# Senate debates, Bush backs, anti-SSM amendment. Implications? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 6, 2006, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639 "2006-06-06T17:28:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2006, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639/41 "2006-06-06T23:09:40Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Well, I’d “live with it” in the sense that I wouldn’t eat a bullet over it, but I certainly would continue to push for the ammendment, even if it initially failed. 'Course, I doubt I’ll live long enough to see this country evolve to the point where even proposing such an ammendment would be feasible, so that’s pretty much a moot point. OK, fair enough. I wonder what the chances are that Arnold will lose in November. I’m pretty sure that both main Democratic rivals have said they’d sign a pro-SSM marriage bill such as the one he vetoed. I think a legislative victory for SSM like that would be a godsend (pardon the irony) for legal SSM in the US. I could see several states following suit once one state breaks the ice. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2006, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639/42 "2006-06-06T23:36:25Z")
> [@Evil One](#): > > 1. I think it will pass. Most moderate Republicans will vote for it, as well as conservative democrats and democrats from red states like Ben Nelson. Care to make a wager on that? I’ve got $100 that says it will not get the 67 votes it needs to pass the Senate. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2006, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639/43 "2006-06-06T23:46:09Z")
I wonder if **Evil One** was under the impression that it only requires a simple majority. **EO** , for a Constitutional amendment, a 2/3 majority is needed in both houses. Currently the Senate is reportedly struggling to even get 50. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2006, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639/44 "2006-06-06T23:50:18Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > It seems specious to me to say that each state should be allowed to go its own way, when Full Faith and Credit means that states can be stuck with the lowest common demoninator of what their sister states authorize. It’s not specious. Look up the “public policy exception” which **Bricker** has already mentioned. It’s referenced in the Wikipedia article on the Full Faith and Credit Clause, for example. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2006, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639/45 "2006-06-06T23:53:14Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I wonder if **Evil One** was under the impression that it only requires a simple majority. **EO** , for a Constitutional amendment, a 2/3 majority is needed in both houses. Currently the Senate is reportedly struggling to even get 50. If the Democrats can’t keep this from dying in the Senate, (at least 11, count 'em, 11 Democratic senators would have to defect for this to pass) then there’s officially no hope for them. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639/46 "2006-06-07T00:36:47Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I wonder if **Evil One** was under the impression that it only requires a simple majority. **EO** , for a Constitutional amendment, a 2/3 majority is needed in both houses. Currently the Senate is reportedly struggling to even get 50. :dubious: You shouldn’t have brought that up until **Evil One** accepted **Fear Itself’s** bet! ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639/47 "2006-06-07T18:11:26Z")
For those who are curious, [final score:](http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00163#position) 49 in favour, 48 against in the Senate. Not even a simple majority. Democrats Byrd and Nelson voted for (they didn’t even get Lieberman), Republicans Chafee, Collins, Gregg, McCain, Snowe, Specter, and Sununu voted against. Otherwise, a party-line vote. And apparently, [just for giggles](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_06/008965.php), the House Majority Leader is _still_ going to waste everybody’s time and bring this up for a House vote. Nice priorities there, Boehner. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639/48 "2006-06-07T18:21:22Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > For those who are curious, [final score:](http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00163#position) 49 in favour, 48 against in the Senate. Not even a simple majority. That seems to be a vote on a cloture motion…? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639/49 "2006-06-07T18:44:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That seems to be a vote on a cloture motion…? Nope, outright rejection of the amendment. [http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2048806](http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2048806) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639/50 "2006-06-07T19:05:22Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > And apparently, [just for giggles](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_06/008965.php), the House Majority Leader is _still_ going to waste everybody’s time and bring this up for a House vote. Nice priorities there, Boehner. His Priorities are fairly obvious- to be able to say “\*He voted \* for Gay Marriage, which will lead to pedophilia, incest, necrophilia & sex with animals”. :rolleyes: This will help in several areas of the country, God help us. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639/51 "2006-06-07T19:09:54Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Nope, outright rejection of the amendment. [http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2048806](http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2048806) Nope, cloture. From your cite: > [@](#): > > The 49 to 48 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to end debate… ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639/52 "2006-06-07T19:14:07Z")
