Even with its shiny new facade, the FMA (now the Marriage Protection Amendment) was soundly defeated in the House yesterday.
The 227-186 vote in the House Thursday was well short of the two-thirds majority needed to advance a constitutional amendment, but fulfilled a promise by backers to get lawmakers on the record on the highly sensitive issue in the run-up to Election Day."This is only the beginning, I'm telling you," said Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, stressing that the issue was too important to abandon.
"Marriage is the basic unit of society, the very DNA of civilization, and if that civilization is to endure, marriage must be protected," he said.
DeLay should really get up to Massachusetts more often, where civilization is apparently enduring quite nicely,
The effort to bring a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to voters in November 2006 suffered a major setback yesterday with departure of House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran and the elevation of Salvatore F. DiMasi, whose arrival is expected to shift the Massachusetts legislative agenda to the left on social issues such as gay rights, abortion, and stem cell research.A key legislative backer of the proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage and establish civil unions yesterday all but declared defeat, saying that Finneran's exit from Beacon Hill was the final straw in an effort that already was in trouble because the state has legalized same-sex marriage with little of the uproar predicted by opponents.
"It is pretty much over," said Senate minority leader Brian P. Lees, a Springfield Republican who cosponsored the amendment with Finneran and Senate President Robert E. Travaglini. The House and Senate, sitting in a constitutional convention, must vote a second time in the next session before it could go to the voters on the 2006 ballot.
As Sullivan noted
The real reason is that the change has become a non-event. The relatively small number of marriages for same-sex couples has barely made a dent in the social fabric and the upheaval of a constitutional amendment seems to many too big a deal for such a minor social change. Still, I hope the amendment moves forward. I would love to see a democratic majority back equality under the law, and I think that will happen in Massachusetts.
As Sullivan notes, though, we've yet to see gay marriage approved via a vote. But as no one in Boston has yet turned into a pillar of salt, and it seems that civilization may indeed endure, even with the occassional Adam marrying his life-partner Steve, hopefully legislative solutions (including the repeal of state DOMA acts) will strike folks across the country as not only safe to do, but fair as well.
I wish someone would ask George W. Bush:
"So, in your opinion, which is the greater threat to society - gay marriage or terrorism? In your view, which ought the government of the US be devoting more attention to preventing?"
Posted by: Jesurgislac | October 01, 2004 at 10:45 AM
When Tom Delay, the ruthless one, says "This is only the beginning", who is he talking to, and what does he mean?
Posted by: John Thullen | October 01, 2004 at 11:13 AM
When Tom Delay, the ruthless one, says "This is only the beginning", who is he talking to, and what does he mean?
He's talking to both the Republicans he has shaking in their boots, lest they disobey him, and the Democrats who are up for re-election.
What he means is he needs a wedge issue to practice his odious brand of political voodoo, and he's not letting this one go...he's gonna milk this issue for every vote he thinks he can get out of it.
Posted by: Edward | October 01, 2004 at 11:26 AM
I don't know if a transcript is online anywhere, but the discussion of the FMA at the Rules Committee hearing on Tuesday (was it Monday?) was very very good. The proponents were as articulate and responsive in defending the thing -- and the procedural methodology -- as their champion was on other subjects last night.
Really, make an effort to find a transcript.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | October 01, 2004 at 11:54 AM
I think the blood is in the water around DeLay due to all the ethics and illegal fundraising probes. He's sticking hard to this issue because he sees his power slipping away and he's trying to reassert it to prove he still can.
He can't.
Posted by: carsick | October 01, 2004 at 12:02 PM
"Marriage is the basic unit of society, the very DNA of civilization, and if that civilization is to endure, marriage must be protected," he said.
This would be interesting retoric to seize and turn against FMA proponents. One might easily agree, and agrue that Americans can no longer continue to build discrimination into the DNA of our society.
Posted by: Davon | October 01, 2004 at 12:10 PM
Here it is in video. It's an hour and a half long.
rtsp://video.c-span.org/15days/e092804_dc.rm
Posted by: CharleyCarp | October 01, 2004 at 12:12 PM
Thanks Charley...I'll view it on my lunch break.
e
Posted by: Edward | October 01, 2004 at 12:13 PM
DeLay: "Marriage is the basic unit of society, the very DNA of civilization, and if that civilization is to endure, marriage must be protected," he said.
I'd just like to mention that here in Canada, where same-gender marriage has been formalized for some time now, that civilization has pretty much collapsed, and we're back at the hunter-gatherer stage. And now have to go and feed some more fuel to my wood-burning laptop,
Thanks be to the storm gods that we still have fire.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood | October 01, 2004 at 12:19 PM
And in the Netherlands, where they've had same-sex marriage for three and a half years now, civilisation has utterly collapsed and they're using wood-burning cyclists.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | October 01, 2004 at 12:33 PM
This is stable civilization? The world is practically going to hell! What? Same-sex marriage? That doesn't have anything to do with it.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | October 01, 2004 at 12:47 PM
This is stable civilization? The world is practically going to hell! What? Same-sex marriage? That doesn't have anything to do with it.
This should be good.
Are you saying that same-sex marriage is to blame for the mess in Iraq? Are you saying it's to blame for global terrorism, the strife in Dafur, the mess in Russia, the loss of jobs in the US?
There's a rational connection here?
Posted by: Edward | October 01, 2004 at 12:51 PM
Uh, no. I'm saying same-sex marriage has nothing to do with the fact that everything is going to hell....
What are you saying?
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | October 01, 2004 at 01:26 PM
I was saying what you wrote seemed like you were saying the liberals are hypocritical...arguing on one hand that the world is going to hell and on the other hand that it's not.
If I misunderstood you, I apologize. If I didn't, perhaps you can explain.
Posted by: Edward | October 01, 2004 at 01:35 PM
Sheesh, can't I make fun of silly people who say that gay marriage is going to be the end of civilization just because some of them are on my side with respect to other issues? I don't always disagree with you Edward.
Sometime you are right!
;)
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | October 01, 2004 at 01:43 PM
Uhoh
Bad bolding!!
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | October 01, 2004 at 01:45 PM
Hmm silliness is better with good spelling.
Sometimes you are right.....
sigh.
I need food.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | October 01, 2004 at 01:54 PM
"the very DNA of civilization"
Quick, someone tell Tom that DNA mutates and evolves in order to better adapt to its environment -- before he embarasses himself.
Oh. . wait. . he probably doesn't believe in evolution, either. Never mind.
Posted by: sidereal | October 01, 2004 at 01:55 PM
The Spanish government today approved a bill that will make them the third European country where society will collaps - or the second if you only want to count the ones where gay couples can adopt children.
Posted by: dutchmarbel | October 01, 2004 at 05:43 PM