So how do we stop the Federal Marriage Amendment?

If this proposed constitutional amendment - - that would outlaw same-sex marriage as part of the U.S. Constitution - - goes to Congress for a vote, we need to stop it in the Senate. It's way too risky to even see it brought to the state legislatures for ratification.

Here are the Democratic U.S. Senators whom I believe we can count on to vote against it:

Akaka
Biden
Boxer (she's from California - - it's not going to hurt her reelection)
Cantwell
Clinton
Corzine
Daschle (up for reelection, but as Minority Leader he has to oppose it)
Dayton
Dodd
Durbin
Edwards (running for the Dem presidential nomination, of course he'll vote against it)
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham (running for the Dem presidential nomination, of course he'll vote against it)
Harkin
Hollings (he's on his way out - - how would it hurt him to oppose it?)
Inouye
Jeffords (he's an Independent, but he's also peeved with the GOP)
Johnson (he's secure until 2008)
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman (running for the Dem presidential nomination, of course he'll vote against it)
Mikulski
Murray (opposing it should help her '04 reelection bid by maximizing support in urban Washington cities)
Reed
Rockefellar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Wyden

That's already 31 U.S. Senators right there who we can pretty much count on to oppose this particular blatant discrimination from being added to the U.S. Constitution. That means we only need 3 more on-board to kill the amendment - - although it would probably be a good idea and a strong statement to have more in case some of them can't make it to vote, but regardless the Democrats and more moderate Republicans should unite to take a stand against it.

Here are the more moderate/centrist Dems whom I'm concerned about, as far as getting them to vote against the amendment:

Baucus (from conservative Montana)
Bayh (up for '04 reelection, in GOP-dominated Indiana to boot)
Bingaman (New Mexico seems pretty split, politically)
Breaux (conservative Dem from the South, up for reelection, although he has seniority so I don't think it would really hurt him)
Byrd (pretty conservative, you never know what he'll do)
Carper (fairly centrist from what I hear, although being from Delaware it shouldn't hurt him either)
Conrad (from conservative North Dakota)
Dorgan (up for '04 reelection in North Dakota)
Landrieu (she's more liberal than Breaux, but I'm still a little apprehensive given her constituency)
Lincoln (normally I'd think she'd vote against it because she's more independent, but Lincon is up for '04 reelection in Arkansas)
Miller ('nuff said)
Ben Nelson (from conservative Nebraska)
Bill Nelson (he just strikes me as sneaky and potentially double-crossing)
Pryor (from fairly conservative Arkansas, although he's secure until 2008)
Reid (up for '04 reelection in conservative Nevada)

Here are some moderate Republicans who could also be swayed to oppose the amendment:

Snowe (it's Maine, folks! - - it's to her benefit to vote against it)
Chafee (it will help his '06 reelection bid in Rhode Island)
Collins (see Snowe)
Hagel (he's a maverick, I can't see him letting himself be pushed around)
Specter (although his '04 reelection might be a problem, especially since Toomey would bring up the issue in the primaries)
McCain (see Hagel; while McCain clearly doesn't support gay marriage, I think he'd probably view a constitutional amendment as going too far)
Gordon Smith (he's a Republican from Oregon - - 'nuff said)
Voinovich (up for '04 reelection, but like Hagel, I can't picture Voinovich rolling over for the anti-gay lobby)
DeWine (if he runs for Governor in '06, and Ohio goes Dem in '04, he'll want the moderates back in his corner)
Campbell (a former Dem, and the only half-Cheyenne member of Congress; up for '04 reelection, but he's opposed ending affirmative action, so why wouldn't he oppose this extreme?)

There's also Orrin Hatch, who has said a constitutional amendment is excessive since DOMA already addresses the issue.

So which of these 26 "fence-sitting" centrist senators should be targeted? We only need 4 or 5 of them at minimum to squash this, but again, the more the better.

My two U.S. Senators (Kohl and Feingold) are already pretty much guaranteed to oppose it, so writing to them, for me, is somewhat moot (although I think I'll write to Kohl just to hedge my bets). But what about those of you from the states where those above-named 25 centrists represent you in Congress (Montana, Indiana, New Mexico, Louisiana, West Virginia, Delaware, North Dakota, Arkansas, Georgia, Nebraska, Florida, Nevada, Arkansas, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oregon, Ohio, Utah, Colorado)?

