snagged from akshuman

[thedarksiren2]

Brilliant!

Oh, and in case anyone didn't know already...

POLITICS OF DIVISION FAILS IN SENATE

Federal Marriage Amendment defeated by a vote of 48-50

'This was an attempt to divide Americans that backfired and divided Republicans,' said HRC President Cheryl Jacques.

WASHINGTON — By a stunning bipartisan vote of 48 to 50, the Senate today rejected the Federal Marriage Amendment. This was a crucial victory sending a strong message in Washington and throughout America that politics of distraction will fail. The 48 senators who backed this divisive amendment couldn’t even muster a simple majority.

“This was an attempt to divide Americans that backfired and divided Republicans,” said Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign.

The defeat of the FMA occurred following a stunning week on Capitol Hill. After a year of monopolizing precious Senate time on Colorado Republican Sen. Wayne Allard’s Federal Marriage Amendment, the Republican leadership retreated.

“Faced with an embarrassing defeat, the Senate leadership rejected an up or down vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment,” added Jacques. “This debate has always been about politics and undermining the Constitution is their tool.”

Every poll shows the American people want Congress focused on issues like rising health care costs, the hemorrhaging of jobs and the war in Iraq. Same-sex marriage and the Federal Marriage Amendment rank last on the list.

“The optimism and fairness of the American people will prevail,” added Jacques.

from http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Press_Room&CONTENTID=21202&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm


EDIT: Because people like to note how wrong I can be...~;) LOL

Here's the deal...the point to my posting this is to not only cheer for the victory, but to give a sense of hope to people, no matter how small. It's a principle I believe in - you celebrate ALL victories, no matter how small they may seem. THEY STILL COUNT! They still set an example, and reinforce my belief (one I learned when I was a very small child):

"A LITTLE IS A LOT WHEN IT'S IN THE RIGHT SPOT!"
~;P

Comments

[oqidaun.livejournal.com]

thank god.
it would have ironic to have such a anti-republican (little "r") measure passed on bastille day.

votes do matter.

[nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com]

Actually, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to bring an amendment to the floor. And that is only the first step in amending the Constitution.

And of course voting counts...if you're already a Senator!

[thedarksiren.livejournal.com]

I realize the power of someone already in the senate is something people will say makes a difference over us *wee people* out here in The Real World. It is an example though, especially when you consider the people fighting for these issues all around.

Just taking note of how "a little is a lot when it's in the right spot!"~;)

[theswede.livejournal.com]

And how does one become a senator? Got to do with votes or something, right?

[nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com]

Please run for Senate and report back the results.

[theswede.livejournal.com]

You miss my point, which is; your vote helps decide who votes in the senate.

I'm not eligible to run for senate, or I might consider it.

[nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com]

No, I get your point. It is so naive I saw no need to engage it with any level of seriousness. Still don't.

[theswede.livejournal.com]

I thought *I* was cynical.

[thedarksiren.livejournal.com]

you'd have my vote if you were. ~8)

Actually, if we could get you, evilshell and bladernr all in on it, I think the U.S. would be stronger for it!

just my three cents...~;)

[jjjiii]

Senator votes are a bit rarer than popular votes. If you translate the votes needed to elect a senator into votes needed to vote in the senate against this proposed amendment, you probably end up with a margin of victory of several hundred thousand, if not millions.

Still, it's pretty scary that as many as 48 Senators voted to take away rights and codify discrimination into the Constitution. That's really horrible.

I don't really see this as the politics of distraction so much as it is the politics of discrimination, intolerance, and hate.

[oqidaun.livejournal.com]

i too thought it was just a election year move, until i realized they were going to start the amendment process asap. scary times.

[thedarksiren.livejournal.com]

It is horrible, you're right.

As I said to nihilistic_kid above...I realize that this isn't an end-all, be-all, but it is a good representation, an example, if you will, of how "a little is a lot when it's in the right spot."

Gives a sense of hope, even if only a glint, you know?

[jjjiii]

By the way, doesn't the Senate need a 2/3 majority and not a simple majority in order to pass a Constitutional Amendment? So really they lost by a good bit more than 2 votes. You'd need 18 senators to switch teams in order to get 66 votes. And I think technically you'd need 67 in order to get the remaining 2/3 of a senator that would be required to pass the amendment, since 66 is just shy of 2/3 of 100.

[thedarksiren.livejournal.com]

I won't deny my ignorance in that aspect, but I do believe you're correct, assuming my (often failing) memory serves me right.

Just using the info I was provided.

[jjjiii]

What worries me about this is, probably more than 50% of the Senate feels that allowing gay marriage is wrong or not what the people want, but just don't feel that a constitutional amendment is the right way to enact this. Probably if you asked them to draft a bill that could be passed into law banning gay marriage, they'd pass it.

But whether or not it would stand up in the Supreme Court is another matter -- which is why they decided to go for the Constitutional amendment, since the SC can only invalidate a law based on it being unconstitutional, not wrong or unenforceable or some other criteria -- just whether or not the Constitution contradicts or specifically prohibits the law..

Even Kerry/Edwards oppose gay "marriage" and favor "civil unions" instead, which to me is and indication that they're attempting to be fair to gays but don't want to risk alienating the anti-gay/churchgoer vote.

[thedarksiren.livejournal.com]

Gotta love the fence...*sigh*

This election really is a matter of lesser of two evils, in too many ways.~8(

[renwick.livejournal.com]

You're right. It was in Melissa's BAR study guide.

[oqidaun.livejournal.com]

2/3 senate.
i teach college history and always have to look back at my notes for the particulars. i do agree with thedarksiren's article that 48/50 is a significant split. the amendment might have been averted, but still there's a substantial number in favor. 2 were missing this time, what if more had been absent (senator's tend to have a high rate of absenteeism on voting days--which is ironic considering you'd get fired from mcdonald's for the same thing).

[thedarksiren.livejournal.com]

so much for those examples, eh?

*shrugs*

[theswede.livejournal.com]

Which only goes to show McDonalds is run a lot better than the gov't is. And yet their merchandise absolutely sucks. I'm sure there are a lot of parables that can be drawn from this ...