Senate rejects marriage amendment
Senate rejects marriage amendment
By LAURIE KELLMAN
Copyright by THe Associated Press
The Senate rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage by a wide margin June 7, delivering a stinging defeat to President Bush and other Republicans who had hoped the issue would rally GOP voters for the November elections.
The senators’ vote was 49-48 to limit debate and bring the amendment to a yes-or-no decision. That was 11 short of the 60 needed, killing the measure in the Senate for this year.
Bush suggested the ban was proper and its time would still come. “Our nation’s founders set a high bar for amending our Constitution and history has shown us that it can take several tries before an amendment builds the two-thirds support it needs in both houses of Congress,” Bush said.
Democrats suggested it was all about conservative politics.
“Why is it when Republicans are all for reducing the federal government’s impact on people’s lives until it comes to these stinging litmus test issues, whether gay marriage or end of life they suddenly want the federal government to intervene?” asked Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). “It makes no sense other than throwing red meat to a certain constituency.”
The 49 votes to keep the amendment alive were one more than the measure received the last time the Senate voted, in 2004. Proponents had predicted the amendment would get at least a 51-vote majority in the 100-member Senate, because Republicans have gained four seats since then.
But two Republicans changed their votes from “yes” in 2004 to no this time: Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska did not vote because he was traveling with Bush.
A total of seven Republicans voted to kill the amendment. The five others were Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins of Maine, John McCain of Arizona, Olympia Snowe of Maine and John Sununu of New Hampshire.
Despite the defeat, amendment backers insisted progress had been made because the debate over three days raised the issue’s profile and will force candidates to answer for their votes on the campaign trail.
“We’re not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected,” said Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), a prospective presidential candidate who was charged with using the amendment during committee hearings as a platform for grandstanding to the far right.
Supporters of the amendment acknowledged disappointment in the vote and, to some extent, Bush’s advocacy. “He could have done more, but he doesn’t have a vote in this one,” Brownback said of the president.
Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska was the only Senate Democrat who supported the amendment. Democrat Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted “yes” on the motion to move forward with an up-or-down vote on the amendment but said he opposed the measure itself.
Three senators did not vote: Democrats Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and John Rockefeller of West Virginia as well as Republican Hagel of Nebraska.
It takes two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress to send a proposed amendment to the states for ratification. Last week’s tally put the ban 18 votes short of the 67 needed for the Senate to approve a constitutional amendment.
The House will take up the issue next month.
A majority of Americans define marriage as a union of a man and a woman, as the proposed amendment does, according to a poll out this week by ABC News. But an equal majority oppose amending the Constitution over the issue, the poll found.
Forty-five of the 50 states have acted to define traditional marriage in ways that would ban same-sex marriage—20 with state constitutional amendments and 26 with statutes. Alabama voters approved an anti-marriage amendment at the polls on June 6.
The proposed federal amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. After approval by Congress, it would have to be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.
Amendment opponents react
“In a Senate with four more Republicans than during the last vote in 2004, supporters of the Federal Marriage Amendment picked up only one vote. At this pace, advocates of the amendment will not be able to reach a two-thirds majority until at least 2042. It’s time for President Bush to pull the plug on this discriminatory amendment.” —Christopher Anders, ACLU legislative counsel
“The fact that Republicans in Washington chose to focus on a divisive effort to scapegoat GLBT Americans for political gain instead of addressing the real business of the nation shows why the American people need new leadership in Washington.” —Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee
“The American people are hearing loud and clear, whether you turn on your television or pick up a newspaper, that the priorities are completely out of place for the Republican leadership in the Senate and for this President.” —Joe Solmonese, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign
“Our anger is not directed just at those voting for this amendment, but also at those in the Democratic Party who refuse to make an affirmative statement in favor of gay marriage. ÉIt is insulting that any minority group’s rights would be subject to the whims of the majority.” —Andy Thayer, Gay Liberation Network
By LAURIE KELLMAN
Copyright by THe Associated Press
The Senate rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage by a wide margin June 7, delivering a stinging defeat to President Bush and other Republicans who had hoped the issue would rally GOP voters for the November elections.
