The Constitution of the United States of America,
Amendment XIV,
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Those who believe in the equal protections doctrine are pleased by the news that the United States Senate has again rejected efforts to exclude gay persons from equal protection of the laws.
By a vote of 49 to 48, the effort to end debate on the Marriage Protection Amendment failed and the MPA died for another year. To close debate, 60 votes are required and to pass the MPA the amendment would need the support of 67 Senators, after which it would need an affirmative vote of 2/3 of the House of Representatives and ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures.
In 2004 the Federal Marriage Amendment (as it was then called) was unable to reach cloture by a vote of 48 to 50. Because today’s vote had one more “yes” votes than in 2004, some anti-gay activists are claiming progress. However, a closer analysis shows exactly that their cheers may be hollow. A better understanding of the votes has to take into consideration the make-up of the Senate.
In 2004, there were 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 1 Independent. At that time, six Republicans voted “no” and 3 Democrats voted “yes”. Since that vote, Republicans have picked up four additional seats in the Senate.
One of the “no” Republicans was replaced by a Democrat and one of the “yes” Democrats was replaced by a Republican. Assuming that all votes remained the same and all freshmen Senators voted according to party, the anti-gay activists should have been able to muster 52 favorable votes.
However, although all freshmen Senators voted with their party, some senior Senators changed their votes and these changes did not fare well for discrimination. The changed votes were:
Dodd (D-CT) – from Nay to Not Voting
Kerry (D-MA) – from Not Voting to Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV) – from Nay to Not Voting
Hagel (R-NE) – from Yea to Not Voting
Gregg (R-NH) – from Yea to Nay
Specter (R-PA) – from Yea to Nay
The seven Republicans opposing federally imposed discrimination are: McCain (R-AZ), Collins (R-ME), Snowe (R-ME), Gregg (R-NH), Sununu (R-NH), Specter (R-PA), and Chafee (R-RI). Two Democrats who favored the discrimination are: Nelson (D-NE) and Byrd (D-WV).
It is difficult to make a determination as to what factors went into the decision for a Senator to change his position on such a high profile and controversial vote. However, we do know that Alan Chambers, Randy Thomas, and many other ex-gay ministers joined the anti-gay activists in Washington to rail against the lives of gay people.
Perhaps their rhetoric was so offensive that certain Senators came to be turned off by their message of intolerance and discrimination. To the extent that they furthered the cause of equality for all, we thank them.
It’s incorrect to say that a vote for cloture (ending debate and taking an actual vote) is the same thing as a vote supporting the amendment. A person could support cloture to get the amendment to a floor vote and then vote against it.
Refusing to send the amendment to the floor for debate means that nobody has to actually vote for or against the amendment. Perhaps not a good thing.
It is true that most of the Senators supporting cloture probably would have voted for the amendment, but we can’t be sure.
Mark D. Fulwiler at June 7, 2006 05:14 PM
A very good point. No doubt there are also those who voted against cloture that would feel less free to actually vote against the amendment.
In 2004, Arlen Specter tried to make the point that he opposed the amendment but favored the right to vote on it so he voted for cloture. I don’t know if he was just trying to have it both ways, but he was soundly criticized as voting to advance this amendment. And he changed his vote this time around.
To extend further, I suppose there could be a Senator who would argue that he would vote for the Amendment in the Senate because he favors democracy but would then lobby his legislature not to ratify. There are a lot of ways that a Senator can try to shield himself from his voting record.
Cloture on many bills may have little to do with the intended vote on the bill. However, this amendment is different. All Senators knew that it would not advance to a full vote and that this vote was going to be their recorded position. They knew that they will be judged by this vote.
So in this instance I do think it is fair to say that a Senator voted “for the Amendment” or “against the Amendment” by their vote on cloture.
As I mentioned, during the debate Harry Reid said that he knew of a small handful of (maybe 6) senators who would be voting for cloture but not the amendment.
The cynic could interpret that as a favor to his moderate Republican colleagues — it gives them the option to nudge their moderate peers and constituents and say that they wouldn’t have voted for the damn amendment, but it was necessary to pacify conservatives.
Well, if the Senators knew the amendment was going to fail, what was the harm in invoking cloture? It would have taken just a few extra minutes to actually vote on the amendment. I dislike these parlimentarian tricks.
To confirm Reid’s claim, this came from Log Cabin Republicans:
“Seven Republicans voted with us on today’s procedural vote and another five expressed reservations about the amendment had there been an up or down vote.”
As an example, they used:
“Conservative Senator John Warner (R-VA) also voiced his opposition to the amendment, even though he voted ‘yes’ on the procedural issue. He criticized the amendment’s second sentence, which prohibits the “legal incidents” of marriage. He said the amendment’s vague wording could prohibit states from passing domestic partnership benefits or civil unions. “I am concerned, however, that the second sentence of this proposed constitutional amendment is unnecessarily vague and could well trample on the rights of the several States of our great Republic. As the second sentence of this proposed amendment is written now, the intent of the amendment simply isn’t clear? This type of unnecessary confusion will undoubtedly lead to considerable litigation if this proposed amendment is accepted in its current form.” ”
While I wish more Senators on both sides would have the cajones to say that gay people are entitled to all the rights granted heterosexuals, I certainly welcome criticism of this amendment coming from established conservative Republicans.