Hate Amendment: Deader than roadkill

Reader Allen scoured LexisNexis to compile this list -- determining where all 100 senators stood on the Hate Amendment. Of course, no such list can be perfect, as politicians are more than capable of saying one thing and doing another -- especially on an issue as emotionally charged as this one. And you can't ignore the inevitable horsetrading and lobbying that would precede any such vote -- things that could actually move numbers one direction or another. But the initial count shows this thing is already toast. As Allen writes:

Here's the latest on what a Senate vote might look like on Musgrave's proposed "Defense of Marriage" amendment. Note that of the senators who have taken a stand, 18 expressed support for the amendment, and 47 expressed opposition.

If the silent senators are leaning the way I predict, we have 31 "yes" votes and 56 "no" votes right now.

But let's say things turn nasty. Cities everywhere start their acts of civil disobedience, and as Governor Schwarzenegger has predicted, "All of a sudden we see riots, we see protests, we see people clashing. The next thing we know, there is injured or there is dead people."

Even then, if all the undecideds decide to support the president -- and weak-kneed Alexander, Crapo, Dorgan, Johnson, Landrieu, Lugar, Rockefeller, and Specter all jump ship -- we've got a 52-48 vote. And the bad guys are fifteen votes short of getting an amendment out of the Senate.

The numbers:

REPUBLICANS AGAINST (10)

Lamar Alexander: leave it to the states, he said pre-Bush announcement (PBA)

Ben Nighthorse Campbell: against b/c "it goes beyond what I would like to do"

Lincoln Chafee -- leave it to states

Norm Coleman: would support an amdt if "narrow in scope" Said PBA he opposed the Musgrave amdt because it bans not just gay marriage but "the legal incidents thereof."

Susan Collins -- firmly against

Mike Crapo: "there will not be a need for a const. amdt" -- states should be allowed to have civil unions

Chuck Hagel -- firmly against

John McCain: states should handle it -- don't change Const.

Olympia Snowe: "unnecessary"

Arlen Specter: not now, and later only if states fail

DEMOCRATS AGAINST (37):
(*) means (s)he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act

*Daniel Akaka

Jeff Bingaman

Barbara Boxer

John Breaux: leave it to the states [one of two leading Dems to replace him (Rep. John) supports amdt]

Robert Byrd: already settled at federal level

Maria Cantwell

Hillary Clinton

Kent Conrad

Jon Corzine

Mark Dayton -- spoke against, PBA

Tom Daschle

Dick Durbin

Chris Dodd

John Edwards

*Russ Feingold

*Dianne Feinstein

Bob Graham

Tom Harkin

*Daniel Inouye

Jim Jeffords

Tim Johnson: no need for amdt "right now"

*Ted Kennedy

*John Kerry

Herb Kohl: "better dealt with by the states"

Frank Lautenberg: "outrageous"

Pat Leahy

Joe Lieberman: "unnecessary and divisive."

Blanche Lincoln

Barbara Mikulski

Patty Murray

Ben Nelson

Bill Nelson

Mark Pryor: against it "at this point"

Jack Reed

Harry Reid: "neither appropriate nor necessary."

Chuck Schumer

*Ron Wyden

UNDECIDED SENATORS (13):

Bob Bennett (R): looking into other measures -- only as last resort

George Allen (R): needs to do more research; thinks most people don't care about it

Max Baucus (D): has misgivings; amdt "only as a last resort"

Conrad Burns (R): "very cool" to idea -- "When you start amending the Constitution, I get a little bit nervous."

Larry Craig (R): "something" needs to be done about marriage; civil unions should be allowed

Mike DeWine (R): needs time

John Ensign (R): amending is "not something to be taken lightly."

Chuck Grassley (R): "Right now, it's very difficult to say what you're for or not for."

Orrin Hatch (R): wants to leave it to the states; has also seemed open to amdt

James Inhofe (R): prefers statute; amdt should be last resort

Jay Rockefeller (D): open to an amdt, "if necessary"

George Voinovich (R): needs time

John Warner (R): "proceed with great caution"

DEFINITELY FOR AMENDMENT (18):

Wayne Allard

Kit Bond

Sam Brownback

John Cornyn

Elizabeth Dole

Pete Domenici

Peter Fitzgerald

Bill Frist

Lindsey Graham

Kay Bailey Hutchison

James Inhofe

Zell Miller [likely replacements all support amdt]

Pat Roberts

Rick Santorum

Jeff Sessions

Richard Shelby

Gordon Smith: but wants civil unions

Jim Talent

MY BET -- FOR AMENDMENT (13): (All Republicans)

Jim Bunning

Saxby Chambliss

Thad Cochran

Michael Enzi

Judd Gregg

Fritz Hollings [all likely successors -- including Dem -- support amdt]

Jon Kyl

Trent Lott

Mitch McConnell

Lisa Murkowski

Don Nickles [Dem and GOPers running to replace him support amdt]

Ted Stevens

Craig Thomas

MY BET -- AGAINST AMENDMENT (9):

Evan Bayh (D)

Joe Biden (D)

Tom Carper (D)

Byron Dorgan (D)

Mary Landrieu (D) -- nice of Breaux to give her cover

Carl Levin (D)

Dick Lugar (R) -- hey, might as well make a bet

Paul Sarbanes (D)

Debbie Stabenow (D)

You can't lose vigilance, but this thing is not going anywhere. Rove's little misdirect was good for a news cycle, but the other issues facing the nation are too important, too pressing, to be supressed for long.

I'm proud of our Democratic delegation in the Senate. They're handling this the right way.

•  and your opinion now

  about our Presidential candidates?

  Especially after Thursday's debates?

  by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 01:59:30 PM PDT

  •  Will there...

    be a response to your question on Wednesday???

