How to stop the Federal Marriage Amendment....

[election_2004]

Right now, FMA is stuck in the House Subcommittee on the Constitution. My understanding is that if the current session of Congress ends without FMA being sent to the House for a vote, then the bill dies in Committee (at least, for this session of Congress).

If the bill goes up for a vote and passes the House, I believe the best chance for the bill's defeat would be in the U.S. Senate. The GOP leadership can only limit debate on FMA if there's unanimous consent. So all Ted Kennedy has to do is stand up and object to limited debate, and then the Democrats can proceed with a filibuster. The only way they can stop debate on the bill is with a cloture vote, which requires support of 60 senators. Again, if 48 senators oppose cloture, the GOP falls 9 people short of forcing a vote on FMA.

Here are the U.S. Senators who can politically afford to participate in the filibuster:

Inouye, Akaka, Feinstein, Boxer, Wyden, Murray, Cantwell, Bingaman, Harkin, Landrieu, Breaux, Conrad, Daschle, Johnson, Dayton, Feingold, Kohl, Levin, Stabenow, Durbin, Pryor, Graham, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Hollings, Edwards, Byrd, Rockefellar, Sarbanes, Mikulski, Biden, Carper, Clinton, Schumer, Dodd, Lieberman, Kerry, Kennedy, Reed, Leahy, and Jeffords.

During debate, Dorgan, Baucus, Lincoln, Bayh, and Reid (the centrists up for reelection) can stay out of the fray, but ultimately we'd need their votes against FMA if it went to the floor for a vote.

If FMA goes up for a vote, we need all 47 Democrats (I'm excluding Zell Miller), plus Jeffords, to vote against it. That's 48 votes opposing this bill to amend the U.S. Constitution and take away states' rights. We'll then need at least 3 crossover votes from Republicans to defeat the bill.

In my view, Snowe, Collins, and Chafee are the obvious choices to lobby. They won't be hurt by it politically, since their constituencies in Maine and Rhode Island are fairly liberal (or at least, Democratic strongholds). Furthermore, their votes against FMA wouldn't be all that surprising to the GOP leadership, given that those three are pro-choice and have a history of sometimes bucking the party line.

But just to be on the safe side, I think there are some other Republicans who could (and should) be targeted.

First, there's Ben Nighthorse Campbell. As a former Democrat and the only biracial member of Congress, Campbell is a safe incumbent and there's no way he'll be defeated for reelection in Colorado. Casting a vote against FMA shouldn't hurt him.

Then there's Norm Coleman, also a former Democrat. While he's kowtowed to Bush on many issues, Coleman has already been known to go against the party grain (didn't he vote against ANWAR?), and he won't want to alienate moderates (especially with his seat vulnerable in 2008 if Pawlenty is kicked out of office by voters in '06).

Gordon Smith could also afford to vote against FMA, being from Oregon. He won't be up for reelection again until 2008. Oregon's natural trajectory will favor Democrats by that point in time, and Smith won't want another major issue with which his Democratic challenger can paint him as too conservative.

Also, didn't Orrin Hatch publicly say that FMA was too extreme (since it amends the U.S. Constitution), since DOMA already covers the issue of states being forced to recognize hypothetical gay marriages? I thought I remember someone on DU mentioning that Hatch had taken that position?

Finally, what about Lugar, Domenici, and Grassley? All three may be considering retirement in 2008 and 2010, and they've already got their states locked up for reelection. Couldn't they take a libertarian approach to the issue, and say "let's leave it up to the states"?

At any rate, with 48 Democrats (excluding Miller and including Jeffords), plus all of the moderate Republicans who could be swayed to oppose a measure as extreme as amending the Constitution, there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to filibuster and, if necessary, defeat this piece of shit in the Senate.

Any Republican (or moderate-to-conservative Democrat) could simply justify their vote by saying, "Well I think it's unAmerican to amend the Constitution for this purpose, since this amendment would be taking away a state's right to decide how it wants to handle its own domestic issues."

Too many people are acting defeatist, and acquiescing to some foregone reality that the passage of FMA is inevitable. As a gay boy who already has no love for the Democratic Party establishment, that really pisses me off. This isn't just some figurehead codification (like DOMA). This is permanent, folks! How can you get more permanent than amending the U.S. Constitution?

If FMA passes, the Democrats can expect homosexuals to leave the party in droves. The only reason many apolitical gays and lesbians vote Democratic right now is because of issues such as marital rights and equality. Take that away for good, and what do you have left to offer non-partisans in the LGBT community?

I realize that the Democrats can't risk opposing the GOP majority on every single issue, but this one is too big to ignore. If they let FMA pass, how long will it be before we see a constitutional amendment to ban abortion? Or an amendment that outlaws any form of affirmative action? Or an amendment written to benefit HMOs, or to privatize Social Security, or to unconditionally allow concealed weapons or school vouchers?

They may be coming after us right now, but they'll be coming after the rest of you next...

So are we going to lobby our senators, or just sit around stewing about how they've managed to "defeat the queers"?

[La_Serpiente]

1. I thought that

both houses of Congress would need more than a majority to defeat an amendment. I thought 2/3 votes out of each chamber allowed for a constitutional amendment. I was just thinking.

[election_2004]

4. Hmmm...

You know, I thought it would only take a 51-49 vote to pass it in the U.S. Senate...but you could be right.

If it needs 66 senators to vote "yes" for it to pass, then all we need is 35 senators to vote "no." Although I still believe the filibuster would be a good idea.

And getting some of the moderate Republicans to vote "no" would also go a long way toward justifying civil unions.

[Occulus]

2. If the FMA passes

expect some community somewhere in the US to ABSOLVE criminals of penalty for attacking a gay man/woman/couple.

And then it REALLY begins.

[theoceansnerves]

3. supermajority and states

amending the constitution would require 2/3 majority in both house and senate, and then a 2/3 majority once it's sent to the states. to be honest i don't think this bill would ever leave the house.

[xxqqqzme]

5. we need 2 start paying attention 2

these dumb-ass radical, religious, rightwing wedge issues that do NOTHING but distract from the real issues that need 2 B addressed. We HAVE 2 stay focused here folks. Somebody @ the water cooler says, __________ supports gays - U say:
what does that have 2 do w/ job loss?
is pro-choice?
what does that have 2 do w/ getting us out of Iraq? Afghanistan?
is a tax 'n spend dem?
what R you willing to donate for - education? roads? clean water? national parks????

Can't get sucked N2 thier sinkhole!

[Silverhair]

6. It won't come up this year. Rove plans for it next year.

I can't remember where I read that the Reps are planning for it for next year, and I'm not going to search for a link. Anyway, it makes sense for them to plan to have it on the floor in an election year.

This would hurt a lot of Dems, big time, if they voted against the FMA. Remember what voting for Clinton gun control bill in 93 did to some Dems in 94. Clinton, in a speech, remarked that some had sacrificed their political careers for it. Voting against FMA would be far larger than that.

66% of the general population is against gay marriage. 75% of blacks strongly oppose it. It has strong emotional power. If we fight the FMA, we give Rove a dream come true for a super hot-button wedge issue.