What do you plan to do to lobby your U.S. Senator against this proposed amendment, which would be one giant leap further toward the U.S. permanently remaining an authoritarian theocracy.

I want to see an ammendment that insures health care for everyone as a human right, like other enlightened industrial countries have in the world.

We don't need this shit.

I'm uncertain who the chief author of this amendment was, but I know that several GOPers (Marilyn Musgrave is the one who comes to mind) and some conservative Democrats (Martin Frost is the one whom I remember hearing about) banded together to sponsor it.

It may not even pass the House of Representatives if they can get 146 house reps to oppose it....but in the event that it reaches the U.S. Senate, it MUST be stopped there in order to curb the recent rise in the public assault and media-whoring against the GLBT community.

He's not listed as a co-sponsor.

And yes, Musgrave is the sponsor of the amendment.

I thought it had been mentioned that Frost either cosponsored or endorsed it. Maybe I misheard that?

Found your link: posted edited.

For the most part I agree with the ones I know. I hate to quibble, but here goes:

Reid (up for '04 reelection in conservative Nevada) Yeah but its pretty libertarian conservative, as opposed to religious conservative. I'd put him in a solid anti catigory.

I think Graham and Lieberman will probably vote against it, but I wouldn't put them as definately solid for the support. They may feel it will hurt their chances beat Bush if they do get the nomination.

Lieberman still intends to get the Democratic nomination, no matter how delusional he actually is. In the event that he was the nominee, he's still savvy enough to know he needs the support of the gay lobby, and voting for this moronic "amendment" would be the perfect way to alienate most of us. As much as I despise him, I can't see him voting for this amendment when he's trying to butter up to progressive activists (same with Graham, although I don't despise Graham).

I can't see anyone who would vote against someone simply for opposing an anti-gay measure this extreme who'd vote for a Democrat anyway, so voting for it would just send more voters to the Green candidate.

I'm not creative enough to think of the best ones right now, but one example might be to include a federal "waiting period" for all marriages, so that couples can properly consider their enormous commitments to each other. (Catholics ought to like that one.) Another might be that divorced couples must pay back all marriage tax benefits to the U.S. Treasury. (The Christian fundamentalists should find that appealing.) There also ought to be a waiting period to remarry if your spouse dies. Yet another amendment would require autopsies of any deceased spouse if the surviving spouse stands to collect life insurance. Put in the federal death penalty for wife beaters.

The House Rules committee puts a pretty big damper on amendments...methinks this would get a "closed rule" (no amendments). However, this would be a good idea in the Senate, where all amendments are in order.

These people are full of it. A VERY large group supporting the republicans are the christian fundamentalists, a long with others full of hate. A good majority of them wouldn't have any problem doing worse to gays.

Considering they control so much in this nation right now, and they have the massive motivation to do it, no house rule is going stop them.

Seriously - do you really thing the massively republican house is going to stop this thing? I wouldn't count on it. The house is going to be the EASIEST part of getting this passed.

Lieberman for example. His campaign was over before it started. That should be obvious even to him. I don't know why he is in the race, but it isn't to be elected president in 04. He has nothing to loose voting for it - add to the fact he personally is against gay marriage. The only one of the 9 candidates to get booed everywhere he goes practically. He either doesn't care that other dems don't like what he is saying/doing, or he is too dilluded to see it.

Also, any dem who voted for the Iraq war and to a lesser extent the Patriot/Homeland acts could do anything. (i.e. Clinton going on about how she didn't like the Iraq resolution on the senate floor but voting for it anyway) You never know with these people. You're looking at it largely from a re-election perspective, but there are far more variables to consider. Even the re-election assumptions can be wrong.

I disagree that Lieberman has nothing to lose by voting for it. If he runs for senatorial reelection in 2006, he'll still need the support of gay activists in Connecticut. If he votes for it he may lose his spot in the Senate, especially if Nancy Johnson runs against him and Johnson votes against this amendment while still in the House.