    Likability vs. 'Substance and Experience'.
    Are we trying to elect a Democratic POTUS or a student body president?

    by talex on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:29:59 PM PDT

    •  i think both Johns

      are handling themselves extremely well so far, and would be proud to vote for either one on Tuesday, let alone in November.

      As far as Wednesday, maybe it's over, and maybe it's not. We'll see. but it doesn't change how well nuance will play this year. Experience isn't such a bad thing.

      by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:59:20 PM PDT

  •  Good news, bad news

    Whether one is for or against gay marriage, there is no reason in law for a constitutional amendment outlawing same sex marriage.

    The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), as many know, is the 1996 federal statute which expressly declares marriage is "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." DOMA not only sets the standard for a variety of federal statutes and activities, but it expressly authorizes states not to recognize foreign state marriages that do not meet DOMA's definition. If this federal statute is constitutional, and for as long as it remains on the books, the most rapid anti-gay would have no need for a constitutional amendment such as Bush has proposed. It would remain a matter for each individual state to decide.

    Ironically, however, right-wing Christian fundamentalists (and Bush) are pushing the anti-gay amendment using the argument that DOMA may be struck down as unconstitutional by their right-wing, Christian fundamentalist friends on the Supreme Court.  I say "ironically" because in every other sphere of civil rights law enforcement, the self-same right-wing, Christian fundamentalists -- and  Bush himself -- always argue for a narrow interpretation of the Equal Protection clause that would cover only race -- this can hardly be denied, given the floor debates in the post-Civil War Congress that proposed the 14th Amendment -- and not sex, age, disability, poverty, sexual preference, or other differentiating classifications. Yet, to create the bogeyman that DOMA one day may be declared unconstitutional they necessarily have to argue for an expansive interpretation of Equal Protection -- one that is light-years beyond anything the Supreme Court is prepared to endorse.

    In legal-speak, the question of whether the Equal Protection clause has been violated usually is expressed obliquely.  If a court desires to strike down a statute or governmental practice for violating the Equal Protection clause, it determines first that the classification made (i.e. the class of people most burdened by it) is "suspect" or "invidious" and therefore subject to "strict scrutiny" for a compelling reason to justiify the differential treatment. On the other hand, if a court is inclined to uphold a legislative act or practice, then it will first determine that the classification is not "suspect" or "invidious" and needs to be justified only on a "rational basis."

    With perhaps an arguable case or two to the contrary over 215 years under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has held only three legislative classifications to be invidious: Those based on "race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship." Even classifications that distinguish between the sexes -- that is, between men and women -- have not yet been openly determined by the right-wing fundamentalist Supreme Court majority to be "invidious" or clearly "suspect."

    While a non-invidious inequality in legislation still is subjected to the less stringent "rational basis" test, as a practical matter once the court determines "rational basis" instead of "strict scrutiny" is the appropriate test, the thing is decided and the legislative act will survive a challenge. Virtually any reason, whether or not it was the actual basis for an act or practice, will serve to turn away a challenge.

    There is good news and bad news in all of this, of course. The good news is the arguments of the anti-gay proponents have no real foundation in law. The bad news is that gays today, yesterday, and tomorrow cannot yet rely on the federal Constitution's Equal Protection clause as the source for relief against discriminatory treatment.

    by larrycoates on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 08:57:13 PM PDT

    •  this will need to be a political

      and not just a legal issue.

      The oldest generation has the most difficulty with this. Should get better with time.

      by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 09:01:30 PM PDT

    •  equal protection?

      Is that what the legal case against DOMA's based on?  That's pretty weak.
      I only have a layman's understanding, but I thought the unconstitutionality was more of a full faith and credit problem.
      

      by megsi on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 12:14:39 AM PDT

      •  It's possible

        I suppose, to challenge it under any number of legal rationales.  Full Faith and Credit may be the best, although states do grant each other some leaway in such matters as recognizing other marriages--MA General Law 207, Section 11 is one example.

        On the other hand, an equal protection case might be possible.  However, issues of sexual orientation have yet to reach higher levels of scrutiny in the Federal Courts.  It's easier for the Government to defend against such challenges on that basis.  A different approach to this, though, might be to argue gender discrimination--which has been the primary strategy for challenging gender-exclusive marriage laws at the state level for over 30 years now.  Gender has reached those higher levels of scrutiny.

        It might also be possible to rely on the right of intimate association found in Griswold, Loving and Lawrence.

        The rationale for any challenge will rely on strategic choices based on the best bets for cobbling together 5 votes.

        by MAJeff on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 12:28:01 AM PDT

•  This thread is a fitting end to discussion of

  "gay marriage" as a major issue. The Senate still has hold of its senses.

  Good.

  Even evangelicals
  http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/28/politics/campaign/28GAYS.html?hp
  are wondering if its really important enough to be worth all the talk its getting.

  Bring me Alan Greenspan's head on a platter, please.

  by dabize on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 01:59:49 PM PDT

  •  A friend...

    Is a church-going UU.  His dad's a solid secular humanist, his brothers are, respectively, a born-again evangelical and a Mormon.

    His dad passed along a rant from his Christian cousin (basically talking about just getting up anywhere, anytime and reciting the Lord's Prayer until everyone came to their senses and capitulated...).  

    None of the sons agreed with it.  Not one of them thought that the amendment was a good idea or had the legs to pass.

    Send this one to Mars, and let's get back to AWOL, the Plame Affair, WMD, Iraq, the economy, jobs, and the rape of the Constitution.  Things that are real, immediate threats.  The Amendment is a dead letter (just keep an eye on it so that they don't decide that making the zombie get up and smack someone might be clever).

    by ogre on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 04:17:42 PM PDT

    •  What should survive

      from Bush's spasmodic gesture to the evangelicals is that he has complete contempt for the constitution and for our constitutional democracy.  That is a theme that resonates throughout his presidency.  He doesn't understand that the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government with authority to pass on the constitutionality of legislation --- hence any determination of unconstitutionality is the nefarious work of "activist judges."  He doesn't care about privacy or due process or search-and-seizure rules or self-incrimination or habeas corpus or the congressional war-making power or the electoral process.

