ix-nay FMA

[nibot]

So, as we've all heard, the FMA was defeated. But I'm surprised at how close it was:

The vote was 48 to 50 against bringing the initiative to a vote, 12 short of the 60 needed to limit debate and move toward final action on the amendment. It would have taken a two-thirds majority -- 19 votes more than the GOP had yesterday -- to pass the amendment itself.

The article (in the Washington Post) continues:

Reflecting the polls, senators expressed reluctance to alter the Constitution to include a divisive social issue, especially at the expense of tampering with traditional state prerogatives over marriage law. Some also said they think current laws adequately protect marriage and expressed concern that the amendment would be interpreted as anti-gay.

"concern that the amendment would be interpreted as anti-gay"??? How else would you interpret it?

Comments

[nibot.livejournal.com]

also:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), one of the six Republicans who voted to block the amendment, said he did not believe it would be approved "this year, nor next year, nor any time soon until a substantial majority of Americans are persuaded that such a consequential action is as vitally important and necessary as the proponents feel it is today."

More evidence that McCain is an unusually sensible Republican. (-:

[easwaran.livejournal.com]

I'm sad that Arlen Specter didn't join in with the New England Republicans (excluding Judd Gregg of NH but including John Sununu of NH) in opposing it. He's done with the primary now - he should be rushing to center.

It actually didn't get that close. They weren't even close to breaking a filibuster. And if this vote was on the filibuster, then a bunch of the ones that voted in favor of it would have voted against on the more important actual vote.

When I counted the for and against, I realized that the two no-shows were both Democrats and guessed (correctly) that they were Kerry and Edwards. I assume it's just because they were on the campaign trail, but it seems like it could easily be used against them.

[janviere.livejournal.com]

"concern that the amendment would be interpreted as anti-gay"??? How else would you interpret it?

Er, um, "as preservation of the traditional family values that keep this country together"? "We're not anti-gay, we're praying for their salvation!" Blech.

[squarkz.livejournal.com]

i don't understand this idea that by pushing the democrats into taking a stand on this issue, it'll hurt them. seems like it's more harmful to go on the record saying that you think we ought to have a discriminatory amendment to the constitution than not. democrats could at least say they think it's a states' issue, but the GOP isn't even leaving that sort of a backdoor for themselves. it just seems like an unwise move, politically.

well, and it's an unwise move no matter how you look at it.

[cheeseparade.livejournal.com]

Yes, I feel the same way about those numbers. If 48 of our senators feel this thing is okay, then I'm embarrassed to be an American, as well as really pissed off. How dare they.

[ragnus.livejournal.com]

I agree. This amendment is entirely redundant after the Defense of Marriage Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act) was signed by BILL CLINTON in 1996.

The Congress should never have to step in in such state-oriented affair. Too bad activists mayors and judges abused their power.

[chiriklo-star.livejournal.com]

That ammendment almost passing made me extremely angry. Don't worry, I am not a stalker, I am your cousin (third cousin, who you may not remember). My name is Kati, I'm your mom's cousin's kid, if you remember family names you probably know who I am. I know this is weird, but Shirley told me you had a livejournal, so I found it.