WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush offered a new pledge of support Monday for a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage, a measure expected to fail in the Senate and one critics blasted as an election-year diversion.
"This national question requires a national solution," Bush said in an event attended by supporters of the amendment. "And on an issue of such profound importance, that solution should come not from the courts but from the people of the United States."
The Senate began debate on the Marriage Protection Amendment Monday afternoon. A vote on the amendment is expected Wednesday.
Bush first endorsed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages in 2004, when he was a candidate for re-election.
The proposed amendment failed in the Senate that year -- but similar amendments to state constitutions passed in 11 states, and observers credited those measures with bringing enough religious conservatives to the polls in key states like Ohio for Bush to win the election.
After winning a second term, Bush told The Washington Post that he did not plan on pushing for a constitutional ban, saying the Senate was unlikely to pass one as long as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act remained in place.
But Monday, Bush said the amendment is necessary because "activist judges" have struck down state bans on same-sex marriage that have passed by overwhelming margins.
"These amendments and laws express a broad consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage," he said. "The people have spoken."
But opponents of the measure accused the president and his Republican allies in Congress of trying to divert public attention from concerns about issues like fuel prices and the war in Iraq.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said the debate was intended "to divide our society, to pit one against another."
"This is another one of the president's efforts to frighten, to distort, to distract and confuse America," Reid said. "It is this administration's way of avoiding the tough, real problems that American citizens are confronted with each and every day."
But religious conservative leaders have said they are looking to the GOP to follow through on promises made in previous elections.
"This was an issue that was important enough to campaign on in the 2004 election cycle by Republicans in general, but it's not been important enough to act upon yet," Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said.
Opponents of the proposal called it a cynical attempt to revive the party's sagging poll numbers.
"There isn't anyone here who is naive enough to believe that the introduction of this legislation now, in two consecutive election cycles, is anything but a politically motivated effort to win votes by demonizing a class of citizens," said the Rev. Robert Hardies, a Unitarian minister.
White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush was repeating his endorsement "more in sorrow than anything else, that this may in fact require a constitutional amendment." He tried to play down the political impact of the proposed amendment, telling reporters: "I'm not sure this is a big driver, to tell you the truth, of voters."
But activists say the vote is needed to help rally socially conservative voters who have become disillusioned by the current Republican leadership.
"We don't have an interest in re-electing a Republican Congress if they're not willing to fight for pro-family issues," said Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council.
Several states have questions related to same-sex marriage on their ballots this year.
Sponsor doubts passage
In 2004, the proposed federal amendment drew 48 of the 67 votes needed to pass, and it may not get as far as it did last time unless supporters can muster the 60 votes needed to end debate on the bill. Its principal sponsor, Sen. Wayne Allard, predicted his measure would get more than 50 votes this year.
"Now is the time to send to the states a constitutional amendment that protects traditional marriage and prevents judges from rewriting our traditional marriage laws," the Colorado Republican said. If Congress does not act, "the courts are going to make a decision for all of us," he said.
Only one Democratic senator -- Nebraska's Ben Nelson -- voted for the amendment in 2004, while several moderate Republicans voted against it.
Meanwhile, the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP group, called Bush's support of the measure "offensive and unworthy of the office of the presidency."
"Wedge-issue politics may score short-term political points, but will end up eroding your ability as president to unite the American people behind winning the war in Iraq, enhancing border security, advancing immigration reform and controlling spending," the group's president, Patrick Guerriero, said in a written statement.
"Your call for civility and decency in this debate rings hollow because the effort to write discrimination into our Constitution is intolerant and uncivil."
A recent Gallup poll found the public split on the amendment, with 50 percent telling pollsters they supported it and 47 saying they opposed it. The poll had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
:::>^..^<::: ~*~The Journey is more important than the end or the start~*~ :::>^..^<:::
IF this passes, how many American's will leave this country? I know for me, that if this passes, I will feel lower than the second class citizen than I'm already made to feel, because of being homosexual. Personally, this will truly push me, and many others, to try to gain citizenship in a country where we aren't treated differently...
I pay my f'n taxes like everyone else.
I HATE... and I do mean H-A-T-E, Bush.
:::>^..^<::: ~*~The Journey is more important than the end or the start~*~ :::>^..^<:::
Unfortunately, I doubt the number of people leaving the country will change. As bad as it can get at times, it's still leaps and bounds above anywhere else.
As for the amendment, it's a bunch of crap. For starts, it will never pass. It's another election year stunt that Bush is pulling, just like he did in '04. He got people paranoid about everything from terrorists to gay marriage and that put him over the top. It's a ploy, plain and simple. Buck Fush.
It seems against the point of this country to ban gay marriage, but the majority of the populus still seems to be against it, so he does have some support.
I just saw this on another website, and it really struck a cord within me:
George W. Bush, the man with no clue when it comes to issues of National priority, is going to hold a press conference and lend his considerable ignorance to the discussion of gay marriage in America. You see, he thinks he needs to offer support for the coming vote on the FMA (Federal Marriage Amendment). As if any of us didn't already know that he stands firmly in his so-called Christian beliefs, that all Americans should have equal rights, unless they are gay Americans, then they deserve less.
