More news on FMA

[libertango]

From the Seattle Times comes this nugget, in an AP wire story:

" "I will say that I'm not supportive of amending the Constitution on this issue," said (Congressman David) Dreier, a co-chairman of Bush's campaign in California in 2000. "I believe that this should go through the courts, and I think that we're at a point where it's not necessary."

This is huge. Dreier has been one of Bush's biggest cheerleaders, as they allude. He's also chairman of the House rules committee. Every single bill that hits the floor of the House has to be passed by the Rules committee, to fix the rules of debate on the bill. Along with Ways and Means (the tax committee), those are the two most important committees in the House.

So, Tom Delay has already been quoted as hesitant. Dreier is against. And on the Senate side, more than 34 Senators are already on-the-record as opposed.

Stranger things have happened, but this looks very positive.

(I went hunting for the direct quote after reading an indirect reference in this transcript that rubylou points to. I recognized Dreier's name because he's the Congressman for the district that includes Pomona College, my alma mater.)

Comments

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

He is one of the three congress-critters I can point to as my own (and in fact he is the one whom I have the most claim to... My home of record is in Adam Schiff's [and I helped him get elected], Maia and I live [mostly] in Morro Bay, so Lois Capps was more than happy to make time for me when I was in D.C., but I'm still registered to vote in Drier's district).

The mayor of Sierra Madre is a fairly liberal guy, and a member of the Orange Grove Meeting, of the Religious Society of Friends, but he votes for, and recommends, Drier because he actually tries (where larger Party issues don't drag him to his position) to look to the needs, and desires, of his constituents.

Sierra Madre, Arcadia, Monrovia, tend to be fairly tolerant on this issue, and so I'm not totally surprised by this. Some, because the Administration seems to want (though like Roe v. Wade it might be better for them if it stays a simmering issue) to make a strong pitch on the subject.

That lack of support from people like Drier and DeLay might be what keeps this from becoming a bigger election issue, which (IMCynicalO) is what I think is really driving the furor at the levels of the Republican Party.

TK

[scottscidmore.livejournal.com]

Recent news commentaries have been suggesting that this issue is likely to fade away. While most Republicans and a number of Democrats express support for the concept, and even the amendment, there's not much of a rush to actually do anything except make public noises about the sanctity of marriage.

With luck this will die out in time that some real issues will be in the public eye by the end of summer.