The House is scheduled to vote on Colorado Republican Marilyn Musgrave’s
Federal Marriage Amendment on Sept. 30.
Dem activists say they’re doing more than ‘toeing a party line’
Out local leader faults gay group for lesbian’s primary loss
Dem document calls for end to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ DOMA but omits the ‘g word’
Judge rules ‘nothing inherently prejudicial’ in ballot wording
Colorado’s Polis poised to become third out representative after primary win
Mukasey: No prosecutions in Justice Dept. hiring scandal
|
ADRIAN BRUNE
Friday, September 24, 2004
After weeks of speculation and scheduling havoc, several advocacy groups have
indicated that the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage will come
up for a vote on Sept. 30, leaving lawmakers time to stake a position before November
elections.
The move could finally put an end to more than a year of back-and-forth from
House committee rooms to chambers regarding the contentious amendment’s
future, marked by sharp protests, cancelled hearings, cancelled votes, bizarre
alliances and an outing campaign.
But if defeated as expected, the amendment is expected to make an appearance
in the campaign platforms of many conservatives and most likely on the House
floor again next year, with its supporters vowing to resurrect it until it passes.
The most recent round of political posturing over H.J. Resolution 56, also
known as the Federal Marriage Amendment, which Rep. Marilyn Musgrave introduced
in May 2003, began Friday, Sept. 17, with both sides vowing to prevail on the
vote. But despite the rhetoric, legislative experts predict a photo finish for
the FMA.
“This is nothing but a political effort to draw attention away from Congress’
failure to do something about the economy, the hemorrhaging of jobs, rising
health care costs and national security,” said Cheryl Jacques, director
of the Human Rights Campaign, during a lengthy phone conference with journalists.
“This isn’t just about winning the vote in the House; it’s
about winning by a margin that sends the message that playing politics with
peoples’ lives is wrong.”
On Sunday, the Family Research Council, the conservative group leading the
charge behind the marriage amendment, held a mass simulcast to thousands of
its members, featuring Focus on the Family founder, Dr. James Dobson, and several
evangelical leaders.
Entitled “Battle for Marriage III,” the multimedia event broadcast
from the First Baptist Church in Springdale, Ark., featured Dobson arguing that
legalization of same-sex marriage would “seriously threaten religious
freedom” and force schools to teach homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle.
FRC’s President, Tony Perkins, inveighed against “the tyrannical
judiciary, which is largely responsible for the push to redefine marriage,”
and called on Congress to pass the FMA — what the FRC has labeled the
“Marriage Protection Amendment.” Perkins also dragged the previous
silence of many national churches into the fray.
“If Congress fails to act, there is no doubt that in time an activist
judge will impose same-sex marriage on every state in the nation,” Perkins
said. “Until now, the church has largely been on the sidelines. But I
believe the impact of a fully engaged church will change the political landscape
in many ways, and it will dwarf the efforts of those seeking to redefine marriage
and family.”
The details on the voting date have come primarily from the HRC’s public
policy department, which established a satellite office on Capitol Hill to lobby
legislators. Musgrave’s office did not issue a statement or provide details
on the vote when contacted by the Blade.
Legislators have tinkered with Musgrave’s amendment. At one point, they
even supported deleting the phrase, “nor state or federal law” from
its second sentence to allow states to enact something short of marriage, and
thus make the amendment more palatable for moderates.
Even still, the Senate voted 50 to 48 against bringing the amendment to a direct
vote in July, and ended its chances of passing this year.
Right now, members of Congress up for re-election simply want their same-sex
marriage stances on the record to appeal to their constituencies, according
to Barbara Menard, the HRC’s deputy political director.
“Tom Delay and Musgrave are leading this charge, but they both know they
don’t have the votes to win,” Menard said. “It’s very
clear that this vote is all about election-year politics. Musgrave is trying
to win her race with the politics of distraction and discrimination.”
Gay marriage was barely on the national radar when Musgrave introduced the
Federal Marriage Amendment in May 2003, though the Massachusetts lawsuit bringing
about the mayhem had been filed for two years.
Musgrave’s amendment languished in Congress for months, but eventually,
the bill, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, won
broad support — and repeated backing from President Bush — after
the February flurry of same-sex unions in San Francisco spotlighted same-sex
marriage. The Senate failed to advance the measure in July, but the House bill
now has 129 co-sponsors.
Elected in 2002, Musgrave has proved herself a gutsy freshman, and many say
the former Colorado state senator has used the marriage amendment to not only
gain national attention, but also to keep her current job representing Colorado’s
Fourth District.
On the eve of the Republican National Convention, Newsweek magazine selected
her as one of seven Republican stars, alongside Senate candidate Mel Martinez
of Florida and Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
Musgrave has opened a comfortable lead in polls over her Democratic challenger,
Stan Matsunaka, a former Colorado Senate president who opposes Musgrave’s
amendment, calling it a “monumental waste of time.”
However, Musgrave and others herald the amendment as emblematic of the American
people’s ideology.
“I am proud to serve as a voice for the traditional Western values lived
out daily by Coloradans,” Musgrave said in a statement. “When it
comes to issues of less taxes, traditional marriage and national defense, I
am working to ensure there is no compromise in the nation’s capital.”
|