Besides, I'm convinced that Lieberman truly believes he will get the nomination in the end (even if he has to manipulate and wheel-and-deal behind closed doors for the support of the party machine).

Lieberman can still oppose gay marriage while also opposing a constitutional amendment that would restrict states' rights.

And do you honestly believe Kerry and Gephardt will vote for it (Chrissy Gephardt would kill her daddy if he voted for this one!). Edwards, maybe an extremely slight chance, but I can't see Kerry or Gephardt supporting this amendment.

H.J.RES.56
Status
5/21/2003: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
6/25/2003: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HJ00056:@@@X

I won't be that concerned about this until the subcommittee starts holding hearings.

That's a pretty good whip count, though...I think we can beat this in the House, though the Senate needs to be there as a back up. 290 Representatives, 67 Senators, and 38 State Legislatures are needed to pass this, and I don't see that happening.

There are 74 co-sponsors, 6 of which are Democrats.

Right now they hold the majority of the state governorships, the majority of the state houses, the national congress, and the oval office. Add to the fact they have a number of democratic defectors that will vote with them.

If they are going to do this thing they've GOT to do it now before they risk the balance of power changing in the next elections. And believe me they want this thing BAD.

I'm not that confident. The only senators that I am confident about are the senators who voted against DOMA. That is just Akaka, Inouye, Boxer, Feinstein, Wyden, Feingold, Kerry, and Kennedy. Even though I agree with what senators are more likely to vote no, I wouldn't be sure of their opinions. I don't know about Tim Johnson though. It would be tough being from South Dakota. It will be used in the election no matter how far away it is.

I think that Bingaman would vote probably vote no, but I don't really know. I really think that Chafee would vote no as well. Also some other conservatives may just have a problem with the idea of a constitutional amendment. Bennett and McConnell oppose the flag burning amendment so I don't know what they would do here.

difficult to pass. Very different process than normal legislation. Otherwise we would have a gazillion amendments.

I personally think some are trying to get a little short term political mileage (and distraction from war and economy) with the "idea" of such an amendment. I really don't see long term commitment to pushing the envelop on a constitutional amendment.

They threaten every couple of years to pass a c.amend against burning the flag (doesn't exist), compelling the pledge to be said in schools (doesn't exist), etc. They will pass resolutions that are related - get the political bump - but most on the Hill really know how SERIOUS a constitutional amendment is - and don't really push beyond symbolism in that direction.

This will complicate the issue for the Reich Wing Fundamentalists. It has the added benefit of possibly causing some of them to turn on Bush.

Isn't Cheney's position on civil unions similar to the one Dean has taken (with the exception of recognizing gay marriages from other countries and equalizing same-sex benefits for federal employees)?

recognize state same sex marriages and civil unions. Just those little teeny exceptions.

In the debates with Lieberman, Cheney said he doesn't believe there should be a federal policy when it comes to same-sex unions...presumably, that would include the Musgrave amendment (since banning gay marriage in the Constutition would be a "federal policy").

and what needs to be made clear is the breadth of this amendment. Not only would it stop same sex marriage but it would also stop civil unions and other attempts at giving same sex couples recognition.

Hatch and Bennet have come out against the ammendemnt (no link sorry) they think its a little ridiculous. I don't see it passing the Senate.

I think that he's probably one of those conservatives who sees the Constitution as sacred and not amendable over such trivial crap, which is why he would oppose the flag burning amendment. Maybe McConnell also would oppose it then. Hatch said he thought DOMA was sufficient but going back on that for him isn't too hard to see.

Probably will take years and probably won't happen. Some things just do not belong in the Constitution. The congressional crap is for the right wing voters on on hand and probably to make the Democrats take a stand the repubs can use against them

Only 3/4 of the state legislatures have to support the amendment.

(Dean) have come out as not supporting gay marriage. Edwards has said he does not support gay marriage although he does support domestic partner benefits and gays being able to adopt. I think some of the other candidates feel pretty much the same way. This may cause them to have to put their money where their mouth is, which could cause turmoil within the party, which is exactly what the cons want. Probably the fence rider candidates will be absent instead of vote, especially the closer to election time it gets. That's assuming they can opt out of a vote on an amendment, I don't know, maybe the rules are different for amendments than bills.

