GOP split on marriage proposals

Senate Republican leaders, who had been seeking a clear vote on a constitutional amendment on same-sex “marriage,” yesterday found themselves outmaneuvered by Democrats and divided over which of two proposals to pursue.

President Bush and Senate Republican leaders support the Federal Marriage Amendment, which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman and restricts courts’ ability to rule on the issue. But some Republicans want to vote on an alternate, simpler version — leaving Republican leaders scrambling to save face as Democrats enjoy watching from the sidelines.

“They can’t get their act together; that’s clearly the case here,” said Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat. “They can’t agree on one version.”

Republicans leaders filed a procedural motion late yesterday that would limit debate and force a final vote — a motion many say is unlikely to garner the 60 needed votes.

The Senate will hold that procedural vote tomorrow.

Democrats surprised some by saying Friday and again yesterday that they would not block a vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment — sponsored by Sen. Wayne Allard, Colorado Republican — and would allow a direct vote on it this week, as long as no changes are made.

But because some in the Republican ranks want to vote on a second proposal, Republican leaders yesterday rejected the Democrats’ offer and instead suggested holding a vote on each proposal. Democrats in turn rejected that, saying they would want to offer additional proposals as well.

Republicans were forced to file the procedural motion.

Mr. Allard’s proposal, which is before the Senate, would define marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

It also has a second sentence stating, “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.”

Supporters say the second sentence is designed to prevent courts from forcing a state to sanction same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships, while allowing states to choose to do so. But Democratic opponents have argued that sentence is not clear and could ban states from having such same-sex civil unions.

Some Republicans want to avoid the civil unions issue entirely, and simply pass the first sentence that defines marriage, and many Republicans want to hold a vote on this one-sentence proposal.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee — who strongly supports Mr. Allard’s measure and wanted to hold a direct vote on it — suggested to Democrats late yesterday that the Senate hold a vote on Mr. Allard’s as well as the simpler version. Democrats said no.

A Senate Republican aide said the simpler version could garner more votes than Mr. Allard’s proposal, and Democrats just want to prevent that by not agreeing to two votes.

Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, said having the two votes would allow leaders to “find the sweet spot” and the language “that can build the greatest consensus.”

Story Continues →