Senate Scuttles Gay Marriage Amendment (Two no-shows. Care to guess?)

AP/ Yahoo ^ | 7/14/04 | David Espo

[11th Earl of Mar]

WASHINGTON - The Senate dealt an election-year defeat Wednesday to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, rejecting pleas from President Bush (news - web sites) and fellow conservatives that the measure was needed to safeguard an institution that has flourished for thousands of years.

The vote was 48-50, 12 short of the 60 needed to keep the measure alive.

"I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance," said Sen. Rick Santorum, a leader in the fight to approve the measure. "Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?"

But Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle said there was no "urgent need" to amend the Constitution. "Marriage is a sacred union between men and women. That is what the vast majority of Americans believe. It's what virtually all South Dakotans believe. It's what I believe."

"In South Dakota, we've never had a single same sex marriage and we won't have any," he said. "It's prohibited by South Dakota law as it is now in 38 other states. There is no confusion. There is no ambiguity."

Supporters conceded in advance they would fail to win the support needed to advance the measure, and vowed to renew their efforts.

"I don't think it's going away after this vote," Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Tuesday on the eve of the test vote. "I think the issue will remain alive," he added.

Whatever its future in Congress, there also were signs that supporters of the amendment intended to use it in the campaign already unfolding.

"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," Republican senatorial candidate John Thune says in a radio commercial airing in South Dakota. "They have done it in Massachusetts and they can do it here," adds Thune, who is challenging Daschle for his seat.

"Thune's ad suggests that some are using this amendment more to protect the Republican majority than to protect marriage," said Dan Pfeiffer, a spokesman for Daschle's campaign.

At issue was an amendment providing that marriage within the United States "shall consist only of a man and a woman."

A second sentence said 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 complicated efforts by GOP leaders to gain support from wavering Republicans.

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."

Bush's fall rival, Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) of Massachusetts, opposes the amendment, as does his vice presidential running mate, Sen. John Edwards (news - web sites) of North Carolina. Both men skipped the vote.

The odds have never favored passage in the current Congress, in part because many Democrats oppose it, but also because numerous conservatives are hesitant to overrule state prerogatives on the issue.

At the same time, 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. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll taken in March showed about four in 10 support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and half oppose it.

Democrats said that Bush and Republicans were using the issue to distract attention from the war in Iraq (news - web sites) and the economy.

"The issue is not ripe. It is not needed. It's a waste of our time. We should be dealing with other issues," said Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut.

But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court had thrust the matter upon the Senate. The ruling opened the way for same sex marriages in the state, and Frist predicted the impact would eventually be far broader.

"Same-sex marriage will be exported to all 50 states. The question is no longer whether the Constitution will be amended. The only question is who will amend it and how will it be amended," he added.

He said the choice was "activist judges" on the one hand and lawmakers on the other.

[goldstategop]

People haven't seen the Left's in your face tactics yet. These people in the gay lobby won't be content with leaving things alone. As I've said before, they will overreach and it will be back on the floor of Congress.

[RottiBiz]

Collins, Snowe, McCain and Hagel were the Republicans that voted against.

[oceanview]

well sure, if the issue is framed only in the context of what adults do in private - then the balance shifts.

but as we all know, that is not the true agenda here for the gay activists. they don't just want tolerance, they want acceptance. and those are two totally different things. acceptance will turn the public schools into recruitment zones for homosexuality. confront your relatives with that reality.

[longtermmemmory]

You are very correct.

We need more "R" in office to make the Snows and Specters very disposable.

With a filibuster proof majority, the RINO's have less power. (they may even jump ship ala jeffords)

[goldstategop]

My friend, did the civil rights movement give up in the face of bad tidings? No, they regrouped to fight on. The marriage movement in this country is just getting started. And if the anti-family folks continue to assault the institution of marriage in this country, they will awaken a sleeping giant.

[rhombus]

how are you going to keep it out of the public schools? once gay marriage is as legal as the marriages we have today, how are you going to stop gay activitists and the courts from forcing public schools to adopt this as part of the curriculum? can you imagine taking young children, who have not formed their own sense of reality on this topic due to their age and maturity level - from being taught that Eddie marrying Bobby is the same as Eddie marrying Susie?

