Posted on 07/13/2004 10:08:31 PM PDT by hattend
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
WASHINGTON - Short on votes and beset by internal divisions, Senate Republicans struggled Tuesday to salvage a respectable defeat for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, an issue that President Bush (news - web sites) pushed toward the top of the election-year agenda.
"This issue is not going away," Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said in a virtual concession that the measure would fall short of the 60 votes needed to advance past a Wednesday test vote. "Will it be back? Absolutely, yes," he added.
Democrats, many of whom oppose the measure, took delight in the internal Republican woes, and Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois read aloud from a recent statement on the issue by Lynne Cheney, wife of the vice president. "When it comes to conferring legal status on relationships, that is a matter that should be left to the states," he quoted her as saying.
The emotionally charged proposal, backed by the president and many conservatives, provides that marriage within the United States "shall consist only of a man and a woman."
A second sentence says that neither the federal nor any state constitution "shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman." Some critics argue that the effect of that provision would be to ban civil unions, and its inclusion in the amendment has complicated efforts by GOP leaders to gain support from wavering Republicans.
While there was no disagreement that the measure would fall short of the 60 votes needed to advance, Republicans held out hope they could gain a majority. Even that seemed in doubt, although their chances improved when an aide to Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) said he and vice presidential running mate John Edwards (news - web sites) did not intend to return to the Capitol for what amounted to a procedural vote. Both men oppose the amendment.
The Senate moved toward a showdown as House Republicans pursued a different plan — seeking to pass legislation rather than an amendment.
The House Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) scheduled a meeting for Wednesday on a measure to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over a portion of a 1996 federal law that defined marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
Bush urged the Republican-controlled Congress last February to approve a constitutional amendment, saying it was needed to stop judges from changing the definition of the "most enduring human institution."
The odds have never favored passage in the current Congress, in part because many conservatives are hesitant to overrule state prerogatives in the area of issues such as marriage.
But some Republican strategists contend the issue could present a difficult political choice to Democrats, who could be pulled in one direction by polls showing that a majority of voters oppose gay marriage, and pulled in the other by homosexual voters and social liberals who support it. At the same time an Associated Press-Ipsos poll taken in March showed about four in 10 support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, but half oppose it.
"They want to put senators on the spot. Ads will be running. Trust me," said Durbin, who added that the Republicans were trying to "change the subject" of the election away from the war in Iraq (news - web sites) and the economy.
One commercial already was running on radio in South Dakota, where former Rep. John Thune, who supports the amendment, is challenging Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle.
"The institution of marriage is under fire from extremist groups in Washington, politicians, even judges who have made it clear that they are willing to run over any state law defining marriage. They have done it in Massachusetts and they can do it here," Thune says in the commercial. Daschle has said he will oppose the amendment.
"Thune's ad suggests that some are using this amendment more to protect the Republican majority than to protect marriage," countered Dan Pfeiffer, a spokesman for Daschle's campaign.
In a string of speeches during the day, Republicans said their motivation was the defense of marriage, the well-being of children and a desire to prevent unelected judges from amending the constitution from the bench.
"There is a master plan out there from those who want to destroy the institution of marriage to, first of all, begin to take this issue in a few select courts throughout this country at the state level," said Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo. Pointing to rulings in Vermont and Massachusetts, he said that "once they get their favorable rulings from activist judges ... they want to take it to the federal courts and they'll eventually move it to the Supreme Court."
In a strongly worded speech, Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said some criticism runs along these lines: "Marriage is hate. Marriage is a stain. Marriage is an evil thing. That's what we hear. People who stand for traditional marriage are haters, they're bashers, they're mean-spirited, they're intolerant. ... Well, we're not," he added.
Several Republican senators have argued in private meetings in recent days that their leaders are making a political mistake by trying to force the amendment to a vote. One lawmaker said there were fresh expressions of concern at a weekly closed-door meeting during the day.
Under the Constitution, it takes a two-thirds vote by both houses of Congress to submit an amendment to the states. Approval by three-fourths of the state legislatures is required to complete ratification.
Just remember that Bill Frist is not our friend, as most of the GOP is not. He's already trying to force people to buy insurance, force!
I can't stand the liberal lapdog media.
Force people to buy insurance? How?
I expected they would run for the tall grass. Principled people in Washington are few and between.
It's not Frists's fault. In part it is the consequence of the 17th amendment. The state legislatures are no longer represented in Washington DC. State governments are just one of many interest groups that congressmen and senators rely on for support in their election campaigns. The states legislatures not being represented in Washington DC must now take the inititive and pass resolutions calling for a constitutional convention.
I am interested in the House's attempts to use what is, I think, Article 3 Section 2 of the Constitution to try and remove marriage concerns from the federal courts' jurisdiction.
I wonder though, if something like this were to pass, would federal courts ultimately have the power to decide if the Congress has the power to strip them of jurisdiction over marriage. I can't see this erroneusly labeled 'conservative' Supreme Court going along with that, so bizarrely the Courts may tell the Congress that they don't have the autority to remove things from their purview.
This can't be what the Founders had in mind; that the Sup Court could have so much power over this country.
It's a typical socialist, democrat tactic, Sen Santorum.
We need to form a 527 and go after every politician who voted no on saving children from the stigma of growing up without a Real Dad or Mom.
Well I don't like that either. But I'll take his support on the marriage amendment.
We need to elect libertarian-leaning (not too much) CONSERVATIVES. Not moderates.
and it is Frists fault. HE proposed it, nobody made him.
It's not. I strongly recomend David Barton's Original Intent for a complete exposition on the subject.
Santorum is a conservative. He was mocking the left.
Or describing them to a "T"
Queers have no business raising children. It's child abuse, pure and simple.
What they do in their own bedrooms, well I don't care because I don't want to spend my tax money to warehouse them in state or federal prison cells.
I agree. Can you imagine what a disaster that would be? We would end up with a Soviet-style constitution that grants as "rights" all sorts of welfare programs and that would deny the freedom of speech, religion, RKBA, property rights, etc. The hard left would take over any Constitutional Convention because they have convictions, the mainstream left would go along to force in their pet issues, and half of the Republicans would meekly give up, I'm afraid.
yup. The GOP is just a sad waste of oxygen at this point.
Time to check who you want to have in the congress....
Ping
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.