HOW FRIST FUMBLED ON FMA: Howard Fineman

...Republicans think they have an advantage in the "mainstream" war on the issue of gay marriage. But they may have tossed it away this week. In proposing a constitutional amendment to define marriage only as "the union of a man and a woman," the GOP's goal was to put Democrats on the cultural defensive and to inspire religious conservatives who form the core of modern the party today. Instead, the White House and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist have exposed divisions among Republicans and, through a well-meaning procedural mistake, allowed the Democratic ticket to wriggle free of the need to cast a potentially harmful vote on the matter.

According to the polls, most Americans oppose the idea of sanctifying the unions of gay or lesbian couples by calling it "marriage." In other words, they generally disagree with the recent ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Seeking to capitalize on that sentiment, GOP leaders have been pushing an amendment that would apply not only to federal law--which could affect federal benefits and rights of various kinds--but to all the states.

But, from the beginning, Senate GOP leaders have faced hurdles, mathematical and political. For one, they needed two-thirds of the Senate--67 votes if everyone is present--to send the amendment to the states for ratification. Then, they needed 60 votes (no matter how many senators were present) to shut off the kind of endless "filibuster" debates foes can use to delay any Senate action. They got just 48 on Wednesday.

Frist faced further problems: A handful of "moderate" GOP senators, most from New England, who are more socially tolerant of gays and lesbians, and other Republicans, who are cultural conservatives, but who nevertheless loathe the idea of amending the constitution for any reason.

In the end, Frist and White House strategist Karl Rove couldn't decide whether they really wanted to pass the measure or merely have a vote they could campaign on. The result is that they got neither.

Rather than seek an up-or-down vote on a toughly worded version of the amendment, Frist and his allies (led by Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania) allowed discussion of a second, milder one. But since that one (which would leave latitude to the states) might actually pass, Democrats opted to mount a filibuster. As a result, the central (and only) vote turned out to be on a motion to shut off debate--a harder vote to use in an attack TV ad.

The procedural posture also allowed Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards to slip the noose. Since the motion to shut off debate requires 60 votes, the John-John ticket can pay homage to gay rights by merely not showing up--but can claim neutrality of a sort on the core issue by not having to vote on it.

more
posted by Eve at 4:56 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home