Another Crack in the Dike
The Federal Marriage Amendment failed in the Senate on a "test" vote 49/48. Not even a majority and if the three absent Senators had voted, we would have picked up 1 more and gone 49/49 I think.
It needed 2/3. It didn't even make 1/2 of the whole Senate.
Ben Nelson (D-NE) voted for it as expected. His Republican counterpart Chuck Hagel had said he'd vote against it but he was traveling as were Chris Dodd and John Warner who probably would have cancelled each other out.
We picked up seven Republicans. McCain of Arizona, Specter of Pennsylvania, Snowe and Collins of Maine, Gregg and Sununu of New Hampshire, and Chaffee of Rhode Island. Gregg was unexpected but welcome.
They're all listed here in USA Today.
Brownback, the Senate's leading bigot, has said they will be back. It's not over but we can take a breath for now.
Ann
It needed 2/3. It didn't even make 1/2 of the whole Senate.
Ben Nelson (D-NE) voted for it as expected. His Republican counterpart Chuck Hagel had said he'd vote against it but he was traveling as were Chris Dodd and John Warner who probably would have cancelled each other out.
We picked up seven Republicans. McCain of Arizona, Specter of Pennsylvania, Snowe and Collins of Maine, Gregg and Sununu of New Hampshire, and Chaffee of Rhode Island. Gregg was unexpected but welcome.
They're all listed here in USA Today.
Brownback, the Senate's leading bigot, has said they will be back. It's not over but we can take a breath for now.
Ann
Labels: granny
posted by Granny @ 6/07/2006 12:12:00 PM
4 Comments:
At Wednesday, June 07, 2006 2:55:00 PM ,
Endorendil said...
Well, the point was to show Republicans that more votes are needed in order to pass the things they care about. Mission accomplished, I guess.
At Wednesday, June 07, 2006 9:40:00 PM ,
SheaNC said...
If the gay-marriage thing is the best they can come up with to salvage their popularity, it's no wonder they have to cheat to win!
At Thursday, June 08, 2006 1:16:00 AM ,
Sothis said...
At least the mainstream press showed it for what it was--a diversion tactic.
At Thursday, June 08, 2006 9:12:00 AM ,
Unknown said...
A toe in the water? A temporary red herring? I'm sure you're right, Granny. They'll be back.
The public needs be aware that this did not just cover a ban on gay marriages, it also covered civil unions (non-religious marriages) and unmarried cohabiting. The latter provisions affect a lot more people that gays who want to marry.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home