109th Congress / Senate / 2nd session / Vote 163
- Question: On the Cloture Motion
- Category: Cloture
- Vote description: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to the Consideration of S. J. Res. 1; Marriage Protection Amendment
- Vote type: 3/5 (Help)
- Result: Rejected, 49-48, with 3 not voting.
- Date/time: June 7, 2006, 10:02 a.m.
- Republican majority opinion: Yes (Help)
- Democrat majority opinion: No (Help)
Key Vote Analysis
This vote would have been a first step to adding an amendment to the Constitution of the United States defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It was the second such attempt since 2004. The amendment would have limited marriage specifically to men and women, but would have allowed states to decide on other forms of legally recognized unions, i.e. civil unions. The amendment read in its entirety, "Marriage in the United States shall consist only 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."
A June 7, 2006, cloture vote on the amendment failed in the Senate 49-48. Sixty votes in favor of cloture were needed to move the bill forward and force a vote on the amdenment's passage in the Senate, which would have required a two-thirds majority. The amendment then would have moved to the House of Representatives. In 2004 a similar attempt to amend the Constitution failed to garner a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate.
Opponents of the amendment argue that it discriminates against homosexuals by refusing to grant them the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples. Some libertarians and states rights advocates oppose the amendment because they believe it is either unnecessary or overly intrusive. Senior Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R) was quoted by The Washington Post as saying the amendment is "a solution in search of a problem." Specter "said he opposes same-sex marriage but feels states can handle the issue," The Post reported.
Supporters of the amendment see it as an important step in protecting the institution of "traditional" marriage, which they argue is a vital part of a strong society. Other proponents assert that the amendment protects against the threat of "judicial activism," stopping courts from overturning laws on marriage passed by local legislatures.
"Marriage is under attack," said Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard (R), the sponsor of the bill. "The Constitution will be amended whether we pass this amendment or not. The only question is whether it will be amended through the amendment process or by unelected activist judges."
The political implications of the Marriage Protection Amendment are widespread. Many Democrats are charging President Bush with manipulating the gay marriage debate to influence the upcoming 2006 midterm elections. By putting the amendment in the public eye, opponents say, the GOP is attempting to draw anew on the support of the religious right in order to bolster weak Republican candidates at the polls come November. As The Washington Post reported, "Bush's latest foray on this emotional terrain dismayed Democrats and gay rights advocates, who accused the president of using a wedge issue to regain political momentum after setbacks from Iraq and Hurricane Katrina."
During the 2004 election many states held referendum votes on banning gay marriage, either by creating new state law or by amending state constitutions, moves which helped mobilize voters opposed to gay marriage and which were widely seen as giving an advantage to President Bush and the Republican Party. Forty-five states now have laws banning same-sex marriage -- 19 of which are constitutional amendments.
Polls show that a majority of Americans do not support gay marriage, but most are also wary of a constitutional amendment.
If it were to be approved by the House and Senate, the amendment would move on to individual state legislatures. For the amendment to be added to the Constitution, three-fourths (or 38 states) would have to approve it.
See other key votes in the 109th Congress
