How Your Senator Voted on Marriage

How Your Senator Voted on Marriage

But the game is far from over! Now let’s apply what we have learned.

Dear Defender of Marriage,

While defenders of marriage had hoped that the Senate would vote up or down on the Federal Marriage Amendment today, the only vote taken was on a procedural motion to cut off debate so that the actual substantive vote could be taken. The procedural move, called “cloture,” requires 60 votes. It got only 48. A list showing how the various senators voted is set out below.

As a result, the Senate could not vote on the actual amendment itself. However, today’s procedural vote is revealing and useful in several respects. Here are some of the lessons we can learn:

1. The vote shows that we have work to do. Many senators were clearly skittish on this issue, even though national opinion polls show that Americans oppose “same sex marriage” by margins of about 2 to 1. By smaller majorities, polls also show that Americans support a constitutional amendment to protect marriage. In many states represented by “skittish” senators, the margins in support of marriage are even greater.
So, why did so many of these senators ignore the desires of a clear majority of their constituents? While individual reasons might vary, it appears that one reason is that these senators were not hearing from enough of their constituents who support marriage. The vocal, well-organized and well-financed minority of anti-marriage allies put more pressure on these senators than did the defenders of marriage. That is politics.
2. Even though today’s action was only a procedural vote, the outcome is a good indicator of where many senators stand on the amendment itself.
This question, however, is more complicated than it seems. We should assume that every Senator who refused to support a substantive vote is opposed to amending the Constitution to defend marriage – at least until he or she gives a convincing explanation otherwise. Why else, they must be asked, would they oppose voting on an amendment, either the Federal Marriage Amendment as introduced or on an amended version?
On the other hand, we cannot assume that all of those who supported a substantive vote automatically support an amendment. It is much more difficult for senators to resist pressure from their party leaders on a procedural vote than to resist pressure on a substantive vote. Thus, some senators who called for a substantive vote today may be less willing to actually support the amendment when that substantive vote is taken. Today’s action is also complicated by the fact that efforts to prevent modifications of the Federal Marriage Amendment were part of this morning’s developments.
We will try to sort all this out for you in the next couple of days and give you a better sense of where each senator actually stands on stopping the courts from legalizing “same sex marriage.”
3. Based on their statements during the debate, we can now identify a number of senators who are, at best, unclear about what is at stake or, at worst, misleading the public regarding their opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. We now know pretty well which senators need more education. For example, a number of senators continue to argue that the definition of marriage should be left to the states. But, as amendment supporters pointed out again and again, absent an amendment the judges will usurp the right of any state to define marriage. (For those interested in a more detailed explanation of some of the misinformation being circulated and some of the material Defend Marriage provided to senators to counter this material, click here).
4. There is no serious question whether we will have a federal definition of marriage. The only question is who will define marriage in this country: the people or the courts. A federal definition of marriage will either come from the American people or from as few as five Justices of the United States Supreme Court.
Every Senator who voted against cloture must be forced to clearly answer which method of defining marriage he or she supports.
Any Congressperson or Senator who does not support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman is actually supporting judicial imposition of “same sex marriage” on the entire country. It does not matter how the politicians “spin” their position, the political reality is that members of Congress who do not openly support an amendment tacitly support a new judicial definition of marriage.
5. This is just the beginning. There is a saying in Washington that “nothing worthwhile happens in less than three Congresses.” One Congress lasts two years. In our system, amending the Constitution is the most difficult legislative effort that citizens can undertake.

We may be disappointed at the outcome of this today’s effort, but we must not be discouraged. The debate has only begun.

So, what is next?

It appears that the House may take some action before the Congress recesses for six weeks at the end of July. It may be that the House will consider legislation to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction regarding marriage, something Congress has the constitutional right to do. This approach, however, has serious problems in its own right. (For a brief discussion of my concerns regarding “jurisdiction stripping,” click here.)

There is also the possibility that the House may vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment in September.

We will continue to keep you informed of developments and suggest what you can do to help defend marriage and the family.

It has always been clear that this is a battle we must win if we are to protect the future we pass on to our children and grandchildren. Now is the time for work, not worry.

Sincerely,

Richard G. Wilkins
Chairman

How Senators Voted on Cloture

The following is a list of how senators voted on the cloture motion, a procedural measure to close off further debate and move to a vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment itself. Cloture requires a 3/5ths vote, or 60 senators when all senators are voting. A “yea” vote is a vote for cloture, a “nay” vote is a vote against cloture (that is voting against moving on to vote on the amendment).

On this vote, 3 Democrats, Senators Byrd, Miller, and Nelson (NE) voted for cloture and six Republicans, Senators Campbell, Chafee, Collins, McCain, Snowe, and Sununu voted against cloture.

Two senators, Kerry and Edwards, were absent and did not vote.

YEAs —48

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)

Enzi (R-WY)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)

Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NAYs —50

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Breaux (D-LA)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)

Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (D-FL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)

Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCain (R-AZ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Wyden (D-OR)