FMA, the Super Majority & "The Will of the People"

[Cats Against Frist]

Since watching Washington Journal this morning, and anticipating the potential FMA vote on Wednesday, I've been hearing the Christian Right attack dogs, after all of their other arguments are destroyed, suggest that their right to amend the Constitution lies with "the will of the people."

They are planning to smear Democratic senators, in their home districts, who do not vote in favor of the FMA. Again -- why would their legislators defy the "will of the people?"

In fact, a Constitutional Amendment requires a 2/3 senate vote to pass -- a SUPER majority. Meaning the founders saw it fit that amending the Constitution, the document against which all laws should tested, should require a super majority.

In the following polling:

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

several times the question is asked, either "do you support a gay marriage amendment," or "do you think this should be settled at the state or federal level?"

In all instances, except for one, there is not a "super majority" of the population that supports the amendment, nor deciding this on the federal level.

So, in that case, if the vote outcome were proportionaly representational, the vote should garner roughly 54 senators voting "Yea" and "46" voting "nay," and -- SUPRISE!!!! That is the will of the people.

I find this amendment very important, because it is a true test of whether our laws are going to be based on rationality or if they're going to be based on select passages of the Bible. This will decide if we're going to adhere to our values of liberty and justice, or if we're going to pander to a superstitious and prejudiced electorate.

There are times when the law of the land must supercede just a "majority" of the people -- our founders saw fit to include this in the amendment process. This does not always assure that our country will truly uphold civil liberties -- but it is a good system to have in place.

This is also not a matter of values. It is a matter of "tradition." Tradition is and should be vulnerable to the law -- particularly when that tradition robs people of their civil liberties. Marriage values, on the other hand, include: love, love of your children, partnership, unity, responsibility, faithfulness, etc. -- which can be revered or trashed just as effectively by straight married couples and homosexual married couples.

In addition 70 percent of voters polled indicated that this was not a priority issue.

Who is out of touch with the electorate? The GOP, who is pushing a vote that most people do not find urgent, pushing a supermajority that is not there?

Or the Democrats, who will vote in step, and uphold their constituency's 46 percent of un-support for the Amendment????

It think it is obvious.

[lovedems]

1. Doesn't it take 56 senators to vote yes and then 36 states to pass an

amendment?

I know they could come close to the 54 senators but they would never get 36(?) states to agree. I think the GOP want to bring this to a vote for the reason cited above, to get democrats on the record. If they vote this week, you could garuntee a Bush ad next week that was along the lines of, "Kerry voted against FMA. Are his values your values?" It is bullshit.

[Cats Against Frist]

2. 2/3 majority

They need 67 votes to pass it, but 60 votes to proceed, at this point.

[bleowheels]

3. Well, if they're gonna cite "the will of the people", then they...

better turn the presidency over to Al Gore. Oh wait, they don't recognize the will of those people.