Just a simple question gets a political doublespeak response.
I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. And that only a constitutional amendment defining marriage is the only way to protect marriage from those who would corrupt it. Since obviously the will of the people is being overridden by the judicial system in each individual state.
Last week, I was inspired to write to my Senators, Sens. Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) regarding the so-called marriage protection amendment. This legislation was to come before the Senate on 6 June, and my email I asked them both (as, to be honest, it was a cut-and-paste job) to please vote to support the amendment's passage in any way possible. I encouraged them to consider the positive effects that this amendment would have on not only families but society at large. I wish I had kept a copy of the email, as it was posted to their website rather than emailed from my personal account. But just trust me that this was the thrust of my messages to them. I thought it as well-formed, well-thought-out, and considered it as formal and important as I could.
Then, on 6 June, the Senate had a vote: not on the amendment itself but on cloture (The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.) Both Sarbanes and Mikulski voted NAY on cloture, thus killing the bill before it ever was voted upon. But, in effect, they voted to stop the bill without voting up or down on the actual bill.
Then, to add insult to injury, Sarbanes' office wrote me this letter back! Yes, I got a letter back from Sarbanes' office. Mikulski never even bothered to acknowledge my letter...
Dear (singrdave):
Thank you for contacting my office regarding the proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage. I appreciate having the benefit of your views on this issue.
As you may know, S. J. Res. 1 was introduced in the United States Senate on January 24, 2005 and referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Although I am not a member of the Judiciary Committee, I will be sure to keep your views in mind in the event that this or related legislation comes before the full Senate for consideration.
During the 108th Congress a similar amendment, S. J. Res. 40, was introduced in the United States Senate. A cloture vote regarding S. J. Res. 40 occurred in the Senate on July 14, 2004. Based on these concerns, I voted against the motion to prematurely conclude debate. The motion required 60 votes to cut off debate and failed by receiving only 48. I will be sure to keep your views in mind in the event that this or related legislation comes before the full Senate for consideration.
Again, thank you for taking the time to share your views on this issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me about other matters of importance to you in the future.
With best regards,
Paul Sarbanes
United States Senator
So what he was saying is that if the measure actually gets voted upon, he will consider my views on it. But since his hands are tied and it got caught up in the cloture (that he authorized through his NAY vote!) he can't express his opinion on the proposed amendment. Besides, he's talking about legislation that reached the cloture motion back in 2004, not the one facing the Senate on 6 June 2006. Man, I cannot keep this straight. Is he even referring to the same piece of legislation?!?!
The feeling I came away with (because I can't make heads or tails of this) is that he patted me on the head and went about his own agenda.
Please help me understand what just happened here.