Six Republican senators voted against the proposal and three Democrats voted in favor, but the vote was largely split along party lines with Republicans mostly favoring the amendment.

Had the amendment been placed on the floor of the Senate for a vote, it was likely to have been defeated because it requires a two-thirds majority—67 of the 100 votes—to pass, as well as a two-thirds majority in the House of Representatives, and three-quarters of the state legislatures.

U.S. president George W. Bush had proclaimed his support for such an amendment for the first time in a statement February 24— two weeks after the decision of San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom to start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples in that city. “If we’re to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America,” Bush said. The president also made public appearances campaigning for the amendment’s passage leading up to the July 14 vote.

Bush’s stance, like that of the majority of Republicans in the Senate who spoke in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment, was grandstanding for a proposal that had virtually no chance of success. It was well crafted to consolidate support among conservative-minded voters who constitute an important part of the electoral base of the Republican Party. Since February, the president put forward no timetable and proposed no campaign to speed progress of the amendment. He began speaking in favor of it in early July as the Republican leadership was getting ready to push for a vote in the Senate with full knowledge it had no chance of success.

At the same time, the Bush administration has distanced itself from the “culture war” approach of the ultraright on this and other issues. Any amendment defining marriage, Bush said, should leave state legislatures “free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage” —a reference to civil unions. In 2000, Vermont was the first state to pass a law recognizing civil unions, giving same-sex couple access to state marriage benefits.

Most capitalist politicians do not favor amending the Constitution to include an antigay clause, reflecting the gains working people have made through the civil rights movement and the struggle for women’s liberation. Discrimination on the basis of race or sex is not acceptable by a majority in bourgeois public opinion today. Inroads have also been made against anti-gay discrimination.

While support for civil rights for gays and lesbians has grown in recent years, however, there doesn’t seem to have been the same change of attitude toward the question of gay marriage.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law by William Clinton in 1996, defines marriage as a “union only between a man and a woman.” The act passed with an overwhelming majorities of 85-14 in the Senate and 342—67 in the House. The measure allows state governments to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. After its passage, 39 states passed laws modeled after it, joining four others that already had laws that prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages.

The same year, the Senate also rejected a bill that would have banned employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

Many senators, including Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, have made it clear that their opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment is not an endorsement of same-sex marriage. “Both John and I believe firmly and absolutely that marriage is between a man and a woman,” Kerry said, referring to his running mate John Edwards. “But we also believe that you don’t play with the constitution of the United States for political purposes and amend the Bill of Rights when you don’t need to.”

Currently, Massachusetts is the only state that has legalized gay marriage. The city of San Francisco has issued over 3,200 licenses to same-sex couples in defiance of California law. Only the states of California, Hawaii, New Jersey, and Vermont have laws that give some benefits to same-sex couples. In five states, including California and Vermont, politicians have introduced legislation that would permit same-sex couples to marry.

Three states—Alaska, Nebraska, and Nevada—have bans on gay marriage written into their constitutions. Seven other states have referendums on this year’s ballot to include similar amendments to their state constitutions.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home