900255
Federal Marriage Amendment Tanks; House Scrambles to Appease Right Wing
On July 14, the Senate decisively rejected the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have barred states from granting marriage or any of the rights or responsibilities related to marriage to same-sex couples. The final tally for the amendment was 48-50, far short of the 67 votes needed to move an amendment. Both of California's senators voted against the measure. Senator Feinstein spoke out about it from a states' rights perspective, but failed to note that the amendment would put in jeopardy California's policy related to domestic partners and same-sex parents and adoption. The remarks, which emphasized that "states are responding to this issue" by passing anti-gay laws and constitutional amendments, garnered mixed reviews from civil rights advocates, who appreciated the Senator's vote more than her rationale.
"Californians deserve more than an argument that family law should be the province of the states," said Ramona Ripston, ACLU/SC Executive Director. "We've decided as a state that LGBT families should have the basic protections our state laws afford other families, and that's something to fight for explicitly."
President Bush stepped up his support in advance of the vote, issuing a statement on July 12, and referencing the Federal Marriage Amendment in his campaign swing through rural areas of swing states.
Immediately after the Senate vote, the House scrambled for an alternative approach and passed H.R. 3313, the Marriage Protection Act, on a 233-194 vote. The Marriage Protection Act would make federal courts unavailable to same-sex couples seeking to challenge the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal anti-gay marriage law passed in 1996. There is no companion bill in the Senate.
The ACLU called the court-stripping bill unconstitutional, and the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, reported, "We are not aware of any precedent for a law that would deny the inferior courts original jurisdiction and the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of a law of Congress."
The House bill means that another massive mobilizing effort may be required to defeat the measure should it be introduced in the Senate. Hundreds of thousands of individuals across the country weighed in to oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment, and ACLU/SC activists sent more than 16,000 letters on the subject in the last year. In addition, hundreds of ACLU/SC Take Action network members crafted personal statements about their reasons for opposing the amendment through our "Register for Fairness" campaign. (See pp. 10-11 for selected excerpts).
AUGUST 2004
Download Issue as PDF
Immigrant Sweeps Trigger Fear and Damage Communities
Federal Marriage Amendment Tanks; House Scrambles to Appease Right Wing
THE FAITH-BASED PERSPECTIVE for a Non-Sectarian SeaL
Pasadena Takes Stand Against PATRIOT Act
Margaret Cho: A One-Woman Free Speech Zone
ACLU Activists "Register For Fairness" to Fight Discriminatory Marriage Amendment
