I received the following request for clarification on the Roll Call below. "On the Marriage Amendment, could you please clarify. The "No" vote was to do what?"
Here's the background. The Senate Committee that prepared the Marriage Amendment for a floor vote took out a phrase which prohibited any other type of relationship from receiving legal standing. This was a specific attempt to prohibit gay marriage under other names like "civil union", etc. The effect of this phrase being removed, by itself, would have been to send the process back to the beginning, since the IDENTICAL version of the amendment has to pass both houses in two consecutive sessions, before going to the voters for final passage.
The Gordner Amendment was not an amendment in the turest sense, but an attempt to restore the Marriage Amendment to the version passed by the state house - thus settng the Marriage Amendment back on course.
Given this, a "No" vote had the effect of derailing the Marriage Amendment, since it prevented the identical version from passing in both houses. It also would have the effect of allowing gay marriage under a different name - such as civil unions.
So, a "Yes" vote was Pro-Marriage Amendment.
a "No" vote was against the Marriage Amendment.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Gordner Amendment to Restore Language Prohibiting Civil Unions
June 21, 2006
Roll Call (23 Yes - 27 No)
N - Browne, Patrick