WASHINGTON (ABP) — As expected, the House of Representatives July 18 defeated a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage — for the second time in as many election years and after the Senate had defeated the same proposal.
Known by its supporters as the Marriage Protection Amendment and by gay-rights advocates as the Federal Marriage Amendment, H.J.Res. 88 died after a vote of 236-187 in its favor. Although a simple majority voted for it, the measure failed to muster the two-thirds majority a proposed constitutional amendment needs to pass each house of Congress.
However, its support was slightly stronger than that received by a nearly identical amendment in 2004, which failed on a 227-186 vote.
The Senate rejected its version of the latest amendment earlier this year. In that chamber, it failed to receive even a simple majority on a procedural vote.
The Senate vote effectively killed any amendment's chances of making it out of Congress for the rest of the year. But the House's Republican leadership forced the amendment to the floor without sending it through the customary committee process, spurring amendment opponents to charge it was an election-year political ploy aimed at hurting incumbent Democrats in moderate or conservative districts.
“I regret that this House is being so demeaned by this debate. It saddens me,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) in debate before voting on the measure. “We know this amendment is not going anywhere; we know this is merely a political exercise. Shame on this House for playing games with political bigotry.”
Meanwhile, amendment supporters said Congress should be addressing the issue legislatively because gay marriage remains a subject of litigation in state and federal courts. Several referred to a 2003 ruling by Massachusetts' highest court that said the state's constitution required officials to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples on an equal basis with heterosexual couples. That state remains the only jurisdiction in the United States that legally recognizes gay marriage.
“I would say to you that marriage is certainly one of the top-tier issues, that it is the right of the United States Congress to address,” said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.). “Not one that we have chosen to have, but that has been brought upon us.”
The amendment's chief House sponsor told her colleagues that, given polls showing the majority of Americans opposed to legalized gay marriage, the voters deserve to know where Congress stands on the issue.
“The people have a right to know that their elected representatives agree with them regarding the definition of traditional marriage,” said Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.). “The American people want us to settle this issue now — they don't want us to wait and see how much havoc the courts will wreak on the institution of marriage before we act to protect it.”
But opponents of the amendment have pointed to several recent setbacks that state and federal courts have dealt to gay-marriage supporters. On July 14, a federal panel reinstated a particularly restrictive Nebraska ban on gay marriage and domestic partnership rights, and the Tennessee Supreme Court said a gay-marriage ban could go on that state's November ballot.
Those decisions came a week after the judges on New York's highest court, choosing not to follow the lead of their colleagues in Massachusetts, said the New York Constitution does not require the legalization of gay marriage.
However, anti-gay-marriage sentiment may be decreasing among the electorate. During House debate on the amendment proposal, Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) said his state had seen no detrimental effects in the two-plus years gay marriage has been legal there.
“Gays can go to City Hall…and legally get married. Eight thousand couples have done so, and everything has stayed the same in Massachusetts. Life goes on,” he said. “What you are saying to those 8,000 couples is that we want to affirmatively go and take away your rights — we want to null and void your legal rights. That is shameful; that is insulting.”
Gay-marriage opponents in that state are attempting to get a proposal to amend the Massachusetts Constitution placed on the state's 2008 election ballot — the proposal would undo legalized gay marriage. But recent polls have showed the state's voters either closely divided or slightly opposed to passing such an amendment.
-30-