      George Bush. Anti-constitutional.

      by C S McCrum on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 04:31:17 PM PDT

  •  FMA lives; beware Probeesh!

    They said the same thing about Prohibition - the wets were sure there was no way a Prohibition amendment could get added to the constitution.

    But the people continued to elect politicians who were "tough on alcohol" the way we continue to elect politicians who are "tough on drugs." Think of Herseth - if all the young Dems are reflexively anti-gay marriage - and will pledge to support measures to oppose it in their states - then we'll get an anti-gay marriage amendment when we least expect.

    The matter is NOT dead, not by a long shot. Bush has given the Republicans another issue that intimidates Democrats. You can bet the Republicans will get a LOT of mileage out of anti-gay bigotry in the coming decades.

    I find it sad that our poster would write, "You can't lose vigilance" and then post this piece under such a stupid and overconfident title. FMA is NOT deader than roadkill. Not until the Supreme Court rules that all states must respect gay marriage will this be over.

    This is not a short-term but a long-term issue.

    by RowdyBrown on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 07:38:03 PM PDT

    •  OTOH

      where's prohibition now? Heck, if it were up to me, prohibition would still be in style! but that's a pretty weak argument for the long term...

      by JMS on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 11:29:07 PM PDT

      •  prohibition

        good evening JMS. they had prohibition for thirteen years and its legacy has not been a plus in the history of legislation about alcohol and drugs. also note that prohibition was a very successful amendment. it was repealed, but it was very effective while it was the law of the land.

        by RowdyBrown on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 01:34:52 AM PDT

•  Several minor quibbles

  Fritz Hollings is a Democrat.  Daniel Akaka is a man.

  by teenagedallasdeaniac on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:00:56 PM PDT

  •  Well....

    you're correct on Hollings, of course.  But I think kos was trying to denote people who voted against DOMA with an asterisk and the formating just didn't come out right.

    by Vet 4 Dean on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:24:02 PM PDT

    •  yup

      screwed up formatting. And Hollings is retiring. That note denotes that all possible replacements support the amendment.

      by kos on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:54:08 PM PDT

  •  And Conrad Burns is a Republican....

    (nm)

    by Keith Brekhus on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:34:40 PM PDT

•  Democrats - call for the vote now

  I think Daschle and Pelosi should push for committee hearings this week and a vote next week.  Hand Dubya his defeat and move on to the other 22 more important issues.  IMHO, dragging it out only benefits the Republicans, as the Democrats have more popular positions on the 22 more important issues.

  by HippoRider on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:05:18 PM PDT

  •  "More important"

    Well, I'd say "more pressing" rather than "more important".  But I'm one of the reviled gays, so what do I know?  ;-)

    by Vet 4 Dean on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:25:22 PM PDT

  •  Naw

    Most people don't like to think about this issue and will punish those who press it.  Let the Republicans bring it up.  If they don't, let Bush's speech languish and die, proof of his ineffectiveness.

    by C S McCrum on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 04:34:48 PM PDT

•  Where's John Sununu?

  Republican of New Hampshire.

  by bdbd on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:07:32 PM PDT

  •  Re: Where's John Sununu?

    He's not on the list. Reader Allen counted Inhofe twice instead.

    by Moose and Squirrel on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 10:48:38 PM PDT

•  Vintage Arlen

  Trying to have it ten different ways.

  BTW, I ran into one of Hoeffel's Pittsburgh staffers last night in a local Thai restaurant.

  The local team appears to be brought to you by the same folks who successfully ushered in Democrat Dan Onorato as Allegheny County Executive.

  The campaign is juiced and optimistic.

  I'm psyched.

  by praktike on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:07:36 PM PDT

  •  Actually

    I understand that Specter has unearthed a provision is Scottish legislative jurisprudence that allows him to vote "Not Decided".

    by LarryInNYC on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:25:04 PM PDT

    •  Not proven

      That was Arlen Specter's Scottish verdict in the impeachment trial.

      The not proven verdict has been around for 300 years, and Scots are still debating whether to abolish it.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 04:07:14 PM PDT

      •  Yes

        I know, that's the wee joke.

        I've always been intrigued by the Not Proven verdict.  On the one hand, it is certainly more exact than a Not Guilty verdict when the case is decided not on guilt or innocence but rather on a deficiency of the evidence.  On the other hand, if law is not going to convict you then it seems somewhat unfair to have the continued suspicion implied by Not Proven hanging over you for the rest of your life.

        by LarryInNYC on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 04:16:23 PM PDT

        •  I'm brain-dead today

          Which is why I missed your joke, Larry. I think I'll take a brisk walk.

          by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 04:25:07 PM PDT

  •  isn't there some obscure

    Scottish precedent that'll help him in his primary battle?

    by DemFromCT on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:26:44 PM PDT

  •  You leave Arlen alone!

    Ever since he spoke out against Abortion and other right-wing religious wedge issues at the Iowa Republican Convention back in 1995, he's earned my respect.
    

    by Steve4Clark on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:33:19 PM PDT

    •  You seem to have forgotten ...

      About Anita Hill

      by praktike on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 03:25:13 PM PDT

      •  Ok

        But Anita Hill was before the '95 convention.  So the one trumps the other.

        But I remember watching those hearings, and Biden and Specter both stood out.  I guess I don't recall exactly what you think Specter did which was so atrocious towards Anita Hill.

        Most of the crap that was flung at Hill came from Limbaugh and the rest of third world media.
        

        by Steve4Clark on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 04:49:58 PM PDT

    •  Specter ran for President in '96

      One of his "10 commitments to America," spelled out in the speech announcing his candidacy, was "to champion tolerance and freedom, including a woman's right to choose."

