The vote against cloture (that is, voting not to allow a Senate floor vote) was 49 to 48 with 3 abstaining or absent. Paul Varnell argues it would have been better if Democrats and moderate Republicans had allowed a floor vote, where opposition to the amendment would have been greater. But keeping the vote on "procedural grounds" allows some to say they didn't actually vote against the amendment while in fact voting against the amendment. And thus the issue goes away for the time being, with limited political capital spent.
The Wall Street Journal makes some good points in today's editorial opposing the amendment. I don't buy their criticism that Lawrence, in abolishing sodomy laws (which the Journal editors favored getting rid of) used language that was too sweeping and thus encouraged state judges to mandate same-sex marriage. But the editors are on the mark when they write of the marriage amendment:
The Founders left such thorny social issues to the states precisely to allow the democratic give and take that can reach a rough consensus, as well as adjust as social mores change....
As for liberals, they might consider that their best chance to change minds is through open state debate, not coercive courts. Polls show Americans are becoming more comfortable with civil unions and other gay rights. In fact, the best thing gay activists could do for themselves at the federal level would be to support repeal of the death tax, since under current law gay couples often lack inheritance rights. That would accomplish more than anything that will emerge from this week's political spectacle over amending the Constitution.
But such thinking outside the lib-left box remains unlikely given the current crop of gay leaders.
More. David Boaz suggests that the amendment's supporters are being disingenuous in claming they did better this time than in 2004. He also writes:
Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter voted for cloture in 2004, though he would have voted against the amendment itself; this year he voted against cloture and quoted two Cato publications in his Senate speech. Judd Gregg [also] joined his New Hampshire colleague John Sununu in voting for federalism over centralism.
He concludes, "Given that younger voters are much more supportive of same-sex marriage than older voters, it seems unlikely that support for an amendment will grow in future years."
14 Comments for “The Vote.”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I agree with those who believe that the opponents should have pushed the PMA to a floor vote.
I listened to the Senate proceedings with interest, yesterday, and was struck by the inanity of many of the statements in favor of the PMA, including that idiotic chart supposedly demonstrating that there was a correlation between same-sex marriage and straight out-of-wedlock births.
Senator Warner, on the other hand, made an excellent statement concerning the substance of the amendment, which employes the “bait and switch” language of 2004-era state amendments to create ambiguity about civil unions and domestic partnerships. Senator Warner’s statement was a breath of fresh air.
Most of the Democrats took the “party line”, complaining about the waste of time, rather than tackling the issues head on.
An exception was Senator Feingold of Wisconsin, who tackled the issues directly, as he tends to do.
Wisconsin’s other senator, Senator Kohl, seems to have gone missing on the issue, as he has with respect to Wisconsin’s proposed amendment.
A history, there, of course, as there always is. During the DADT ruckus, Senator Kohl was confronted about whether or not he was gay, after he was “outed” by a Milwaukee weekly newsrag. His response was “I am not gay and I am not a lesbian.” I don’t know, of course, and I don’t care, but I wish he’d grow a set of balls on the issue, whatever his orientation.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Incidentally, gay people who sue for their constitutional rights in court aren’t being “coercive.” They’re exercising the checks and balances built into the American system, where simple majoritarianism is incapable of revoking the rights of a permanent minority under the law.
There’s a popular conservative aversion to the constitutional process, and selective love for majoritarianism (awful when it comes to popular votes in the 2000 election, fantastic when it comes to anti-gay laws) and the constitution (the electoral college is sacrosanct, the equal protection clause is not, courts should ignore the constitution when a majority of legislators vote against it except when it’s on an issue important to Republicans).
However, it’s all posturing by people who really don’t have any principles at all. When Arnold Schwarzenegger was handed a majority-approved marriage bill by an elected body, the conservative Republican governor stated that. . . it was the role of the courts to decide.
The animus towards gays in that party has been at cartoon-like levels for a while. Now it’s simply becoming ridiculous enough for even uninterested laypeople to see.
posted by Lori Heine on
I think the American people should get every opportunity possible to see what nitwits and whackjobs now populate the Republican congress. Let’s just give these fools the biggest bullhorn we can find and let ’em blather.
I have straight friends who’ve been Republicans all their lives, and who are mortified at the spectacle so many Republican politicians are making of themselves. Far from silencing the wingnuts, as liberals so often wish to do, we ought to wind ’em up and let ’em go.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“Far from silencing the wingnuts, as liberals so often wish to do, we ought to wind ’em up and let ’em go.”
