Same-sex marriage amendment fails in Senate

[Jasun]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Efforts to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage foundered Wednesday afternoon, when the proposal failed to garner enough votes to stay alive.

After final arguments by the leaders of each party, a partial vote count made it clear that GOP leaders would not get the 60 votes they needed to overcome a procedural hurdle and move the proposed amendment to the floor.

"In 217 years, we've only amended that sacred document 17 times," said Sen. Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota. "There have been 11,000 separate attempts."

There is no urgent need to amend the Constitution now, he said.

But Sen. Bill Frist disagreed. "It has become clear to legal scholars ... that same-sex marriage will be exported to all 50 states," said the majority leader, from Tennessee.

"Will activist judges not elected by the American people destroy the institution of marriage, or will the people protect marriage as the best way to raise children? My vote is with the people."

Republicans originally had expected they would win a majority, if not the 67 votes required for the 100-member body to pass a constitutional amendment.

In doing so, they were seeking to force the Democrats' presumed presidential ticket -- Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina -- to vote against the amendment.

But in the last two days, a number of Republicans have indicated they will not vote for the measure, leaving GOP leaders red-faced over their failure to muster support.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona broke forcefully with President Bush and the Senate GOP leadership Tuesday evening over the issue, taking to the Senate floor to call a constitutional amendment to prohibit the practice unnecessary -- and un-Republican.

"The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans," McCain said. "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."

McCain also said the amendment "will not be adopted by Congress this year, nor next year, nor any time soon until a substantial majority of Americans are persuaded that such a consequential action is as vitally important and necessary as the proponents feel it is today."

"The Founders wisely made certain that the Constitution is difficult to amend and, as a practical political matter, can't be done without overwhelming public approval. And thank God for that," he said.

McCain sided with opponents of the amendment on the procedural vote.

Bush, who defeated McCain for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, has championed the amendment, saying it is necessary to defend the institution of marriage from "activist judges."

Social conservatives have been pushing hard for the measure since May, when Massachusetts' highest court legalized same-sex marriages in the Bay State.

But McCain argued that there are "far less draconian" remedies, including the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act -- which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as a union between a man and woman and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states -- and state constitutional amendments limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

He said if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down DOMA or "state remedies to judicial activism fail," then amending the federal Constitution might be "appropriate." But he said the Massachusetts decision to legalize same-sex marriages does "not represent a death knell to marriage."

"What evidence do we have that states are incapable of further exercising an authority they have exercised successfully for over 200 years?" McCain said. "We will have to wait a little longer to see if Armageddon has arrived."

Kerry was in Boston on Wednesday, and Edwards was campaigning in Iowa. Neither man was planning to attend the procedural vote.

The amendment, as originally proposed by Republican Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado, would add these two sentences to the Constitution:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, 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 Republicans objected to the second sentence, saying it was so ambiguous that it also could prevent states from allowing gays and lesbians to join in civil unions.

Democrats blocked a last-ditch effort by Republicans to bring up a second version of the amendment that might have garnered more support.

Still, Republicans have vowed that they will make same-sex marriage a political issue.

==========================

The thing that irks me is that they knew it would never pass, but they dragged it out anyway to use "Voted for gay marraige" as a weapon against Democratic canditates in campaign ads

[Lee]

:thumbsup:

What more is there to say this is definately a MAJOR blow to those opposing gay marriage

Regards,

Lee

[gaystoryman]

Well, I agree it is a blow but it could also backfire too.

Given the rabid responses by some uh, conservatives shall we say, this could become a catalyst for them to push for their particular candidate come November and might deflect some who would vote for a more reasonable choice to vote for theirs because after all, he will support a ban on letting queers marry...

Suppose it all comes down to how well either side uses the issue between now and november, which will be the real answer I think.

Those who voted against the amendment might find themselves targetted, and that could make a difference...

my nickles worth.
Ian

[BDBionic]

What gaystoryman says is definitely something worth keeping in mind.

As state initiatives involving gay marriage are put on the ballots and as conservative politicians get more fuel to add to their fires, motivation for conservatives to show up in larger numbers to the polls this November just increases.

That in turn helps out right wing candidates, including GWB.

Things are far from over. Is this really a defeat for the right? Or just a set back? Worse still, will it be something around which they'll rally and respond to in force come Nov? The desire to impose a conservative agenda upon the nation wasn't defeated in the Senate today, merely one of the many means through which they'd been attempting to propose it.