This acclaimed & treacherous President believes that the United States Constitution should include language that is expressly discriminatory in nature. This clearly shows that he hasn't a clue what it means to be an American, much less the leader of the "home of the free, and the land of the brave."
Call the White House at (202)-456-1111, and remind George of his Presidential Priorities! America has bigger problems than me wanting to privately marry my partner of 14 years.
:::>^..^<::: ~*~The Journey is more important than the end or the start~*~ :::>^..^<:::
There is no way that this will pass. Bush is using this as a means to get his Conservative base out there to vote Republican. They need to keep their seats in congress and try to gain some, so Bush goes back to the tried and true wish of his following.
As asinine as Bush's tactics are, they will work. He doesn't care about a constitutional ammendment he cares about beating the democrats. He wants them on the record so that republicans in November can say their opponent voted FOR gay marriage while they voted to preserve family values. Next week it'll be a law against flag burning that'll be so ridiculous that most democrats will vote against it, playing into the GOP's hands. After six years of Bush's lax border security he's setting up the democrats as the fall guy, as the reason he can't get reforms passed. The democratic pandering to gays and abortionists guarrantees clear sailing for republicans for years to come. The current administration is quickly eliminating the voters paper trail while recent disclosures reveal South American companies are making the new voting machines with proprietary software that is protected from examination thus making it impossible to verify accuracy. The only way the right will give up the stranglehold on America is bloody revolution. And believe me they take that possibility as a serious threat.
I hope one or both of his beautiful daughters find love in all the wrong places, if ya know what I mean.
Golly, I could see if my very hot 24 year old friend would try and get their attention. She's only a friend, and will remain, but really I don't think any man or woman could say 'no' to her.
Maybe this is the 2nd coming of the "just say 'no'" campaign.
Marriage should be between two people! And as a tax payer, in the UNITED STATES, I demand to have full rights!!! F'n politicians, and people with their heads up their asses. Like banning gay marriage is going to make us go away? You know what it's going to cause? It's going to cause a HUGE uproar in the gay community, and to ALL of our friends, world wide. There are going to be things seen that they've had nightmares about. Watch, and see.
:::>^..^<::: ~*~The Journey is more important than the end or the start~*~ :::>^..^<:::
As an old-school Republican (the ones who only care about financial conservatism and believe that personal business is nobody else's business) I absolutely don't understand why people get so riled up by something that, presumably, doesn't even apply to them. That is does is definite - I've fought this battle on occasion over the years and came away with no doubt that it was a pointless windmill tilt against small-minded, usually religiously oriented, bigots who couldn't change their mind if you did a brain transplant. It's just unfortunate that here in the supposed "land of the free" you are apparently only free to be just like them.
WASHINGTON - The Senate on Wednesday rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, dealing a defeat to President Bush and Republicans who hoped to use the measure to energize conservative voters on Election Day.
Supporters had predicted they would gain votes this year over the last time the issue came up, in 2004, but actually lost one vote for the amendment in a procedural test tally.
Wednesday's 49-48 vote fell 11 short of the 60 required to send the matter for an up-or-down tally. The 2004 vote was 50-48.
A majority of Americans define marriage as a union of a man and a woman, as the proposed amendment does, according to a poll out this week by ABC News. But an equal majority opposes amending the Constitution on this issue, the poll found.
"Most Americans are not yet convinced that their elected representatives or the judiciary are likely to expand decisively the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples," said Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., a possible presidential candidate in 2008. He told the Senate on Tuesday he does not support the amendment.
The tally Wednesday put the ban 18 votes short of the 67 needed for the Senate to approve a constitutional amendment, which requires a two-thirds vote.
But the defeat is by no means the amendment's last stand, said its supporters.
"I do not believe the sponsors are going to fall back and cry about it," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah. "I think they are going to keep bringing it up."
The House plans a redux next month, said Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.
"This is an issue that is of significant importance to many Americans," Boehner told reporters. "We have significant numbers of our members who want a vote on this, so we are going to have a vote."
The defeat came despite daily appeals for passage from Bush, whose standing is troubled by sagging poll numbers and a dissatisfied conservative base.
The Vatican also added muscle to the argument Tuesday, naming gay marriage as one of the factors threatening the traditional family as never before.
Democrats said the debate was a divisive political ploy.
"The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into the Constitution," said Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2003. "A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law."
In response, Hatch fumed: "Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?"
Forty-five of the 50 states have acted to define traditional marriage in ways that would ban same-sex marriage — 19 with constitutional amendments and 26 with statutes.
The amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. To become law, it would need two-thirds support in the Senate and House, and then would have to be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.
Seven Republicans, many from New England, voted to kill the amendment. They were Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins of Maine, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, John McCain of Arizona, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and John Sununu of New Hampshire.
Two Democrats voted for the amendment: Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Robert Byrd of West Virginia.
Three senators did not vote: Democrats Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and John Rockefeller of West Virginia, and Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
06-06-2006 05:32 PM
You know what it's going to cause? It's going to cause a HUGE uproar in the gay community, and to ALL of our friends, world wide. There are going to be things seen that they've had nightmares about. Watch, and see.
