WIth a 49-48 vote to close debate on the Marriage Protection Amendment in the Senate, the Senate effectively defeated this amendment. Falling 11 votes short of the 60 needed for cloture, there will not be an up-or-down vote on the issue. Republicans McCain (AZ), Specter (PA), Sununu (NH), Snowe and Collins (ME), Chafee (RI) and Gregg (NH) voted against cloture. In addition a number of Republicans who voted for cloture likely would have opposed the Amendment itself had it come up for an up-or-down vote.
While I basically agree with Glenn Reynolds that this was a “pander,” I think it was a pander that, by promoting debate, could have had positive consequences. In a similar vein, Captain Ed called the president’s effort on the MPA “baldly partisan and completely superfluous,” but did point out that some “may get excited by the debate.” (Thanks to a reader for alerting me to that post.)
Alas, that there was little serious debate to get excited about. As I noted previously, my hopes of a good debate on this important issue were dashed almost from the moment the Senate took up the amendment. And it wasn’t just the social conservatives making sanctimonious arguments about the threats to marriage. Too many on the left (and even a few in the middle) used the debate as another excuse to bash President Bush, suggesting that the debate itself was a waste of time. As Stephen Miller put it on the Independent Gay Forum:
the response of even those Democrats and moderate Republicans voting against it—i.e., suggesting the topic itself is unworthy of debate—is also indefensible. What a display of gay political impotence all round, and a missed opportunity to make a positive case for the principle of equality (or even something closer to equality, such as civil unions)
Because I believe this is the most significant social issue facing our community, I am delighted that it is, at least for a few weeks, getting the national attention it deserves. Unfortunately (as I’ve said many times before) even advocates of gay marriage have not taken advantage of this attention to promote a serious discussion of this important topic, preferring to insult rather than engage their adversaries.
Despite the absence of debate this time, I remained committed to promoting discussion of this important issue. In a post on Friday, I mentioned that “I had hoped to do a series of posts . . . on gay marriage.” Although I was unable to do that before the Senate debate, I will attempt to do so in the coming days. I have recently consolidated some of my notes on the topic and have listed (below the jump) some issues I expect to address.
Just because the Senate has defeated (for now) this pernicious proposal does not mean we should stop debating this important issue. Indeed, we need to keep talking about the meaning of marriage, both in terms of gay culture and society at large. On this, I agree with the social conservatives. If only we could engage them in a real debate, with sincere recognition of the serious arguments on both sides.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
Topics for (potential) future posts on marriage:
• Monogamy & Divorce: the two most important issues in a serious debate on marriage.
• Our society’s two conversations about marriage.
• 5 “ordinary” gay couples
• Gay Marriage Culture
• Does Coming Out Weaken our Values?
• Objections to Gay Marriage
• War is not Declared; Debate is Joined
• The Nanny State vision of Andrew’s “M Word”
• Gay Community’s Worst Hour
• My Changing Views on the Debate of a Constitutional Amendment
Debate? What is there to debate? I don’t feel the need to ask permission from anyone for a basic human right.
WTF is the government doing being involved in marriages in the first place! Just another way to get taxes! Civil unions for everyone to cover contracts and benefits. If you want to have a marriage; go to a brainwashing station and have a preacher perform that!
While I wouldn’t necessarily share HD’s outlook on religion in general, I totally agree…those who scream that we don’t have the same “rights” to marry are, frankly, full of crap. Find a pastor or preacher, get your family and friends together, get married, and leave the government out of it. It’s supposed to be about your love for each other anyway, RIGHT?
But now that it’s again dead, can we a) move on to somehting important and b) get our donations back?
“those who scream that we don’t have the same “rights” to marry are, frankly, full of crap.”
WTF?
In this case you really should blame President Bush (and Frist).
By starting out the discussion with such an obvious pander, he and Frist have now actually trivialized the issue. They set the tone for what followed in the Senate.
Going forward its going to be more difficult for either the Right or the Left to characterize the topic as anything but a political bargaining chip brought up only when the GOP or the Dem’s wants to energize voters. If I was a religious conservative, today I’d feel used, not vindicated. And by the Republican President and the GOP Senate. If this was an example of Rovian Machiavellian trickery, he fucked up badly.
The real debate is taking place at the kitchen table, not the halls of Congress. In fact I think it would make a great political cartoon.
Picture a bunch of Americans debating the topic at dinner. All of a sudden the President and Senate show up with booming megaphones and banners, waving the flag and screaming “ITS TIME TO CONDUCT A DEBATE ON GAY MARRIAGE!”