I thought that he just backed civil unions like the rest of the candidates.

I thought that there was one that has come out in support of real federal marriage for gays, instead of just civil unions. Maybe it is Kucinich

For a queer person I am showing my ignorance tonight.

Or maybe just the fact that this isn't a key issue for me as I get bored with people after a couple of years.

This is very sad--I just don't see a way to get 34 Senate votes to stop this; I also don't see a way to get 13 states to reject it. Start with all the South, Midwest and West (except California). Add Pennsylvania, Maryland and New Hampshire. That totals 42 states to approve it.

I see no way to stop it and I fully expect Bush to use it for his re-election

there's plenty of ways to get 34 votes against it. As for 13 states to vote no: California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, New York, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, Connecticut, Massachussetts, Maryland (EXTREMELY Democratic, I don't see why you'd count on it passing there), New Jersey, Delaware, Rhode Island and possibly Nevada, Minnesota, New Mexico and West Virginia. Stopping it in the House isn't too hard either.

I don't see us winning there. Nevada and New Mexico would be tough as well.

a lot of them are socially conservative, but enough might be like Wise and Rockefeller to stop it. Nevada has Dem control of one house (I think it's the Senate) and a lot of the Republicans are more libertarian (except the Mormons). New Mexico has a solidly Democratic legislature and many of the Democrats are probably like Udall and Bingaman, very liberal.

he has an very liberal voting record especially on social issues and is very secure. I can't see Carper voting yes either, since DLC as he is the DLC doesn't side with the right on social issues usually. We can probably get Reid (since he's Minority Whip) and Chaffee is practically a given, Snowe as well.

There's a chance Coleman might oppose it as well, since the Minnesota GOP has gotten a lot of shit recently for trying to pass some homophobic measures and he likes to portray himself as a moderate. I think I might actually write to the creep.

btw Conrad and Dorgan have no problems at all winning reelection in North Dakota, as long as they keep bringing in the pork the people will keep reelecting them, and the state GOP never puts up serious candidates. But I can't guarantee them voting no.

I figured Bingaman was fairly progressive, just didn't know for sure.

my guess is it would fall just short. I once found a list of all the voting records by Gary Bauer's group this session so far, tallied them up, and found that there are enough Democrats I'd consider liberal enough to oppose it. I only added 3 Republicans: Jim Kolbe (obvious reasons), Ron Paul (to amend the Constitution over something this trivial is blasphemy to libertarians) and Jeff Flake (he's much like Ron Paul). Although there are quite a few more (Jim Leach from Iowa where this could hurt him in his ultra-liberal district, Shays from Connecticut, Greenwood from Pennsylvania, ect.) who I'm very sure would oppose it as well.

Ignore this issue and it will go away! Like all the other proposed amendments to the constitution that have never passed.

This WHOLE thing has been brought up just recently by republicans! Why? To distract you from your war criminal president, Iraqgate, 9/11gate, Enrongate, all of it.

Don't take the bait!

Bill Frist has said he wants this to come up for a vote in the U.S. Senate.

This amendment could determine the permanent political future of GLBT citizens in America. And after they take us down, don't think they won't come after the rest of you....

Again, I urge everyone to write to both of your U.S. Senators and your Congressional Representative if you live in any of the following states:

Montana
Indiana
New Mexico
Louisiana
West Virginia
Delaware
North Dakota
Arkansas
Georgia
Nebraska
Florida
Nevada
Arkansas
Rhode Island
Pennsylvania
Arizona
Oregon
Ohio
Utah
Colorado

?

But he's one of the more conservative Dems in Congress. But then, I'd say he's still pretty liberal, by Indiana standards.

What I'm concerned about would be Bayh thinking he has to vote for this amendment in order to win senatorial reelection in 2004.

He is a mormon. I think he will vote for the amendment.

I know he won't be up for reelection until 2008, but since he's representing Oregon, wouldn't he want to hedge his bets?

Besides, Hatch and Bennett are way more conservative than Gordon Smith, and live in a state full of Mormons.....yet, people are saying that they'd probably vote against it.