ap

Skip to content
20050617_092938_Capitol1.jpg
PUBLISHED: | UPDATED:
Getting your player ready...

Washington – A repeat attempt to ban gay marriage through a constitutional amendment died Wednesday in the Senate when it failed to garner approval from even half the 100 lawmakers.

Senators voted 49-48 in favor of a procedural motion that would have moved the measure ahead to an actual vote, but that motion required 60 yes votes.

The gay-marriage measure – sponsored by Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo. – had been expected to fail, but it fared more dismally than expected by backers.

In days leading up to the vote, Allard estimated he had 52 yes votes, four more than when the same measure was put to a procedural vote in 2004. Instead, he gained only one additional vote from 2004.

“We were hoping to get over 50 percent,” Allard said after the vote. “That didn’t happen today.”

Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., while saying that marriage “should only be between one man and one woman,” voted against the measure.

“This proposed amendment is politics, pure and simple,” he said, “and does nothing to strengthen our families or our homeland security, improve our energy security, relieve the health care crisis, or help educate one child.”

The same-sex-marriage debate is part of an election-year political strategy by Republicans aimed at firing up conservatives in an election year, Democrats and analysts have said. Republicans now plan to argue for repealing taxes on estates valued at more than $4 million and on amending the Constitution to ban flag burning.

“The Republicans are facing an avalanche of negative news,” said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

“They are trying to cut through the negative and reach their conservative supporters to remind them of the differences that exist between Republicans and Democrats.”

President Bush, in a statement after the vote, said he was disappointed.

“Marriage is the most fundamental institution of our society, and it should not be redefined by activist judges,” Bush said. But he added that “as this debate continues, each American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect and dignity.”

A gay-marriage ban identical to the Senate measure and sponsored by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., was reintroduced in the House late Tuesday. It received a majority vote in 2004 but failed to receive the two-thirds vote need to pass a constitutional amendment. The measure is expected to fail again in the House this year.

After the Senate vote, Allard insisted he was happy with the outcome. “We’re content that we grew our margin today,” he said.

Social conservatives, however, expressed great disappointment that the bill gained so little ground in the Senate.

“Senators said today to the American people, ‘We know better than you. We don’t care that you believe marriage needs to be maintained as the union of a man and a woman,”‘ said Amanda Banks, federal-issues analyst with Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family Action. “It just reinforces that we have to remember how our senators voted on this fundamental issue.”

Recent polls show most Americans don’t think a ban should be added to the Constitution, although most oppose gay marriage. Most states already bar same-sex unions.

Focus on the Family founder James Dobson in a statement called it “an outrage that not even a simple majority of senators will take the stand on this issue that their constituents want them to take.”

Allard’s measure lost the support of Republican Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, both of whom voted for it in 2004. Both faced re-election that year.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., who Allard said supported the measure, traveled to his home state Wednesday for a visit by Bush and did not vote.

In the House, Musgrave has remained mum on the issue since that 2004 vote, and was unavailable to talk Wednesday about the reintroduction of her bill.

“The congresswoman is a supporter of traditional marriage,” Musgrave chief of staff Guy Short said. “It’s the right thing to do. The American people support it. There’s nothing wrong with debating an issue the overwhelming majority of people support.”

RevContent Feed

More in Politics