Gay marriage vote appears DOOOMED!... maybe. (But in an entirely different way than had been predicted, if the current situation persists, and one which will be moderately embarrassing to the Senate Republican leadership; they've got rebellion in the ranks, it seems. Even though they'd have a few conservative Democrats who would be willing to vote for cloture, they can't get enough of their own party to sign on. Heh.)
Gay marriage vote appears doomed
Senate leaders unable to agree on procedure
By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
MSNBC
Updated: 4:13 p.m. ET July 13, 2004
WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats on Tuesday appeared headed toward a tactical victory on the hot-button issue of same-sex marriage. What seemed likely Monday — an up-or-down Senate vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as only "the union of a man and a woman" — appeared very doubtful a day later as Republican and Democratic leaders were unable to agree on a procedure for a vote. [...] “Most states, including Maine, have passed laws declaring that they will not recognize same-sex marriages, regardless of where they occurred,” [Senator Susan Collins, R-Maine] said. “I support the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which protects the traditional right of states to determine for themselves what constitutes marriage. ... As long as this law is on the books, I see no need for a Constitutional Amendment."
Dems May Dodge Marriage Vote
(CBS) By David Paul Kuhn,
CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer
Wednesday's scheduled vote on the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage was timed by Senate Republican leaders to portray Democrats as out of touch with mainstream America ahead of their late July political convention. But Senators John Kerry and John Edwards, the Democratic presidential ticket, will likely dodge the domestically divisive issue. Republicans continue to lack the 60 votes needed for initial passage of the bill. And the two-thirds majority, 67 votes, required to amend the constitution (pending ratification by two-thirds of the states) is well out of the GOP's reach, likely by more than a dozen votes. [...] The Kerry-Edwards campaign said Tuesday that neither man would vote in the Senate's procedural test. If that passes, both senators will participate in the final vote, requiring two-thirds support. [...] Although the conservative base enthusiastically supports a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, there is some concern among Republican strategists that the push for a ban may make President Bush, and Republicans in general, look intolerant.
Already President Bush has all but estranged his only gay constituency. Log Cabin Republicans, the leading conservative gay-rights group, is almost certain not to endorse Mr. Bush. “The president has truly jeopardized the endorsement of Log Cabin Republicans. He did that first on February 24, when he came out with the federal marriage amendment and he reinforced this in his radio address this weekend,” said Patrick Guerriero, the group's executive director. “We are very close to a breaking point,” he added.
Excuse me ... "VERY CLOSE to a breaking point"? They're not broken yet? How much more punishment do they want to take? How much more public humiliation do they think they should bear in hopes that Our Glorious Shrub will change his mind and embrace them (and their campaign donations, of course)? Dear god in heaven, what on earth does it take for these people to get a fucking clue? Their party has taken them for granted, then dismissed them outright, and now the leader of said party is publicly declaring that yes, he really and truly does believe that they should be second-class citizens, at least when it comes to marriage. Their party doesn't want them.
That said, given that the amendment is likely to fail outright, the more conservative House is alternatively looking at amending the Judiciary Act to strip the federal courts of the jurisdiction to hear challenges to the federal DOMA.
Marriage Protection Act of 2003
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 3313
To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 16, 2003
Mr. HOSTETTLER (for himself, Mr. PENCE, Mr. SMITH of Michigan, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. GOODE, Mr. AKIN, Mr. GUTKNECHT, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. FORBES, and Mr. PAUL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Act of 2003'.
SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.
(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 1632. Limitation on jurisdiction
`No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of section 1738c of this title or of this section. Neither the Supreme Court nor any court created by Act of Congress shall have any appellate jurisdiction to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of section 7 of title 1.'.
(b) AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF SECTIONS- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`1632. Limitation on jurisdiction.'.
The Supreme Court will nonetheless still retain appelate jurisdiction, via the various state supreme courts, over the 30-odd individual state DOMAs. Mind, I'd imagine that the Court's hoping and praying that no such case comes down the pike for a good long time.
Posted by iain at July 13, 2004 05:56 PM