My understanding is that the vote was scheduled for today. But since they didn’t have enough to votes to cut off debate, no vote on the actual amendment would take place. Effectively, that kills it, so I guess it’s kinda the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639/53 "2006-06-07T19:32:37Z")
My apologies, I should have been clearer. But yes, the Republicans needed 60 votes for the cloture motion just to bring the amendment to a vote at all. [Another news story](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060607/ap_on_go_co/gay_marriage;_ylt=AspBc3ilMMuDoQAFCQFdiHSs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--), a bit clearer on the significance of the cloture motion than I am. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639/54 "2006-06-07T20:07:55Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > My apologies, I should have been clearer. But yes, the Republicans needed 60 votes for the cloture motion just to bring the amendment to a vote at all. > > [Another news story](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060607/ap_on_go_co/gay_marriage;_ylt=AspBc3ilMMuDoQAFCQFdiHSs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--), a bit clearer on the significance of the cloture motion than I am. It’s worth highlighting the difference. For example, Robert Byrd voted yes on cloture; he favors bringing the motion to an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. But he’s against the actual amendment, so presumably he would have voted no when the actual up-or-down-vote came. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639/55 "2006-06-07T20:12:59Z")
And there are likely other Senators who voted “yes” on this procedural vote thinking it would look good to their constituents, but would not have dared do so if their votes would have actually passed the thing. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639/56 "2006-06-07T22:29:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s worth highlighting the difference. For example, Robert Byrd voted yes on cloture; he favors bringing the motion to an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. But he’s against the actual amendment, so presumably he would have voted no when the actual up-or-down-vote came. And to be honest I’m disappointed that there weren’t more Democrats taking Byrd’s position. I would have been thrilled to see the Democrats put a bullet in the head of this amendment on Monday. But that would (a) have forced Democrats to take a strong stand on something, and (b) denied Senator Inhofe (to pick on one Republican at random) the wonderful opportunity to stand in front of a giant photo of his family and bloviate about how proud he was that there was no history of “any kind of homosexual relationship” in his family. Not that we’re not all proud of Senator Inhofe for not having homosexual relations with his grandchildren, of course. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639/57 "2006-06-07T22:30:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s worth highlighting the difference. For example, Robert Byrd voted yes on cloture; he favors bringing the motion to an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. But he’s against the actual amendment, so presumably he would have voted no when the actual up-or-down-vote came. Are you sure? I don’t understand why he would for cloture if he doesn’t favor the bill, while everyone who voted for cloture presumable does favor it. Can you explain that to me? What am I missing? I know that he had been courted by the Pubs as a Democrat who might be sympathetic to the amendment. And he does have a history of going his own way on things. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639/58 "2006-06-07T22:32:12Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Are you sure? I don’t understand why he would for cloture if he doesn’t favor the bill Maybe he actually wanted an opportunity to vote against it. I know I would. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639/59 "2006-06-07T22:34:29Z")
**Bricker** : Never mind. I see that Byrd explains his postion on his web site: > [@](#): > > Today, following the Senate’s procedural vote on the Constitutional amendment on gay marriage, Senator Byrd had the following comments, with a longer statement in the Congressional Record. > > I believe that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. I am against gay marriage. Gay marriage is banned in West Virginia, and I strongly support the state’s actions. > > Marriage, in both my book and in the Good Book, is between a man and a woman. I voted for the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between a husband and a wife and allows West Virginia to refuse to recognize any other state’s marriage that is not a union of a man and woman. That law is working. It has survived court challenges. West Virginia and every other state already has the power to ban gay marriages. That is why I would not support a Constitutional amendment on gay marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639/60 "2006-06-08T00:58:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s worth highlighting the difference. For example, Robert Byrd voted yes on cloture; he favors bringing the motion to an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. But he’s against the actual amendment, so presumably he would have voted no when the actual up-or-down-vote came. Is that the same Robert Byrd that voted yes on [The Defense of Marriage Act](http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00280) in 1996? Or Kerry, Lieberman, Leahy, Hollings, Biden, Graham, and 26 other Democratic Senators? What was different in 1996 that led to a 2/3 majority vote? Had to be something … If Bush is playing politics with his core beliefs then what were the 32 Democratic Senators playing with during the Clinton Administration? Hard to say. If the President would just stick to something that Democrats universally hate like [school prayer](http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=67215) then we wouldn’t have all this confusion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639.md?page=4)