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 05:24:54 PM PDT

•  Great information

  Did I miss something?  What do the asterisks near some names mean?
  

  by KissyO on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:10:59 PM PDT

  •  The way I parse it

    An asterisk seems to indicate that the senator voted against the Defense of Marriage Act (the explanation in parentheses after the first name on the list I believe relates to this).

    by Nancy in Berkeley on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:16:23 PM PDT

    •  got it, thank you

      by KissyO on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:45:34 PM PDT

•  On the Hate Amendment . . .

  . . .and so many other things, our friends to the north just have it so damn right!

  by GOTV on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:14:02 PM PDT

•  Daschle and Pelosi, Your Time is NOW

  Daschle and Pelosi should pick up the gauntlet thrown down by Bush.

  Demand a vote.

  Demand it now.

  Demand that the president and his supporters go on record and seal their lifelong legacy as the formal establishment of hate, bigotry and persecution of minorities in the founding document of our democracy.

  Don't stand there and stare at this grenade that Bush-Rove lobbed into the Demcratic party.  Picked it up and throw it squarely back at them and watch it explode.

  This amendment is a gift to us.  An opportunity wrapped in a bow.  Whether they realize or not, Bush-Rove have changed the debate from a discussion of 'icky gay marriage' to despoiling the constitution.

  That's a debate we will win.  That's a debate that will deliver a big fat failure on Bush' doorstep.  When it comes to that debate our response should be loud, clear and strident: "Bring it on!"

  by libertas on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:16:07 PM PDT

  •  on the money

    IF THIS ASSESSMENT IS ACCURATE (and only then), we should move now. the republicans are afraid that it is and are in no mood to push the issue farther than their bluster. they know what it is: demagoguery for homophobes. it won't pass; the democrats should demand a fight here and now if they have the votes to shove it back down DeLay/Frist/Bush's throats.

    by Niky Ring on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 10:31:59 PM PDT

•  The meme to push

  President Bush talks at great length  of his opposition to the intrusion of the federal government into the lives of ordinary people, and he claims that he 'trusts' the American people run their own lives -- but his support for this unnecessary and distracting constitutional amendment shows that this is simply not true.

  Even conservative Republicans are against this proposal because it stands squarely against their beliefs that 'government governs best that governs least'.

  The Dems need to turn this thing on its head. Ju jitsu the hell out of RoveCo. Push the meme. Take Bush's blatant opportunism and use it against him.

  by ebie on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:20:21 PM PDT

  •  I forget who said this

    "A conservative is someone who wants to shrink government to the point that it can fit in your bedroom."

    by Pericles on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 06:55:43 PM PDT

•  Missing the point.

  Does anyone believe the point of Bush's "sponsoring" this ammendment was ever to see it actually pass?  No, it was to energize his base, and provide a few hundred thousand more votes in certain swing states.

  For his purposes, whether the ammendment will pass or not is immaterial, and his purposes may even be better served if the ammendment appears headed for failure at election time.

  The real good news about this ammendment is that it does not actually appear to be energizing his base.  The fight seems to have gone out of them on gay issues in general.  

  Also, by trying to play it both ways (supporting the ammendment but not breathing fire and brimstone against gays qua gays) I doubt Bush has convinced anyone who is really hyped up about this ammendment that he is "really" with them.

  Indeed, I think the best approach for anti-Bushistas to take to this issue is:

  What makes the President's support for this ammendment so sad is that it is so transparently a political manoever that the President himself does not believe in.  During the last campaign Mr. Bush made it clear that he supported a states right's approach on marriage issues and that he had no particular problem with homosexuality.  Indeed, there are many stories of the Mr. Bush's kind interactions with gay people.  That he would then turn around and support an assualt on the Constitution, our nation's most sacred civil document, the first ever such ammendment to deny rights to a single segment of the population; and that he would do so for crass political motives, does not speak well to his character or the governance he is providing our country.

  by LarryInNYC on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:22:29 PM PDT

  •  Exactly

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/28/politics/campaign/28GAYS.html?hp

    This article says it all.

    It's a dud rocket.

    If we Dems show excessive interest in the issue, it will hurt rather than help......with the possible exception of the "this isn't fit for a Constitutional amendment " angle.

    But I feel that silence is best for now, since as Kos says, it isn't a real threat.

    by dabize on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:27:10 PM PDT

    •  Be careful

      This article says it all.

      Be careful about that article.  It's based on anecdotal quotes, has some opposing quotes, and in general reads like an (increasingly common) NY Times "let's find what we want to find" article.

      by LarryInNYC on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:52:42 PM PDT

      •  I know

        But its probably pretty indicative of the feeling out there. The NYT would have told us if there was a rampaging horde of Fundies getting ready to support Dubya for this if it had been true.

        Fundies have to eat too.

        by dabize on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:55:54 PM PDT

  •  Cheney's daughter

    I want to know what Cheney's daughter thinks about all this. The silence is deafening.

    Where is the press? Still thinking about Janet's boob? Revving up for the Oscars? Lord knows they're not looking into the Plame affair or Memogate.
    

    by ebie on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:43:55 PM PDT

    •  from skippy the bush kangaroo...

      ...a new website, dearmary.com is attempting to make sure the openly lesbian daughter of dick "ya gotta have heart" cheney is part of the current fracas about gay marriage.
      

      by KissyO on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:55:54 PM PDT

      •  I was checking it out

        I still want her on the cover of the NYTimes and the WaPo! Um, of course, I mostly want to know what she actually thinks about it first :)

        by ebie on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 03:04:00 PM PDT

    •  Dear Mary

      After dearmary.com, what options does Mary Cheney have?  She can stay in her old man's undisclosed location, or she can make a dramatic break.  Signs point to the former.  She's a mute monument to Bush-Cheney's hypocrisy.

