Colorado Congress Watch: Allard Steps Into It

Word comes this morning that later today Senator Wayne Allard will re-introduce his Marriage Protection Amendment to ban same-sex unions.   The proposed Constitutional amendment will be similar to last year's legislation which, under the Senate rules, did not receive enough votes to get to final approval.   According to the Rocky Mountain News, Allard is hopeful his proposal will receive the bill number Concurrent Resolution 1, which would be a symbolic of the legislation's importance to the current Senate leadership.

So, the great debate over gay marriage begins again in Congress.  Yes, things have changed since last year when Allard's plan fell 12 votes short of approval for a final vote.  Yes, things are different than last year as same-sex marriage played a big part in the culture debate which many point to as an explanation of Bush's re-election and Republican gains at the federal level.  Yes, as the Rocky points out, things are different in the Senate as Republican punching bag Tom Daschle is no longer there to play obstructionist on issues of such vital import.

Finally, and this is the big change  many of the proposal's supporters are counting, Bush stood behind this Constitutional amendment and he won the election fair and square.  So, does Wayne Allard's proposal (and we assume Marilyn Musgrave's bill in the House) sail through Congress and then head out to the states for approval?

Nope.  And there's nothing SpongeDob is going to be able to do about it.

When all else fails in politics, look at the numbers.  This proposal is D.O.A.  in the Senate and the numbers back that up.  First off, Allard will need 60 votes just to break a filibuster on the bill (remember, any Senator can put a hold on any bill for any reason, and then you need 60 votes to even get the bill considered).   Conservatives made gains in the Senate, but November 2, 2004 did not produce the 60 votes needed to break any sort of filibuster against this bill.  Secondly, if the bill can't get 60 votes, it's not getting the 67 needed for passage as proposed amendments to the constitution need a two-thirds vote for approval.

The key ingredient in making this call is how Bush now plays the issue. He did support the Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage last year and during his re-election effort.  But, his recent comment to the Washington Post that as long as the Defense of Marriage Act is in place, Senators have indicated that a Constitutional Amendment won't happen.  Not only is that a pretty serious retreat on the issue, he's throwing the whole thing back on the Senate.

Looks like Republicans in Congress and the social conservatives who supported Bush's re-election are going to be left at the alter big-time on this issue.  Bush and his team know the numbers aren't there to support a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.  And, that includes votes in Congress and poll numbers across the country.  Bush is in legacy mode and gay marriage ain't part of it.

Wayne Allard, especially, might want to reconsider this whole affair, especially since he's losing a Presidential safety net.  While he may be taking on the fight out of loyalty to the SpongeDob crowd in Colorado Springs, this last election indicated they may not have as much juice in Colorado as was previously believed.  If Allard lets the SpongeDob crew lead him around, and then define his as the anti-gay Senator, money is going to be pouring into the state in 2008 to help defeat him.

We thought it a bit strange that last year a work-horse senator like Allard who focused on local matters would take on such a social hot button issue like gay marriage.  Now that Allard is sitting on Appropriations, and has an opportunity to increase his effectiveness in working on issues that matter to Colorado (like bringing home the bacon), you would think he'd see that as his path to re-election.  Apparently, that's not quite the case.

Comments

[Ralph]

He's trying to head off the Tancredo for President wing of the Colorado GOP.

[Ralph]

"This is clearly political payback. The only reason Washington Republicans would introduce a measure that has already failed is to appease a small group of right-wing extremists who are now running their Party. The majority of Americans believe in extending legal protections to same-sex couples and are opposed to this divisive amendment.

"The Democratic Party is still opposed to this amendment. It is wrong to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution and it is shameful for Washington Republicans to attack gay and lesbian families for purely political reasons."
Terry McAuliffe

[Ted]

They will wait till the election cycle to push this issue.

[James C. Hess]

So let me understand this correctly: If you believe marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman you are, therefore, 'an extremist'?

Interesting. Oh, the things you learn in cyberspace.