Success, failure, and the FMA
The Federal Marriage Amendment went down in flames (several potential puns not intended) last Wednesday, but was successful in propagating a barrage of blame/credit for its demise. The American Family Association, through its media watchdog arm OneMillionMoms.com, sent an e-missive (hosted by DA) last night to its membership, asking them to call Senator Daschle today, noting that he "was the one person who held the liberals together to filibuster the Federal Marriage Amendment, thus keeping the American people from having a vote in this matter."
Certainly an interesting theory. The inside ballgame tells a different story, however.
Daschle was opposed to the FMA - that much the AFA got right. But their version of events is rife with spin. Early last week, Democrats agreed to an "up or down" vote on the FMA, as long as there were no amendments. One might think this was an easy ask, since the Republicans wrote the bill in the first place.
Not so, said the Republicans - they needed two amendments to their bill: one would strike the second sentence of the proposed Constitutional addition; the second would have restored it.
A little explanation is clearly needed.
Moderate Republicans like Gordon Smith (R-OR) wanted to have the opportunity to "soften" the FMA by removing language that prevented the U.S. or any State Constitution from being "construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred" on any couple save those of the opposite sex. Legal scholars were split (along party lines), but many believed the second line would invalidate existing civil union or domestic partnership laws nationwide - one step too far, from the moderate perspective.
Conservatives and party leadership wanted a vote on the FMA as written, however, so while they agreed to a vote on Smith's redaction, they coupled it with a vote to restore the language, just in case.
So why didn't party leaders tell moderates where to shove it and just agree to the Democratic offer to vote on the amendment directly? Therein lies the rub.
The vote last Wednesday was, in plain English, a vote on whether or not to end debate and consider the bill on the floor. The procedural vote was an easier sell to moderates; they can personally spin that their vote was simply a vote to allow the important debate, rather than a vote to amend the Constitution. Very simply, GOP leaders could get more votes in favor of a procedural vote, protecting them from an embarrassing failure on a pure FMA vote.
Whether they avoided the embarrassment is questionable, however - the final vote put them twelve votes behind the procedural requirement - but a full 19 votes below the required 2/3 to advance a Constitutional Amendment.
Related Posts:
Platform for Propaganda
Some of these kids are not like the others
Congratulations! It's a... net gain?
Certainly an interesting theory. The inside ballgame tells a different story, however.
Daschle was opposed to the FMA - that much the AFA got right. But their version of events is rife with spin. Early last week, Democrats agreed to an "up or down" vote on the FMA, as long as there were no amendments. One might think this was an easy ask, since the Republicans wrote the bill in the first place.
Not so, said the Republicans - they needed two amendments to their bill: one would strike the second sentence of the proposed Constitutional addition; the second would have restored it.
A little explanation is clearly needed.
Moderate Republicans like Gordon Smith (R-OR) wanted to have the opportunity to "soften" the FMA by removing language that prevented the U.S. or any State Constitution from being "construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred" on any couple save those of the opposite sex. Legal scholars were split (along party lines), but many believed the second line would invalidate existing civil union or domestic partnership laws nationwide - one step too far, from the moderate perspective.
Conservatives and party leadership wanted a vote on the FMA as written, however, so while they agreed to a vote on Smith's redaction, they coupled it with a vote to restore the language, just in case.
So why didn't party leaders tell moderates where to shove it and just agree to the Democratic offer to vote on the amendment directly? Therein lies the rub.
The vote last Wednesday was, in plain English, a vote on whether or not to end debate and consider the bill on the floor. The procedural vote was an easier sell to moderates; they can personally spin that their vote was simply a vote to allow the important debate, rather than a vote to amend the Constitution. Very simply, GOP leaders could get more votes in favor of a procedural vote, protecting them from an embarrassing failure on a pure FMA vote.
Whether they avoided the embarrassment is questionable, however - the final vote put them twelve votes behind the procedural requirement - but a full 19 votes below the required 2/3 to advance a Constitutional Amendment.
Related Posts:
Platform for Propaganda
Some of these kids are not like the others
Congratulations! It's a... net gain?
<< Home