NATIONAL

Both sides target senators in FMA battle
Amendment supporters quietly remove sunset provision from bill

JOE CREA
Friday, July 09, 2004

With a vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment just days away, supporters and opponents of the gay marriage ban are embarking on last ditch lobbying efforts in an attempt to sway undecided senators to their side.

Some senators, locked in close re-election bids have said opponents of same-sex marriage have flooded their offices with calls, urging them to vote “yes” on the amendment that the Senate is scheduled to take up next week.

Social conservatives have targeted Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who is heading into a close primary contest on Aug. 24 with a more conservative opponent, state Sen. Mike Miller. An ad campaign sponsored by Focus on the Family has appeared in several Alaskan newspapers showing a sad boy with the headline, “Why Doesn’t Senator Murkowski Believe Every Child Needs a Mother and a Father?”

Charles Kleeschulte, Murkowski’s communications director, said his boss supports an amendment that would ban gay marriage so long as it allows the state to determine who can receive marital benefits. Kleeschulte said Murkowski is waiting to see the final resolution before she casts her vote.

Using a similar ad, Focus on the Family has also targeted Ohio Sens. George Voinovich (R) and Mike DeWine (R) for failing to support the FMA.

Marcie Ridgway, press secretary for Voinovich said her office receives hundreds of phone calls a day, mostly from individuals opposing gay marriage. Voinovich has said that the traditional institution of marriage must be protected but that the FMA is not necessary now.

“Right now the best strategy is to work hard to see that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is upheld and that more states follow Ohio’s lead and pass defense of marriage laws and enforce them,” Voinovich said in a statement.

“I support debating an amendment in the Senate, but I’m concerned that a premature vote on passing it — before any court has ruled on the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act or state actions — would likely fail in the Senate and would make it harder to pass an amendment if one were eventually needed,” Voinovich said. “If federal and state laws are overruled by the courts we must then seek passage of a constitutional amendment to preserve marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and I would fight hard to win its passage.”

Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) remains undecided about the marriage amendment. According to a spokesperson in Byrd’s office who asked not to be identified, the office has received a large volume of mail on the subject but the official declined to say what percentage of writers supported or opposed the amendment.

No sunset provision in FMA
In a related development this week, gay rights activists learned that the latest version of the FMA in the Senate omits the customary “drop dead” provision that stipulates that ratification of the measure by the states must occur within seven years of the date Congress passes it.

The deletion of the sunset provision from the re-submitted March 22 Senate amendment was not officially announced.

The last amendment to pass Congress without such a provision was the 27th Amendment in 1789. It was finally ratified, 203 years later, in 1992.

University of Minnesota law professor Dale Carpenter said there is no textual requirement in the Constitution that the seven-year sunset provision must be placed on the ratification of a constitutional amendment. He added that there is no Supreme Court precedent addressing the issue.

“It seems the sponsors of the amendment think they have a long slog ahead in the states, that they are unlikely to get ratification in seven years,” Carpenter said. “But I don’t think seven years is on their side.”

Even with such a sunset provision, Congress could still extend the ratification period, Carpenter said.

Carpenter added that since a sunset provision is customary, but not required, gay rights advocates could argue that “this approach represents yet another way in which the FMA is a break from the nation’s traditions.”

The FMA, according to Carpenter is not only a major departure in terms of substance, but now a break in traditional procedure.

HRC, LCR launch anti-FMA ads
The Human Rights Campaign and the Log Cabin Republicans unveiled two advertising campaigns this week in an effort to generate more opposition to the FMA.

HRC launched a television ad campaign titled “Preserve and Protect” which features archival footage of presidents taking their inaugural oath. The ad then asks viewers ...

continued on next page

1  |  2

national | local | world | arts | classifieds | real estate | about us

© 2009 | A Window Media LLC Publication | Privacy Policy