Yesterday wasn’t a total loss for the GOP

November 11, 2005

Sure, the legislative implosion made the Republican majority look pretty inept yesterday, but if you’re a conservative worried about the right-wing agenda, there’s a bright side. GOP lawmakers can’t pass a budget, but they can move a constitutional amendment on gay marriage.

U.S. Senator Sam Brownback today applauded subcommittee passage of the Marriage Protection Amendment by a 5-4 vote.

“I’m glad the Marriage Protection Amendment passed the subcommittee and is headed to the full Judiciary Committee for debate and a vote,” said Senator Brownback. “This is an important step in the fight to protect traditional marriage.”

The Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, which Brownback chairs, met this afternoon to debate and vote on placing the marriage amendment on the agenda for action at next week’s full Judiciary Committee meeting. Now that is has cleared the Subcommittee, the amendment must pass through the full Judiciary Committee before it can head to the Senate floor for debate and a vote by all 100 senators.

In fact, the Subcommittee could have just killed the amendment altogether, but one Republican senator decided to help keep the measure alive: Arlen Specter. The Pennsylvania “moderate” said he opposes the amendment, but didn’t want it to be “bottled up” in committee.

No, it’s far better to have a divisive and ridiculous amendment, that has no chance of passing, advance and become a political sideshow.

For what it’s worth, the other four Republicans who backed the amendment were Sens. Brownback, Coburn, Cornyn, and Graham; while the four Dems who opposed it were Sens. Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, and Kennedy.

Regardless, thanks to Specter, who should know better, this nonsense lives to see another day.

Yeah, well, we can all look forward to it being voted down by the full Senate…right?

  • There is a good example of the oximoronic nature of the concept called “moderate republican”. As soon as I finish typing this entry, I will visit the Log Cabin Republican’s website to see how they spin this one…

  • Thank goodness we’re stopping those f**s from destroying our time-honored institution. Now if we can only undo the damage those n*****s have done.*

    Seriously, if they want to protect marriage, protect it from the sham marriages so many people engage in, like Britney Spears’ 48-hour drunken matrimony-spree, not the people whose inclusion only strengthens it.

    *obvious sarcasm

  • I have been trying to find the number of US senators who have been divorced, going through a divorce, or who have had mistresses. Ah, the true sanctity of marriage.
    There is too much stuff to wade through in Google to find this. Anyone have any suggestions?

  • I can’t tell if this will end up hurting them– too obvious of a ploy to use in 2006 if everything else is still clearly failing– or if they’ll use as their magical shield to avoid talking about anything else. (I’m not saying the magic would work…)

    Q: What do you think we should do about (fill in blank– Iraq, social security, health care, avian flu, etc.)?

    Their stock answer: What about protecting marriage! We need to protect it in the constitution! Need to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment now! Think of the children!!!!

  • This is good news. Marilyn Musgrave, House sponsor of the amendment,has been running away from this issue. She is vulnerable in the next election because of the present turmoil in the Republican party and because her opponent will probably be an evangelical Democrat, Angie Paccione, who is a strong cadidate. If gay marriage becomes an issue in the next election it will hurt Musgrave. Republicans lost Colorado last election because voters thought that they were more interested in social issues and were neglecting the more important bread and butter issues.

  • Get divorced a million times, cheat on your wife, heck even cheat on her when she’s sick with cancer, but never under any circumstances let 2 men or 2 women get married. It doesn’t matter if they’ve been together for decades, have raised children together, it’ll destroy marriage as we know it!!!!

  • I think Specter is on our side on this one. Killing it in committee generates no negative publicity for these fundamentalist whackos. By sending it to the Judiciary committee, where it can get debated, he guarantees a lot more bad press for his fuckwit wingut “colleagues”. He forces the whole Judiciary committee to go on record voting for or against it too– which might be useful for him to rat-fuck someone on that committee he doesn’t like.

    Specter is definitly not a Dem by any stretch, but he’s no fool either. I think here he’s said, “OK, you clowns want this to be your agenda? Let’s bring it out in the open and expose you for the wingnuts you are.”

    If he votes for it in the Judiciary comittee, then I’ll have to wonder what he’s smoking. But I think he’ll go on record against it.

  • What ever happened to the GOPers support for States’ Rights?

    Anyway, it’s time to take government out of our religion – marriage is a religious issue. Government should only offer civil unions (for all adult couples).

  • PhilW,

    I agree completely. Government’s public function is met simply by issuing birth certificates, death certificates and marriage licenses. Solemnizing or blessing such events through baptisms, funerals, and marriages should be up to churches (or whatever such private groups wish to call themselves).

  • Joseph: The wikipedia seems to have current spouses; the depth of the biographies vary a lot.

    • Comments are closed.