Senators reject ban on gay marriage

WASHINGTON —The U.S. Senate rejected a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage Wednesday, following nearly two straight days of debate and thousands of phone calls, letters and emotional arguments from constituents.

In Utah, where nearly two-thirds of voters in 2004 approved a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, conservatives were disappointed in the 49-48 procedural vote to stop debate and vote on the amendment itself. The test vote was actually 11 votes shy of what is needed to halt debate.

But had the Senate approved the procedural vote, the federal amendment would still have needed 67 votes to pass, if all senators voted.

Meanwhile, gay-rights advocates in Utah applauded the vote, saying the proposed amendment was merely an election-year move to force debate on the issue.

State Sen. Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake, questioned why the sense of urgency from proponents, including President Bush, was lacking in 2005.

"It's not important for policy reasons, it's important for political reasons," McCoy said. "Last time we heard President Bush talking about this was in 2004 when he was running for election."

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a co-sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, dismissed accusations that the proposal was an election-year stunt and accused anti-amendment activists of the same.

"According to this amendment's opponents, when well-funded liberal activist groups ask judges to subvert the will of the people in every state, they are not playing politics," Hatch said. "Yet when the people's elected representatives attempt to preserve traditional marriage in this country, they say we are playing politics."

Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, also voted in favor of the procedural vote. While Bennett is reluctant to amend the Constitution, he wanted the debate to continue so that the Senate "could search for a logical way to allow voters to take this issue out of the hands of unelected jurists."

"In recent years, we have witnessed the efforts of activist judges to strike down state laws aimed at protecting traditional marriage, including state constitutional amendments that had received overwhelming support from voters," Bennett said. "This type of judicial mischief is of great concern to me. In a democracy, the representatives of the people ought to be heard."