      Now tell me that the web doesn't matter.

      by C S McCrum on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 04:20:28 PM PDT

  •  Too Much Energy

    I think it was less about energizing his base than pacifying it. Pushing the amendment is a losing position for him, but having the wacko right so enraged that they sit out the lection or bolt to a 3-rd party candidagtge would also have been a losing proposition. And that's what was in the making, IMO. So Rove had to decide which tack would minimize the losses.

    by Dvd Avins on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 05:47:49 PM PDT

  •  Winning By Losing

    No, it was to energize his base, and provide a few hundred thousand more votes in certain swing states.

    And, in a way, having the amendment get smacked down might actually inflame the base more -- figure it like this: "When activist judges acted up, President Bush tried to protect the sanctity of marriage.  But those Washington politicians stood in his way!"  Fundamentalists get off on defeat.

    by FlipYrWhig on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 11:30:25 PM PDT

•  excellent story kos

  lots of great info. Thanks!

  Also wanted to agree with HippoRider that is should be brought out to a vote now.  Get out in front of it and then put it behind, thus handing bush his quite visible defeat at a politically targeted hate ammendment intended solely for religious votes.

  I think bushCo has zero credibility now. They are even publicly acknowledging by their actions what they deny with their words.  They fired 2 scientists on the president's science counfil for not agreeing with his views on stem cell research.  They have touted economic numbers and policies which are opposed by economists across the board but refuse to accept the numbers they print.

  Just today, a reuters story quoting an iranian radio station claims that bin laden was caught by Americans (and that rummy's visit to afghanistan was part of the whole process)  both pakistan and the US have denied it but someone should just ask directly yes or no, "is bin laden caught?"

  The radio station claims that he was caught last year but that bushCo have been waiting to bring it public due to the elections.

  First, it's an iranian radio station but our own former secretary of state also albeit jokingly, mentioned the very same possibility last year, that obl is on ice until a better time.  We've all expected it.  The military has been putting out these stories here and there about ramping up an operation, even prominent republicans have been saying they were sure we would get him this year.

  The reality is probably that he has been caught months ago and the iranian story is true.  Since there have been no blunt flat out denials from anyone AND that no one has even come out and asked bluntly is just further evidence.

  by jackemoe on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:24:08 PM PDT

  •  Can we confirm that no one has asked the question?

    n/t

    by AJS on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:45:28 PM PDT

•  What's changed

  More than anything is that Civil Unions have become a default position.  A few years ago, when Vermont was debating the issue, CUs themselves were incredibly controversial.  I'm not saying that they still aren't.  But, rather than a "forward looking" compromise, they've become the fallback conditions.

  Norm Coleman is an example of this.  As much as I despise the man, his issue with the amendment was the "incidents thereof" aspect.  It would close off any possibility of benefits for same-sex couples.  The mainstream debate has really shifted over the past couple years.  It's no longer nearly as controversial to support benefits for same-sex couples.  

  I'm not saying the fight for gay equality is won, by any stretch.  However, we are winning.  The fact that the debate has moved this far this fast is some evidence of that.  We've moved further in the past decade than I thought was possible.  For me, that's an indication that those of us who have been agitating, organizing, protesting, and educating on these issues have been doing effective work--work that we must continue in order to shift the debate even further, and to realize gay equality.

  by MAJeff on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:26:16 PM PDT

  •  Why civil unions are the heart of the matter

    Although the public nod-of-approval that is a church marriage is important insofar that it's one more sign that our society won't treat queer couples as second-class citizens, the important thing that our lawmakers should be doing is the procurement of the rights that go with these 'civil unions'.

    Any marriage is really two things: it's a wedding presided over by a church, and it's a civil union sanctioned by our government.

    The former is an acknowlegement from society -- one that has nothing to do with government's proper function.

    The latter entails a bestowment of certain obligations and rights. The protection of these rights IS the purview of government.
    

    by ebie on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:58:18 PM PDT

    •  Not quite

      Any marriage is really two things: it's a wedding presided over by a church, and it's a civil union sanctioned by our government.

      Not all marriages are weddings presided over by a church (or faith community).  Many folks have weddings that are not religious.  They are still married.  

      And that brings us to the second type of marriage--the more important one under discussion, civil marriage--which is different than civil unions.  Civil unions are specific legal arrangements different than marriage.  Civil marriage is all the rights and benefits attached to the legal contract.  Civil unions may carry these, but it depends on how different governmental bodies choose to define them.  That's part of what's lost here--there is no universal thing that is a "civil union."  It's a particular legal construction.  And it is not the same thing as a civil marriage.  

      This may seem like "mere semantics."  But, by calling what the government already does a civil union, the issue gets clouded.  Civil unions exist in only one place in the United States--Vermont.  California has domestic partnerships.  Each of these are different legal forms.

      It may be arguable that the state should surrender the word "marriage"--many here have proposed that.  But to say that civil unions are already existing and conflating them with civil marriages mixes things up.  

      Plus, I really do doubt a hell of a lot of married hets--even those who don't consider their relationship as religious--are going to give up "marriage."

      by MAJeff on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 03:37:16 PM PDT

      •  I don't think it's semantics

        Thanks for the clarifications. After posting I thought there were some holes in what I was saying. Now I understand better where they are.

        by ebie on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 04:20:50 PM PDT

      •  $0.02 from a married het

        Plus, I really do doubt a hell of a lot of married hets--even those who don't consider their relationship as religious--are going to give up "marriage."  

        This married het would love nothing more than to give up her "marriage" for a "civil union" IF the powers that be decide that marrige is the purview of any church.  I would consider such a definition to be an insult to my relationship with my husband.

        by SFMugz on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 05:25:54 PM PDT

•  Fade now, step up later, I hope

  I agree that this will probably die down sooner rather than later, which is good.

  My view has definitely evolved on this over the last month or so - at first I thought state-by-state civil unions was a reasonable compromise, but the more I read and think about it, the more it seems that the only really honest position is to make marriage available to any couple that wants to make the commitment.

