Amendment splits region’s senators along party lines

Washington and Idaho senators split on a constitutional amendment against gay marriage as the proposal died a procedural death in the Senate Wednesday.

But while debate over the Federal Marriage Amendment may be done for the year in Congress, it could give congressional candidates plenty to talk about in the coming months.

The amendment was nothing but election-year politics, contended Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who voted against the proposal.

“With all the challenges we as a country currently face, this is the last thing the Senate should be working on,” Murray said in a prepared statement after the amendment was killed. “This is an issue that should be left to the states to decide.”

The amendment was necessary to protect the institution of marriage against “activist” judges, countered Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, a co-sponsor of the proposal.

“The sanctity of marriage has become threatened by these recent court decisions and action must be taken to preserve marriage as the institution we know it to be today,” Crapo said.

Crapo’s seatmate, Republican Larry Craig, also supported the amendment while Murray’s seatmate, Democrat Maria Cantwell, voted against it.

Both Crapo and Murray face re-election this fall, but only Murray faces any significant opposition. Her GOP opponents were split on the issue.

One of Murray’s Republican foes, Rep. George Nethercutt of Spokane, agreed with her that the issue was best decided by the states and said he would have voted against a constitutional amendment at this time. Like Murray, he noted Congress passed legislation in 1996 to protect marriage.

“I strongly believe in the sanctity of marriage and I have always said that marriage should be between a man and a woman,” Nethercutt said in a prepared statement. “If, and only if, activist judges force states like Washington to recognize other states’ gay marriages, we should amend the Constitution.”

But Nethercutt will be supporting a bill in the House that seeks to take jurisdiction for marriage matters away from the federal courts, spokeswoman April Isenhower added. That proposal is based on Article III of the Constitution, which gives Congress authority to make exceptions and regulations to the jurisdiction of the courts.

His GOP primary foe, Reed Davis, a former King County GOP chairman, criticized Murray for voting no and called the legislation Nethercutt supports a “Band-Aid, stopgap” solution. While Nethercutt wants to keep an eye on “activist” judges, Davis wants to take the issue out of their hands.

“A constitutional amendment is the only way to protect the will of the majority,” Davis, a college professor, said. “I’m just very skeptical that anything short of an amendment would stick.”

In the race to replace Nethercutt, who is giving up his Eastern Washington congressional seat to challenge Murray, all three Republican candidates said they would have voted for the amendment. The principle Democrat, Don Barbieri, said he would have voted against it.

“The only way the states are going to maintain the integrity of their marriage laws is with a constitutional amendment,” Shaun Cross, a Spokane attorney, said. He believes marriage licenses issued by Massachusetts to same-sex couples are “going to cause a lot of chaos” in the other states.

“The only way to ensure marriage is protected is with an amendment,” agreed state Rep. Cathy McMorris of Colville. Congress will have to bring up an amendment again, she added, depending on the outcome of the election.

State Sen. Larry Sheahan of Spokane said he supports the amendment, but notes that could take years. In the meantime, he believes the House proposal to remove jurisdiction for marriage issues from the federal courts is a quicker and simpler course of action.

“Marriage is such a fundamental institution in our society … . it’s just something we need to keep between one man and one woman,” Sheahan said.

But Barbieri said he was confident that state and federal laws that define marriage that way are sufficient. He’d oppose a constitutional amendment, saying it’s “a decision that ought to be made by states.”

While the Republican congressional candidates said they are hearing from voters who are concerned about same-sex marriage and the need for a constitutional amendment, Barbieri said he isn’t.

“What I’m hearing about is jobs, jobs, jobs – and then jobs,” he said.