Disagreements
surfaced
among
supporters
of
a
constitutional
amendment
banning
gay
marriage
last
week
as
five
Republican
lawmakers
introduced
a
version
of
the
amendment
into
the
Senate
identical
to
the
one
introduced
earlier
this
year
in
the
House.
Gay
civil
rights
attorneys
said
the
House
and
Senate
proposal
—
called
the
Federal
Marriage
Amendment
—
would
wipe
out
all
of
the
nation’s
domestic
partner
laws
and
Vermont’s
civil
unions
law
as
well
as
ban
gay
marriage.
But
a
coalition
of
religious
right
groups
said
the
proposed
amendment
was
not
strong
enough.
The
coalition,
calling
itself
the
Arlington
Group,
after
holding
its
first
meeting
in
Arlington,
Va.,
proposed
a
more
harshly
worded
version
that
specifically
bans
states
and
the
federal
government
from
offering
marriage
related
benefits
or
rights
to
people
in
“non-marital
sexual
relationships.”
Meanwhile,
Matt
Daniels,
president
of
the
Alliance
for
Marriage,
a
bipartisan
coalition
that
drafted
the
version
of
the
amendment
introduced
in
the
House
and
Senate,
said
the
coalition’s
intent
was
to
define
marriage
in
the
Constitution
as
a
union
only
between
a
man
and
woman.
According
to
Daniels,
coalition
members
never
intended
to
ban
gay
civil
unions
or
domestic
partner
benefits,
and
they
don’t
believe
their
amendment
would
do
that.
However,
in
response
to
assertions
by
gay
civil
rights
attorneys
and
other
legal
experts,
Daniels
has
said
the
coalition
is
working
on
a
more
narrowly
worded
version
of
the
amendment.
The
soon-to-be-released
amendment
would
make
it
clear
that
civil
unions
and
domestic
partnership
arrangements
created
by
legislative
bodies
would
not
be
invalidated,
Daniels
told
the
Washington
Post
last
week.
Christopher
Anders,
an
attorney
with
the
American
Civil
Liberties
Union’s
Lesbian
&
Gay
Rights
Project,
said
the
version
of
the
amendment
introduced
in
the
House
and
Senate
would
effectively
overturn
all
domestic
partner
and
civil
unions
laws.
Anders
said
the
amendment,
while
not
directly
repealing
such
laws,
would
render
them
null
and
void
by
preventing
a
court
from
upholding
them
if
they
come
under
legal
challenge.
The
proposed
constitutional
amendment
states,
“Marriage
in
the
United
States
shall
consist
only
of
the
union
of
a
man
and
a
woman.
Neither
this
constitution,
nor
the
constitution
of
any
state,
nor
state
or
federal
law,
shall
be
construed
to
require
the
marital
status
or
the
legal
incidents
thereof
be
conferred
upon
unmarried
couples
or
groups.”
Anders
called
the
second
sentence
of
the
proposed
amendment
a
sweeping
prohibition
that
would
invalidate
virtually
all
of
the
domestic
partner
laws
passed
in
dozens
of
cities
and
states.
He
said
it
would
also
invalidate
Vermont’s
civil
unions
law.
The
Arlington
Group,
a
social
conservative
organization,
has
called
for
retaining
these
two
sentences
while
adding
a
third,
which
it
says
is
needed
to
prevent
the
creation
of
a
“substitute
marriage”
for
gays
without
providing
a
similar
arrangement
for
straights.
The
group’s
proposed
add-on
sentence
states,
“Neither
the
federal
government
nor
any
state
shall
predicate
benefits,
privileges,
rights
or
immunities
on
the
existence,
recognition
or
presumption
of
non-marital
sexual
relationships.”
Charles
Colson,
a
former
Nixon
administration
official
and
member
of
the
Arlington
Group,
told
the
Post
the
sentence
proposed
by
the
group
would
allow
state
legislatures
to
establish
civil
unions
if
they
provide
the
same
civil
union
benefits
to
“any
two
people
who
live
together,”
including
“an
unmarried
heterosexual
couple
or
two
old
spinsters.”
The
Human
Rights
Campaign,
the
nation’s
largest
gay
political
group,
says
it
remains
hopeful
that
backers
of
the
Federal
Marriage
Amendment
or
any
of
the
other
proposed
amendments
will
be
unable
to
obtain
the
two-thirds
vote
needed
in
the
House
and
Senate
to
pass
such
an
amendment.
Winnie
Stachelberg,
HRC’s
political
director,
said
informal
headcounts
conducted
by
HRC
and
its
congressional
allies
indicate
supporters
have
yet
to
line
up
enough
support
to
pass
a
constitutional
amendment
in
either
the
House
or
Senate.
Anders
said
gay
U.S.
Reps.
Barney
Frank
(D-Mass.)
and
Tammy
Baldwin
(D-Wis.)
have
conducted
their
own
survey
of
House
members
and
found
more
than
one-third
of
House
members
expressed
opposition
to
a
constitutional
amendment
banning
gay
marriage.
 |
| Sen.
Wayne
Allard
(R-Colo.)
is
one
of
the
lead
sponsors
of
a
constitutional
amendment
that
would
ban
gay
marriage.
Some
legal
experts
say
the
amendment
would
also
prohibit
government-issued
civil
unions
and
domestic
partner
benefits. |
Speaker
of
the
House
Dennis
Hastert
(R-Ill.)
said
he
supports
the
idea
of
a
constitutional
amendment
to
ban
same-sex
marriage,
but
said
Congress
should
wait
until
the
Defense
of
Marriage
Act
is
tested
in
the
courts
before
moving
ahead
with
a
constitutional
amendment.
The
Defense
of
Marriage
Act,
or
DOMA,
defines
marriage
under
federal
laws
as
a
union
between
a
man
and
a
woman.
Congress
passed
the
act
in
1996
by
a
lopsided
margin
and
President
Bill
Clinton
signed
it.
“When
it’s
tested
in
the
courts,
that
will
be
the
law
of
the
land,”
Hastert
said
Nov.
24
on
the
Fox
News
network.
“However,
if
it’s
not,
then
we’ll
have
to
go
to
a
constitutional
amendment,”
he
said.
Hastert
added,
“It’s
a
long,
hard
process
and
it’s
difficult
to
do.
It’s
not
a
sure
shot.”
To
the
dismay
...
