Earlier today, Republicans in the Senate suffered an embarassing loss on their federal marriage amendment; there was no vote on the amendment at all, and they weren’t even able to get 50% of the Senate to vote for closing the debate. The final vote tally was 48-50; the two missing votes, of course, were Senators Kerry and Edwards.
I suppose I should be thrilled, but I’m not. The inability of the anti-gay side to be even a little honest about anything is too depressing; Republicans in the House are already proposing a non-Constitutional method of keeping the courts from overturning DOMA, after months of claiming that there was no possible way aside from amending the Constitution, and that they were only doing that as a last resort. Well, I guess the important thing is that they got to spread an extra bit of anti-gay hate into the world.
I’m dispirited also by how weak the Democrats I saw on C-SPAN were in debate, and (as GA says) how many of them took the “of course I’m against gay marriage, but…” line. Not to mention the political cowardice shown by Kerry and Edwards. (If being cowardly is the way to win elections, why did the Democrats get their asses kicked in 2002?)
The good news is, poll after poll after poll has shown that young people are much more on the side of fairness and equality. As bruising as all these short-term skirmishes are, in the long term we’ve already won the war. In a couple of generations, no politician will dare speak out against marriage fairness, and the folks who are currently taking a brave stand againast equality will all be lying to their grandchildren about what they did during the second Bush administration..
The 48-50 vote actually overstates support for the FMA. Some Republicans who voted in favor of the procedural vote were an record as against it had it come up for a real vote.
In my view, when the issue is the FMA, that is the time to oppose the FMA, not the time to embrace full marriage rights — especially if your goal is the not force the hands of the anti-FMA crowd who might actually WIN the votes if they thought there was a risk of Massachusetts marriages being forced on Kansans and Nebraskans.
Here in New Jersey, we’ve just promoted homosexuals from third class to second class citizens with Vermont-style civil unions. Yay for us. New Jerseyans (and Vermonters) should be on the forefront of extending gay marriage into a second state, not the Senate. Personally, had I been a legislator, I don’t know if I would have voted for “civil unions,” since it might make it harder to gather support for full marriage rights. (Okay, I likely would have voted for it, but I would have been concerned.)
As for the generation gap, I live in a fairly conservative town in South Jersey, but I can’t tell you how many pro-gay-marriage petitions I’ve signed that have been passed around by girls in the local high school who weren’t quite sure who they were going to send them to. Extend to vote to 16 and 17 year old girls and you could probably get gay marriage in New Jersey today!
Okay, a couple of things.
First of all, some senators took that position, but some kicked ass. Check out statements by Dayton, Boxer, Lautenberg, etc. in the Congressional Record over the past two days here.
Second, the whole caucus couldn’t take that position, and I understand why. It’s a lot easier for people representing conservative states to sell “don’t screw with the Constitution” rather than “yay gay marriage,” and we need those people. Senators like Landrieu, Lincoln, Daschle, etc walk a very fine line and if they’re going to take the risk of voting with the lefty contingent, that’s enough for me. Their rhetoric doesn’t count as much as their actions.
Third, Kerry and Edwards. This is about the way the vote happened. Both of them were intending to show up to vote, if it was a straight (no pun intended) up-or-down vote as was originally planned. Instead, the Republicans started offering substitutes and so on, basically forcing the Democrats to vote on a cloture motion instead of the amendment. So now we have the Dems having “filibustered” the amendment and being “obstructionist” yet again. I think it was probably a good idea for the Johns not to vote there, especially since their votes weren’t necessary.
So, in conclusion, we won. Be happy.
>In a couple of generations, no politician will dare speak out against marriage fairness, and the folks who are currently taking a brave stand againast equality will all be lying to their grandchildren about what they did during the second Bush administration.
“Once to every man and nation, comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side;
Some great cause, some great decision, offering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever, ’twixt that darkness and that light.
THEN to side with truth is noble, when we share her wretched crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and profit, and ’tis prosperous to be just;
THEN it is the brave man chooses while the coward stands aside,
Till the multitude make virtue of the faith they had denied.
