Romney urges federal ban on gay-marriage 'experiment'

WASHINGTON -- Governor Mitt Romney urged the US Senate yesterday to immediately pass a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but Democrats and other opponents of the measure were predicting that the measure would be defeated if it comes up for a vote next month.

The Massachusetts governor sparred with Senate Democrats at a hearing on the proposed amendment, arguing that the federal amendment can play a crucial role in protecting future generations from what he called an experiment begun when the Bay State legalized gay marriage on May 17.

"It may affect the development of children and thereby future society as a whole," Romney testified before the Senate's Judiciary Committee. "Until we understand the implications for human development of a different definition of marriage, I believe we should preserve that which has endured for thousands of years."

Senate Republicans want to begin debate on the amendment July 12, hoping to force Senator John F. Kerry to cast a vote on the contentious issue before he accepts the Democratic presidential nomination in Boston in late July. But Democratic opponents working on the issue said they have more than 40 Senate votes against the amendment, which would need 67 to pass. Republicans said they expect a filibuster, but will go forward with the debate.

Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, said: "Governor Romney speaks with authority on how activist judges have overruled elected representatives and the will of the people in his state. The attack on traditional marriage laws was thrust upon us by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and other states are now in danger of facing this same problem. So this has clearly rised to the level of a federal issue."

At the hearing, Romney took fire from a number of Democrats, who appear to have agreed on a strategy: portray Romney as a flip-flopper, just as Republicans have tried to depict Kerry. At issue, they said, was Romney's backing of both a state constitutional amendment that would establish civil unions but ban gay marriage and a federal amendment that the Democrats contend would ban civil unions and preempt the Bay State's constitutional process.

"I'm trying to figure out what your view is," said Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who fought off a spirited challenge for his seat from Romney in 1994. "How can you have it both ways?"

Said Senator Russell Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat: "How is your support of the federal marriage amendment consistent with your statement that the people of Massachusetts are deciding this matter as they should be?"

Romney responded, "I am absolutely committed to the principle that individual states should have the right to define marriage and that the people of the states should have the right to define marriage. And that's precisely why I'm insisting that I fully support a constitutional amendment that allows states to do just that."

Feingold shot back, "If you were convinced the federal amendment would nullify the Massachusetts amendment, which would you support?"

Romney hesitated slightly at that, saying "Uh . . . I . . . well . . . the challenge of that question I have is, if this amendment were to say that Massachusetts and the voters of Massachusetts could not provide any benefits whatsoever to same-sex couples, then I would oppose it."

"That's exactly what it does," Feingold replied.

"I would disagree," Romney said, disputing Feingold's interpretation of the proposed amendment.

Senator Richard J. Durbin, an Illinois Democrat who voted in favor of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, which allows states to withhold recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states, said it was foolhardy to pass a constitutional amendment with such a law on the books.

"We have a preemptive foreign policy; I don't think we should have a preemptive Constitution," Durbin said, arguing that the Republicans should not hurry the proposed federal amendment through Congress. "Why aren't we taking time to see how this plays out? . . . We are taking a roller to a Rembrandt."

Amendments to the Constitution require approval by two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures. Romney argued that most lawmakers' minds are made up and said he doubted that a deliberative policy debate would do much to alter the outcome.

"I don't imagine lengthy hearings and long debates will change a lot of views in Washington," Romney said.

Romney, a Mormon who rarely talks publicly about his religion, cited the federal government's restriction on polygamy as an example of what he called the federal government's legitimate role in marriage law. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints practiced polygamy until the 1890s, when church leaders renounced it as a condition of Utah statehood.

Under questioning from Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, Romney said: "It's not unprecedented for the federal government to have a say in what happens in the states as it relates to marriage. . . . There was, a long time ago, a state that considered the practice of polygamy, and as I recall, the federal government correctly stepped in and said, that is not something the states should decide."

Although Romney faced harsh questioning by Democrats at yesterday's hearing, he got a warm reception at a lecture he delivered later at the headquarters of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

After being introduced by Edwin Meese, a former US attorney general, who lauded Romney for his leadership on the marriage issue, Romney spent about 10 minutes praising President Bush's record in the war on terrorism, his education agenda, and his support for a federal constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

Then Romney again raised questions about the unknown societal effects of same-sex marriage.

"Are we really ready to usher in a society that is indifferent as to whether children have a mother and a father?" Romney said. "This is far too important a topic to be left to social experimentation."

Romney warned that, if the Massachusetts ruling is not nullified by a constitutional amendment, school textbooks will have "to promote absolute indifference" on marriage.

"I don't think this is just a political issue," Romney said. "Our state has begun to assert power over other states."

The Congressional Budget Office yesterday released an analysis of the potential budgetary effects in the event that gay marriage is legalized in all 50 states. Both Bush and Kerry oppose same-sex marriage, and it appears unlikely that gay marriages will be allowed in all states in the near future.

The study said that the estimates were "highly uncertain," but concluded that "same-sex marriages would increase [income] tax revenues."