Partisan fireworks erupted when the Senate Judiciary Committee moved forward the anti-gay marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution ( S.J. Res. 1 ) on a 10-8 party line vote May 18.
Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Penn., changed the scheduled meeting to a small room in The Capitol itself, while the Senate was in session, for what all knew would be a pro forma vote.
That raised the ire of Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who objected to the change in venue to a room that offered less public visibility. A testy exchange with Specter ensued and Feingold stormed out.
'Today's markup of the constitutional amendment concerning marriage, in a small room off the Senate floor with only a handful of other people other than senators and their staffs present, was an affront to the Constitution,' Feingold said in a written statement. 'Constitutional amendments deserve the most careful and deliberate consideration of any matter that comes before the Senate.'
Specter gave the objection little credence, noting that the very short and simple language of the amendment has been the subject of numerous hearings and committee discussions during this session of Congress and the last. There has been extensive debate on the floor of the Senate. He believed that further talk would not affect the outcome of the committee vote.
The full text of the Marriage Protection Amendment reads: 'Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. 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.'
Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said the amendment also would outlaw civil unions and domestic partnerships. 'It's a vote to impose discrimination on all 50 states and deny them their right to interpret their own state constitutions and state laws.' Marriage traditionally has been the legal province of the states in the U.S., not the federal government.
Criticism from gay organizations has been swift and sharp. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force policy director Eleanor Acheson said, 'It's an election year, so it's time to bring on the anti-marriage amendment—so reads the right-wing playbook.' National Stonewall Democrats interim executive director Jo Wyrick called the Republicans 'immoral' for sending the amendment to the Senate floor.
'Today's vote served only to divide Americans, not help us with our collective challenges,' said Human Rights Campaign ( HRC ) President Joe Solmonese. In the days leading up to the vote he said that $3-a-gallon gasoline should be a priority for Congress.
At a news conference earlier in the month, HRC political director Samantha Smoot said the organization had not decided on a strategy of whether to seek to filibuster the amendment or allow a vote on its content. Perhaps that is because Democratic leaders are themselves unsettled on a strategy.
A filibuster requires 60 votes to end debate; a constitutional amendment requires 67 votes. Neither supporters nor opponents believe there are anywhere near the votes required for passage, and most acknowledge that if the Democrats choose to filibuster, debate will not be closed off.
Specter and a handful of other senators have said that, while they do not support the amendment itself, they believe the Senate should vote on the measure and so would vote to end a filibuster.
Debate and an on-the-floor Senate vote are scheduled for the week of June 5.