or wherever you think it appropriate to show your opposition to the FMA and your solidarity with those who would ask the government to respect every American's right to privacy.

Click here to download a flag.

Then use the letter below to urge your Senators to "vote no on cloture for the Federal Marriage Amendment."

At Planned Parenthood, we trust individuals to make responsible choices about their lives and their relationships. We strongly oppose efforts to limit the privacy interests of same-gender couples or to limit their civil rights, including the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Thanks as always for your help, and please forward this email to your friends and colleagues.

Below is the sample letter to send to the following decision maker(s):
Targeted Senators

Subject: No on the Federal Marriage Amendment

Dear [decision maker name automatically inserted here],

I strongly oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA).

While this constitutional amendment purports to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, it is really much more. The FMA is an effort to undermine the right to privacy in our nation's most sacred document.

In Griswold v. Connecticut, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a state law that criminalized the use of birth control by married couples. The court's decision in this case became the basis for later decisions recognizing privacy rights, including Roe v. Wade, in which the court recognized the right of a woman to make certain fundamental decisions affecting her destiny, including whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. Roe reaffirmed that the Constitution protects individual's decisions about marriage, having and raising children, and basic family relationships and underscores an individual's right to freedom from government interference in the most personal, private decisions. That same right to privacy is the basis of many of the most important legal decisions guaranteeing the civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans.

I trust individuals to make responsible choices about their lives and their relationships. I strongly oppose efforts to limit the privacy interests of same-gender couples or to limit their civil rights, including the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Please vote no on cloture.

Sincerely,

xxxxxxx xxxxxx

What's At Stake:

In 1973, Roe v. Wade constitutionally guaranteed that the right to privacy "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." That same right to privacy is the basis of many of the most important legal decisions guaranteeing the civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans.

In Griswold v. Connecticut, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a state law that criminalized the use of birth control by married couples. The court’s decision in this case became the basis for later decisions recognizing privacy rights, including Eisenstadt v. Baird, in which the court invalidated a law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried couples, and Roe v. Wade, in which the court recognized the right of a woman to make certain fundamental decisions affecting her destiny, including the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed these constitutional protections most recently in Lawrence v. Texas, striking down the Texas law making it a crime for individuals of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual contact. In reaching its decision in Lawrence, the court relied on Griswold, Eisenstadt, and Roe itself in reaffirming that the Constitution protects individual’s decisions about marriage, having and raising children, and basic family relationships.

These cases form a seamless web that underscores an individual’s right to freedom from government interference - be they gay or straight - in the most personal, private decisions. We oppose efforts to unravel these protections or to weaken the Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection of the law.

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.