Gay Marriage Ban

[Bec]

... Expected to die in Senate

WASHINGTON (July 14) -- Bracing for defeat on one of President Bush's campaign-season priorities, Republicans vow that not even a Senate setback will halt their drive to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

''I don't think it's going away after this vote,'' Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Tuesday on the eve of a test vote. ''I think the issue will remain alive,'' he added, virtually conceding the amendment would fall short of the 60 votes needed to advance.

Whatever its future in Congress, there 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 Senate Democratic leader Tom 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.

Senate Democrats advanced a similar argument, saying politics prompted Bush and fellow Republicans to advance the issue to the top of the legislative agenda.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said Republicans were trying to ''change the subject'' of the election away from the war in Iraq and the economy.

''Gay bashing, plain and simple,'' charged Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.

Republicans protested, sometimes vociferously.
''If you support ... a mother and a father for every child, you are a hater. If you believe that men and women for 5,000 years have bonded together in marriage, you're a gay-basher. Marriage is hate. Marriage is a stain. Marriage is an evil thing. That's what we hear,'' said Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.

At issue is an amendment providing 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 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.''

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.

While they held out little hope the measure could gain the 60 votes needed to advance, Senate Republicans worked to produce a majority. Even that seemed in doubt, although their chances improved when an aide to Sen. John Kerry said he and vice presidential running mate John Edwards 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 focused on legislation rather than an amendment to the constitution.

The House Judiciary Committee scheduled a meeting during the day 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. The full House may consider the legislation next week.

Other bills have been under consideration, although officials said it was unclear whether they would seek a vote on one of them, a proposal to prevent the city government in Washington from formally recognizing same-sex marriages performed in any of the 50 states.

Additionally, GOP aides said the leadership might schedule a vote on the House floor on a constitutional amendment closer to the elections.


7/14/2004 08:34 EDT

[basschick]

way back when, marriage was basically about property - and women had no say in it, nor did the couple love each other. a lot of the time, they didn't know each other.

and it didn't used to be that a religeous or political person had to perform the ceremony.

these people with their fairy-tale view of what the world and marriage are supposed to be don't even have a clue as far as the history of marriage. it was far from what they all seem to believe - women were raped so they would have to marry, they were kidnapped so that men would get the property the women's family owned. how romantic, huh? ah, the sanctity of marriage...

[Lee]

I just think its a shame that the tax payers money was wasted so much ssue that any sane person would automatically know would fail in congress $0.02

Regards,

Lee