Finally, Gallagher says that there is no reason to switch amendments because support for the FMA is “growing fast.” Maybe it’s growing in the polls. But it is not growing much among senators. Given the speed with which legal developments are taking place, the strategy for enacting the FMA has to be either to persuade/scare enough existing congressmen to enact it in 2004, or to flip enough seats in the upcoming elections on the issue that it can pass in 2005.
The former strategy will require at least 20 Senate Democrats to sign on. That’s two-fifths of the Senate Democratic caucus. Anyone care to come up with a list of 20 Senate Democrats who can in theory be gotten? Or to put it another way: The 34 most liberal senators can stop any amendment they want to stop.
On either strategy, it makes sense to find ways to deprive the opposition of its favorite talking points. The opponents manifestly do not wish to spend most of their time defending the judicial redefinition of marriage without a public vote. They are much happier talking about states’ rights and the like. Why not take away that option?