Absolutely. I never cease to find it amusing when some Republican attacks one of our candidates for being “crazy” for suggesting that we can indeed reduce spending and taxes — while he’s prattling on about how the Bible supercedes the Constitution, how the courts should never overrule the will of the majority (even when it’s unconstitutional), and how we must sacrifice our basic constitutional freedoms in order to defend our free way of life.
Just who is nuts there, eh? 🙂
posted by Ed Brown on
The so-called death tax impacts very few people. Perhaps the min. sould be raised.
posted by Anthony on
One day after our troops killed a major terrorist leader and the new Iraqi government took a step in the direction of potential stability people here are bitching and moaning about who voted what way on the MPA and calling for a minimum wage increase. I give up. People, there are all kinds of left-wing blogs out there for your way of thinking. There are people who just love to bash their country, who think that all Republicans are evil and corrupt and who fancy themselves hapless victims because of everything from race and gender to sexual orientation and ethnicity. I was thrilled to hear that the terrorist scum was relieved of his duties eternally. We seem to quickly forget that terrorism remains a huge threat, NOT marriage amendments or wage levels. Boy, too many of you people are socialists and don’t even know it. And let me agree with Scott and say that the real loons here are the Libertarians and their apologists.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
So the fact that they finally managed to kill Zarqawi (after trying to kill him earlier and “accidentally” killing a few dozen civilians instead) should give us reason to completely ignore an assault on our rights at home?
Osama bin Laden is a threat to our freedoms, no doubt — but even he cannot pass constitutional amendments.
“We seem to quickly forget that terrorism remains a huge threat, NOT marriage amendments”
Two thoughts here:
1) If that’s true, how come George W. Bush and the Republican Congress and Senate have spent an entire week on a gay marriage amendment?
2) One of the reasons terrorism is such a threat is because of the incompetence of the Republican administration. Besides ignoring the terrorist threat in 2001 until it was too late, they’ve been busy spending their political capital on “important” issues like flag-burning amendments, Terry Schiavo, school prayer, gay marriage, and public funding of religious groups. Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden remains at large.
You would think that the Republican big-government socialists and their shills would see the irony of attacking fair-minded people for “taking their eyes off the ball” when the primary reason for such discussions is the Republicans’ own legislative agenda. Then again, the Republicans gave up on common sense 15 years ago, to enthusiastically embrace the Ann Coulters, Bill O’Reillys, George W. Bushes and Donald Rumsfelds of the world — the people who failed their way to the top. Common sense is enough to get one driven out of the GOP these days.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Anthony: \\”There are people who just love to bash their country …\\”
Don\\’t confuse fighting for justice with \\”bashing our country\\”. Our government and its policies are not our country.
This kind of crap enrages me, because it denies the basis of our democratic republic, the principle that the people always have the right and obligation to thinking ctitically about our government and its policies and to speak out loudly and strongly when the government and its policies are not, in the opinion of the citizen, right or just.
Republicans, I\\’ve noticed, have a history, recently, of wrapping themselves in Christ and the flag, claiming that those who don\\’t agree with their policies are \\”anti-Christian\\” or \\”bashing out country\\”.
I won\\’t speak about wrapping a political party in Christ — I\\’m of the root, not the graft, as the Christian Paul observed, and I follow the practice of leaving arguments about Christ to the Christians — but I can speak to the flag, having contributed a few drops of blood to the red stripes.
You have no business questioning the partiotism of NEL or anyone else on this list. No business at all.
I don\\’t know anything about you, Anthony, but I\\’ve observed that many of the people who talk the loudest about patriotism have served the least. If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, then don\\’t. But in either event, you have no business questioning the patriotism of another citizen, and certainly no business doing so because they criticize the politices of a political party or administration.
Anthony: \\” … who think that all Republicans are evil and corrupt …\\”
Although all Republicans are not corrupt, the current Republican leadership has proven itself to be more than adequately corrupt. Although few Republicans are evil, the current Republican leadership, which cynically uses gays and lesbians as election cycle play toys, is denying imagio dei, cooperating with evil.
Anthony: \\” … and who fancy themselves hapless victims because of everything from race and gender to sexual orientation and ethnicity …\\”
A man or woman is a victim if and only if he does not fight for justice. No one who fights for justice is or can be a victim.
