Denial Of Marriage Amendment Has Majority
Denial Of Marriage amendment picks up four Senate votes over '04
By James Downing
Posted @ The Hill
while this article is posted at the HILL
the links have been provided by POLITALK
please us them to contact the players and organizations involved in this Denial Of Marriage Amendment
A majority of the Senate this year will support the Federal
Marriage Amendment, an outcome that both the left and the right say will energizetheir respective bases in November.In the summer of 2004, the effort to define marriage as between a man and awoman failed in the Senate, on a 48-50 vote. Now that Republicans have increased their
majority, the amendment has collected more support.If all senators vote the way they did in 2004 and the freshmen vote asexpected, the bill will attract 52 votes - well short of the 67 needed toamend the Constitution.First-term Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), John Thune(R-S.D.) and David Vitter (R-La.) have all co-sponsored the amendment.These four legislators replaced Democrats who voted against the amendment in2004.
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who won the seat vacated by Sen. John Edwards(D-N.C.), has also co-sponsored the new legislation. Sen. John Kerry(D-Mass.) and Edwards, who opted not to return from the campaign trail tovote on the amendment, are opposed to it.Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) does not support the amendment. He won the seatof retired Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.), who voted for the 2004 amendment.Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) also plans to vote against the measure. Hereplaced Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colo.), one of six Republicans whovoted against it in 2004."I oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment," Salazar said in a statement."I believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, but theregulation of marriage has always been, and should remain, the jurisdictionof the states. We should not enshrine discrimination against any group inour Constitution."The amendment should come before the House in late July. In 2004 the Houserejected it on a 227-186 vote, far short of the two-thirds necessary.Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage, said he believes that52 senators will vote for the amendment. He added that getting a majority ofthe Senate will show that "momentum is growing" for defining marriage inheterosexual terms."Washington is still catching up to what is happening outside the Beltway,"Daniels said, citing a string of victories for his side at the state level.The 48-50 vote in 2004 was not technically on the amendment itself.Instead, it was on a GOP motion to invoke cloture following a Democratic-ledfilibuster.Jim Backlin, vice president of legislative affairs at the ChristianCoalition, speculated that some Democrats up for reelection in red statesmay reject the filibuster this year, but others said such a change inposition is unlikely.Christopher Labonte, legislative director at the Human Rights Campaign, saidthat Republicans are still a long way off from getting the 60 votes neededto invoke cloture.Backlin said a vote would charge the conservative base, which now seesmarriage as its most important issue. Right-wing groups have expressed theirfrustration that the Senate did not vote on more socially conservative billslast year.Many gay-rights advocates share Salazar's view of the amendment as anattempt to codify discrimination in the Constitution."The Constitution was never amended to take away rights from a group ofAmericans," said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry.Wolfson called the amendment a ploy for short-term political gain; he saidRepublicans would use the amendment as a distraction and an attack point insome races this fall. He likened the marriage amendment to the Terri Schiavocase, adding that it would drive some voters away from the GOP.Labonte said that a vote could drive more Democrats to the polls this fall,but he was quick to add that Republicans like Sen. John McCain(Ariz.) were also on his side. In addition to McCain and Campbell, the otherRepublicans who voted no in 2004 are Sens. Lincoln Chafee (R.I.), SusanCollins (Maine), Olympia Snowe (Maine) and John Sununu (N.H.).Democrats who voted yes were Sens. Robert Byrd (W.Va.) and Ben Nelson(Neb.) and former Sen. Zell Miller (Ga.).A vote this year could help the Republican effort to turn out its base, but it will also provide fresh fodder for Steve Laffey, a conservative who ischallenging Chafee in the Sept. 12 GOP primary. Chafee is also expected toattract criticism from the right when the Senate votes on the estate tax.--
By James Downing
Posted @ The Hill
while this article is posted at the HILL
the links have been provided by POLITALK
please us them to contact the players and organizations involved in this Denial Of Marriage Amendment
A majority of the Senate this year will support the Federal
Marriage Amendment, an outcome that both the left and the right say will energizetheir respective bases in November.In the summer of 2004, the effort to define marriage as between a man and awoman failed in the Senate, on a 48-50 vote. Now that Republicans have increased their
majority, the amendment has collected more support.If all senators vote the way they did in 2004 and the freshmen vote asexpected, the bill will attract 52 votes - well short of the 67 needed toamend the Constitution.First-term Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), John Thune(R-S.D.) and David Vitter (R-La.) have all co-sponsored the amendment.These four legislators replaced Democrats who voted against the amendment in2004.Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who won the seat vacated by Sen. John Edwards(D-N.C.), has also co-sponsored the new legislation. Sen. John Kerry(D-Mass.) and Edwards, who opted not to return from the campaign trail tovote on the amendment, are opposed to it.Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) does not support the amendment. He won the seatof retired Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.), who voted for the 2004 amendment.Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) also plans to vote against the measure. Hereplaced Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colo.), one of six Republicans whovoted against it in 2004."I oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment," Salazar said in a statement."I believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, but theregulation of marriage has always been, and should remain, the jurisdictionof the states. We should not enshrine discrimination against any group inour Constitution."The amendment should come before the House in late July. In 2004 the Houserejected it on a 227-186 vote, far short of the two-thirds necessary.Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage, said he believes that52 senators will vote for the amendment. He added that getting a majority ofthe Senate will show that "momentum is growing" for defining marriage inheterosexual terms."Washington is still catching up to what is happening outside the Beltway,"Daniels said, citing a string of victories for his side at the state level.The 48-50 vote in 2004 was not technically on the amendment itself.Instead, it was on a GOP motion to invoke cloture following a Democratic-ledfilibuster.Jim Backlin, vice president of legislative affairs at the ChristianCoalition, speculated that some Democrats up for reelection in red statesmay reject the filibuster this year, but others said such a change inposition is unlikely.Christopher Labonte, legislative director at the Human Rights Campaign, saidthat Republicans are still a long way off from getting the 60 votes neededto invoke cloture.Backlin said a vote would charge the conservative base, which now seesmarriage as its most important issue. Right-wing groups have expressed theirfrustration that the Senate did not vote on more socially conservative billslast year.Many gay-rights advocates share Salazar's view of the amendment as anattempt to codify discrimination in the Constitution."The Constitution was never amended to take away rights from a group ofAmericans," said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry.Wolfson called the amendment a ploy for short-term political gain; he saidRepublicans would use the amendment as a distraction and an attack point insome races this fall. He likened the marriage amendment to the Terri Schiavocase, adding that it would drive some voters away from the GOP.Labonte said that a vote could drive more Democrats to the polls this fall,but he was quick to add that Republicans like Sen. John McCain(Ariz.) were also on his side. In addition to McCain and Campbell, the otherRepublicans who voted no in 2004 are Sens. Lincoln Chafee (R.I.), SusanCollins (Maine), Olympia Snowe (Maine) and John Sununu (N.H.).Democrats who voted yes were Sens. Robert Byrd (W.Va.) and Ben Nelson(Neb.) and former Sen. Zell Miller (Ga.).A vote this year could help the Republican effort to turn out its base, but it will also provide fresh fodder for Steve Laffey, a conservative who ischallenging Chafee in the Sept. 12 GOP primary. Chafee is also expected toattract criticism from the right when the Senate votes on the estate tax.--
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home