Republican leaders have scheduled a vote in the Senate for sometime this week on the Federal Marriage Ammendment (FMA), which ammends the US constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. The second clause of the ammendment is not as clear though. It states:

Constitutional scholars disagree as to whether this would disallow civil unions, however, it would allow individual states to enact legislation granting some of the "legal incidents" of marriage to same-sex couples.

However, ammending the US constitution is rather difficult. First of all, a motion to ammend the US constitution must be proposed as a joint resolution in Congress, requiring a two-thirds majority in both houses. Then, the ammendment is sent to the state legislatures (or state conventions) for ratification, requiring three-quarters of the states to ratify the ammendment (normally by simple majority) before it is certified.

So ammending the constitution is not a trivial process. However, 40 out of the 50 states have previously passed laws similar to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which allows them ignore marriage-like relationships between same-sex couples that have been established in a state allowing them. It is not inconceivable that the same 40 states would ratify the FMA (only 38 states are required).

The problem is always going to be getting a two-thirds supermajority in both houses of Congress. Currently the Republicans have 55 seats out of 100 in the Senate, but it is very unlikely that all Republicans will vote for it. The last relevant vote was for cloture on the FMA back in 2004, which was defeated 48-50 (requiring 60 in favour for cloture). While some yay votes will have been picked up during the last election, they are still nowhere near the 67 votes required.

Consequently, the ammendment is doomed and has no chance of even being sent to the states for ratification (assuming that it passed by the House, but that is just as unlikely). So why bring it up at all?

It seems to be an election year ploy by the Republicans to remind conservative voters what they stand for. The mid-terms will be close this year, with a real chance that the Democrats may gain control of one or both houses, and so this tactic is being used to try to shore up support.

We'll have to wait and see how effective it is, but I don't see how a single vote in early June held in the US Senate based in Washington DC, is likely to affect the opinions of many voters in November.

Posted by Dave Bryant at 9:25 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (2)