Anthony: \\” I was thrilled to hear that the terrorist scum was relieved of his duties eternally. \\”
I hope your thrill was temprered, at least a bit, by the President\\’s observation that his death is \\”… not going to end the war, and it\\’s certainly not going to end the violence.\\” The President is dead right. Zarqawi will be replaced, and both candidates are every bit as dangerous as he was. I think that in time, we will prevail in Iraq, but I don\\’t think that the outcome is certain, by any means. War is a toss of the dice.
Anthony: \\”We seem to quickly forget that terrorism remains a huge threat, NOT marriage amendments or wage levels.\\”
I don\\’t know how old you are, Anthony, but I have the impression you are reasonably young. I\\’m 59.
I remember the days when gays were kicked out of college, harrassed by the police as a matter of course, barred from many areas of employment, and lived furtive, secretive lives.
I\\’m of the generation that fought back. In my adulthood, gays and lesbians have gained the ability to live openly as gays and lesbians, admittedly with caution in many areas of the country, like mine. But we have made real progress, against long odds and fierce opposition, and we\\’ve gotten where we are because gays and lesbians fought, up and down the line, putting themselves and their livelihoods on the line.
We are now engaged in another step of that fight — the fight for equal treatment under the law. We must not — and will not — turn back.
I know that the going seems hard for people who did not live through the earlier stages of the struggle, but believe me, we are winning this fight.
I know that the temptation to draw back, to play it safe, is strong, and tempts people who did not live through the earlier stages of the struggle, but believe me, drawing back into safety at this point is the wrong thing to do.
The battle with social conservatives for equality under the law has been joined on a national level, and there is no turning back. The only choice individeual gays and lesbians have at this point is whether or not to show up and join the battle.
You seem to think that the fight is a zero-sum game, that gays and lesbians have to make a choice between \\”fighting terrorism\\” and \\”fighting for justice\\”. That is not so. The two are not mutually exclusive.
In fact, my view is that they are joined at the hip, because Islamic terrorism is engaged with the West, in significant part, because the theology of Islamic fundamentalism rejects the freedoms afforded citizens in the West.
posted by kittynboi on
1) If that’s true, how come George W. Bush and the Republican Congress and Senate have spent an entire week on a gay marriage amendment?
I look forward to whatever answer he gives for this.
posted by Lori Heine on
“And let me agree with Scott and say that the real loons here are the Libertarians and their apologists.”
Anthony, I echo Tom’s question. How the heck old are you? You sound like a five-year-old, trying to imitate some grownup bombast’s fiery speech.
You call people names, but do nothing to explain why you believe the names would fit. If Libertarians are “loons,” pray tell us why.
A great many people in this country (and not just Libertarians) are getting tired of strutting little chicken-hawks talking macho about the war in Iraq. Anthony, some girl just out of high school is over there getting shot at because you won’t. Some father of three, whose family struggles stateside to pay the mortgage while he is gone, takes fire in Iraq so you can shoot your mouth off here about what a damn patriot you are for having an opinion about the war that jibes with Right-Wing political correctness.
It is highly doubtful we will get a response other than the Fox-network, talk-radio jargonese that passes for intelligent thought with you. You can’t even seem to come up with original ideas; just the same old, same old warmed-over crapola your idols have been spewing for years.
Nobody cares how Captain Rock Ribs, God-is-a-Republican you imagine yourself to be. Least of all the Right-Wing crowd you long to join. Yeah, that’s right…the crowd that won’t have you.
posted by Darren on
I’d love for this issue to take center stage for awhile–if for no other reason for all the gay lefties (who seem to be congregating here now, for some reason) just how “supportive” Congressional Democrats are of gay marriage.
posted by Darren on
Hm, perhaps proofreading my comments before sending them would be a good idea. I meant to say, “…if for no other reason than to show the gay lefties just how supportive Congressional Democrats are of gay marriage.”
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Again, Republican apologists, please explain to me how George W. Bush isn’t sitting down on the job by spending a week debating gay marriage rather than dealing with security threats. After all, gay marriage, in your own rhetoric, pales in comparison to the awesome threat which terrorism represents. This IS your talking point, right? Why’s your party spending all this time on gay marriage?
posted by raj on
NEL’s argument in his last comment is one I agree with, and with which I agree. It never ceases to amaze me how gullible gay Republicans can be, if they vote Republican for national security. It was reported that the FY 2007 defense budget hadn’t even been passed, but the Senate took time out to address the anti-gay marriage amendment.
BTW, cloture went down largely because not enough members of the the Senate wanted to go on an on-the record vote on the amendment. The vote on cloture was essentially a vote on the amendment.