Gay marriage? Again?

About a month ago, the [tag]Senate[/tag] went through the motions and held a vote on a [tag]constitutional amendment[/tag] to ban [tag]gay marriage[/tag]. It failed miserably; proponents needed 67 votes in the Senate and they couldn’t even break 50.

With one chamber already rejecting the measure, the [tag]amendment[/tag] can’t be approved, at the earliest, until next year. To which [tag]House[/tag] [tag]Republicans[/tag] respond: where’s the fun in that?

Undeterred by a decisive defeat in the Senate, House Republicans are moving ahead with a vote on a constitutional amendment to [tag]ban[/tag] gay marriage, forcing lawmakers to take a stand just months before the election.

The vote, scheduled for Tuesday, will occur in a week devoted to several priorities of social conservatives — what House GOP leaders call their “American [tag]values[/tag] agenda.” […]

Defeat of the amendment is once again a near-certainty. The Senate fell 11 votes short of the 60 votes needed just to advance the proposal to a yes-or-no decision. Two years ago, just before another election, the House came up some 40 votes shy of the two-thirds majority required to advance a constitutional amendment.

Proponents don’t have the two-thirds majority they need, and they don’t have the Senate support they need, but they’re going to hold the vote anyway … because apparently the GOP base gets riled up by failure. As Tony Perkins told the AP, “The more this issue is discussed, the more people understand the threat.”

I generally avoid predictions, but I have a hunch this isn’t going to work.

Rep. Tammy Baldwin, an openly gay Democrat from Wisconsin, said the marriage amendment “certainly is a tool that the right wing is using, but I think it has lost the impact it had in 2004.”

Baldwin said voters are more concerned about the war in Iraq, health care costs and gas prices and to a greater extent “are recognizing this time that these measures are politically motivated.”

It’s always a mistake to underestimate the draw of these emotional culture-war issues, but I think Baldwin’s right. This has “backfire” written all over it.

For the right, it’s a reminder that even with big GOP majorities in both chambers, they still can’t get the amendment they want. For everyone else, it’s a reminder that big GOP majorities in both chambers would rather waste time on an amendment they know they can’t pass than work on real issues that affect people’s lives.

House Dems shouldn’t sheepishly kill time and get this vote out of the way — they should embrace this as a terrific opportunity. Dems could hold huge media events showing that House Republicans want to focus their energy on an anti-gay measure that can’t pass while events in the Middle East spiral out of control. Dems should then ask, “Had enough?”

This Congress makes Harry Truman’s “Do Nothing” Congress look like an overworked governmental body. I really hope some Democrat emerges who can do to them what “Give-‘Em-Hell Harry” did to that bunch of bozos.

  • Honestly, why isn’t the progressive portion of the Democratic party standing up for fairness? Why do we let the Theocratic Reactionaires continue with their lies about how homosexual marriage will threaten heterosexual marriage? Where does Tony Perkins find this threat?

    Democrats should just oppose this amendment. They should tell the American people that equal protection of the laws does not mean shutting 10% of the American people out of the rights and benefits of marriage for a couple. You can make all the points you want about the legal difficulties of extending marriage recognition to polygamists and point out that dogs can not enter into contracts (don’t you know that Ricky “Man on Dog” Santorum? ), but in the end, two adults are two adults, and we do not restrict marriage from heterosexual couples unable to procreate, so that’s not an argument either.

  • CB, your last paragraph is, I believe, precisely the key.

    DNC should run national spots with MTV-cut montage of Beirut in flames, Haifa buildings collapsing, Kim Jong Il spouting off like the madman he is, roadside IED carnage in Iraq, twisted terrorized trains in India, US gas stations changing their signs to higher prices, plant closing notices, stock market tickers full of red figures, headlines of countries threatening each other and terrorists threatening the US. . . (as ominous music grows louder and a voiceover states “There are deadly and serious issues facing the world, and more crises threaten US interests, the US economy and call out for US leadership with every morning’s headlines. So what is the Republican-controlled Congress going to do about it?”

    . . . (slow, silly whistling or fiddling music) cut to a nice steady calm shot of Republican’ts debating the gay marriage amendment – maybe use C-SPAN feed so the topic is identified at the bottom of the screen. Use actual audio of the dumbest speeches – and I know we’ll have some to choose from. (voiceover: “Feel safer now? Maybe its time to let Democrats lead for a while.”)

  • “As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool returns to his folly” Proverbs 26:11

  • Dog vomit pretty much sums up what the Republican administration and congress have become. Sad that so many people have to suffer for it.

  • Zeitgeiest – “dumbest speeches to choose from.”

    I am sure we only need to look 100 or so miles to the West to find a whole slew of stupid and dumb speeches.

    Great, wonderful ad idea……

  • oh, god, i can hardly imaging what King will spout on this one. . . thanks for adding trepidation to my afternoon! 🙂

  • I would love to see Barney Frank and a few of the other congressinal worthies filibuster this crap. It might serve to get everyone besides the informed few to notice that these clowns do very little to justify their $168K per year salary…

  • I think the best angle would be to keep pointing out that the Republicans think their base is stupid, that they think they can fool these people into voting Republican by acting like they care about morality when the Republican party is plagued with ethical scandals.

    Want real ethics? Vote for a party that will protect the Constitution.

  • I agree with Lance’s #2 comment above: As a happily married heterosexual Democrat for nearly thirty-two years, I see no threat to my–or other–heterosexual marriages from those consenting homosexual couples wishing to enjoy the benefits–and everlasting love–afforded by marriage.

    It just proves that the current Republican-controlled Congress would rather restrict the rights of some Americans than tackle more pressing national issues such as adequate funding and measures for real homeland security, affordable health care accessible to all Americans, ongoing research into affordable alternative biodegradable fuels, the problems of Americans’ job security through employers’ use of foreign outsourcing, global warming, responsible national debt-reducing measures, and world peace initiatives.

    Let’s hope our fellow Americans would join us in voting out these noncaring, fiscally and socially irresponsible Republican politicians, and voting in responsible, and responsive, Democrats in the coming ’06 and ’08 elections. Let’s restore true democracy to our shores!

  • racerx.
    Exactly how many ads would have it take for Farwell to vote for Kerry ? Not gonna happend, wasted time. That group would rather someone act like they are with them, then someone telling them they are fricken nuts.

  • I have a really stupid question but what exactly is a “man” and what exactly is a “woman”?

    Most of the time it is easy to tell the difference.

    What happens if a man has a sex change and becomes a woman? Who can that ‘woman’ marry? I believe that different states have different rules. I read somewhere a few years ago (meaning I could easily be wrong) that Texas only looks to the sex on the birth certificate and California only looks to the current sex of the person.

    I believe that means that someone who has had a sex change operation could marry someone of either sex just by picking the proper state in which to have the marriage certificate issued.

    Shouldn’t the constitutional amendment include a definition of a man and a woman?

  • Remember to always refer to them as God’s Own Party. Picture if you will (and feel free if you’re far more creative than I) a chorus line of Frist, Bush, Brownback, Rove, etc singing and dancing to…(music of I Know What Boys Want) “WeKnow What God Wants”. Something along the lines of

    We know what God likes.
    We know what God wants.
    We know what God likes.
    We’ll make it la-aw.

    We know what God likes.
    We know what God wants.
    We’ll make you do it.

  • . . . we know what God likes, God likes, God likes me.

    Thanks Jim S. Maybe CB’s commenters can start forwarding new material to the Capitol Steps!

  • Comments are closed.