Senate rejects ban on same-sex marriage

WASHINGTON -- A constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, backed by President Bush and conservative groups, was soundly defeated yesterday in the Senate after proponents failed to persuade even a majority of senators to support the measure.

Although most states have acted to prevent same-sex couples from marrying, seven Senate Republicans were wary of wading into the politically risky issue and voted against bringing the proposed amendment to a final vote.

Supporters went into yesterday's showdown knowing they could not muster the two-thirds majority needed to pass a constitutional amendment, or even the 60 votes needed to cut off debate and bring the measure to a final vote. But they had at least hoped to gain a simple majority. Instead, they fell one vote short, 49 to 48.

Senate majority leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and other GOP leaders had sought the vote as a way to help galvanize their party's conservative base at a time of flagging public confidence in the Bush administration and Congress. Some conservatives sought to put a positive face on the outcome, noting that proposed constitutional amendments typically encounter an uphill battle.

``We're making progress, and we're not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected . . . protected in the courts, protected in the Constitution, but most of all, protected for the people and for the future of our children in this society," Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, said after the vote.

But Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who opposed the measure, said, ``Most Americans are not yet convinced that their elected representatives or the judiciary are likely to expand decisively the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples."

Although conservative and liberal groups regard same-sex marriage as a crucial litmus test, public opinion on the issue is less cut and dried. Recent polls indicate that most Americans oppose allowing gay men and lesbians to marry legally, but an ABC News poll released this week found only 42 percent support an amendment to ban such unions.

A similar amendment failed, 48 to 50, in the Senate in 2004. But earlier this week, Senator Wayne Allard, Republican of Colorado, the measure's chief sponsor, said it was gaining momentum. Advocates noted that 45 states have approved constitutional amendments or statutes to define traditional marriage in a way that would bar same-sex marriage. Moreover, evangelical Christian organizations and some black and Hispanic groups, all representing key voting blocs in November, also have supported a ban.

But two of the Republicans who had supported the same-sex marriage ban in 2004, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, voted against the amendment this time. ``We didn't get as many votes as we'd hoped," Allard said after yesterday's roll call. ``If it's up to me, we'll have a vote on this issue every year."

The other Republicans who voted against the amendment are Senators Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of Maine; and John Sununu of New Hampshire. Two Democrats voted in favor: Senators Robert Byrd of West Virginia, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

Most Democrats decried the vote as election-year pandering. ``This amendment . . . will not pass, but it still risks stoking fear and divisiveness at a time . . . we should be trying to unite Americans," Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin said on the Senate floor before the vote.

Some political analysts share that view, and wonder if the issue could undercut Republican efforts to woo another vital voting group in November: moderates, who may interpret the Senate effort as a worrisome federal overreach.

The debate in the Senate this week attracted numerous prospective 2008 presidential candidates, including Feingold and McCain, who both opposed the amendment, and Frist and Brownback, who were strong supporters.

Explaining his opposition on the Senate floor, McCain said that although he believes that expanding the definition of marriage may be ``of questionable public value," he also believes the debate ``is currently and properly being resolved in different ways, in 50 different states."