In November, the US goes to the polls in midterm elections. With a major corruption scandal, a growing deficit, and of course the war in Iraq dragging on, the Republicans' numbers look shakey, so they did what they always do in such situations: put up a constitutional amendment on gay marriage.
They lost. Better, the "hate amendment" barely gained a majority, let alone the two thirds they needed. But republicans got to froth and spit and pound the table about how any recognition of gay relationships would Destroy America - while ignoring the real threats to America posed by, for example, domestic spying and the Bush Administration's theory that it is above the law...
Update: Corrected vote tally
There is always Diebold and Jim Crow to come the rescue.
ReplyDeleteA couple of points:
ReplyDelete1) Since when was a vote of 49 in favour to 48 opposed ever not been a majority?
2) The proposing of Constitutional Amendments requires a vote two-thirds in favour (not 60 votes).
Graeme: I was thinking of a majority of the size of the Senate. And yes, I thought it was two-thirds - I was following the BBC, which gave the 60-vote figure.
ReplyDeleteI've posted a correction which ditches the confusing language.
Having just looked through the Senate record on the matter I think I can understand where the BBC were coming from.
ReplyDeleteThis wasn't a vote on the marriage protection amendment, but a vote on whether to have a vote on it after another 30 hours of debate.
A vote on the amendment would need two-thirds of actual votes cast - a vote to close debate needs 60 votes (three-fifths of the senate membership (voting or not)).
The motion that failed here was the procedural vote (and it would have needed 60 votes). I think you're amended post makes a little more sense, but apologies if I've added to the confusion.
Oh, the joy of filibusters - which we just don't seem to have here (but then, we have far tighter party discipline as well)
ReplyDelete