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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
:dubious: You shouldn’t have brought that up until Evil One accepted Fear Itself’s bet!
For those who are curious, final score: 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, the House Majority Leader is still going to waste everybody’s time and bring this up for a House vote. Nice priorities there, Boehner.
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
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.
Nope, cloture. From your cite:
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe he actually wanted an opportunity to vote against it. I know I would.
Bricker: Never mind. I see that Byrd explains his postion on his web site:
Is that the same Robert Byrd that voted yes on The Defense of Marriage Act 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 then we wouldn’t have all this confusion.