Senate killed FMA

[dewdrop_world]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060700830.html

Zerbie, you'll be pleased to note that John McCain voted against it.

James

[Zerbie]

Yay.
As expected. The most malicious election year ploy. . . Well, it's dead for now, again.

- and McCain SAID he would vote no. Glad he did. A thank you note is definitely in order.

[Zerbie]

If you go to Senator McCain's website (I think it was mccain.senate.gov)
you can read his public statement from yesterday on the federal amendment.

He totally supports letting states decide, and letting the people have a popular vote on the matter, which as you all know, makes me fume. Civil benefits put to a popularity contest! But yes he voted the way I wanted him to.

The other part of his reason for opposing it is the issue of precedent. He says in his statement, what if abortion is the next issue debated for a constitutional amendment? And he, being against abortion, said, what if abortion proponents at some future time ram through a consitutional amendment protecting abortion? IN other words, if we take this huge step and set this precedent, what happens when the pendulum swings to the other side, the opposition has congressional control, and they start pushing through amendments we don't agree with. (My "theys" and "wes" were written as tho I shared McCain's views.)

So I wrote him a thank you note just now saying:

Dear Senator,

Thank you for opposing the federal Marriage Protection Amendment.

You make an important and often neglected point when you raise the issue of precedent. Indeed, who is to say that precedent would not be followed in the future over other socially divisive issues?

While I am among those who hope to see recognition for same-sex couples in our civil institutions, I greatly respect the broader perspective of precedent you bring to the issue of a federal amendment.

So, thank you.

My signature.

[SolApollo]

Yay! Its defeated and hopefully will remain that way.

[Lydia]

From the article:

Supporters went into yesterday's showdown knowing they could not muster the two-thirds majority needed to pass a constitutional amendment.... But they had at least hoped to gain a simple majority of the Senate, or 51 votes. Instead, they fell short, 49 to 48....

A similar amendment failed 48 to 50 in the Senate in 2004.

Do you think they (the supporters of this bill) think of this as progress?

Just curious.

[tdogg]

I think the supporters of this bill believe they are gaining ground. That's what I'm getting from the news articles I have read. They state their intentions not to stop pushing this until they are successful.

It's a never-ending battle, at least for now.