The U.S. Senate failed to pass the marriage amendment this morning. Meanwhile, the Dems shot themselves in the foot.
Often, the first story, most likely an AP wire story, on a breaking issue helps define the argument for the echo chamber that is the evening cable gabfests. Which is why it’s so important to have your message ready when the news breaks. Especially in this case, where the outcome was a foregone conclusion.
The amendment backers got some help from the AP writer, Laurie Kellman. She led with an arguably inaccurate framing of the issue.
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Wednesday rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, but supporters said new votes for the measure represent progress that gives conservative Republicans reason to vote on Election Day.
The 49-48 vote fell 11 short of the 60 required to send the matter for an up-or-down tally by the full Senate. The amendment’s failure was no surprise, but supporters said the vote reflected growing support among senators and Americans.
“We’re building votes,” said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who is among supporters of the ban who were not in the Senate when the amendment was last voted on in 2004. “That’s often what’s required over several years to get there, particularly to a two-thirds vote.”
In fact, they got only one more vote than they did in 2004. That’s hardly represents progress for an issue that conservatives says is steamrolling in their favor.
Much farther down in the story is the Democrats’ self-inflicted wound. The trigger was pulled by the Dems’ resident hothead.
“The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into the Constitution,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2003. “A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law.”
Se. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) had the perfect comeback.
In response, Hatch fumed: “Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?”
Again, defining supporters of the amendment as bigots–whether or not they are–is not they way to change their minds. A much better reply would have been:
“Those who wanted to restrict the rights of American citizens could muster no more votes than they essentially did last time. Marriage in America can indeed be strengthened. But we do it by building stronger families and stronger communities that help all Americans deal with the stresses of everyday life. We don’t do it by preventing gay people from being a part of that process. The American constitution has always been about inclusion, not exclusion. The Senate, today, agreed.”