It's an unsettling thought that conservatives voters, motivated to turn out in record numbers by something so controversial and mobilizing as the gay marriage issue will boost GWB's #'s this year when they end up casting a vote in favor of him while they're at the ballot box whereas they might not have felt as compelled to show up and vote in Nov beforehand.

And that does none of us any good.

[desslock]

It is definately a good thing. Don't "overthink" the situation. Look at it this way -

When DOMA came before the Senate in 1996, there were not many senators at all who voted against it. I remember that Dianne Feinstein, Joe Lieberman and John McCain all voted for DOMA. There was not enough opposition to fillibuster.

Eight years later we see that attitudes towards this issue has improved significantly. 50 senators voted to kill the proposed amendment. That included 6 Republicans too. And Edwards and Kerry were absent - so potentially you can add more to a future vote.

And that vote wasn't even the tiniest bit close. (it would take 67 votes to pass it --- and then that's only in the Senate). That's a big defeat, and I think that the people who tried to stage the whole thing was anticipating that it would be a much closer vote.

So now the cards have been played, and the hand lost. And for us that's all good.

Steve

[Jasun]

See, why I think it's a good thing is the Republicans, unable to run on their record thus far, decided that they'd use one of the most important legal documents in the history of the country as an election year football. (Thus proving that they really have no respect for anything other than their pathetic little selves).

They figured that they would rally the base, they would unify Republican senators, and they would make the Democrats look bad.

They failed on all three.

The public has said again and again that they really don't give a rat's ass. On a list of 25 election issues, gay marraige rates 24th, just ahead of a trip to Mars.

Democrats were unified by the vote, and the Republicans were made to look like idiots... their "president" was such a supporter of the FMA that he made numerous speeches about it... the Vice "president" stabbed his own daughter in the back on the issue, and even his wife Lynne Cheney came out to publicly speak against the amendmant... and her husband.

Add to this that a good number of Republican Senators voted against it, dividing them even more and making them look like a party that can't agree on irrelevant issues.

This was a major pie in the face for Dubya. He's now made to look like a childish brat making a big deal out of something that nobody else really cares about, and people have said in polls that they sw right through what he was doing... trying to distract us from his dismal record on employment, the economy and his "war on terrorism". Republicans agreed that they didn't have the support to pass the amendmant, but they went ahead with it anyway, and admitted they were doing it to make Demcrats look bad... and how lame is that?

[basschick]

they haven't really failed till after the next election... this could go a LONG way toward making more "salt of the earth" people vote for the current administration because they feel threatened.

[gaystoryman]

Well what's the saying, it ain't over till the fat lady sings?

I think that this defeat may very likely be a planned defeat. I mean think about it, most gay & lesbian groups are breathing a sigh of relief, many are predicting Bush defeat because of how the vote turned out, but look at how many states are seeing petitions to get a ban on the ballot?

While the issue of an amendment isn't high on the list, opposition to same sex marraige is still the view of a majority and if the ads and campaign target that fear, it can have an effect. The fact that so many signed petitions should be a warning to the various civil rights groups that one defeat in the Senate does not make the war won... it was merely a rallying cry for the conservatives... and if the opponents of the amendment think they've won, their guard could be let down.

And look at this as well, why did Kerry and Edwards not be there to record their No vote? Keryy as far as I have seen has not come out in any support of same sex marraige, so i sure wouldn't be counting my chickens yet.

just my pennies worth.
Ian

[Ghaleon]

I am very much relieved that the Federal Marriage Ammendment did not pass. I was suspecting it wouldn't pass, but you never know...

I did not expect it to be defeated by such a large margin, though. While it does make the Republicans look divided, behind the times, and as puppets of the religious right, I don't know what will happen in the next election. Maybe the religious right will show up to vote in greater numbers and keep Bush in office. Or hopefully, the rest of the country will wise up and kick him out. :-)

I have just been thinking that many of the senators who opposed the Ammendment did so because the Defense of Marriage Act was already in place. If it is ever declared inconstitutional, you bet they will try to alter the constitution again. But I'm not going to worry about this for now. I'll deal with events as they come. For now, I will relax and enjoy the victory.

Let me end with this: the longer gay marriages are allowed to happen, the more people will get used to them, and the higher the chances they will continue to take place. You know, I wanted to marry a man ever since the day I came out. Maybe I will be able to do so one day.