  The big problem that I see is with the preznitial candidates' positions about leaving it up to the states. As Rev. Al pointed out in the debate the other day, this is the sort of thing that, if left up to the states, results in segregation, anti-miscengenation laws, poll taxes and such.

  I think the probability is that neither D's nor R's really want to get into this, so it will likely fade. But not forever, and I hope when it really comes down to it, our side will step up as JFK and LBJ did back in the 60's.

  by vikingham on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:34:50 PM PDT

  •  The Big Difference...

    ...is that state's rights as a defense for racism involved southern states resisting federal initiatives to expand and protect the rights of racial minorities.  In this case, the federal government isn't doing anything to permit either same-sex marriage or civil unions, and states' rights is an offensive strategy to allow some states to implement civil unions, despite the resistance of the newly-committed federalists in MS and AL who supposedly fear that their marriages are endangered by the existence of civil unions in VT or HI.

    One can doubt whether state-by-state civil unions are the way to go (although there is precedent, in that some states extended the franchise to women prior to the Nineteenth Amendment), or whether the unintended consequences of amending against same-sex marriage in order to attain civil unions could be worse than the status quo.  But Sharpton and those that make the same argument are looking in the wrong direction when they equate the invocation of states rights in this case with the invocation of states rights during the civil rights era.  

    by DHinMI on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 05:51:09 PM PDT

•  Wisened Up

  It's only a threat if you believe the phony intelligence:

  U.S. Attacked By Wedding Parties!  

  Looking for Weapons of Mass Nuptials.......

  The Dems are slowly thawing out from their deep freeze.

  Thanks again, Dr. Dean.

  by Athena on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:44:23 PM PDT

•  Let it die (down).

  Given this lineup, I think it is safe for now to let the issue alone for awhile, unless the right and/or Bush starts pushing it.  I think we have proved once again that we aren't cowed by these tactics, and the middle just isn't with Bush on this.  It is interesting that civil unions has become the respectable position now.  Of course it is a cop-out, but it is also a way station, and we should let politicians sit there for a bit while the public gets used to gay couples.  If we get a Dem Pres and Senate, then we will be in a position to block any state that refuses to recognize the gay marriages that inevitably are going to occur somewhere. Companies will find people refusing to move to states that block partner benefits and won't recognize gay marriages.  The change will be here pretty quickly, I think.  

  by Mimikatz on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:48:04 PM PDT

•  Supporters

  We should keep a list of all the democrats who support the Unequal Rights Amendment and then target them for removal.

  I'm serious.  This is bullshit and we can't put up with this sort of scorn for the rights of minorities from within the ranks of our own party.

  If the democrats cannot stand up for the downtrodden and ostracized members of our society, then they are no longer useful as a political party.  I've had it with their bullshit--it's time to take action.

  by Subterranean on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:48:25 PM PDT

  •  Great idea!

    Then, we'll get more Republicans who support the amendment!

    Priorities, people.  There are several Republicans up for re-election this year who support the FMA.  Target them for removal, not the Democrats.

    by Drew on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:57:39 PM PDT

    •  Great idea!

      Let's prioritize winning above human rights.

      Too bad the democrats didn't do that back in the 60s.  Ever since supporting civil rights, the repugs have divided and conquered the south.  Without democrats having given those uppity blacks equal rights, the "Southern Strategy" would never have worked.

      by Subterranean on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 03:21:06 PM PDT

      •  Fine. Let's lose.

        That will certainly help secure equal rights.

        Don't be stupid.  If the Democrats lose, then so does equality.  If they win, equality wins.  It's that simple.

        Honestly, if you believe it is more important for the Democratic Party to be pure than it is for Democratic principles to be written into law, then perhaps you should volunteer for the Republican Party.  I'm sure they'd be more than happy to help you winnow the Democrats in the House and Senate down to the few who leave you with that warm, fuzzy feeling inside.

        Now, if you're more concerned with victory for equality than you are with your fuzzy feelings, then perhaps you should focus on those 109 House Republicans and 10 Senate Republicans who have cosponsored the FMA.

        by Drew on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 04:03:35 PM PDT

        •  Equality

          How does equaity win by passing an Unequal Rights Amendment?

          That doesn't make any sense.

          by Subterranean on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 12:01:04 AM PDT

          •  It doesn't get passed

            If the Democrats are in charge.  Amendments such as that would never leave committee.  Can't say the same if Republicans are in charge.

            by Drew on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 01:54:27 AM PDT

  •  Ummm

    Didn't you read the list? All the Senate Dems are against it.

    by kos on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 03:00:40 PM PDT

    •  All who aren't removing themselves

      You have Zell Miller as for the amendment and Fritz Hollings as probably in favor. Miller doesn't really count as a Democrat, I suppose.

      by KeithH on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 03:06:25 PM PDT

    •  Wait until the vote

      Then we'll see who the moral cowards are.

      Trust me, there will be a few.  These are congressional democrats we're talking about.

      by Subterranean on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 03:16:49 PM PDT

  •  Take action

    If the democrats cannot stand up for the downtrodden and ostracized members of our society, then they are no longer useful as a political party.  I've had it with their bullshit--it's time to take action.

    "She'll come back as fire, to burn all the liars, and leave a blanket of ash on the ground" --Kurt Cobain, Francis Farmer Will Have Her Revenge On Seattle

    Please do not confuse principles with strategy and tactics. We all want the same thing you want. We differ on how best to achieve it. "they are no longer useful as a political party" is manifestly untrue, and does nothing to raise the level of discourse.

    You want to take action? Change "Francis" in your .sig sile to "Frances."

    by Ivan on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 03:38:44 PM PDT

    •  Don't confuse strategy for principle

      And thanks for correcting my sig.  Oops!!
      

      by Subterranean on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 11:58:49 PM PDT

  •  Yup - and that leaves lonely Kucinitch

    Yanno, it doesn't make any difference from the
    point of marriage or equal rights for gays if
    there is a federal amendment or not as long
    as the states pass laws prohibiting gay marriage.