By the light of burning martyrs, Christ, Thy bleeding feet we track,
Toiling up new Calv’ries ever with the cross that turns not back;
New occasions teach new duties, time makes ancient good uncouth,
They must upward still and onward, who would keep abreast of truth.”
James Russell Lowell, December 11, 1845 (protesting the Mexican-American War)
I don’t necessarily think Kerry and Edwards not showing up for the vote was cowardice. Perhaps they were just noting that for weeks, all indicators have pointed to the fact that the procedural most likely wouldn’t pass, so they decided not to take the time out of their busy campaign schedules to fly to D.C. and say “Nay.”
Kerry, in fact, specifically said today ( http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=146-07142004 ) that “Had this amendment reached a final vote, I would have voted against it”. That doesn’t seem cowardly to me.
Yes, Kerry and Edwards promised to vote on the actual amendment, if it got that far. Which it didn’t. And, actually, for a cloture vote, an “absent” is the same as a “no” vote. (The cloture rule requires 3/5 of senators who are in office, not 3/5 of those voting. So as long as there are no vacancies, you always need 60 votes for cloture, even if only 65 senators show up to vote. Strange, I know.)
I understand that folks like Daschle, who come from conservative states and are in danger of losing their bids for re-election, have to hedge a little. But why do we have such a person, who can’t fully embrace any values, as the party’s leader in the Senate? Read Ross Feingold’s remarks—he would make a great replacement for Daschle, IMHO.
Yes, ampersand is being way too harsh on the Democrats. Most of them are walking a political tightrope on this issue, especially the ones from conservative states. If they step too far to either side they’ll fall. The gay marriage movement has scored some stunning victories over the past year. That’s why the GOP is running scared and is trying to push through this wretched Amendment while they still have a chance. But as long as the Democrats don’t overreach, the Amendment will fail, and the path will be cleared for the spread of gay marriage throughout the country. Let the process work itself through.
Hey, I’m just happy the Nay’s had it. Granted, it would be if politician’s took a stronger stand for gay rights and same sex marriage. But, with representative government, you’ve often just got to be happy that the final outcome was what you wanted. Hopefully, it will stay that way.
Yeah, y’all are right. And of course I understand the pragmatic reasons some Democrats had to take the position they did.
I’m just feeling down this week. This issue is not going away for a good, long, many years, and I’m a bit dispirited about that. Partly because it’s unlike so many other issues I care about. Even with an issue like abortion, I can respect people on the pro-choice side. I’m finding it harder and harder, however, to respect anyone on the anti-equality side of the SSM issue, and that makes this an unhappy fight for me.
“Even with an issue like abortion, I can respect people on the pro-choice side.”
Er, that should have said “pro-life side.” :-P
ampersand, you can’t respect the other side’s arguments because they all boil down to “it’s ICKY!” (or “God says it’s ICKY!”). Not much to work with there.
yeah, i am elated (only 48 votes for cloture, but they say there was probably only 42 for the amendment) on the vote… but
there are elections in at least 11 states this year for state amendments, its up for discussion in the house, there are court cases.
its not over, its a long struggle. But ya know, this was a great victory.. took some wind out of sails.
and time is on our side.. I believe that!
You should be happy! Your reaction fits one of my pet theories: the left doesn’t know how to take yes for an answer.
And your statement about the 2002 elections seems to imply that the Republicans won in 2002 because they exhibited political courage, when I would claim they showed precisely the opposite.
Yay, they just legalized gay marriage in the Yukon!
Maybe not the gayest place in the world, but every bit helps….
Like you said, once the younger generation grows up it will just be one of those things that the older gen does not understand. I am glad that even the older generation as represented by the geezers in the Senate had a majority vote of “no, let’s not legally discriminate against Gays in the Constitution.” And if it had been the real amendment rather than the procedural it might have been a more decisive majority. Can I just say also how much I hate OR Sen. Smith?
Pingback: DFMoore