Whether you hold fast to traditional beliefs that heaven ordained that marriage is between a man and a woman, or feel that love cannot be contained by the values of the past, the push for a constitutional amendment to define marriage is of critical importance to all Americans. The American Consititution was not meant for abolishing the rights of Americans. Changing the constitution sets a dangerous precedent.
In addition, the amendment proposal distracts the public from the important issues of our day -- terrorism, war, health care, social security, the environment, education and unemployment. It has become a re-election hatchet wielded by viscious hands. Fortunately, the Senate has seen this and will not be forced into a vote. To find out why, read below.
> Senate Vote Blocks Effort to Ban Gay-Marriage in Constitution
> July 14, 2004
> By CARL HULSE
> New York Times
>>
> WASHINGTON, July 14 - Backers of a constitutional amendment
> to prohibit same-sex marriages suffered a stinging defeat
> in the Senate today as opponents easily killed the
> initiative for the year in a procedural showdown.
>
> Senators voted 50 to 48 against a call to cut off debate,
> 12 votes short of the 60 required and even below a simple
> majority of 51. It would have taken 67 votes to approve the
> amendment itself. The loss effectively ended a drive to
> move the proposal through the Senate before the November
> elections. Six Republicans helped block the amendment,
> illustrating the divisions in the party ranks over the idea
> of inscribing such a ban into the Constitution.
>
> "The constitutional amendment we are debating today strikes
> me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of
> Republicans," said Senator John McCain, Republican of
> Arizona. "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority
> they have always possessed, and imposes a federal remedy
> for a problem that most states do not believe confronts
> them."
>
> Three Democrats sided with Republicans in trying to move to
> a vote on the language of the amendment itself. Under
> constitutional rules crafted by the Founding Fathers to
> make it difficult to alter the document, a supermajority of
> 67 votes is necessary to start the ratification process by
> the states. Today's vote did not reflect the full level of
> opposition since some Senate Republicans who were opposed
> to the amendment sided with their leadership on the
> preliminary vote.
>
> "This is an unnecessary amendment that wrongly and
> certainly prematurely deprives states of their traditional
> ability to define marriage," said Senator Joseph Lieberman,
> Democrat of Connecticut, as he joined many of his
> colleagues in asserting that marriage is an issue of state
> domain.
>
> Democrats also accused the Senate Republican leadership of
> forcing the debate on an amendment they knew could not pass
> to create a wedge issue for the coming elections. President
> Bush is a strong supporter of the proposal and conservative
> activist groups had aggressively urged the Senate
> leadership to bring the matter to the floor.
>
> Backers of the amendment said they were only responding to
> court decisions they said were reshaping the traditional
> American view of marriage despite scant involvement on the
> part of the public.
>
> "Marriage does matter," said Senator Wayne Allard,
> Republican of Colorado and the author of the amendment. "It
> matters to our children, it matters in America. Marriage is
> the foundation of a free society and courts are redefining
> marriage."
>
> Though they lost the vote, the backers of the amendment did
> succeed in getting lawmakers on record on the issue and
> they said they expected it to reverberate throughout the
> campaign season. Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and
> John Edwards of North Carolina, the two members of the
> Democratic presidential ticket, did not vote. They both
> oppose the amendment, however, saying that while they
> oppose same-sex marriage, the issue is a state concern.
>
> "The floor of the United States Senate should only be used
> for the common good, not issues designed to divide us for
> political purposes," Mr. Kerry said in a statement today.
> "Throughout history, amending our Constitution - the
> foundation of the nations values and ideals - has been
> serious business.
>
> "However, even Republicans concede that this amendment is
> being offered only for political gains. The unfortunate
> result is that the important work of the American people -
> funding our homeland security needs, creating new and
> better jobs, and raising the minimum wage - is not getting
> done.
>
> "Had this amendment reached a final vote, I would have
> voted against it, because I believe that the American
> people deserve better than this from their leaders. When I
> am president, I will work to bring the nation together and
> build a stronger America."
>
> The issue may still resurface in the House this year. A
> House panel was considering today a legislative proposal
> that its authors said could prevent federal judges from
> overturning the existing federal law defining marriage as
> being between a man and a woman, though critics said they
> doubted the new proposal could survive a court test.
>
> The House majority leader, Tom DeLay, has said he might
> schedule a House vote later this year on a constitutional
> amendment.
>
> The defeat in the Senate today came as no surprise. The
> Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, had already
> acknowledged that the amendment was unlikely to advance but
> said that the Senate action would be far from the last
> word.
>
> "This is the start," Dr. Frist said on Tuesday. "And it's
> not going to be over tomorrow. We'll be back in the
> future."
