The results of the Senate's FMA vote today

[racaulk]

This may be old news to most of you at this point, but I just wanted to have this documented in the GLBT forum.

Yea: 49
Nay: 48
Not Voting: 3

The votes was more or less along party lines, with the following exceptions:

Yea:
Byrd (D-WV)
Nelson (D-NE)

Nay:
Chafee (R-RI)
Collins (R-ME)
Gregg (R-NH)
McCain (R-AZ)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)

Not Voting:
Dodd (D-CT)
Hagel (R-NE)
Rockefeller (D-WV)

Total roll call vote list: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00163#position

[Lib Grrrrl]

1. Damn! I Called It!!

I KNEW it!!

I knew Specter would vote against in the floor vote, and that the GOP pressured him, somehow into voting for it in committee, to let it out onto the floor.

I thought so.

I'm good, I know how my Senator thinks. And I do mean, MY ONLY SENATOR, since Santorum is actually Virginia's THIRD Senator. Pennsylvania only has one, right now. hopefully, in November, Bob Casey Jr will kick Santorum's ass, and Pennsylvania will, once again, have it's deserved TWO Senators.

[shawmut]

2. You can add Sununu (R-NH) to the list of Nays

Both Republican Senators from NH voted no.

[racaulk]

3. Oops! Yeah, you're right!

I overlooked Sununu when I was scanning over the vote list. The time has expired for me to edit my OP, but thank you for the correction.

:hi:

[progressivegunowner]

4. Didn't have a chance

It disappoints me that both of Kentucky's senators are homophobes that voted for it. Fortunately, I wasn't much worried about it, as it really didn't have a chance in today's political climate. It would have needed 60 Senate votes, about two thirds of the House to support it, then 38 states to have ratifying conventions and agree to ratify it. With today's political climate concerning homosexuals, there wouldn't be enough support for it to go through, and I would fight tooth and nail to try to make sure Kentucky didn't ratify (though it probably would anyways if that were to be a concern).

But this was successful, in an absurd way, in two regards. First, the neocons were using this issue to try and rally the right wing Christians (moral values) group to try and garner support for some of their party's politicians who are up for reelection. Second, it was to try and take the spotlight away from the illegal war in Iraq, the record surplus that turned into a record deficit (in record time, no less), and the attack on civil liberties (including the Patriot Act and NSA's wiretap program). In order for Democrats to hold their own, we need not worry about the amendment that won't pass, but we need to attack the conservative on their failures in these areas, and state how our party plans to correct these issues.