The senators’ vote was 49-48 to limit debate and bring the amendment to a yes-or-no decision. That was 11 short of the 60 needed, killing the measure in the Senate for this year.
Bush suggested the ban was proper and its time would still come. “Our nation’s founders set a high bar for amending our Constitution and history has shown us that it can take several tries before an amendment builds the two-thirds support it needs in both houses of Congress,” Bush said.
Democrats suggested it was all about conservative politics.
“Why is it when Republicans are all for reducing the federal government’s impact on people’s lives until it comes to these stinging litmus test issues, whether gay marriage or end of life they suddenly want the federal government to intervene?” asked Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). “It makes no sense other than throwing red meat to a certain constituency.”
The 49 votes to keep the amendment alive were one more than the measure received the last time the Senate voted, in 2004. Proponents had predicted the amendment would get at least a 51-vote majority in the 100-member Senate, because Republicans have gained four seats since then.
But two Republicans changed their votes from “yes” in 2004 to no this time: Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska did not vote because he was traveling with Bush.
A total of seven Republicans voted to kill the amendment. The five others were Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins of Maine, John McCain of Arizona, Olympia Snowe of Maine and John Sununu of New Hampshire.
Despite the defeat, amendment backers insisted progress had been made because the debate over three days raised the issue’s profile and will force candidates to answer for their votes on the campaign trail.
“We’re not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected,” said Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), a prospective presidential candidate who was charged with using the amendment during committee hearings as a platform for grandstanding to the far right.
Supporters of the amendment acknowledged disappointment in the vote and, to some extent, Bush’s advocacy. “He could have done more, but he doesn’t have a vote in this one,” Brownback said of the president.
Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska was the only Senate Democrat who supported the amendment. Democrat Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted “yes” on the motion to move forward with an up-or-down vote on the amendment but said he opposed the measure itself.
Three senators did not vote: Democrats Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and John Rockefeller of West Virginia as well as Republican Hagel of Nebraska.
It takes two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress to send a proposed amendment to the states for ratification. Last week’s tally put the ban 18 votes short of the 67 needed for the Senate to approve a constitutional amendment.
The House will take up the issue next month.
A majority of Americans define marriage as a union of a man and a woman, as the proposed amendment does, according to a poll out this week by ABC News. But an equal majority oppose amending the Constitution over the issue, the poll found.
Forty-five of the 50 states have acted to define traditional marriage in ways that would ban same-sex marriage—20 with state constitutional amendments and 26 with statutes. Alabama voters approved an anti-marriage amendment at the polls on June 6.
The proposed federal amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. After approval by Congress, it would have to be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.
Amendment opponents react
“In a Senate with four more Republicans than during the last vote in 2004, supporters of the Federal Marriage Amendment picked up only one vote. At this pace, advocates of the amendment will not be able to reach a two-thirds majority until at least 2042. It’s time for President Bush to pull the plug on this discriminatory amendment.” —Christopher Anders, ACLU legislative counsel
“The fact that Republicans in Washington chose to focus on a divisive effort to scapegoat GLBT Americans for political gain instead of addressing the real business of the nation shows why the American people need new leadership in Washington.” —Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee
“The American people are hearing loud and clear, whether you turn on your television or pick up a newspaper, that the priorities are completely out of place for the Republican leadership in the Senate and for this President.” —Joe Solmonese, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign
“Our anger is not directed just at those voting for this amendment, but also at those in the Democratic Party who refuse to make an affirmative statement in favor of gay marriage. ÉIt is insulting that any minority group’s rights would be subject to the whims of the majority.” —Andy Thayer, Gay Liberation Network
posted by Carlos T Mock at 1:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home