    And tht is what Kerry is for - it appears Edwards also.

    Despite Dr. Deans' attempted spine transplant, the dems still have no balls :(

    by tiponeill on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 05:16:10 PM PDT

•  Zell Miller

  The Republicans running for his seat no doubt support the Amendment, but two of the Democrats running for his seat (Squires, Thomas) recently voted against a similar Amendment to the Georgia Constitution.

  by Drew on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:49:10 PM PDT

•  Don't forget...

  ...what happened in the Medicare Bill.  The Rethugs will stop at nothing to get votes, even if it means threatening Congress members AND their families.  That being said, this is a winner for us.  Bring it on!

  by reef the dog on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:55:08 PM PDT

  •  What would they try this time?

    Perhaps, "vote for this Constitutional amendment or we'll out your son?"

    by KeithH on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 03:10:19 PM PDT

•  I like to consider the dilemma

  Bob Bennett (R): looking into other measures -- only as last resort

  Orrin Hatch (R): wants to leave it to the states; has also seemed open to amdt

  these two extreme cultural conservatives are in. They must try to protect polygamous communities while simultaneously wanting to enshrine discrimination against gays and lesbians in the constitution. There's no way they want the polygamy issue brought to the fore. The practice is extremely unpopular within  the mainstream Mormon community, attempting to make polygamy a mainstream American value would cause Concerned Women for American and NOW to ally and draw attention to the fact that massive amounts of taxpayer dollars are subsidizing the lifestyle choices of men who father 30 children they cannot possibly support. And then there's the incest issues....

  How amusing to see them pussyfooting. Perhaps they would change the wording from 'a man and a woman' to the plural in Utah's constitution.

   

  by colleen on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:55:10 PM PDT

•  Preemptive vote

  I think a vote right now would be great.  They are great at talking about this, but would they put it to a vote?  This is exactly the type of tactics the republicans would use.  Bring up a sensitive issue, force a vote, and run on that uncomfortable vote.

  Let the republicans come out against equal rights for all American citizens.

  And as a Dean supporter, I will say here and now that Kerry gave 2 great speechs yesterday.  One challenging Bush on his actions (or nonactions) in Haiti.  there is a long history of Bush 1 and now Dubya with Aristide that should be talked about.  And also a speech about terror not going away even with osama caught.  He needs to keep saying this as a preemptive strike against him already being caught (which I do believe he is).

  by GrandmaJ on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:55:49 PM PDT

•  If they wait...

  for Herseth (D) to win the South Dakota seat, the Rethugs will have one more vote.  She is running for the June special election for Janklow's seat, as a Dem, SUPPORTING the Hate Amendment.

  by reef the dog on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 02:57:30 PM PDT

•  Kos, it is irresponsible

  of you to repeatedly make such over the top, case-closed comments like "Dead as a doornail."

  The bottom line is, this is such a politically charged issue, there is no telling how a vote 6 months from now or so will turn out.

  And if this Anti-Gay Amendment passes, you will be partially to blame, for your "fiddling while Rome burns" attitude, and refusal to acknowledge this as a serious threat.

  We don't need to be molly-coddled about this right now.

  by Carl Junior on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 03:25:47 PM PDT

  •  Come on now.....

    I agree it is WAY premature to call this issue dead when its only been truly alive since Tuesday.  But claiming Kos "will be partially to blame, for your "fiddling while Rome burns" attitude, and refusal to acknowledge this as a serious threat" is a little hyperbolic, don't ya think?  He may be moderately influential on this site -- but given the ferocity of opinions held by the majority here, even that is debatable -- but 99.999999% of the American public doesn't know Markos from Adam.

    by Vet 4 Dean on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 04:12:06 PM PDT

    •  If stataments like

      "This amendment is as dead as road kill" lead people to underestimate this threat, than he is helping to get it passed.  Granted, my statement may have been hyperbolic (when am I ever not?), but so is Kos's "dead as roadkill" prediction.

      I just hope his prediction of the Anti-Gay Amendments demise is more accurate than his October thru January pronouncements that Kerry's campaign is dead, and has "dropped below the Sharpton line.

      by Carl Junior on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 04:34:41 PM PDT

•  Bring it up!

  Is there a procedural way that we can force a vote in either the senate or the house?  It would make for a huge 4-egg omelette on Bush's face and effectively take the issue off of the table for a cycle or two.  Judging by how much perception of this issue has changed over the past couple of years (as someone above noted, civil unions is now the DEFAULT position - this would have been unthinkable a few years back) that's all we'd need.

  by Ickey shuffle on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 03:41:36 PM PDT

  •  aoeu

    A discharge petition, I think you need a majority vote to get something out of comittee.

    by TealVeal on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 04:29:18 PM PDT

•  I keep sensing that

  Rove saw a win-win game for his team on this issue.  The easy one would have been the popular will going along with their hate and amending the constitution.  Rove, as contrasted with GWB, isn't that stupid and would not be playing if it were a simple win-lose game.  Rove watched the "flag burning amendment" of GHB and knows it takes a lot more than they have to get an amendment through Congress.

  So, what's his game?  Could be nothing more than appeasing their fundmentalist base that has begun to gripe of late.  Since the "civil rights" component of the GOP is so small, and mostly willing to give that a back seat to lower taxes, support for the amendment will not alienate those voters.

