U.S. traditional marriage amendment fails in Senate.

Washington, D.C.--On June 7, 2006, the U.S. Senate failed to accept a proposed constitutional amendment that would have prohibited same-sex "marriage." A motion to debate and vote on the amendment failed by a 49-48 margin, 11 votes short of the 60 required. However, pro-family organizations said the development is not necessarily a bad thing for traditional marriage. They noted that 45 states have passed laws or amended their state constitutions to preserve marriage as being solely between one man and one woman.

President George W. Bush remarked that "it can take several tries before an amendment builds the two-thirds support it needs in both houses of Congress." Catholic Republican Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas vowed, "We're not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected." South Dakota Evangelical Republican Senator John Thune said, "Clearly, as time goes on, there will be more votes in favour of this. We make a little headway each time this is debated."

However, Catholic Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy charged that a vote in favour of the amendment was "a vote for bigotry, pure and simple." Canadian media tried to paint the development as, in the words of the Toronto Star quoting the Associated Press, "a stinging defeat." Sun Media characterized the proposed amendment as "anti-gay."

Meanwhile, a landmark scholarly study, "Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles," was released the same day as the Senate vote. It reported marriage, as the union of one man and one woman, is profoundly in the public interest and should be reaffirmed, not redefined. "Marriage protects children, men and women and the common good," said the study, signed by more than 50 distinguished scholars from across the U.S. (LifeSiteNews.com, June 7, 2006; Illinois Family Institute News, June 7, 2006; Tor. Star, June 8, 2006; Tor. Sun, June 6, 2006).