Senate mulls same-sex marriage
 |
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist speaks at a rally on Capitol Hill on Wednesday in support of traditional marriage laws.
Story Tools
| ON CNN TV | 
Watch CNN-USA now: Soledad O'Brien, Bill Hemmer and Jack Cafferty lead the "American Morning" team's coverage of President Bush's campaign efforts in the West and John Kerry's stumping ahead of Tuesday's primaries in Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi.
|
VIDEO
|
Multnomah County, Oregon will start issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples in Portland and elsewhere in the county.
Now that marriage is becoming possible for gay Americans, are they feeling a new pressure to tie the knot?
|
|
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Saying same-sex marriages are likely to spread across America like a "wildfire," Republican senators, including Majority Leader Bill Frist, exhorted Congress Wednesday to embrace a constitutional amendment banning them.
"We simply will not let activist judges redefine that definition of marriage," the Tennessee Republican said a gathering of anti-gay marriage activists. "We will not let activist judges redefine -- I would say radically redefine -- what marriage is, and that is a union between a man and a woman."
But in an unlikely alliance, some "limited government" conservatives, gay rights and civil rights supporters all plan to fight an amendment, even though they may not agree on the gay marriage question.
"This is not to say that conservatives such as myself necessarily favor gay marriages, but that we strongly oppose the notion of addressing this issue of social policy in our nation's governing document," said Chuck Muth, president of Citizen Outreach.
The NAACP also has not taken a position on gay marriages, said Hilary Shelton, director of its Washington bureau. "But the NAACP is extremely opposed to any proposal that would alter our nation's most important document for the express purpose of excluding any groups or individual from its guarantees of equal protections," he said.
Tuesday's broadsides opened what promises to be a divisive election-year battle on Capitol Hill.
Using the Massachusetts high court ruling permitting same-sex marriages as an impetus, Frist said that Congress should not wait until the states make a final decision on the subject.
With gay marriages already being performed in California and New York, "the wildfire will begin and in many ways it already has begun," he said. "Same sex marriage is likely to spread through all 50 states in the coming years. It is becoming increasingly clear that Congress must act."
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who also supports an amendment, argued that banning gay marriage through the Constitution would not be discriminatory.
"Millions of Americans who support the traditional institution of marriage should not be slandered as intolerant," Cornyn said at a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing. "The institution of marriage was not created to discriminate or oppress, it was established to protect and nurture children."
But gay rights supporters are fighting back, framing the issue as America's next civil rights battle.
"A constitutional amendment regarding same sex marriage would write discrimination into the governing document of our nation," said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin.
Feingold also called the amendment movement a "divisive political exercise in an election year, plain and simple."
"I object to the use of the constitutional amendment process for political purposes and I am sorry to say that I believe that is what I believe is going on here," Feingold said.
In November, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 4-3 that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry.
Thousands of gay weddings have been performed in San Francisco since February 12, when the city began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Last week, President Bush last week called on Congress to quickly pass an amendment prohibiting gay marriages.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, who effectively wrapped up the Democratic presidential nomination on Tuesday, says he is against gay marriage but would oppose amending the U.S. Constitution to bar it.
Yale University Professor R. Lea Brilmayer said a constitutional amendment to determine what Massachusetts can do within its own borders would be wrong.
"It is for the people of Massachusetts to say what their constitution should say," she said. "This premise is the basic principle of federalism, upon which the American constitutional system as a whole depends."
But other legal experts disagree. Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, who is also expected to testify, said the Massachusetts ruling could invalidate Nebraska's ban on same-sex marriages.
The federal Defense of Marriage Act signed into law in 1996 by President Clinton tried to leave the gay marriage issue up to the states. But Bruning said recent court decisions indicate that federal courts may eventually allow same-sex marriages.
The arguments for and against a constitutional amendment also fall along social and civil rights lines.
Ron Schlittler, policy director for Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, said people trying to build a life together, whether straight or gay, should be treated the same.
Pastor Daniel de Leon Sr. of Santa Ana, California, in testimony prepared for the hearing, said marriage is for the benefit of children, not adults. He said efforts to stop gay marriage are not comparable to past opposition to biracial unions.
"Laws forbidding interracial marriage are about racism," he said. "Laws protecting traditional marriage are about children."
Gay rights groups said efforts to pass an amendment are an affront to civil rights.
"This is politics at its nastiest," said Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign. "It's a shame that the White House is orchestrating hearings to discuss whether gay families should have basic human rights protections."
Copyright 2004 The
Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
