(AgapePress) - Why push for a vote on a piece of legislation that, for all practical purposes, has little to no chance of being passed? Perhaps for no other reason than to make sure that on the eve of an election, voters know where their elected officials stand on a critical issue -- and now they know.

When Thursday's House vote on a proposed constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage was tallied, the results were not surprising. Needing 290 votes to pass, the Marriage Protection Amendment (H.J.R. 106) received only 227 -- a definite majority, but not the two-thirds needed of measures dealing with constitutional amendments. A similar bill also came up short in the U.S. Senate in July. Both houses of Congress must pass such legislation before going to the states for ratification.

As expected, the final vote (227-186) was pretty much along party lines; the majority of Republicans (191) voted for the measure, while the majority of Democrats (158) opposed it. Twenty-seven GOP members and one Independent voted against H.J.R. 106, and 36 Democrats favored it. [See complete roll call vote]

Debate before the vote reflected strong emotion on both sides of the issue. Minority Democrats accused GOP House leaders of trying to drag out their favorite conservative causes in the lead-up to the election.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) described the proposed constitutional amendment as divisive. "We call ourselves one nation under God. Surely we know from the Bible that a city, a house, or a nation divided against itself cannot stand," he said. "This amendment divides our nation. This amendment creates two classes of people based on sexual orientation."

And Democratic Representative Congressman Jerrold Nadler of New York likened it to a political stunt. "It saddens me that this great institution would sink to these depths, even on the eve of an election," Nadler stated from the floor. "We know this is not going anywhere. We know its merely political exercise. Shame on this house for playing politics with bigotry."

But supporters of the measure held their ground during the debate, firing back with their own emotion rhetoric. "God created Adam and Eve. He didn't create Adam and Steve," said Maryland's Roscoe Bartlett, pointing out that same-sex "marriage" is unprecedented and unfounded. "A union between other than a man and a woman may be something legally, but it just can't be a marriage."

And Mike Pence (R-IN), who led an hour-long special order debate on the House floor in support of the amendment on Wednesday evening, maintained that traditional marriage must be protected in the Constitution. "Like millions of Americans, I believe [marriage] was ordained by God, instituted in the law. It is the glue of the American family, and the safest harbor to raise children," he said. "Let us adopt this rule, defend the institution of marriage, and ensure that our society's most cherished social institution is defined by we the people -- and not un-elected judges."

Voters Now Informed
"The people" in almost a dozen states will have an opportunity on November 2 to amend their constitutions, defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Several states have already done so, most recently Missouri and Louisiana. In both of those cases, the constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage passed overwhelmingly with more than 70 percent of the vote.

Marilyn Musgrave

However, state constitutional amendments limiting marriage to people of the opposite sex will remain vulnerable to the whims of federal judges. That is one of the major reasons Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) sponsored the Marriage Protection Amendment, which she first introduced in May 2003. She remains confident "the people" will prevail -- eventually.

Thursday's vote on H.J.R. 106, she says, "marks the beginning of a dialogue with the American people regarding the defense of traditional marriage."

"It is still very clear that a large majority of Americans support traditional marriage as it has historically been defined," she continues. "They now know more today where their elected representatives stand on this critical issue."

Musgrave admits her reluctance to introduce legislation amending the U.S. Constitution, acknowledging that it is a serious issue. But recent events, she says, show marriage needs to be protected.

"One way of another, our Constitution will be amended to define marriage in America," the Colorado Republican says. "It will either be de facto by activists judges seeking to impose same-sex marriage, or it will be amended by the will of the American people who overwhelmingly support the tradition of marriage."

Tony Perkins

'The Battle Will Continue'
It is apparent Musgrave will not stand alone in her continuing fight to defend marriage. Pro-family leaders across the country, while disappointed that the Marriage Protection Amendment failed to gain the two-thirds vote it needed to move on, see it as just a step in a long process.

"We may not have won by two-thirds, but momentum is on our side," says Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. "We have a majority of congressional members on record now who are seeking to protect marriage [and] we have a president who supports this amendment." The FRC president also notes that several states will be voting on marriage protection amendments in just a few weeks.

"We've known from the beginning that this was going to be a long fight," he adds, "and I'm here to tell you that Family Research Council will continue an all-out effort to protect and promote traditional marriage."

Groups like FRC, Focus on the Family, and the American Family Association have been urging their constituency for weeks to contact their congressional members on behalf of legislation proposing a federal marriage amendment. AFA executive Buddy Smith is convinced the actions of concerned citizens has had an effect.

"We know that because of those calls and letters and e-mails, we've had representatives and senators to have a change of mind and heart and vote in favor of a constitutional amendment to protect marriage," Smith says. And despite Thursday's vote, Smith is not sounding a retreat. "The battle is on -- and we need to remain vigilant. We need to continue to pray, and we also need to continue to communicate with our senators and representatives about this most important issue."

And Focus on the Family's Dr. James Dobson echoes Smith's call, declaring that "the battle for the traditional family will continue on." Part of that effort, he says, will be to hold accountable those in the House who voted against the Marriage Protection Amendment.

"It is our hope that America will carefully note the names of the congressmen who pandered to the homosexual lobby and took the easy way out on this issue of unprecedented importance," Dobson says.