How does one keep anything out of the public schools? Pick any issue... Drug abuse, project DARE. Overeating, purging and dieting programs. Media bias, NY Times case studies. Racism, diversity programs. Local action, local control. States should provide competency testing for reading, writing and arithmetic so schools don't have time for nonsense. The problem is activist judges and the Constitution, gay marriage is just the latest issue.

[mudblood]

"Good. This is one of the stupidest amendments ever proposed."

I totally agree. Its mean-spirited, doomed to fail from the start, and honestly, there's more to being a conservative than keeping gay people from marrying. Also, its another thing "out there" which is keeping the country divided. Along with racism, classism and sexism. Legislation like this (the FMA) does nothing more than throw fire on issues that are already quite volatile.
Of course, this doesn't give anyone license to marry gays illegally, where it is against state law.

[Aquinasfan]

I don't see what marriage has to do with the Gov't and/or the Constitution.

The first principle of the State is to promote the common good. Since all members of society pass through the institution of the family, the State has a duty to promote the health of families and marriage.

[Kahonek]

"He showed up and didn't vote?????"

That's what I understand. A FoxNews.com story on the subject said that:

"Edwards was the guest speaker at the House Democrat's weekly caucus Wednesday but didn't stay for the vote."

[goldstategop]

Of course. But what struck me was that Republicans let them take the easy way out. If they had to vote on the language of the amendment directly, I wonder how many of the 52 would still have had the courage to vote NO? I think if brought to a direct vote, it would get 67 votes and possibly more. No Senator wants to be on record as being against marriage. Which is as American as apple pie. So I am confident about the future.

[B Knotts]

Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Campbell (R-CO), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Nay
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Not Voting
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Not Voting
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay

Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Nay
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

[oceanview]

I don't see how the other issues you list apply. schools don't advocate drug use or overeating.

even in NYC, the most liberal public schools around, gay textbooks were beaten back a few years ago. once gay marriage is legal, there will be no basis for stopping it anywhere.

[Gelato]

Most Americans really don't care much about this issue.

If you're right (and I don't believe you are), the solution to that problem is to have leadership speak up and warn the public on the importance of this issue. We have a president who can, but too many weak Senators.

If homosexual marriage is allowed, there is no rational basis on which to outlaw polygamy, incestuous marriage, and child marriage. There are individuals who want these kinds of marriage, and they will get what they want, once marriage is no longer defined as between one man and one woman.

[CSM43]

Don't forget Nighthorse Campbell from CO as well.

[mdwakeup]

R's voting against cloture were Campbell (CO), Collins (ME), Chafee (RI), McCain (AZ), Snowe (ME), and Sununu (NH). D's voting for cloture were Ben Nelson (NE), Byrd (WV), and Miller (GA).

[goldstategop]

It is conservative to preserve tradition and central to tradition is keeping the "little platoons" that make society run intact. It has nothing to do with keeping gays from living as they want. If all gays wanted was to live together that would be one thing. In truth, they are opposed to marriage since its a reminder a lifestyle built around hedonistic pleasure cannot long perpetuate the survival of civilization.

[B Knotts]

Republicans voting Nay:

Campbell (CO)
Chafee (RI)
Collins (ME)
McCain (AZ)
Snowe (ME)
Sununu (NH)

Specter voted Yea!

[rhombus]

Why does it matter how marriage is defined from the standpoint of the government and/or Constitution? I was addressing the second, mostly because now that the benefits are in place making marriage a legal definition and a key to benefits, the historical reasons for the first are rendered largely moot. In other words, even marriage were relegated to religious institutions, or left up to the individual, the fact that federal, state, local and government-regulated private benefits all exist based on that status means that (one of the) the core objection(s) remains.

Understood. I do agree that marriage is now dead. How can one now legally restrict marriage to only two people? How can one prevent marriage within families to take advantage of inheritence laws and avoid taxes? I know, just get a judge somewhere to agree. Ah welcome to the era of trial lawyers.

[Mo1]

That's what I understand. A FoxNews.com story on the subject said that:

"Edwards was the guest speaker at the House Democrat's weekly caucus Wednesday but didn't stay for the vote."

Thanks for the info Kahonek

Yooo y'all .. Edwards was in DC and never voted ...

Looks like he's afraid of going to record too

[rwfromkansas]

That's more than I expected.