The House of Representatives defeated a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban marriage — and, arguably, marriage-like benefits — for same-sex couples.
A House version of the Federal Marriage Amendment proposal failed Sept. 30 to receive the necessary two-thirds vote for passage, though it did receive a majority of 227 to 186. Twenty-seven Republicans joined most Democrats in voting against the amendment, while 36 Democrats crossed the aisle to vote in favor of it.
A similar proposal — the Marriage Protection Act — failed a procedural vote in the Senate in July, when supporters of the marriage ban failed to muster even a simple majority.
Many opponents of the proposal said it was designed to make election-year life difficult for moderate Democrats who oppose the amendment on principle.
But several recent court decisions on gay-rights issues forced the House leadership’s hand, others argued.
“Many of us in the House would prefer not to have this debate,” said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas). “The question of the future of marriage in this country has been forced on us by activist judges, legislating from the bench.”
DeLay referred specifically to a 2003 decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that legalized same-sex “marriage” in that state.
As a result, the commonwealth became, in May, the first in the United States to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
DeLay and other opponents of same-sex “marriage” argued that federal lawsuits would ultimately lead to the invalidation of laws banning same-sex “marriage” in other states — meaning a federal constitutional amendment is the only way to prevent the legalization of gay “marriage” nationwide.
The amendment’s opponents, however, cited the arguments of many legal scholars who said that, if enacted, the amendment could ban not only marriage, but civil unions and other marriage-like legal relationships designed to protect gay couples and their children.
The amendment, as proposed, read, “Marriage in the United States shall consist solely 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.”
The proposal’s supporters vowed to bring it up again in the next Congress.
(ABP)
Share with others: