Posted on 09/24/2004 8:54:15 PM PDT by freedom44
WASHINGTON —Gay rights groups expect that a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage will come up for a vote in the U.S. House on Sept. 30, leaving lawmakers time to stake a position before November elections.
The move could finally put an end to more than a year of back-and-forth from House committee rooms to chambers regarding the contentious amendment’s future, marked by sharp protests, cancelled hearings, cancelled votes, bizarre alliances and a campaign outing Congressional staffers.
But if defeated, the amendment would certainly make an appearance in the campaign platforms of many conservatives and most likely on the House floor again next year. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave introduced H.J. Resolution 56, also known as the Federal Marriage Amendment, in May 2003.
Despite heated rhetoric on both sides of the issue, though, legislative experts predict a photo finish for the FMA.
“This is nothing but a political effort to draw attention away from Congress’s failure to do something about the economy, the hemorrhaging of jobs, rising health care costs and national security,” Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said during a phone conference with journalists.
“This isn’t just about winning the vote in the House; it’s about winning by a margin that sends the message that playing politics with peoples’ lives is wrong,” she added.
The Family Research Council, the conservative group leading the charge behind the marriage amendment, held a mass simulcast Sept. 19 to thousands of its members, featuring Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson and several evangelical leaders.
Entitled “Battle for Marriage III,” during the multimedia event broadcast from the First Baptist Church in Springdale, Ark., Dobson told the audience that the legalization of same-sex marriage would not only “seriously threaten religious freedom,” but also force schools to teach homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle.
FRC President Tony Perkins spoke against “the tyrannical judiciary, which is largely responsible for the push to redefine marriage,” and called on Congress to pass the FMA — what the FRC has labeled the “Marriage Protection Amendment.”
“If Congress fails to act, there is no doubt that in time an activist judge will impose same-sex marriage on every state in the nation,” Perkins said.
Details on a possible vote surfaced through HRC, which established a satellite office on Capitol Hill to lobby lawmakers against the amendment. Musgrave’s office would not comment on the measure.
During its path through offices on both sides of the Hill, legislators tinkered with Musgrave’s amendment. At one point, they even supported deleting the phrase, “nor state or federal law” from its second sentence to allow states to enact something short of marriage, and thus make the amendment more palatable for moderates.
The Senate voted 50 to 48 against bringing the amendment to a direct vote in July, and ended its chances of passing this year.
Members of Congress up for re-election simply want their same-sex marriage stances on the record to appeal to their constituencies, according to Barbara Menard, the HRC’s deputy political director.
“It’s very clear that this vote is all about election-year politics. Musgrave is trying to win her race with the politics of distraction and discrimination,” Menard said.
Musgrave’s amendment languished in Congress for months, but eventually, the bill, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, won broad support — and repeated backing from President Bush — after the February flurry of same-sex unions in San Francisco spotlighted same-sex marriage. The Senate failed to advance the measure in July, but the House bill now has 129 co-sponsors.
Elected in 2002, Musgrave proved herself a gutsy first-term lawmaker, and many say the former Colorado state senator used the marriage amendment to gain national attention and to win re-election in Colorado’s Fourth District.
On the eve of the Republican National Convention, Newsweek selected her as one of seven Republican stars, alongside Senate candidate Mel Martinez of Florida and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Musgrave has gained a comfortable lead over Democratic challenger Stan Matsunaka, a former Colorado Senate President who opposes Musgrave’s amendment, calling it a “monumental waste of time.”
Musgrave and others herald the amendment as emblematic of the American people’s ideology.
“I am proud to serve as a voice for the traditional Western values lived out daily by Coloradans,” Musgrave said in a statement. “When it comes to issues of less taxes, traditional marriage and national defense, I am working to ensure there is no compromise in the nation’s capitol.”
The black robe judicial activists are at it again.
She's French. Go figure!
If this ever did come up for a vote in the Senate you can bet someone is going to attach a killer amendment to it. My guess would be another 'assault' weapon ban.
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.