Senate rejects move to ban gay marriage
Amendment vote comes up short
WASHINGTON -- A constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, hailed by supporters as a defining campaign issue of values and commitment to families, suffered a categorical defeat yesterday in the Senate, as sponsors fell far short of the number needed to pass the measure.
The 48-to-50 tally fell a dozen ''aye" votes short of the 60 needed to end debate and 19 votes shy of the two-thirds' majority needed to move forward a constitutional amendment, buoying the hopes of activists who say gays and lesbians should have the right to marry or form civil unions. Opponents say an up-or-down vote on the amendment would have revealed even more opposition, because some senators who backed a procedural vote to allow continued debate were skeptical about the substance of the proposed amendment.
President Bush said in a statement that he was ''deeply disappointed that the effort to pass a constitutional amendment affirming the sanctity of marriage as being between a man and woman was temporarily blocked."
Campaigning in Wisconsin, Bush told a partisan crowd: ''We stand for institutions like marriage and family, which are the foundations of our society. We stand for judges who strictly and faithfully interpret the law instead of legislating from the bench."
Little support was expressed in the Senate for gay marriage. Only Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, delivered an impassioned speech defending the right of same-sex couples to enjoy the same legal protections as heterosexual couples.
''The decision to bring up this divisive, discriminatory, and completely unnecessary amendment . . . shows the Senate at its worst," Kennedy added on the floor yesterday. Earlier, Kennedy invoked the recent anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and accused Bush administration and the Republican congressional leadership of seeking ''to write bigotry back into the Constitution, by denying gays and lesbians the right to marry."
Most Democrats who spoke during the debate expressed their personal opposition to gay marriage, while asserting the issue should be decided by the states and not by amending the Constitution. Their arguments reflected a broader, bipartisan discomfort with discussing human sexuality, advocates said, as well as uncertainty over how the issue will play with constituents back home.
''Marriage is a sacred union between men and women. That is what the vast majority of Americans believe, virtually what all South Dakotans believe. It's what I believe," said Senate minority leader Tom Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota. Daschle, who voted against the procedural motion that would have kept the amendment alive, is facing a tough challenge from former US representative John Thune, a Republican whose recent ads have mentioned the gay marriage amendment.
Senator Richard J. Durbin, an Illinois Democrat who opposes gay marriage and supports civil unions, said he voted against the procedural motion because it unnecessarily meddled with the Constitution and was being used as a political tool.
Senators John F. Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina were the only two members to skip the vote. Like many of their Democratic colleagues, both have said that they oppose gay marriage but do not want a constitutional amendment imposing a ban. Kerry released a statement saying that if the ban had been raised for an up-or-down vote, he would have voted ''no."
All other New England senators voted against the procedural motion except Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire. The Granite State's freshman senator, Republican John Sununu, surprised the chamber with his vote against the motion. ''Defining marriage is a power that should be left to the states," he said. Sununu added that he would support legislative action if courts forced states to recognize ''nontraditional marriages" performed in other states.
Ron Schlittler, acting executive director Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, said: ''I wish they would have" defended gay marriage on the floor, ''but I think they're in a delicate spot. They fully anticipate this is going to be twisted and abused" in Senate campaigns.
Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Newton, said the battle for the right to marry is more easily waged with a legal argument. ''This is the difference between our politics and our ideology," Frank said. ''If you're a lawyer arguing your case in court, you're really trying to argue only for as much as you need."
Backers of the ban brushed off their loss and said they had succeeded in putting the issue on the national stage. The House still intends to go ahead with a symbolic vote on the measure, despite the fact that the Senate's action kills the amendment for the year. President Bush urged the House to pass the amendment.
''I think it is a shame that the debate has been forced on us by the arrogance of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. But Congress has now been put in a position where we must act," said House majority leader Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas. The House expects a vote in the fall, despite the fact that even supporters do not believe they have the two-thirds' vote necessary to approve it.
Advocates of the ban said they would use the issue against Democratic candidates in the fall campaign. ''We've got people on the record," said Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition.
One senator who could face trouble for voting for the motion is Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, a moderate Republican up for reelection this fall. He needs to hold his Republican base and attract of tens of thousands of Democrats to win, said Jon Delano, a political science professor at Carnegie Mellon University. 