Oct 01, 2004  |  By: LOU CHIBBARO JR.  | COMMENTS     

The U.S. House defeated a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage on Thursday afternoon following a heated debate over gay rights and the institution of marriage.

The Marriage Protection Amendment, formerly known as the Federal Marriage Amendment, received a majority vote of 227 House members in favor and 186 opposed, with 20 members not voting.

But the measure fell 29 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to pass a constitutional amendment.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) led the debate in favor of the amendment, saying the measure was needed to protect the institution of marriage.

The vote fell largely along partisan lines, with most Democrats voting against it and a majority of Republicans backing the amendment. However, gay groups lobbying against the amendment, including the national gay group Log Cabin Republicans, praised what they called a “solid” contingent of House Republicans who broke ranks from their leaders to vote against the measure.

One hundred ninety one Republicans and 36 Democrats voted for the amendment; 27 Republicans and 158 Democrats voted against it. The sole House independent, Rep. Barnard Sanders of Vermont, voted against it.

The Senate defeated a similar constitutional amendment seeking to ban gay marriage in July by procedural vote, with 48 senators in favor and 50 against the measure. Backers fell 19 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to pass that measure.

Gay civil rights groups and their congressional allies in both parties criticized the House GOP leadership for bringing the amendment up this week, less than two months before the U.S. presidential and congressional elections. They argued that the amendment’s defeat in the Senate killed its chances of ever becoming enacted and made a House vote meaningless.

“Since the discriminatory constitutional amendment was first proposed last February, voters saw the proposal for what it is: a cynical political ploy to distract voters from the enormous foreign policy and domestic challenges facing America,” said Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay political group.

DeLay and more than a dozen House Republicans argued in a debate that lasted more than two and a half hours that the amendment was needed to protect the institution of marriage.

“Peter and Paul can be great fathers, but they can’t be a mother,” DeLay said. “A man and a woman transfer values to their children,” he said, adding, “The values of our nation are with one man and one woman” who marry and have children.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who is gay, joined his two openly gay House colleagues, Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) in arguing against the amendment.

Frank said he and his constituents in Massachusetts were especially outraged that supporters of a federal constitutional amendment were attempting to deny his state the right to decide on the question of gay marriage on the state level.

With same-sex marriage legalized in Massachusetts through a ruling by the state’s Supreme Judicial Court, Frank noted that the Massachusetts Legislature and a possible statewide voter referendum should be the vehicle used to decide the issue, not a federal constitutional amendment imposed by Congress.

Turning to the merits of the issue, Frank said he found it hard to understand why backers of the amendment feel gays seeking to marry would harm the institution of marriage.

“I’m a gay man,” he said. “We are not assaulting marriage. We are human beings…We also feel love.”

Saying gays admire and support the institution of marriage, Frank added, “How does it hurt you if we share it? What is it you are protecting yourself against?”

House calls for hate crimes vote
The House vote on the proposed constitutional amendment came two days after the House voted 213 to 186 to approve a non-binding motion to instruct its leadership to support a hate crimes bill with protections for real or perceived sexual orientation and gender, as well as disability. Gay and trans rights activists have hoped the gender provision would be interpreted as covering hate crimes motivated by hatred toward transgender persons.

The Senate passed the hate crime measure earlier this year in the form of an amendment to a defense authorization bill.

The House vote on Sept. 28 to approve the motion to instruct calls on House leaders and House members of a House-Senate conference committee to accept the Senate ...