Amending Marriage: The Debate over Gay Marriage Forces a Wedge Issue

Americans don’t agree on gay marriage. It’s an issue that those in politics call a "wedge," since it wedges and divides the people. A wedge issue can be used for political gain, since it polarizes voters and, often, scares them into voting a certain way.

No one denies that the Senate debate on the Bush-backed Federal Marriage Amendment was timed strategically before the elections in order to introduce a wedge issue that favors the Republicans.

Most Americans don’t agree with gay marriage, but also don’t agree with amending the Constitution in order to ban it.

However, groups like the Alliance for Marriage, which are doing everything they can to stop gay marriage, say that the Senate debate was just what they wanted. The group hoped to introduce their point of view to the public and to get it on record before the elections. They hope that Senate Republicans’ remarks on the floor will linger in the minds of voters as they head to the polls.

Although the amendment was easily defeated by a procedural vote, those opposed to gay marriage still consider the July 12-14, 2004 floor debate a success.

Convincing the public

Republicans dominated the Senate floor, offering argument after argument in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment and against gay marriage. In general, Democrats offered little response to Republicans’ specific points, but instead offered the position that the issue of marriage belongs to the states and that Congress has no right to legislate the issue over states’ heads.

Many Republicans agree with this point of view; Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona remarked that the amendment violates an integral part of the Republican Party philosophy: states’ rights.

Backlash

In November 2003, A Massachusetts state court deemed marriage discrimination illegal and ordered state clerks to issue licenses to same-sex couples beginning in May 2004. On May 17, the first same-sex marriage licenses were issued in that state. (For more on the Massachusetts marriages, click here.)

The Massachusetts governor and state legislature are working to reverse legal gay and lesbian marriage in their state, but Republicans argue that "activist" judges have usurped the will of the people there.

In response, the Federal Marriage Amendment does two things: it limits the definition of marriage to a union between one man and one woman and it limits the power of the courts (both state and federal), thus preventing them from reconsidering marriage.

Republicans argue that since the courts and not the legislature have deemed gay marriage legal in Massachusetts, the democratic process has been surrendered. They say that the only way to keep state courts from legalizing gay marriage is through a Constitutional amendment that would trump state courts’ powers.

This is exactly why McCain, other Republicans, and Democrats object. They say that the Constitution relegates adoptions, marriages, and all family law to the states and that state courts and state legislatures are perfectly capable of dealing with this issue.

33 states have already passed their own Defense of Marriage Acts, 5 have had ballot initiatives to ban gay marriage, and 14 more have planned ballot initiatives for the fall elections. Democrats claim this as proof that the people are participating in the issue and that the democratic process is engaged.

An amendment without support

The Federal Marriage Amendment has nowhere near the 67 votes it needs to pass the Senate. The measure did not even have enough support to pass through a procedural vote called cloture, which stops the debate and brings the measure to an up or down vote. For cloture, Republicans needed 60 votes; they got only 48.

The vote was not strictly partisan. Two Democrats, Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Zell Miller of Georgia, voted to invoke cloture while six Republicans, Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins of Maine, John McCain of Arizona, Olympia Snowe of Maine, and John Sununu of New Hampshire voted against their party’s motion. Democratic presidential ticket candidates John Kerry and John Edwards were on the campaign trail and did not vote.

The 50-48 vote against cloture does not represent the level of opposition against the amendment itself. Many more Republicans would have deviated from the party if asked to amend the Constitution in this way.

Amending the Constitution

Not since the Eighteenth Amendment, which prohibited alcohol consumption, has Congress so clearly attempted to legislate behavior that some lawmakers deem harmful to society.

Like proponents of alcohol prohibition, those in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment claim that gay marriage will contaminate society. This notion is certainly arguable, as is the idea that the Constitution should limit rights instead of grant them.

Most often in history, amendments to the Constitution have been used to grant rights in order to reflect society’s evolution. For example, the Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery; the Fifteenth Amendment allowed men of color to vote; the Nineteenth Amendment granted women the right to vote, and the Twenty-Sixth amendment gave people 18 and older the right to vote.

All of the other constitutional amendments have to do with government processes, such as presidential terms, payment of Congresspeople, and what should happen when an elected position becomes suddenly vacant. Except for the Twenty-First Amendment, which repealed prohibition, constitutional amendments either grant rights or clarify procedure.

The Federal Marriage Amendment is, therefore, very unusual. It would limit the power of the courts and deny a right already granted in Massachusetts.

Strategy

The Republicans’ strategy was to make visible to their base of voters the Bush philosophy of marriage and the party objection to gay marriage. The Republican Party also attempted to force a vote on the measure, so that John Kerry and John Edwards would state their positions on the Congressional record.

The Democrats’ strategy was to stay out of the nitty-gritty of the debate, so that they would not be perceived as supporting gay marriage, an idea many Americans oppose. They decided to question the validity of the debate, since the measure has no support, thereby accusing Republicans of wasting precious time that could be used to deal with other matters, like homeland security.

A divisive issue

Not only do party members diverge on the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage, but family members clash on the issue as well. Lynne Cheney, Vice President Dick Cheney’s wife, disagrees with her husband on the necessity of the Federal Marriage Amendment. She sides with Democrats and says that states should be left to decide. Mary Cheney, the couple’s daughter, is out as a lesbian, but has not come out to either challenge or agree with the amendment. The dispute within this high-profile family elucidates how divisive this wedge issue can be.

Learn more

For information on this and other women’s rights issues, click here. Then discuss the issue with other WomenMatter readers in one of our online forums. You can also sign up for an e alert and we’ll keep you posted. Be sure to register to vote and to contact your representatives, because your voice matters.

WomenMatter is dedicated to empowering women to participate in the political process. To make a donation, click here.

Update Posted on: 7/19/2004