  But is there more?  Maybe not, but instead of looking at total counts in the Senate, it would be interesting to look more closely at those who are up for re-election in 2004 and 2006.  Are they in or out of step with their constituencies and by how much?  Will they be effective at getting a pass on this issue because it shouldn't be an amendment.  Or will they be vulnerable to being painted as immoral by a slick GOP campaign?  Remember Rove needs not only to get his boy elected but increase their majority in the Senate because as odd as it may seem to many of us here, the Senate has been an impediment to the fuller GWB agenda.

  by Marie on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 03:46:13 PM PDT

•  Boxer voted against DOMA

  I agree that the current amendment as no chance of passage but I would worry about the amendment being changed to basically be DOMA in constitutional amendment form. That might not pass now, but if DOMA is every struck down in the courts then that might very well pass.

  by NJDem on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 03:50:34 PM PDT

  •  If DOMA is striked down...

    I'd like to hear more about that!

    by Dan on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 04:52:53 PM PDT

•  Independent?

  Last I checked Jim Jeffords is an independent, not a Democrat.  Although he seems to be acting like a Democrat these days.

  by Dougthebug on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 04:10:15 PM PDT

  •  Jeffords

    He's an independent, but caucuses with the Democrats.

    by Randy on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 06:02:52 PM PDT

•  Even the Wall Street Journal has misgivings

  about this amendment.

  Friday's lead editorial said in part: "We think this entire issue should be decided in the states, by the people through their elected legislators. And if the voters want to alter the definition of marriage as a new social consensus develops, that should be their democratic right."
  

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 04:17:36 PM PDT

•  Not dead - DOMA unconstitutionality looms

  
  It's great that the votes aren't there to pass it right now, but if the Supreme Court decides that DOMA is unconstitutional and a Massachusetts marriage is valid in South Carolina, we have a different game.

  We do not want a debate on the Senate floor, people.  We don't want Senators committed to the rationale that it's "not necessary now" because we have DOMA.  That's a trap, quite apart from the fact that DOMA is a very bad law.  It ensnares you when it turns out that a marriage anywhere is a marriage everywhere.  Better to keep it all low-key.  

  Let people get used to the idea.  Let the issue take its time.  Let the fear die down.  Let the issue get boring.  Don't push it forward now.

  by C S McCrum on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 05:02:58 PM PDT

•  The entire Wisconsin Delegation is against FMA.

  That's 4 Republicans in the House, 4 Democrats, and our 2 Democratic Senators.

  by ben masel on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 05:13:20 PM PDT

  •  And in Minnesota

    There are a couple house members (including my parents' Rep, Gil Gutknecht) are actually sponsors of the damned thing.

    Senator Mark Dayton, however, made his opposition quite clear:

    Breaking his silence on a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage, Sen. Mark Dayton thunderously denounced the idea Saturday.

    Such an amendment, which President Bush embraced last week, "is unconstitutional and un-Christian," Dayton said. "If marriage is an institution created by God, leave marriage to God."

    He said the amendment would institutionalize discrimination against gays and lesbians, which he said is "vicious, ugly, mean-spirited and should be illegal."

    Those people who support the constitutional ban exhibit "only disgust and disdain while they spew hatred and inhumanity," he added.

    Go Mark!

    by MAJeff on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 03:58:22 AM PDT

•  Not that it matters,

  but Debbie Stabenow has been answering constituent messages (incl. mine) telling them she will vote against.

  by memiller on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 08:15:10 PM PDT

•  Zell Miller and Sean Hannity

  I was somewhat suprised to see Republican want to be Sen Zell Miller supporting the amendment. Every time I see nutcase/ape Sean Hannity fawn all over Zell Miller, you think wedding bells is the next step for them.

  by sdonahue on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 09:45:24 PM PDT

•  Bad economy? Talk sodomy!

  Bush campaign plan.

  by Andrew Lazarus on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 09:53:18 PM PDT

•  THIS IS NOT OVER!

  As others have said, my jaw dropped at the "deader than a doornail" heading.

  This was never planned to pass immediately. It still has a good chance of passing (they are going to try to vote right before the Democrat's convention) but even if it doesn't, this is a winner for the GOP.

  Thanks to San Francisco, support for the amendment has gone up 12-15% in the past month. Bush's endorsement will add another 5-10%. Continued hysterics and expensive media campaigns by fundies, along with the weddings coming in Mass. in May, will make support for the amendment even higher.

  Meanwhile, the Dems who oppose this amendment will be subjected to an onslaught of attack ads. Fundies will give millions of dollars to each and every person who says they will vote for the amendment.

  This is all designed to ensure that by 2005 or 2006, 2/3 of Congress will approve the amendment.

  Think long-term. That is what Bush and Rove are doing. Don't just think about a few half-assed remarks by aides or press releases.

  We are letting them win.

  by JamesB3 on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 11:08:12 PM PDT

•  point of interest

  In case anyone cares, Tom Carper of DE came out against FMA in the Phila. Inquirer. Of course he was already "my bet against" so it's not a change, but it's nice to know that he's gone public.

  by JMS on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 11:33:53 PM PDT

•  Acts of Civil Disobedience Will Begin

  in New York City on Thursday, March 4 (we need a day to recover from staying up all nite on Super Tuesday)

  A peaceful demonstration will greet John K & John E & Al & Dennis outside the NYC CBS Studios tomorrow (Sunday) when they arrive for their debate.

  And this is only the beginning, folks.

  You ain't seen nothing yet!

  by stevew on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 01:05:11 AM PDT

•  Biden

  I just saw an article that quoted him that legalized same sex marriage is inevitable and that it's a change that this country will have to go through.

  by Hollywood Liberal on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 12:24:17 PM PDT

•  I'm all for it but only because

  I said America would go down before my children ever had a chance to start families, repulsive breeders.

  Stick you're prick in a pile of shit and call it equal.

  Bring it all down man!

  by URMissTaken on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 01:01:44 PM PDT

•  Trackback: A modest proposal: Marketize marriage

  Trackback from The Columbia-Union:

  A modest proposal to resolve the whole gay marriage (and straight divorce) issue that even a Republican can love: Marketize marriage.

  Read the rest...

  by Trackback on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 07:24:21 PM PDT