Poll:Guess on FMA votecount

How many votes will the Republican Leadership get on the last make or break vote on the FMA? (Even if the FMA gets changed)

•  aoeu

  This assumes it passes cloture?  My guess is...49.  I just can't guess a number above 50...

  by TealVeal on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 12:27:27 PM PDT

  •  Life is like a box o' chocolate ...

    ... turtles.

    by RonK Seattle on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 12:42:22 PM PDT

    •  Y'never know how many y'r gonna eat

      by RonK Seattle on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 06:12:55 PM PDT

•  Doesn't seem to matter...

  George W. Bush has---once again---failed to deliver on a campaign promise to his base.  He is a failure.  A rude, crude, swaggering, dim-bulb, failure:

  http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/07/071304amend.htm

  Failure.
  Failure.
  Failure.

  In all things Bush...he fails.

  Big fat failure.

  Eff-Ay-Eye-Ell-Yoo-Arr-Eee.

  by Bill in Portland Maine on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 12:27:34 PM PDT

  •  Spin for the base

    will be , "well, he tried, god love him."

    Which is what they are doing this exercise for in the first place.  My info is that they never expected to win, just demonstrate to the base that they need to defeat dems in the congress so there is a larger majority.  From one of their house candidates.

    This is now and will be in future years the successor to the flag burning amendment.

    by NorCalJim on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 01:58:09 PM PDT

    •  spin for base?

      "well, he tried, god love him."

      Uh, wouldn't that be a somewhat ironic phrase to hear, given the context.  I mean... watch out George, Jesus loves you... and, uh... well, wants to marry you.

      by ogre on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 03:21:26 PM PDT

•  Disappointment

  I don't think the measure will pass, but man, have Democratic Senators utterly failed on how to handle this or what?

  Instead of saying, "Of course I agree that gay men and Lesbians are filthy trash and should be subject to as much scorn as we can possibly heap on them, but I really don't think this amendment is the best way to do that ..."

  They could have said something like, "Our top priority this year in the Senate is national security.  We cannot afford to waste time considering trivial matters like this.  That is why I will not vote for this measure."

  Don't this folks employ spinmasters?

  by Aaron Gillies on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 12:28:09 PM PDT

  •  Argh

    This folks = these folks.  I'm thinking specifically about John Kerry's remarks and those of Evan Bayh the other day on CNN.

    by Aaron Gillies on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 12:29:05 PM PDT

  •  If JamesB3

    is right and they are receiving phone calls 10-1 (or 5-1 or 2-1 most recently) in favor of FMA, they may want to slink away...Of course you are right that they could just change the subject instead of hammering at how moral they are.

    by JMS on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 12:33:39 PM PDT

  •  They're all bastards, Aaron.

    by NorCalJim on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 01:59:58 PM PDT

•  46.

  by memiller on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 12:28:20 PM PDT

•  My guess

  is 46 for, 54 against

  by G35Guy on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 12:29:57 PM PDT

•  Withdrawn, after a sub-50 whip count ...

  ... and after they figure out it skewers more of them than it does us.

  And maybe some timing games to disadvantage Kerry/Edwards road schedules.

  by RonK Seattle on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 12:34:03 PM PDT

•  The Wingnuts are SO STUPID

  They are repeating 1992 all over again.

  Remember when George H. W. Bush caved into Pat Buchanan and gave him a prime time speaking slot at the 1992 GOP convention? I remember how even Republican relatives of mine were simply aghast at the hate-filled shit that was spoken in Houston. It fed moderate Republicans and Independents perceptions that George I had lost control of his party. Now these same voters are not going to think George II lost control of his party. Instead, he is going to be seen as the leader of the nightmare wing and they have taken over. Any attempts to portray his party as compassionate are going to fall flat.

  The damage is going to take a generation to repair.

  by John Campanelli on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 12:38:18 PM PDT

  •  The classic Molly Ivins line

    "Buchanan's speech probably sounded better in the original German."

    by Blue the Wild Dog on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 12:44:44 PM PDT

•  43...42...41...

  Hut!  Hut!  The dems won't fight cloture, so the vote might not happen, if the vote doesn't happen, they have fewer than 46 votes...BTW, they are debating the ALLARD ammendment which differs from the MUSGRAVE ammendment in that it does not prohibit  specifically same-sex benefits under a different name, so some will vote against it as not strong enough!

  by PBJ Diddy on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 12:39:06 PM PDT

  •  So When Will We Know?

