Despite the intensifying political furor over gay marriage, supporters of a proposed constitutional amendment restricting marriage to the union of a man and a woman are not counting on success anytime soon.
Partisans on both sides of the issue said Congress’ traditional reluctance to alter the fundamental document of American democracy, coupled with the politics of this presidential election year, make it unlikely that a marriage amendment will come to a vote in either the House or the Senate in 2004.
“Congress already has a pretty full plate this year,” a senior Republican congressional aide noted tersely when asked whether an amendment could move forward before the November elections.
To be sure, images of thousands of gays being wed in San Francisco, coupled with the recent affirmation by the highest court in Massachusetts of an earlier ruling that gays must be allowed to marry, have galvanized many conservative Christian groups to action. But they say they know they face a tough battle on Capitol Hill.
That’s what the Founding Fathers intended.
In order to discourage frequent changes, they decreed that a proposed amendment would have to achieve supermajorities–two-thirds of the vote–in both chambers of Congress, then win ratification by three-fourths of the states. Thousands of amendments have been proposed, but only 17 amendments after the original 10 in the Bill of Rights have met those high standards.
Supporters say their best hope for pushing an amendment through Congress lies in President Bush fighting for it. Some argue the president must publicly embrace the effort to energize his conservative base. So far, Bush has not.
The president’s hesitation, even some amendment supporters agree, is at least partly based on a political calculation that his backing could alienate swing voters who may be crucial if the November election is close.
Despite the possibility that a constitutional amendment seems a long way away, gay activists remain worried.
“This is an explosive issue,” said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. “We have not, as a community, been able to stop a Defense of Marriage Act or a constitutional amendment from moving forward in any legislature in the country.”
Advocates of a marriage amendment say it is necessary because the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling may lead to the overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996. That law defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman and says no state is required to recognize as valid a same-sex marriage sanctioned by another state.
Thirty-nine states–the number needed to ratify a constitutional amendment–have laws similar to the Defense of Marriage Act.
An aide to Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.) the author of a proposed constitutional amendment, said the act needs firmer footing.
“The House and Senate spoke very clearly in 1996, saying that marriage should be between a man and a woman,” said Guy Short, Musgrave’s chief of staff, “and that is what we are trying to solidify in public policy.”
NATION WIDE REACTION.
Comments from officials around the country.
“I have consistently stated that I’ll support law to protect marriage between a man and a woman. … I am troubled by activist judges who are defining marriage.”
–President Bush
“I don’t think it’s a political issue as much as an issue that people want to be able to discuss and think about and debate. It’s a very, very shocking issue to some parts of the American people.”
–First Lady Laura Bush
“In San Francisco, the democratically elected mayor took this action just weeks after hundreds of thousands of people voted for him.”
–Jon Davidson,
senior counsel of Lambda Legal
“There was nothing particularly compelling … that makes me think that we should back off.”
–Gavin Newsom
mayor of San Francisco
