Pace quickens on push for an amendment
WASHINGTON -- Proponents of a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage say the legislative stalemate in Massachusetts and the weddings of gay couples in San Francisco are helping to build momentum in Congress for their cause.
"What is going on in Massachusetts with the court rulings and Legislature has propelled this amendment front and center," said Representative Marilyn Musgrave, a Colorado Republican who is the chief sponsor of the amendment that would establish marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The prospect of gay couples marrying in May in the Commonwealth "is on everybody's radar screen," Musgrave said.
Republican leaders in Congress agree, saying hearings on the proposed amendment could be held as early as next month in the Senate and sometime this spring in the House, with the likelihood increasing that a measure will be debated in both chambers before the November election.
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert "has been keeping an eye" on the developments in Massachusetts and sees a "definite possibility" now that some version of the amendment will reach the House floor this session, said John Feehery, Hastert's spokesman.
"It's becoming a bigger issue," Feehery said. "The speaker wants to proceed carefully and make sure all our ducks are in a row, that all the groups and the White House and Congress are agreeing on the same approach, and the members feel comfortable with that approach."
To amend the US Constitution, both the House and Senate must pass the measure by two-thirds majorities, and then it must be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council and an advocate for the constitutional amendment, said the gridlock over gay marriage on Beacon Hill and the decision by the mayor of San Francisco to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples are increasing the grass-roots pressure on Congress to act. "It makes it more and more clear that what will resolve this is a federal marriage amendment," Perkins said.
Musgrave said she has been buoyed by private assurances from President Bush that he will support the measure. Other Republicans said they expect the president to formally endorse a constitutional amendment soon, even as the White House weighs the political ramifications of a congressional debate that could be as polarizing and passionate as the constitutional convention in Boston this week.
"There is much trepidation that this is going to be divisive for us as a party when we really don't need to be divided," Representative Deborah Pryce of Ohio, chairwoman of the House Republican Conference, told reporters this week. "We need to be united through this election period, and issues like this serve not necessarily to cement us very well."
Pryce, who has not endorsed the amendment, said House Republicans are very divided over both the policy -- whether it is necessary and prudent to amend the Constitution -- and the delicate politics of banning gay marriage, which could motivate the social conservative base of the party but alienate moderates or libertarians.
Former Wisconsin representative Steve Gunderson, the first openly gay Republican in the House, said many Republicans fear that voting against same-sex unions will make them appear bigoted against gays and lesbians. "The bulk of the members don't want to talk about it, they don't want it to come up," said Gunderson, who is now a political consultant. "They know the issue will be a loser for the GOP."
Representative Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican, opposes the amendment, said Sarah Moore, his spokeswoman. "He feels it is foolhardy to make this a key issue when there are a lot of really important issues to deal with first," Moore said.
Musgrave said her proposed amendment has 112 cosponsors, including eight Democrats. "This is not a divisive issue among Republicans," Musgrave said. "It is divisive among the radical homosexual movement and people who believe in keeping marriage defined as between a man and a woman."
In the Senate, the measure was introduced by Wayne Allard, Republican of Colorado, with three Republicans and one Democrat as cosponsors. The Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, who supports the amendment, said last week that amending the federal constitution is "increasingly likely" to protect states from judicial rulings that require them to recognize gay marriages.
The House and Senate judiciary committees will examine whether the federal Defense of Marriage Act is sufficient to bar the recognition of gay marriage and whether the language of the proposed amendment would allow states to provide for civil unions and benefits to same-sex couples, committee spokesmen said yesterday.
