Senate Gay Marriage Debate

As everyone with any political sense at all knew would happen, the Senate voted today on a cloture motion to end debate on the proposed gay-marriage amendment, requiring 60 votes. The vote was 49-48 to end debate (which is what was desired by amendment proponents, seeking to get to a real vote on the issue, rather than a procedural vote).

There are a couple of issues involved with the Senate taking the time to discuss and vote on this issue today, and I don't want to spend to much time on it. As a result, I'll merely pose some questions to my non-existant readership. First, was this done for mere politics sake? Or, even knowing that it would fail, is bringing this issue in front of the Senate and forcing at least one (albeit procedural) vote on the issue simply the best way to make sure the issue stays in the public consciousness? If it was just "playing politics," is there anything wrong with that? Was there actually something "better" for the Senate to be taking up right now? Maybe I'll come back to this issue and answer some of these questions from my point of view later on, but I don't want to get into this too in depth now.

Finally, it's interesting to note that there were 7 Republicans voting against the motion to end debate, and thus to sustain what was and is a filibuster. The list reads like a who's who of the Republican's moderate-t0-liberal wing, and includes Lincoln Chafee (RI), Susan Collins (ME), Judd Gregg (NH), Olympia Snowe (ME), John Sununu (NH), Arlen Specter (PA), and ...

John McCain (AZ). Yes, the same John McCain who is considered by the conventional wisdom to be the front-runner for the GOP nomination. Yes, the same John McCain who gave the infamous speech at Liberty University, and who is making nice with Jerry Falwell. What gives?

The answer is pretty simple. McCain doesn't like gay marriage. However, he feels that this is fundamentally a state issue, and is a strong believer in federalism (at least in this context). Unlike many other Republicans, McCain doesn't see an imminent threat from the judiciary on this issue, and so is opposed to a Constitutional Amendment on point.

Ah, nuance. From a logical perspective there is nothing inconsistent with this view. In fact, it's admirable, because he's being ideologically consistent on this issue. The problem is that nuanced views are difficult to explain (look no farther than John Kerry's statemetn that he voted for the war before voting against it), and the media doesn't really care about letting someone make their point. The headline looks and feels better to a journalist (or, more to the point, an editor) when it screams "MCCAIN VOTES NO ON CURBING GAY MARRIAGE," instead of "MCCAIN VOTES NO ON CURBING GAY MARRIAGE BECAUSE...". The because will usually be in the article, right around the third to last paragraph, in tiny type if possible. It just isn't seen as relevant to the discussion.

This is where McCain will get into trouble. He holds views strongly, and isn't going to change (most of) them to fit in with a Presidential run. That is likely to doom him in the primaries, because the voters who vote in these things tend to be diehards, and in many states a closed primary will prevent moderates and Democrats who could see themselves supporting McCain from voting in the Primary at all.

I am not advocating for McCain to suddenly switch his positions to fall in line with "the base." I despire that (one of the reasons that I refused to vote for Al Gore in 2000, despite being slightly more aligned ideologically with him than the 2000 version of George W. Bush, was that Gore conveniently switched many of his positions to fall into line with the national Democratic party before his Presidential run in 1988), and would never suggest that a candidate do it. That said, how often does a politician hold to principle when there is an "easier way?" I guess I should give kudos to McCain, even though I don't really care that much about this issue. The point is that I think this decision could very easily come back to haunt McCain, which will help out the George Allen's and Mitt Romney's of the world in their quest for the nomination. And as I will explain in a future post, I think THAT may be the only thing that could lead to a second Clinton presidency, and the first First Gentleman in United States history.