Democrats
Ready to Vote on Marriage
The
Washington Times, July 10, 2004
By Amy Fagan
Senate Democrats decided their strategy late yesterday on
the federal marriage amendment, saying they would not block or delay the
measure and would agree to a direct vote on it next week.
“We’re ready to rock and roll,” Senate Democratic
Whip Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said in a late-afternoon statement on the
Senate floor. “Procedurally ... we’re not going to be in the way.”
Many Republicans don’t like the amendment and don’t
want to vote on it, Senate Democratic aides said.
While most of these Republicans likely would have stood
with their Republican leaders against Democratic efforts to block the bill,
the aides said, a direct vote on the amendment is a different ballgame and
will likely result in more Republicans going against their leaders and joining
Democrats to oppose the measure.
“There was a feeling that it would be better to have
some of these Republicans on record against it,” one aide said.
The Senate began yesterday to debate the constitutional
amendment, which is sponsored by Sen. Wayne Allard, Colorado Republican, and
would prevent same-sex “marriage” by defining the institution as the union
of a man and woman.
It requires 67 votes to pass the Senate, and both sides
concede that the threshold won’t be met, but proponents say it is time for
senators to go on the record. House Republican leaders have said they will
take a vote on the same amendment in the fall.
President Bush was asked about the issue yesterday and
reiterated publicly for the first time in months his support for a
constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage.
“I believe in the sanctity of marriage,” Mr. Bush
said. “History has shown us that marriage between men and women has served
society well, and any redefinition by itself will weaken marriage.”
Mr. Bush, however, added that one should “take a deep
breath” before debating the definition of marriage so it is done “with the
ultimate of respect.”
“What they do in the privacy
of their house, consenting adults should be able to do,” Mr. Bush said.
“This is America. It’s a free society, but it doesn’t mean we have to
redefine traditional marriage.”
[This is a significant change in
position on sodomy laws for President Bush who supported the Texas sodomy law
while governor and campaigned for President in 2000 in favor of sodomy laws.
-Bob]
Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry has said he is
opposed to the amendment. It wasn’t immediately clear whether Mr. Kerry and
his running mate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, would return to
Washington for the vote, which will likely be on Wednesday.
In the Senate meanwhile, Republican leaders and outside
groups had been operating under the assumption that Democrats were going to
try to block the bill and Republicans would have to muster 60 votes for a
procedural motion to stop them from doing so.
Mr. Reid said Democrats were leaning toward blocking it
as of Thursday, but now they will agree to a final vote on the Allard
amendment—without any changes—next week.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican,
said he would have to talk to Mr. Allard and other key Republicans over the
weekend to get their approval of the Democrats’ offer. He said personally he
believes a direct vote “is the cleanest way,” and makes the issue “clear
to the American people.”
A Senate Republican aide explained privately, however,
that some Republicans want to make changes to Mr. Allard’s amendment, and
Mr. Reid’s proposed agreement wouldn’t allow any changes. This might
result in more Republicans voting against the amendment, the aide said.
“Not having any [changes] would be rough,” the aide
said. “[Democrats] want to make it difficult.”
In addition to defining marriage, Mr. Allard’s proposal
has a second sentence that reads: “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.”
Proponents say this sentence allows states to sanction
civil unions if they choose while preventing courts from mandating that they
must do so. Opponents of the amendment have argued this sentence would prevent
civil unions.
Some Republicans would prefer avoiding the civil union
issue altogether and simply passing an amendment that defines marriage as the
union of a man and a woman.
Sen. Gordon H. Smith, Oregon Republican, has an
alternative proposal that would do this, although he is currently supporting
Mr. Allard’s amendment.
During the opening day of debate yesterday, proponents of
the amendment blasted Massachusetts’ legalization of same-sex “marriage”
and warned that it is only a matter of time before same-sex couples
“married” in Massachusetts file lawsuits forcing other states to accept
their unions as legal.
A 1996 federal law is designed to protect states from
being forced to accept same-sex “marriages” from other states, but
Republicans warned that law is likely to be overturned.
“Absent an amendment to the Constitution, same-sex
marriage is coming whether you like it or not,” said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch,
Utah Republican. “It has become clear that the issue is a national issue and
it requires a national solution,” said Mr. Frist, who agreed that a
constitutional amendment is the only way.
Still, many senators remain undecided, skeptical or
simply unwilling to say how they will vote on the amendment.
Mr. Allard and several family groups yesterday sought to
sway those minds by delivering to Capitol Hill 1.4 million signatures of
citizens who support traditional marriage. Another 1.2 million signatures are
set to arrive early next week, Mr. Allard said.
Democrats have accused Republicans of playing politics by
pushing the issue to the floor in an election year.
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, said yesterday
the marriage issue shouldn’t be federalized and the Senate should turn to
other, more pressing matters.
“For 225 years we left up to the states to define
marriage,” he said on the floor. “All of a sudden we’re going to tell
them they don’t know what they’re doing.”
[Home] [News] [USA]
