Early push for constitutional amendment falls short
Wednesday, July 14, 2004 Posted: 2:06 PM EDT (1806 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Efforts to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex
marriage foundered Wednesday afternoon when the proposal failed to garner enough
votes in the Senate to stay alive.
After final arguments by the leaders of each party, Republicans mustered 48
votes, 12 short of the 60 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, before the vote. "There have been 11,000 separate
attempts."
Daschle said no urgent need exists to amend the Constitution now.
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 go on the record in opposition to the amendment.
But in the last two days, a number of Republicans indicated they wouldn't 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 such a constitutional amendment 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 and Edwards weren't on hand for Wednesday's procedural vote. Kerry was in
Boston, and his running mate was campaigning in Iowa.
The amendment, as originally proposed by Republican Sen. Wayne Allard of
Colorado, would have added 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.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
