Skip to comments.Senate Scuttles Gay Marriage Amendment (Two no-shows. Care to guess?)
Posted on 07/14/2004 9:50:28 AM PDT by 11th Earl of MarEdited on 07/14/2004 10:13:18 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
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.
Hey, it's GOP über alles around here. Watch your step.
Olympia Snow! What an embarassment to all American-Greeks.
There is a particular greek word starting with p ending with a that i am using to describe her.
Nonsense. They'll be forgotten by Friday.
Because, as so many here on FR will attest: "If you don't blindly vote for Republicans in every single instance, you're voting for the terrorists!"
So, case closed.
I stole that from John Derbyshire, of National Review.
Pardon me for asking, but is there any chance one of you could get the roll call vote, and the other write out the particulars so that others can do it next time? I've gone to "Thomas" before, but I just wind up getting frustrated trying to get roll call votes.
Then perhaps it's time to familiarize yourself with the forum rules.
The Amendment would have left the matter to the states. It was a compromise Amendment. Of course the media would never report that. What pro-family people really wanted was language that would settle the issue for good ala Utah being forced to ban polygamy.
We need term limits. These Clowns don't need to respect our opinions.
Every one said we would get only a third of the votes. Turns out we are 19 short. This means we have our work cut out for us. But this issue is NOT going to go away. The amendment will certainly be back if liberal activist judges keep trying to undermine marriage. Count on it.
<< "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." >>
There isn't any confusion or ambiguity in California either, you moron.
But that didn't stop a rogue mayor.
Hey, how about we get all Gov't OUT of the marriage business and keep it as part of religions where it belongs. I was extremely annoyed that I had to get a liscense or permission from some Gov't stooge to get married. I don't see what marriage has to do with the Gov't and/or the Constitution.
HR. 3313 only requires a SIMPLE majority vote to pass, and it will remove the Federal appellate jurisdiction from the DOMA. While Federal District Courts could still hear cases arriving out of the act, Trial Court Decisions CANNOT be used as Precedent in the Stare Decisis doctrine.
Therefore Individual States will not have to accept "marriage" licenses from other states.
Further, the people in MA are going to vote in 2006 on their own amendment, and I am confident that they will do the right thing, Even Ultra-Liberal Kalifornia wouldn't stoop to supporting the perversion of marriage.
Further every single RAT who cried about leaving this issue to the states, now has NO argument when HR. 3313 comes up for a vote, and neither do the deviant libertines, unless they want to say, they are for the destruction of marriage.
The RATS and Libertarians are in a corner now.
Further, the House is also going to debate the Amendment, and changes will be made.
DON'T GIVE UP, Keep on the Senators.
If all else fails, we always have the option that our Founders Used:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Without hearing the news or reading any replies, I'd say john F'ing & john edwards.
I just heard on the radio that Collins, Snowe, McCain and Hagel were the Republicans that voted against.
I believe it needed 60 votes, since it was a vote on whether to continue debate.
Yeah, need a conservative party.
Was that the original amendment or the revised version?
That's true if today's vote was on the amendment. I believe this 47-50 vote concerned allowing the debate to continue.
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.