FMA Gets the Smackdown

14 Jul 2004 By

For now.

Basically, the Senate voted to not even begin debate on S. J. Res. 40, the Federal Marriage Amendment. I’m pleased to note that Mark Dayton (D-MN), Carl Levin (D-MI) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) all voted Nay.

I’ll show you the lovely e-mail response I got from Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) a while back which shows that obviously nobody in his office read my message at all. Not that I’m surprised.

From: Opinion@coleman.senate.gov
Date: Thu Jun 24, 2004 1:19:41 PM US/Central
Subject: Responding to your message

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding the “Federal Marriage Amendment” (S.J. Res. 30 and H.J. Res. 56).

The “Federal Marriage Amendment” was introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) on March 22, 2004. Its companion resolution in the House of Representatives was introduced by Representative Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) on May 21, 2003. Both resolutions have been referred to each chamber’s respective Judiciary Committee for consideration.

These resolutions propose a constitutional amendment holding that only marriages between men and women will be recognized as legal marriages in the United States. In addition, these resolutions would prohibit any state or federal laws that seek to confer marital status to unmarried couples or groups.

You will be pleased to know that I support a constitutional amendment on this issue because I share your belief that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. My objective in this process will be to work to ensure that the amendment deals solely with the issue of marriage and that the citizens of each state, acting through their legislatures, have the right to define marriage. This could be achieved by constitutionalizing the Defense of Marriage Act Which passed the House and Senate by overwhelming bipartisan majorities, 342 – 67 in the House and 85 – 14 in the Senate.

Thank you once again for contacting me. I value your advice. If I can be of further assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me again.

Fucker.

  • http://www.mysocalledblog.com Lachlan

    How STUPID. No one read it at all!

    Depressing. And people wonder why no one wants to write to our elected reps. This illustrates why!

  • http://www.lasadh.com Sherri

    Whichever pimply faced little hill rat of an intern clicked a button to send you that crap should be fired.

  • http://jenben.info/home.html JenBen

    1) that email is offensive. Bastard!

    2) Why did Kerry and Edwards abstain? Were they out of town campaigning or are they being wishy-washy?

  • http://virtualverbosity.blogspot.com Simon

    I had SO many calls about this at work, and each one made me more and more mad… until I realized that it was going to die in the Senate (so my boss wouldn’t even have to make a decision). I’m waiting for all the civic-ignorant people to call and ask how my boss voted. (“Um, it never reached the House, dumb-ass! Learn the difference between the House and Senate!”)

    Meanwhile, I spoke with someone from Stabenow’s office today, who told me they got literally hundreds of calls about it. I felt sorry for them, but glad we only got a few dozen.

  • http://www.swirlspice.com Erica

    Malia said that the capitol phone system has been all messed up today due to the volume of phone calls coming in on the matter. So, I sort of feel bad for you staffer-types (except for the ones that send out e-mails like the one I got).

    I’m glad to see that the FMA got virtually nowhere, but I’m disappointed that the vote was even as close as it was.

    Didn’t even notice the Kerry and Edwards abstentions. I’d have been HELLA MAD if the shit had passed (assuming that they both would have voted against it) and it had come down to their two votes.

  • http://swerlspice.blogspot.com Em

    JenBen:

    From what I have read, Kerry and Edwards abstained b/c it wasn’t a vote on the actual amendment, but rather a procedural vote. The vote today was basically a vote to decide if they would vote on the actual amendment. From a strategic point a view, it is a wise move b/c oftentimes, the vote one casts for a procedural amendment may differ from the vote they cast for the actual amendment.

    For example: In the Michigan Legislature, they recently voted to increase the tax on tobacco products. There were several “pre-votes” (for lack of a better term) about where the money raised from this tax would be allotted in the state budget and whatnot, until eventually they voted on the whole thing. By participating in all the procedural votes, one’s “vote” on an amendment can possibly change several times. By abstaining from the procedural votes, they prevent themselves from looking like flip-floppers.

  • http://www.waitressdreams.com mopsa

    Crazy. I got the SAME response from Normie. He must be trying to say he loves us both equally.

  • http://www.emmytheangel.blogspot.com Meeta

    That email was extremely offensive, and it makes me realize how much I hate politicians. bah for our legal system and politics.

  • http://www.swirlspice.com Erica

    That bit about the procedural vote makes sense. But still, that was too damn close, mmmkay?