On Tuesday, the United States Senate voted down a constitutional amendment that would have banned the desecration of the United States flag. The amendment—long sought by conservatives and seen by some as a way for the Bush administration to regain favor with its conservative base—nearly passed, falling one vote short of being sent to the states for ratification. Had the amendment been sent to the states for ratification, it would have needed to be ratified by three-quarters of the states. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who has lobbied heavily against the amendment, described Tuesday’s vote as “a victory for the First Amendment and all Americans who cherish the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.”
The flag burning amendment, introduced by conservative Senator Orrin Hatch, simply stated, “The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.” Republicans sought the passage of the amendment as a repudiation of Supreme Court rulings in 1989 and 1990 that determined that burning the flag and other desecrations were protected as free speech by the first amendment of the United States’ constitution. Senator Hatch explained his support of the amendment not only as a means of protecting “a unique symbol of our nationhood” but as a means of reigning in “activist judges” that are issuing rulings contrary to the desires of the citizens of the United States. Hatch further explained that the groups opposing the amendment were “radical special interest groups” who were working along with the media and the judges to prevent “the people” from having a flag burning amendment. Other Senators such as Bill Frist focused on the relationship between the proposed amendment and patriotism, explaining that those who have died “defending that flag” are deserving of the amendment as “a small humble act for us to defend it.” Despite the fact that the amendment was seen as an attempt to gain the support of conservatives, it attracted the votes of fourteen Democrats. In the final 66 to 34 vote, Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow voted in favor of the amendment, reflecting her support of such an amendment during her two terms in the House of Representatives. Michigan Senator Carl Levin voted against the amendment.
Earlier this month, another measure long sought by conservatives and President Bush, a national ban on gay marriage, failed to move to a vote after Senators voted to close debate without a vote. The gay marriage ban failed to garner the support of either Michigan Senator’s Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow. The amendment read, “Marriage in the United States shall consist of only the union of a man and a woman” and went on to state the constitution of no state will be allowed to define marriage as anything other than “the union of a man and a woman.” Senator Levin explained his opposition to the amendment by stating that “The Constitution has been amended in the past to broaden and affirm the rights of Americans and never to narrow the rights of a group of Americans” while Senator Stabenow expressed her personal belief that “marriage is a religious covenant between a man and a woman” and that “the legal aspects of marriage” should continue to be governed by the states. Despite the lack of support by Michigan’s Senators, Michigan banned gay marriage by a ballot initiative in the 2004 election. In a 2004 vote, Grand Rapids area Congressional representative Vern Ehlers voted in favor of a similar amendment. The House is expected to take up a gay marriage ban this summer, in what Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese described as “election year posturing” to take up an amendment voted down twice by the Senate.
