Domenici Supports Up-Down Vote on Federal Marriage Amendment, But Effort Stopped on Procedural Vote

Domenici Supports Up-Down Vote on Federal Marriage Amendment, But Effort Stopped on Procedural Vote

WASHINGTON-U.S. Senator Pete Domenici today voted to allow the Senate to move toward an actual up-or-down vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment, a proposed constitutional amendment he supports that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Domenici was among 48 lawmakers who voted to proceed to an actual vote on the FMA. However, 60 votes were required to move the Senate toward an actual vote on the constitutional amendment. The motion to "invoke cloture" failed 48-50.

President Bush in February called on Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to defend the sanctity of marriage by "defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." It would take 67 votes in the Senate to move the amendment forward. Should Congress eventually approve a constitutional amendment, the issue would revert to the individual states. Voters in three-quarters of the 50 states must vote to ratify the amendment for it to become law.

Following today's vote, Domenici issued the following statement:

"I voted in favor of cloture so the Senate can have the opportunity to vote to send this amendment to the states so that the state legislatures can act on behalf of the American people in deciding whether to ratify this amendment.

"The Federal Marriage Amendment would ensure that the state legislatures, as elected representatives of the people entrusted with the legislative powers, get to decide. This vote is a disappointing setback. It has left the door open for activist courts and a few non-legislators to redefine marriage-independent of the will of the people.

"I do not take amending the U.S. Constitution lightly. Our Founding Fathers were particularly brilliant in putting in place mechanisms that ensure such amendments are difficult to do. But I believe this amendment has been forced on us because of recent decisions made in Massachusetts and other areas of the country to create a right not found in state constitutions or state law.

"The activist Massachusetts Supreme Court created a right not found in the state constitution or in state law. In our state, the Sandoval County Clerk took matters into her own hands by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. She did this despite the fact that neither the New Mexico Constitution nor New Mexico statutes recognize same-sex marriage. Put another way, the people of New Mexico, as represented by the New Mexico State Legislature, have not chosen to recognize same-sex marriage. This amendment would have ensured the people at least have a say in the matter."