Gay
activists
breathed
a
sigh
of
relief
Wednesday
when
the
Senate
rejected
a
constitutional
amendment
to
ban
gay
couples
from
marrying,
preventing
Congress
from
approving
the
measure
this
year
and
forcing
its
backers
to
rethink
their
strategy.
In
a
development
viewed
as
a
setback
for
its
Republican
supporters
—
including
President
Bush
—
the
Senate
voted
50
to
48
against
bringing
the
amendment
up
for
a
direct
vote
following
more
than
three
days
of
heated
debate.
Democrats
had
initially
agreed
to
a
direct
vote
on
the
amendment
itself
but
changed
their
minds
after
Republican
leaders
announced
they
wanted
to
open
up
the
proposed
constitutional
amendment
to
changes
on
the
Senate
floor.
Democrats,
led
by
Senate
Minority
Leader
Tom
Daschle
(D-S.C.),
said
changing
the
wording
on
the
floor
would
be
akin
to
“amending
the
Constitution
on
the
fly”
and
refused
to
go
along
with
the
request.
“The
Republican
leaders
didn’t
want
a
direct
vote
on
the
amendment
that
they’ve
been
pushing
for
more
than
a
year
because
they
knew
many
of
their
own
members
would
vote
against
it,”
said
Winnie
Stachelberg,
legislative
director
of
the
Human
Rights
Campaign,
the
national
gay
rights
group
that
coordinated
lobbying
efforts
against
the
amendment.
Capitol
Hill
observers
with
ties
to
both
parties
said
a
direct
vote,
rather
than
the
procedural
vote,
would
likely
have
resulted
in
only
about
40
senators
backing
the
proposed
constitutional
amendment
on
its
merits.
The
procedural
vote,
on
a
motion
to
end
debate,
fell
12
votes
short
of
the
60
needed
to
bring
the
proposed
constitutional
amendment
up
for
a
direct
vote.
The
Senate
vote
fell
19
votes
short
of
the
two-thirds
majority
needed
to
pass
a
constitutional
amendment.
The
vote
followed
an
intense
lobbying
campaign
from
advocates
on
both
sides
of
the
contentious
issue.
President
Bush,
who
announced
his
support
for
the
amendment
in
late
February,
joined
conservative
Republican
leaders
and
an
alliance
of
anti-gay
and
conservative
religious
organizations
this
week
in
urging
the
Senate
to
pass
the
amendment
to
protect
“traditional
marriage”
from
attack
by
“activist
judges.”
A
coalition
of
gay
civil
rights
groups,
mainline
civil
rights
organizations
and
religious
groups
mounted
a
vigorous
campaign
to
oppose
the
amendment.
HRC,
the
nation’s
largest
gay
political
group,
opened
a
“war
room”
headquarters
on
Capitol
Hill,
where
its
lobbyists
coordinated
efforts
against
the
measure,
known
as
the
FMA.
The
primary
strategy
of
those
opposing
the
FMA
was
to
question
its
necessity,
given
the
Defense
of
Marriage
Act
that
permits
states
to
refuse
recognition
of
gay
marriage,
and
to
criticize
Senate
Republicans
for
wasting
the
waning
days
of
the
congressional
session
on
what
they
called
a
politically
motivated
effort.
“The
Senate’s
vote
is
a
well-deserved
repudiation
of
this
effort
by
President
Bush
and
the
Senate
Republican
leadership
to
divide
the
nation
for
political
advantage,”
Senator
Edward
Kennedy
(D-Mass.)
said
in
a
statement.
“There
is
absolutely
no
need
to
amend
the
Constitution
on
this
issue,”
Kennedy
said.
During
the
Senate
debate,
Kennedy
expressed
dismay
that
Senate
backers
of
the
FMA
cited
the
ruling
last
year
by
the
Massachusetts
Supreme
Judicial
Court
legalizing
same-sex
marriage
as
one
of
the
key
reasons
for
the
need
for
a
federal
constitutional
ban
on
gay
marriage.
Kennedy
and
other
Democratic
senators
argued
that
the
Massachusetts
court
ruling
would
not
lead
to
legalized
gay
marriages
in
other
states,
saying
the
1996
Defense
of
Marriage
Act
allows
states
to
refuse
to
recognize
same-sex
marriages
performed
in
other
states.
The
act
also
defines
marriage
under
federal
law
as
a
union
only
between
a
man
and
a
woman.
President
Clinton
signed
that
act,
known
as
DOMA,
and
most
Democrats
joined
their
GOP
colleagues
in
Congress
to
vote
for
it.
Senators
opposing
the
FMA
also
argued
that
the
Constitution’s
“full
faith
and
credit”
clause,
which
requires
states
to
recognize
contracts
and
legal
agreements
made
in
other
states,
would
not
force
states
to
recognize
gay
marriages
from
other
states.
The
senators
said
longstanding
court
rulings
have
held
that
states
don’t
have
to
recognize
marriages
performed
in
other
states
if
those
marriages
conflict
with
a
state’s
“public
policy.”
Supporters
of
the
FMA,
led
by
Sen.
Wayne
Allard
(R-Colo.),
the
amendment’s
lead
sponsor,
said
the
Massachusetts
court
decision
demonstrated
that
“activist
judges”
would
move
to
force
gay
marriage
upon
the
nation,
even
though
the
majority
of
the
people
and
nearly
all
elected
legislators
oppose
it.
Allard
rejected
the
Democrats’
arguments
about
DOMA
and
the
“full
faith
and
credit”
clause,
saying
state
and
federal
courts
—
and
even
the
U.S.
Supreme
Court
—
would
likely
overturn
DOMA
and
modify
or
reject
the
current
meaning
of
the
“full
faith
and
credit”
provision.
Sen.
Wayne
Allard
(R-Colo.)
called
Wednesday’s
vote
not
to
move
forward
on
the
Federal
Marriage
Amendment
‘a
good
beginning.’
He,
and
others,
have
promised
to
keep
pushing
the
measure.
(Photo
by
Leigh
H.
Mosley) |
Several
senators,
including
Sen.
Rick
Santorum
(R-Pa.),
said
legal
recognition
of
same-sex
marriage,
once
mandated
by
“runaway”
courts,
would
destroy
the
institution
of
marriage
and
bring
about
the
destruction
of
the
American
family.
Santorum
criticized
what
he
called
an
alliance
of
gay
groups
and
their
supporters
for
accusing
backers
of
the
FMA
of
being
intolerant
and
bigoted.
“If
you
support
a
mother
and
a
father
for
every
child,
you
are
a
hater,”
Santorum
said.
“If
you
believe
men
and
women
for
5,000
years
have
bonded
together
in
marriage,
you
are
a
gay-basher,”
he
said.
“Marriage
is
hate.
Marriage
is
a
stain.
Marriage
is
an
evil
thing.
That
is
what
we
hear.”
Santorum,
who
was
among
the
most
impassioned
of
the
Republican
backers
of
the
FMA,
said
studies
show
that
legal
recognition
of
same-sex
relationships
in
the
Netherlands
and
Scandinavian
...
