Floaters

Many Republicans support the measure because they say traditional marriage strengthens society; others don't but concede the reality of election-year politics.

"Marriage between one man and one woman does a better job protecting children better than any other institution humankind has devised," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. "As such, marriage as an institution should be protected, not redefined."

But Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he will vote against it on the floor but allowed it to survive his panel in part to give the Republicans the debate party leaders believe will pay off on Election Day. Specter has chosen a different battle with the Bush administration this week _ a hearing Tuesday on the ways the FBI spies on journalists who publish classified information.

As that hearing gets under way, debate on the marriage amendment will enter its second day on the Senate floor. All but one of the Senate Democrats _ the exception is Ben Nelson of Nebraska _ oppose the measure and, with moderate Republicans, are expected to block an up-or-down vote, killing the measure for the year.

Democrats say the amendment is a divisive bow to religious conservatives, and point out that it conflicts with the GOP's opposition to big government interference.

Just like John Kerry's amendment to bring home US troops from Iraq by the end of the year, the resurgent call by the GOP, with the full support and approval of President Bush, to amend the US Constitution with an amendment explicitly stating that marriage is between a man and a woman only, has no chance of success. The same argument made by Democrats about the marriage amendment could be made of the troop withdrawal bill proposed by Kerry. Both have no chance of success but are designed to politically activate core constituencies.

It's nice to know that Congress has more important things to do with its time. Border control and immigration policy don't compare with issues that have no chance of passage and the import of which is dubious at best.

To amend the US Constitution, one has to run a gauntlet that has been accomplished only 27 times in our history. It has to pass both House and Senate with supermajorities, and then pass by popular votes in 3/4 of the states (38 out of 50). Now, while the process is the ultimate democratic tool, the difficulty of ratifying an amendment is so difficult that the 27th Amendment, which was ratified in 1992, was first proposed in 1789. The proposed amendment can't even garner enough support in Congress to enable it to go to the states for ratification.

UPDATE:
Confederate Yankee makes a similar point - that Congress and President Bush both have more important things to deal with than gay marriage. Mark Levin, on the other hand, thinks that gay marriage is a fight worth fighting - if only because activist courts have continued to force the issue. I've got to disagree with Levin - there really isn't any groundswell on gay marriage and that there are other fights worth fighting and expending political capital on. The war on terror, border control, immigration reform, tax reform. I wouldn't even put it in the top 10 of issues facing folks right now.

Others blogging: Don Surber who notes how the Democrats are playing to their base in complaining about how the GOP is playing to theirs, Roger L. Simon, and Donklephant.