    I'm getting excited and the suspense is killing me.

    by mattman on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 12:44:49 PM PDT

  •  There is a chance R's who find this vote awkward

    ... will choose to hang together rather than hang separately.

    If the vote breaks 50, R's who voted 'Nay' will suffer reprisals (from leadership or ant-gay constituent factions).

    If the vote fails badly (low 40's or less), a 'Nay', only the most extreme hot-heads can hold a mainstream vote against them.

    In the end, wobbly R's will mostly go one way or the other together (though they may devise a range of explanations). I'm guessing they'll break 'Nay'.

    by RonK Seattle on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 12:52:01 PM PDT

  •  Allard amendment

    There's still argument as to whether the Allard amendment prohibits states from making civil union laws or not.  Sullivan still vehemently insists that it does.  What Allard did was take out the words "nor state or federal law" from the Musgrave amendment.

    by DaveOinSF on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 01:16:32 PM PDT

    •  One way to look at it...

      The current amendment language...
      and a link

      Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State,  shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon  any union other than the union of a man and a woman
      

      ...but interestingly...
      

      The revised amendment retains the objectionable "legal incidents" language. Interestingly, the amendment appears to allow laws passed by a state legislature to have greater authority than a state constitution. For example, if the people of Massachusetts vote that their state constitution should require recognition of same sex civil unions, but the Massachusetts Legislature prohibits civil unions, then the legislature, not the constitution, would prevail if the Allard amendment passes.
      

      Of course the reverse is true too, so the fact remains the legislature MAY pass domestic benefits laws, and they'd be enforceble -- kinda moot point, I hope, but notable...

      by PBJ Diddy on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 01:40:44 PM PDT

      •  The inverse is not true

        I don't think the reverse is true.  If, say the Constitution of Mass. prohibited same-sex civil unions, the Federal Allard Amendment language does not do anything to nullify that prohibition.  A Mass. Legislative law creating civil-union arrangements would be still be against the state constitution.

        by DaveOinSF on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 01:48:50 PM PDT

        •  aoeu

          Yeah but the massachusetts courts could not enforce that part of the constitution.

          by TealVeal on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 01:55:15 PM PDT

          •  Why is that?

            The FMA does not say that state constitutions can make no judgment with regards to what constitutes a marriage or who is eligible for the incidents of marriage.  It says that no state constitution can be construed to allow such things for any couple other than a man/woman couple.  If the Mass. constitution prohibited same-sex marriage or benefits, I don't see how the Allard-language FMA even comes into play.  If Mass. courts are interpreting the law literally I don't see how they can ignore something like that in their own state constitution.

            by DaveOinSF on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 02:02:24 PM PDT

            •  aoeu

              Maybe I am thinking of another version of the FMA going around, but one said that the courts cannot interpret their constitutions to say that gay marriage, or anything providing the incidents of marriage, is ok.

              by TealVeal on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 02:04:00 PM PDT

              •  Yes

                We are in agreement.  Perhaps I failed to explain sufficiently clearly the hypothetical scenario  discussed above.

                by DaveOinSF on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 02:08:10 PM PDT

              •  Hypothetical

                The example provided by PBJ shows how if

                1.  Mass Constitution allows same-sex marriage and
                2.  Mass Legislature prohibits the same

                Then the FMA allows the Legislature to ignore the Constitution, as you said.

                I was commenting on PBJ's assertion that the reverse was true to, which I think it is not.  The reverse would be

                1.  Mass Constitution probibits same-sex marriage and
                2.  Mass Legislature allows the same

                Then the FMA does not have any impact and the courts would have no choice but to declare the law passed by the legislature unconstitutional.

                by DaveOinSF on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 02:12:59 PM PDT

                •  I guess I meant "obverse" not

                  reverse, or inverse...(I had no idea there was so much math involved!)

