Marriage measure revised to allow some state rights
WASHINGTON -- The chief sponsors of a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage clarified their proposal yesterday so that it would allow state legislatures to grant civil unions and domestic-partner benefits, a rewording designed to win more support in Congress.
On the eve of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the legislation, opponents called the announcement by two Colorado Republicans -- Senator Wayne Allard and Representative Marilyn Musgrave -- a political concession that does not change the substance of the amendment, which would codify marriage as the union of a man and a woman and prevent courts from ruling that same-sex marriages are required under any state constitution.
"We want to make it clear, without any ambiguity, that states do have a role as far as dealing with civil unions and benefits related to marriage," Allard said at a news conference on Capitol Hill that was crowded with members of the Alliance for Marriage, which supports the amendment.
The principal change deletes a phrase that could have been interpreted as banning any state law from allowing same-sex couples to receive marital rights. The revised version of the amendment does not explicitly say states could approve civil unions or partner benefits, but omitting the ban would allow legislatures to do so.
Allard said in an interview that after reviewing the original language of the amendment with constitutional scholars and lawyers, he believed one phrase could undermine the role of state legislatures. Allard said he did not want to prevent Massachusetts legislators, for example, from considering civil unions or domestic benefits "as long as they don't try to redefine marriage."
But both Allard and Musgrave say their goal is to stop courts from intrepreting state constitutions as mandating gay marriage, civil unions, or domestic partner benefits.
The proposed amendment -- the only one introduced in Congress -- has become a hot political issue since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling on gay marriage in November and the issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in San Francisco and other jurisdictions.
Musgrave said she has 117 cosponsors in the House and the support of the majority leader, Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas. "It is amazing to me that Congressman [Barney] Frank thinks that four judges in the state of Massachusetts can redefine marriage for the entire nation without anyone pushing back," Musgrave said.
Frank, a Newton Democrat, said the revisions in the proposed amendment show that its sponsors are having to make compromises to gain support.
Allard said the new language "will help" politically. His bill has 11 cosponsors, but needs a two-thirds' majority, 67 members, to pass in the Senate.
"Politically, they are making it easier for states to set up civil unions," said Frank, who is scheduled to testify against the amendment today. "This is very interesting, since a year ago civil unions were the most divisive issue in history. Now they are very boring to anyone who isn't in one."
Gary Bauer, a conservative activist and leader of a political coalition against gay marriage, took part in the discussions with Allard, Musgrave, and other members of Congress, and agreed to the new language, even though he is strongly opposed to civil unions. He said the civil union issue was becoming a distraction and taking the focus off the top priority, which is to ban gay marriage.
"Our coalition overwhelmingly opposes civil unions, but we are willing to fight that out, state by state," Bauer said. "It just becomes more problematic if you include them in the language of the amendment."
Last month, President Bush announced his support for amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, but did not endorse the Allard-Musgrave proposal.
Bush has suggested that states should have the right to consider civil unions, which only Vermont has authorized. A recent
Republican leaders in Congress say they hope to have the votes in the House and Senate to pass the amendment by this summer. Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican who is chairing the committee hearing today, called the changes in the language "technical clarifications that are important to help move it forward."
A spokeswoman for Senator Orrin G. Hatch, the Judiciary Committee chairman, said the Utah Republican supports the Allard-Musgrave proposal but also is exploring alternatives that would give state legislatures or voters the power to define marriage in their states.
"Hatch's approach is out of touch with political reality," said Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage. Daniels, who crafted the original Allard-Musgrave amendment three years ago, said: "We have never wavered. The Federal Marriage Amendment is not about benefits; it's about marriage."
As revised, the proposed amendment reads: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constutiton of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
The first sentence was not changed. Originally, the second sentence read: "Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
"It is always extreme to change the Constitution, and their change makes it no less extreme than it was yesterday," said Winnie Stachelberg, political director of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights advocacy group. "It doesn't clarify the civil union issue, which is what they are seeking to do.
"In their efforts to `clarify,' their duplicity and discrimination against gay couples is becoming more clear." 