 Senate majority leader Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee (center), spoke at a Capitol Hill news conference yesterday on an amendment to ban gay marriage. A vote on the measure could come as early as tomorrow. (AP Photo / Dennis Cook) |
Few attend gay marriage debateSenate vote looms on proposed banWASHINGTON -- The Senate yesterday opened debate on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, with just a few lawmakers showing up to discuss what is widely acknowledged to be a losing battle for the measure's supporters.
Despite the emotional and politically explosive nature of the issue, senators kept their arguments dry and legal, appearing to avoid mentions of human sexuality, or the actual prospect of two men or two women marrying each other. In a sign of lawmakers' reluctance to discuss homosexuality on the Senate floor in an election year -- as well as the typical lower attendance rate on a Monday -- the chamber was nearly deserted, and the small group of senators who did talk on the issue often spoke to a nearly empty chamber. Proponents argued that ''activist judges" should not be permitted to ''create" the right to same-sex marriage, while foes of the amendment said the matter should be left to the states, which traditionally handle family law. ''I don't believe this limits rights. I think what this does is promote a public good," said Senator Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican who has been leading the fight for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Last year, Santorum refused to apologize for comments he made comparing homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest, and adultery. A vote on the measure -- which is supported by President Bush -- could come as early as tomorrow, but senators yesterday were still fighting over the schedule. Senator Dianne Feinstein, echoing the complaints of many Democrats suspicious of the pre-Democratic Convention timing of the debate, said the floor discussion was a ''waste of time." ''Why are we doing this? The only reason I can come up with is because this is political. It is to divide, to drive a wedge into . . . America," she said. During the debate, overwhelmingly dominated by supporters of the amendment, Republicans huddled to decide their best legislative strategy. The main amendment, sponsored by Senator Wayne Allard, Republican of Colorado, would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It would also bar courts from sanctioning gay civil unions. Some lawmakers and activists contend that the second part of the amendment could be construed as banning all civil unions, though proponents say the language would allow state legislatures to allow gays and lesbians to join in civil unions. Staunch opponents of gay marriage say they would prefer a more sweeping amendment that limits civil unions, while others would accept a definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, as long as gays and lesbians were allowed certain benefits. Other lawmakers -- including the presumed Democratic presidential ticket, Senators John F. Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina -- say they are personally opposed to gay marriage, but are also against amending the constitution to make it illegal. Foes of the amendment said they have enough votes to defeat any version of a ban on gay marriage. ''In the 11th hour, they are crafting a constitutional amendment on the back of a napkin. They are figuring out how they want to destroy the US constitution," said Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay and lesbian rights group. Jacques said that based on the HRC's survey of senators, the amendment would not garner the 67 votes required to approve a constitutional amendment. With the measure considered doomed, both sides jockeyed to put the best political face on it. The Senate could hold a ''cloture" vote to end debate on the issue and move to a straight, up-or-down vote. Such an action requires 60 senators to pass it, and both foes and supporters of the bill doubt there are enough votes to do so. The political advantage of the cloture vote is that it allows senators to stay away from the vote, but effectively help to kill it because 60 ''yes" votes are required for cloture no matter how many senators are present on the floor. An expected defeat would also allow proponents to accuse other lawmakers, including those who did not vote, of denying what they call the ''defenders of marriage" the right to be heard. Democratic leaders yesterday, however, again offered to forgo the cloture vote and forge ahead with the main amendment, but Republicans balked at that idea. While senators bickered over procedure, advocates pressured lawmakers to act. Supporters of a constitutional amendment gathered dozens of African-Americans and civil rights leaders to make their case, a jab at Democrats who typically draw the overwhelming majority of the black vote. Roy Innis, national chairman of the Council on Racial Equality, said marriage rights for gays and lesbians are ''not the moral equivalent of racial, religious, and ethnic" rights campaigns. Walter Faunteroy, former delegate from the District of Columbia, said the purpose of marriage was ''procreation" and ''socialization." ''I believe that it is not fair or logical to reward persons with the title marriage who cannot perform the task," Faunteroy said to applause from the group, which included Senate majority leader Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, and members of the Alliance for Marriage.
And while the White House pressed for passage of the amendment, Senate minority leader Thomas A. Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota, reminded his colleagues of Lynne Cheney's opposition to the measure. ''The wife of the vice president said this ought to be left to the states. The wife of the vice president is right," he said. © Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
|