                  IF Mass constitution is SILENT on Same sex marriage, and legislature allows SS benefits, then FMA (Allard) would not prevent SS benefits...UNLIKE Musgrave amendment which could be construed to prohibit SS benefits (unmarried hetero also) including those already on the books...I think,... now I have to go throw up...homophobic heartburn!

                  by PBJ Diddy on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 02:25:51 PM PDT

                  •  Construing the constitution

                    The constitution of the state states that the is a body that makes laws that the governor has to sign.  If that process resulted in the passage of a law giving same-sex couples marriage rights or benefits, the FMA would give some judge out there enough leeway to say, well, in this case, why should we construe that the legislature has any law-writing power whatsoever?  Why is what the legislature did any different than if me and a couple friends voted for benefits for gay couples and then got my cat to put its pawprint on it?  

                    You can say that the constitution gave the legislature those powers, but I'm not allowed to interpret the constitution anymore when it comes to issues related to benefits for gay couples.

                    by DaveOinSF on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 02:36:28 PM PDT

                    •  Wow

                      This is the narrowest comment I've ever seen. Congratulations!

                      by Smedley Hirkum on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 04:26:28 PM PDT

                      •  Oops.

                        No its not, my browser was messed up. NEVER MIND.

                        by Smedley Hirkum on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 04:27:01 PM PDT

                        •  Nested threads

                          You've got to love it when you get a dozen or so comments deep into a thread and it ends up with one word or even just parts of a word on each line.

                          by DaveOinSF on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 05:25:33 PM PDT

                          •  Why are you being so subversive?

                            And what do you hope to accomplish with your anti-width-edness?  True, narrow is the wave of the future...in 10 years we'll all have monitors that are one inch wide and 11 inches long...at least, that's my dream...

                            by PBJ Diddy on Wed Jul 14, 2004 at 04:59:07 AM PDT

•  Orrin Hatch: Lying Slimeball

  Just saw Orrin talking with Judy Woodruff on CNN. When she asked if Lynne Cheney was wrong when she said she felt it should be left up to the states, he said no, there was no difference between his and her position. He said that since the amendment has to be ratified by two-thirds of the states, states were having a say.

  What bullshit! He knows very well that this amendment would take away the right of individual states to decide if they can allow gay marriage. Who does he think he is fooling?

  by John Campanelli on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 12:46:00 PM PDT

  •  He SAID that?!

    What a crock!  Question is, how many victims of our frctured educational system will know that that's an absurd lie?

    by persimmony on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 02:03:14 PM PDT

•  The answer to life, the universe, and everything

  42 votes in favor, only two (Zenile Zell and Nelson of Nebraska) from Democrats.

  by BSJinx2 on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 12:50:28 PM PDT

  •  Nelson has said he will vote no

    Fritz Hollings and Robert Byrd seem like the most likely to vote yes, based on their past anti-gay statements and so far silence on the issue. However, Ben Nelson has said he will oppose the FMA.

    by NJDem on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 01:16:23 PM PDT

•  As I've said before

  They don't WANT to win, they want Edwards and Kerry to vote "NO".

  By accomplishing that small task, they can paint the duo as the most liberal ticket ever.

  Of course that overlooks McGovern-Shriver and Dukakis-Bentsen. But our collective political memory is really only 10 years old.

  by Jonathan4Dean on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 01:00:18 PM PDT

  •  We have got to get disgruntled military out front

    I am worried about the South. We've got to get pissed off troops out in front. Families, etc.

    by seriously blown cue on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 01:22:08 PM PDT

•  The Man on Dog Ammendment

  
  Just saw Durbin rip those fundies a new one..
  and he really scored points with the blatant electionering of this issue.

  by Zeno Onyx on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 01:28:04 PM PDT

•  48

  GOPers get Miller but lose Chaffee, Collins, Snowe, and McCain.

  by KevinA on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 01:33:21 PM PDT

•  Bring It On

  The repugs have miscalculated the current wind direction. Conservatives are pissed about the deficit and the FMA looks like a diversion. Moderates are pissed about Iraq and the FMA looks like a diversion. Progressives are pissed that Bush is a muthafucking liar and FMA is clearly a diversion.

  This stinks like a cesspool to every political stripe.

  Expect it to be stalled on a procedural matter and put off until another year.

  by easong on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 02:46:54 PM PDT

•  I also predict Santorum will look sad

  ... Hatch will get a little testy,
  and Frist's star will sink a tad lower.

  by RonK Seattle on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 06:16:32 PM PDT