This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2004, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

WASHINGTON - The Senate's partisan showdown over gay marriage fizzled Wednesday as Republicans failed to muster enough support to even put their proposed constitutional amendment to a vote.

A motion to end debate on the so-called Federal Marriage Amendment failed 50 to 48, 12 short of the 60 votes needed to force a vote on the measure and significantly less than the 67 required for any constitutional amendment to pass the Senate. Six Republicans broke ranks and joined the Democrats in voting against cloture, underlining problems GOP leadership had in uniting its caucus behind the proposal President Bush had made a hallmark of his election-year platform.

Besides division over language that many moderates felt trampled on states' rights, support also was lukewarm among mainstream voters for tinkering with the Constitution on an issue that is still in flux in the courts.

Bush issued a statement saying he was 'deeply disappointed' with the vote, but casting it as a temporary setback. 'Activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are not letting up in their efforts to redefine marriage for the rest of America - and neither should defenders of traditional marriage flag in their efforts,' the statement said.

Utah's Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett voted to close debate and said while it's doubtful another attempt will be made to pass the amendment in the Senate this year, the fight has just begun to define marriage in the Constitution as only between a man and a woman.

"Any attempt to change social policy always begins with a minority vote and builds to a majority later on," said Bennett, one of the Senate GOP whips whose job is to survey party members before a vote so that leadership knows the likely outcome. "This isn't going away."

Hatch said the issue will come back to Congress once "the American people get fed up. If they don't get fed up, then there's no chance of getting any constitutional amendment." But, he added, the public's apathy is not "because they endorse [gay marriage] by any stretch."

Said Cheryl Jacques, the president of Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization: 'The president and the Republican leadership's attempt to divide the country backfired and instead it divided the Republican Party.'

Democrats had complained GOP leadership took the unusual step of bypassing Hatch's Judiciary Committee in a rush to get the amendment to a floor vote, all in a politically motivated attempt to force expected Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry to cast a vote against the amendment just as the party opens its convention in Boston on July 26. Kerry has said he opposes gay nuptials but does not support amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Because it has been widely known for weeks that Republicans didn't even have solidarity within their own party on the amendment, Kerry and running mate Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., did not show up to vote on the motion to close debate.

Bennett downplayed the political motivation behind scheduling the vote, saying he "wasn't anxious to make a political statement." Rather than an attempt to score political points against Kerry, Bennett said Republicans were reaching out to a constituency that usually favors Democrats - black ministers.

"Frankly, I think this vote today was primarily a response to their plea that we do something now," he said, adding that many black ministers believe gay marriage will further erode African American family structures.

Hatch would not say whether he wished the alternative amendment language he had been drafting would have been put to a vote rather than the Federal Marriage Amendment.

But he maintained that the only way to prevent the recent decision legalizing gay marriage in Massachusetts from spreading to other states is to amend the nation's founding document.

"If Massachusetts starts honoring gay marriage, that means a state like my home state that doesn't want to have gay marriage has to honor them," said Hatch. "Virtually every constitutional authority I know of thinks the full faith and credit clause [in the Constitution] will require recognition of gay marriages."

---

Reporter Robert Gehrke and Tribune wire services contributed to this story.