The US Senate defeated a procedural measure to cut off debate on the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) on July 14 by a vote of 50 to 48, well short of the 60 votes required. It effectively ends consideration of the FMA, at least for the moment.
The vote was essentially along party lines, with Republicans voting to end debate and Democrats to keep it open, though a handful of members crossed the aisle in both directions.
The vote does not necessarily reflect the level of support for the FMA, which may well vary depending upon the exact language of the amendment. Several Republicans known to oppose the substance of the FMA voted with their leadership on the procedural measure. While a few Democrats voted to end debate, as electoral protection in speaking with their constituents, but may not support the FMA. (A complete analysis will appear in the next issue.)
'As many as 60 Senators were prepared to vote against the amendment,' said Patrick Guerriero, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans. 'Rather than face certain defeat, the radical right took the easy way out—by turning this into a largely party line vote. Today they are hiding behind a procedural vote because their campaign to write discrimination into the US Constitution has been an unqualified failure.'
'This was an attempt to divide Americans that backfired and divided Republicans,' said Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).
Conservatives opened up debate on the FMA on July 9 with what has by now become a hackneyed litany of charges against 'unelected judges' undermining 'traditional marriage,' and the only way to save the country is by amending the Constitution.
Democrats responded by saying it was all about politics, and not conducting the people's business such as passing appropriations bills and holding oversight hearings on Iraq. 'It's a political exercise carried out on the fly,' charged Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) in the closing moments of exercise.
The one thing that was lacking throughout the debate, to a largely empty chamber until the last few hours, was much substantive defense of the gay community or equal access to marry rights and responsibilities.
Republicans and Democrats maneuvered in a political game of chicken designed first to minimize their own risks and then to put the other guys in a bad light.
At one point Democrats and their gay allies supported a strategy of filibustering to forestall a vote on the FMA indefinitely. According to insiders, the strategy was based on the premise that Democrats were united in opposition to the FMA as currently written, but their unity might crumble if the current language were to be amended. The strategy aimed not to lose, rather than to win.
Then the Democratic leadership had a change of heart, or at least feigned one, by offering to end debate and not filibuster—if the Republican leadership agreed to offer a straight up or down vote on existing FMA language and not allow any amendments.
The Republican leadership rejected that offer. They wanted to vote on the FMA, and if that failed as was anticipated, to be able to offer just the first sentence of the FMA – defining marriage as between a man and a woman – in a second vote. The Democrats returned to their filibuster strategy.
No form of the FMA was voted on in the Judiciary Committee, where it likely would have failed. It was brought to the floor through extraordinary parliamentary rules.
'I think it is outrageous and frankly surreal that at the 11th hour in this debate, they are literally rewriting the Constitution on the back of a napkin,' said Jacques.
'It is irresponsible and reckless to demand a vote on a constitutional amendment that was proposed less than 24 hours ago,' added Guerriero.
KERRY & EDWARDS
'We are casting this, as are our enemies, that this is absolutely a vote on the FMA, this is not a procedural vote, this is a substantive vote,' Jacques said at a July 6 telephone news conference. 'It isn't just about narrowly defeating this measure, it's about winning soundly, sending a clear message to the House and to the states [considering state constitutional amendments] that discrimination is wrong.'
When asked whether Sen. John Kerry, the presidential candidate they have endorse, will be present to vote on this measure, Jacques strongly asserted, 'He will be there.'
The political newspaper The Hill, in its issue the day before the scheduled vote, said that Kerry and Edwards would return to vote on the measure. 'Ducking the vote would have opened Kerry and Edwards to charges of political timidity from within their own party.'
However, later in the day, campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said the pair would not participate in the debate or vote on the FMA. Kerry would be in Boston 'preparing' for the Democratic convention; Edwards would be starting his first solo campaign swing.
Timing of the vote on the amendment had been announced several weeks ago, prior to Kerry's selection of Edwards as his running mate.
HRC and National Stonewall Democrats have asserted that the Kerry/Edwards team is the most pro-gay set of candidates in history. Both Democrats have said that they support traditional marriage but oppose amending the Constitution. They were the only two Senators who to not vote on the FMA.
BUSH OFFENSIVE
President George W. Bush pushed the FMA in his weekly radio address to the nation on July 10. He began by asserting the social conservative contention that 'This difficult debate was forced upon our country by a few activist judges and local officials, who have taken it on themselves to change the meaning of marriage.'
'If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost, and the institution is weakened.'
Bush maintained that 'changing the definition of traditional marriage will undermine the family structure.' He called upon Congress to pass 'an amendment that defines marriage in the United States as a union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.'
The previous day, campaigning by bus in Pennsylvania, Bush declined to get pulled into the argument of some religious conservatives that homosexuality is a sin. He said, 'What they do in the privacy of their house, consenting adults should be able to do. This is America. It's a free society. But it doesn't mean we have to redefine traditional marriage.'
As Governor, he strongly defended the Texas same-sex sodomy law that the US Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional in 2003.
Vice presidential spouse Lynne Cheney offered a different take on the FMA during a July 11 appearance on CNN's 'Late Edition.' She urged that a way be found to 'keep the authority of the states intact' with regard to marriage laws. The Cheney's daughter Mary is a lesbian in a long-standing relationship with another woman.
CNN played a video clip of the Vice President during the 2000 campaign in which he said that states may decide to handle same-sex relationships in different ways, and that was fine with him. Log Cabin Republicans has been using that clip in a commercial to build opposition to the FMA.
Mrs. Cheney said, 'I thought the formulation he used in 2000 was very good. And first of all, to be clear that people should be free to enter into their relationships that they choose. And, secondly, to recognize what's historically been the situation, that when it comes to conferring legal status on relationships, that is a matter left to the states.'
The American Bar Association came out strongly against the FMA in a July 12 statement released to the press and delivered to each senator.
'We are staunchly opposed to the proposed amendment not only on procedural grounds [the FMA has not been voted on in committee] but also because it tramples on the traditional authority of each state to establish its own laws governing civil marriage,' said ABA president Dennis W. Archer.
'The authority to regulate marriage and other family-related matters has resided with the states since the founding of our country and is rooted in principles of federalism. Our federal system also enables states to look to their own constitutions do define and protect the rights and liberties of all their citizens and to interpret their constitutional provisions to accord greater protection to individual rights than do similar provisions of the US Constitution.'
The nation's leading newspapers editorialized against the FMA. The Lost Angeles Times said, 'Banning gay marriage is a terrible idea. Opponents of this amendment try to make the case against it without getting to this central question. They say an amendment is unnecessary or the subject is beneath the dignity of the Constitution. But this won't do.'
'The reason the Senate is moving forward is politics of a particularly crass and ugly sort: Gay marriage has become a national election issue,' wrote the Washington Post on July 14. 'It requires senators to take a public stand on a question of deep principle: Are they going to warp the entire American constitutional structure to prevent people who love one another from marrying?' It urged rejection.
