Same-Sex Ban Looks Doomed

A split among Senate Republicans over different versions of an amendment to ban same-sex marriage is preventing a vote on an election-year issue pushed by President Bush and religious conservatives.

Instead, a procedural motion Wednesday will likely end the debate and the Senate will move on to other things, reports CBS News Correspondent Bob Fuss.

Senate Republicans had prepared two versions of the amendment, unable to agree among themselves on how best to get a vote on a measure that the White House had made a priority for Congress.

The likely outcome is that neither proposal will get a direct vote after Democrats just last week had agreed to allow one.

The lack of an up-or-down vote on the marriage ban also likely means that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and his running mate John Edwards won't have to cast votes on this polarizing campaign issue.

Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said Kerry and Edwards would be in the Senate to vote against the amendment if it came up, but they will not be there to vote on the procedural measure.

While Kerry and Edwards oppose gay marriage, they argue that it is an issue that should be left to the states to decide. Both senators support civil unions, which would give gay couples all the legal rights of married couples without letting them wed.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said there was "great interest" among Republicans for a simpler approach that would add only one line to the U.S. Constitution: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

Democrats rejected Frist's request to hold votes on both it and the original version that included another sentence: "Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidence thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

Proponents of the amendment said they included the second sentence to clarify that state legislatures — but not courts — could still establish laws recognizing civil unions and domestic partnerships between two people of the same sex.

"There's been a considerable amount of debate and a lot of scholarly thought and a lot of constitutional experts that have been approached as far as what would be the best language," said Sen. Wayne Allard, a Colorado Republican, who authored the original version.

Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay political organization, said the last-minute effort to get votes on two different versions reflected a lack of care in drafting the amendment.

"I think it is outrageous and frankly surreal that at the 11th hour in this debate, they are literally rewriting the Constitution on the back of a napkin," she said.

Democrats said opening the proposed amendment to changes could open the Constitution itself to other amendments ranging from campaign finance to flag burning.

"We're treating it like just another little old amendment," Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota said of the Republican demands for separate votes on each version. "This is an amendment that will be added to a document that is precious, that we treasure, that we ought to have respect for."

The only vote likely to occur now is a procedural one scheduled for Wednesday aimed at forcing the Senate to act on the amendment. Republicans, who had already conceded they lacked the two-thirds majority — or 67 votes — needed to advance a constitutional amendment, would have to get 60 votes to go on to a vote on the issue itself.

"There are really predominantly two different tracks that people would like to take here," said Sen. Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican. "All we're suggesting is that at least those two ideas be given the opportunity to be voted on."

While the amendment may fail to secure the necessary votes, the roll call itself may have political implications. Polls show most Americans oppose same-sex marriage. While many Democrats oppose it as well, some are resisting amending the Constitution to address the issue, and their opponents could use that against them in November.

Mr. Bush called for the amendment earlier this year after the Supreme Court in Massachusetts, clarifying an earlier ruling, said same-sex couples must have the right to marry. San Francisco's mayor soon began marrying same sex couples. Towns in several other states, from New York to Oregon, began doing the same.

In Massachusetts, a Suffolk County judge is scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday on a lawsuit filed by eight out-of-state same-sex couples who are seeking a preliminary injunction against a 1913 law that prohibits marriages that would be unlawful in a couple's home state.