The Americans gathered at the table turn to the President and the Senate and yell: “Shut Up! We are talking here!” and kick them out the door.
If only I could draw…
One more time. Nobody in the US has the right to get married. Marriage is not a right. It is a privilege. Every state I know of prohibits certain people from getting married. Epileptics. Autistics. Etc.
Hmmm… Robert Byrd voted for cloture — excuse me, voted to send the issue on to an up-or-down Senate vote.
So does that mean he’s officially rehabilitated now?
Ain’t that sweet. The US Senate rejected the amendment. So, queery–why did the Republikaner take the time of the Cheerleader-in-Chief Dubya to stump for it, and why did Billy Frist put the 2007 defense authorization bill on the back burner, for this piece of crap?
Why? Because the Republikaner have better things to do than to deal with national security, of course.
So, are you guys still holding to the fantasy that the GOP is more gay friendly than the Democrats?
PS, RightWingProf, I don’t know what you’re a professor of, but perhaps you should review a few Supreme Court cases. Loving v. Virginia and Turner v. Safely are explicit that there is most definitely a fundamental right to marry in the United States.
Andy (#8) – No one here has EVER made that statement. What we have said repeatedly is that the gay “rights” movement is killing itself by relying on the Democrats.
For one, they aren’t in power…so we NEED Republicans to get things done (or stopped).
Two – when the Dems WERE in power, they did nothing on ENDA and instead gave us DOMA and DADT.
Why do YOU think Dems ARE gay-friendly???
Well, perhaps I was attributing the sentiment of a commenter from a past post to one of the bloggers in my memory, but somewhere I do recall a clear articulation that the Republican party is more gay-friendly than the Democrats.
I think Congressional Democrats are largely useless. I certainly couldn’t define them as “pro-gay.” As a NY resident, I fired off an email to Senator Clinton a few months ago to complain that her response to the Marriage Amendment was that it “wasn’t a priority.” (I complained to Reid, too, who said the same thing.) I reminded her that it IS a priority to millions of Americans across the country, and recommended that for future reference, the correct response to proposed anti-gay legislation is that it’s offensive and bigoted, not “not a priority.”
Obviously, most of the Senate didn’t think it was worth pursuing as a constitutional amendment. I don’t think the house would either. What we all need to do (should be doing) now is working on our state legislatures at the state level. That’s where this issue will affect us the most — in the states we live in.
millions of Americans across the country — apologies for the redundancy.
ndtovent: It would be lovely if we could persuade state legislatures to act; we also, however, need to educate anti-gay conservatives to the proper role of the courts, which have a constitutional obligation to step in to protect the rights of minorities when the legislature fails to do so. Minority rights are not up for a majority vote, so securing those rights is not really the responsibility of a legislature which is beholden to voters.
Andy, newsflash for ya’ sweetie… those in power don’t think activist judges are exactly the right way to go on nearly every social/political issue. Maybe you’ve been sleeping under a rock these last 10-15 years, but the powered majority isn’t keen on the Courts stepping in and enforcing those policies the minority is unable to achieve via legislative action.
But, I know, you’ve been a-listenin’ down on the Democrat Plantation to the pro-choice feminists, the eco-terrorists, the affirmative action activists and the those vicitimized minorities who THINK their best bet for progress is by judicial fiat –you can’t help it, you been a-brought up to think them ways.
Sorry, it don’t get us past first base; Hell, it doesn’t even get our issues up to bat… thanks for providiing that sterling piece of political advice to ndtovent.
“It would be lovely….” Right. Great, the GayLeft is the last group pushing for activist judges… how quaint but pathetic in its impotency.
And in none of them was the decision binding on the question of whether marriage was a right. If it had been, then every state law restricting who may or may not get married would have been stricken down.
There is no such thing as a right to get married. And even if there were, gays are not barred from marrying opposite sex spouses.
Andy, #14 — Actually, it’s the responsibility of both. I failed to metionn the judicial systems in my post, but it was just an oversight. They should’ve been included. Myp point was that the states are key to this issue now, at the state levels, and not so much at the federal level.
I guess many of us are just waiting for scientist to find that elusive gay gene.
We’ll be waiting a long time…
Thanks, Dan. Even if I do not agree with all of your commentary on this I am enjoying reading it. Keep it up!
#18 – You’re waiting for them to find “a gay gene”? Outdated concept.
The brain difference they’ve found between straight and gay people – and they are real, and need explaining – are currently hypothesized to be a result of developmental events in pregnancy. Possibly with the assistance of an unknown multiple of genes.
