News

by Hilary White
Â
  WASHINGTON, June 7, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The US Senate today rejected the proposed constitutional amendment that would have prohibited homosexual “marriage.” The motion to close debate and vote on the amendment failed 49-48, 11 short of the 60 required votes to bring the amendment to a vote and move it on to the next stage.
Â
  Constitutional amendments require an involved process and mustÂwin the supportÂof two-thirds of each house of the U.S. Congress and three-quarters of state legislatures before taking effect.
Â
  Concerned Women for America (CWA) said in a statement that their organization supports a federal marriage amendment protecting marriage but indicated that the defeat is not necessarily a bad thing for marriage.
Â
  Some groups were concerned that the proposed marriage amendment might have left room for the establishment of “civil unions,” where homosexual partnerings could enjoy every benefit of marriage but the name. CWA’s Chief Counsel, Jan LaRue said her organization “supports a single-sentence amendment that would strictly define marriage as between one man and one woman, and not leave any room for misinterpretation.”
Â
  LaRue continued, “A one-line amendment would be virtually invulnerable to misinterpretation, and it would remove cover from those in Congress who use their alleged concerns for civil unions to prevent Americans from voting to preserve marriage.”
Â
  Forty-five states have passed laws or amended their constitutions to establish marriage between one man and one woman. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act allows states to refuse to recognize marriages performed elsewhere. Supporters believe that a constitutional amendment defining marriage is necessary to prevent courts from overturning state bans.
Â
  President Bush and the supporters of marriage in both parties have vowed to keep trying. “Our nation’s founders set a high bar for amending our Constitution and history has shown us that it can take several tries before an amendment builds the two-thirds support it needs in both houses of Congress,” the president said.
Â
“We’re not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected,” said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.
Â
“Clearly as time goes on there will be more votes in favour of this,” said South Dakota Republican Sen. John Thune, according to the Washington Post. “We make a little headway each time this is debated.”