June 9, 2006
Volume 34
Issue 23
search only SGN online
Tuesday, Aug 04, 2020



Constitutional amendment to ban marriage for same-sex couples fails in the Senate
Constitutional amendment to ban marriage for same-sex couples fails in the Senate
"...[T]he Republican majority should stop wasting time on divisive election-year politics..." said Sen. Patty Murray.

by Robert Raketty - SGN Staff Writer

A proposed constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a man and a women and potentially outlawing marriage-like arrangements, fell to defeat in the Senate on Wednesday. The 49-48 vote was a blow to President George W. Bush and other Republicans who strongly backed the measure.

Although the vote to bring the amendment to a yes-or-no decision was 11 votes shy of the 60 that was needed and the measure is all but dead for the rest of the year, President Bush tried to put a positive spin on the fate of the "Marriage Protection Amendment."

"Our nation's founders set a high bar for amending our Constitution and history has shown us that it can take several tries before an amendment builds the two-thirds support it needs in both houses of Congress," he said.

However, some Democrats - including Senator Patty Murray (D - WA) - believed the vote was more about electioneering, than the institution of marriage the amendment purports to defend.

"...[T]he Republican majority should stop wasting time on divisive election-year politics and start focusing on the real challenges facing the American people," said Murray, in a prepared statement provided to the Transgender.

Senator Maria Cantwell (D - WA) agreed. "I can think of at least 100 things Congress could be doing to make lives better for American families, but the Republicans in control clearly have a different agenda," she said.

Both senators from Washington State voted against the constitutional amendment, because of the moral consequences that stem from "taking away the rights of individuals" and "limit[ing] the rights of any Americans." Aides for the two Senators also suggested that both strongly favor leaving marriage to the states to decide.

"I voted against a constitutional amendment banning Gay marriage because I believe it is wrong to amend our Constitution to limit the rights of any Americans," said Cantwell. "Further, I believe that marriage laws should continue to be decided at the state level."

"I oppose a constitutional amendment that would deny same-sex couples the rights and protections that other Americans enjoy, and I am deeply concerned by this effort to use the Constitution to take away the rights of individuals," said Murray. "That's why, today, I voted against the so-called 'Marriage Protection Amendment,' just as I did in 2004."

The amendment received one vote more than the last time the Senate took up the issue in 2004. Proponents had hoped to secure a 51 vote majority, especially because Republicans had picked up four seats in the 100 member Senate. However, the chances that the proposed amendment who receive the two-thirds majority needed, remained remote.

Twenty-six of the 50 states have passed statutes that limit marriage to a man and a woman. Another 20 have passed constitutional amendments to bar same-sex couples from tying the knot. Alabama voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly passed a state constitutional amendment which not only prohibits marriage, but other forms of family protections for unmarried couples.

The House is expected to take up the issue next month.

International Readers
We want to learn about you and have you tell us about Gay Life where you live.
Please click here

Seattle Gay Blog
It's new!
A blog created
by the SGN staff
so you can be heard

Free/Anonymous HIV& STD Testing

working for the freedom to
marry since 1995

copyright Seattle Gay News - DigitalTeamWorks 2006