“It would be lovely if we could persuade state legislatures to act; we also, however, need to educate anti-gay conservatives to the proper role of the courts”
Actually what you should be doing is showing the American public that the gay community has the maturity to take on the responsiblities of marriage. Start by celebrating Mary Cheney and her long term commitment to Heather. Or the likes of Michigan Matt who takes the role of being a partner and a Dad, without whining about what society owes him
Wow. So you manage to find the silver lining for such a horrible, hateful, limiting, anti-constitutionally-spirited vote, but yet you categorically demonize a “GayLeft”?
Again. Wow.
Dan, those using “debate time” to criticize President Bush had legitimate complaints. Every direction one looks there are serious problems facing this country yet the president, knowing full well that the amendment didn’t stand a chance, encouraged three days of debate for no other reason than to pander to the most extreme of the Republican base.
And, Dan, it just wasn’t Democrats criticizing the president. No one can question the Republican credentials of longtime GOP strategist Ed Rollins. Here’s what he said about Bush’s promotion of the marriage amendment:
“What the president needs to do is look like a leader, not be somebody who looks like a politician who is overreacting to polls…If anything, he is reminding people of what they don’t like about the Republican Party.”
(Of course, there were a couple of benefits from the debate. Like seeing soon to be ex-Senator Santorum make a fool of himself ranting about sodomy and [indirectly] masturbation.)
If this was supposed to be for debate, then why didn’t President Bush have any people who oppose the amendment standing with him when he gave his big speech on this issue?
rightwingprof, in number 5: I’m not disputing what you said, because I don’t know. I would appreciate it, however, if you’d cite the states that ban epileptics and autistics from getting married.
I find it laughable (and a little sad) that you expected a debate. All we have heard from proponents of the amendment is warning of some vague disruption of society that is inevitable if gay marriages are legally recognized. When pressed for specifics, we hear…. silence. Nothing about how this will happen, what specific aspects of gay marriage will lead Ward and June to toss out their marriage vows and their kids, nothing. This was never anything but a little showcase to galvanize religious right voters, and I’m mystified that anyone expected anything else.
And John, fair point, but what about opponents of the amendment? THey have been equally unwilling to discuss the issue.
GayPatriotWest,
It appears nobody is, or too few people are, truly discussing the amendment in a civil fashion.
Let’s examine: The president never mentions gays and lesbians when discussing his support of the amendment. Supporters who are politicians seem to speak ad nauseum about “activist” judges, the welfare of children, family being the foundation of society, but they never seem to publicly talk about gays and lesbians, or to suggest ways in which we can obtain similar legal recognition (Bush did speak of support of civil unions on the eve of his re-election, but civil unions are still not recognized federally). Supporters who are religious conservatives do not listen to gays’ and lesbians’ stories; they simply believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, and will publicly state that homosexuality is wrong.
Then, of course, after a lifetime of being bullied in school, of being worried about losing our jobs if our bosses find out, of feeling forced to marry to appease our families and communities, gays and lesbians feel angry. Yes, many times, we have a knee-jerk emotional reaction to people who talk about and around us rather than talking to us.
No, Bush-bashing and yelling don’t promote debate, but one has to acknowledge the difficulty in combatting [religious]indoctrination.
GayPatriotWest, it’s been discussed many times, but people don’t want to hear about how the constitution is in place to limit government, not the people under that government. people don’t care about equality, they just care that they’re getting at least as much as anyone else is.
You’re the Rightwing gay boy, why aren’t YOU trotting out why you oppose the amendment, and challenging every last one in your party in favor of it???
Isn’t that supposed to be your savin grace? changing your party from within it?
Or is it just easier to label a Big Bad “GayLeft” and leave it at that?
High five to the god of biscuits. Why indeed do the Patriots insist on debate without actually joining one?
The FMA is dead for now (thank goodness). I think the the gay community in general is taking this waaay too seriously. If President Bush really wanted this thing to pass, all stops would have been pulled. His tepid support for it speaks volumes. Try to just unplug yourself from the whole thing & look at it from a distance. And don’t forget, he supports civil unions, which looking back just 6 years ago was a radical position. Now its mainstream. So cheer up folks. If they can’t even get a majority under the best of circumstances, what does that say in the long run? They sound as if they’re desperately tring to beat the clock (pass this thing before opinion eventually turns our way).
greetings! let’s focus on the the issue of religious vs secular… religious “clubs” (who by their nature are discriminatory) will never support gay marriage… the government, being secular must provide a secular solution; that would be civil unions, ie: recognition by the state, not a religious sanction. the two should be forever separate. i’ve always felt this was incorrectly framed from the beginning