Republican
leaders
in
the
House
and
Senate
said
they
would
have
a
difficult
time
garnering
the
two-thirds
vote
needed
to
pass
a
constitutional
amendment
to
ban
gay
marriage,
despite
President
Bush’s
call
this
week
for
Congress
to
“promptly”
pass
such
an
amendment.
Congressional
observers
said
a
majority
of
Democrats
were
expected
to
vote
against
a
constitutional
ban
on
same-sex
marriage
and
a
significant
but
undetermined
number
of
Republicans
were
expected
to
join
their
Democratic
colleagues
in
opposing
a
marriage
amendment.
“Amending
the
Constitution
is
a
huge
issue,”
Senate
Majority
Leader
Bill
Frist
(R-Tenn.)
said
at
a
Capitol
Hill
press
briefing
Tuesday.
“We’re
going
to
go
about
this
in
a
very
thoughtful
way.”
Prior
to
Bush’s
announcement
this
week
endorsing
a
constitutional
amendment
banning
same-sex
marriage,
GOP
leaders
had
yet
to
set
a
date
for
a
hearing
or
a
vote
on
such
an
amendment.
This
week,
Sen.
John
Cornyn
(R-Texas),
who
chairs
the
Senate
Judiciary
Subcommittee
on
the
Constitution,
announced
he
would
hold
a
hearing
on
March
3
to
“examine
the
national
implications”
of
the
Massachusetts
court
decision
legalizing
same-sex
marriage
in
that
state.
Don
Stewart,
Cornyn’s
press
secretary,
said
Cornyn
plans
to
call
another
hearing
in
late
March
to
discuss
the
Federal
Marriage
Amendment,
the
proposed
constitutional
amendment
banning
gay
marriage
introduced
by
Rep.
Marilyn
Musgrave
(R-Colo.).
But
Stewart
said
Cornyn
and
his
Senate
colleagues,
including
Senator
Orrin
Hatch
(R-Utah),
chair
of
the
full
Senate
Judiciary
Committee,
have
yet
to
set
a
timetable
for
a
final
hearing
to
mark
up
a
proposed
amendment
and
to
send
it
to
the
Senate
floor
for
a
vote.
As
of
late
this
week,
no
date
had
been
set
for
similar
hearings
in
the
House
on
a
marriage
amendment.
Gay
activists
said
they
were
continuing
to
lobby
against
a
constitutional
amendment,
saying
backers
of
an
anti-gay
constitutional
amendment
might
bring
the
measure
to
a
vote
in
the
fall,
just
before
the
presidential
election.
“We
are
working
on
the
assumption
that
this
will
happen,”
said
Winnie
Stachelberg,
political
director
of
the
Human
Rights
Campaign,
the
nation’s
largest
gay
political
group.
Congressman
Barney
Frank
(D-Mass),
who
is
gay
and
works
closely
with
House
Democratic
leaders
to
monitor
lawmakers’
views
on
pending
legislation,
said
he
does
not
believe
supporters
currently
have
the
290
votes
needed
to
pass
a
constitutional
amendment
in
the
House.
As
of
early
this
week,
there
were
112
sponsors
of
the
Musgrave
amendment
in
the
House,
including
105
Republicans
and
7
Democrats.
“I
don’t
see
a
danger
this
year
yet,”
Frank
said
last
week.
“But
we’ll
continue
to
work
on
it.”
A
two-thirds
majority
vote
is
needed
in
the
House
and
Senate
to
pass
a
constitutional
amendment.
If
approved
by
Congress,
three-fourths
of
the
state
legislatures
must
ratify
the
amendment
before
it
would
become
part
of
the
Constitution.
Conservative
Republicans
in
the
Senate
and
House
vowed
to
bring
a
marriage
amendment
to
a
vote
sometime
this
year
after
the
Massachusetts
Supreme
Judicial
Court
issued
its
second
ruling
Feb.
4
ordering
that
state
to
begin
issuing
marriage
licenses
for
same-sex
couples
in
May.
Two
weeks
ago,
Frist
and
House
Majority
Leader
Tom
DeLay
(R-Tex.)
joined
conservative
leaders
in
denouncing
a
decision
by
San
Francisco
Mayor
Gavin
Newsome
to
grant
marriage
licenses
to
same-sex
couples,
clearing
the
way
for
more
than
3,000
gay
weddings
so
far.
Frist
and
DeLay
said
the
developments
in
San
Francisco
would
strengthen
efforts
to
pass
a
federal
constitutional
amendment
banning
gay
marriage.
But
to
the
surprise
of
advocates
on
both
sides
of
the
issue,
House
Republican
leaders
earlier
this
month
put
the
brakes
on
plans
by
Rep.
Steve
Chabot
(R-Ohio)
to
hold
a
hearing
in
late
February
or
early
March
on
the
Federal
Marriage
Amendment.
Chabot
is
chair
of
the
House
Judiciary
Subcommittee
on
the
Constitution,
a
panel
that
would
likely
clear
the
way
for
a
vote
on
a
constitutional
amendment
in
the
full
Judiciary
Committee
and
the
House
floor
if
GOP
leaders
decide
to
advance
the
amendment.
“There’s
nothing
on
the
calendar
for
a
hearing
on
the
Federal
Marriage
Amendment
or
anything
related
to
that,”
said
Catherine
Graham,
one
of
Chabot’s
committee
staff
members.
Election
year
plays
a
role
One
congressional
staffer,
speaking
on
condition
of
anonymity,
said
GOP
leaders
don’t
want
to
create
an
image
of
intolerance
in
the
eyes
of
the
public
by
appearing
too
hostile
toward
gays,
just
as
voters
begin
to
focus
on
the
presidential
election.
“The
Republicans
don’t
want
to
go
back
to
1992,
when
Pat
Buchanan
came
across
as
scary
and
hateful,”
the
staffer
said.
Reaction
to
President
Bush’s
endorsement
of
a
constitutional
amendment
banning
gay
marriage:
“President
Bush’s
endorsement
of
this
mean-spirited
amendment
shows
that
he
is
neither
compassionate
nor
concerned
with
the
rights
of
all
Americans.
Gays
and
lesbians
are
our
neighbors,
our
co-workers,
our
friends.
They
serve
as
firefighters,
police,
doctors
and
professional
athletes.
They
laugh
at
the
same
jokes
and
worry
about
car
payments
and
credit
card
debt.
Amending
the
Constitution
to
deny
them
the
same
rights
we
all
take
for
granted
just
isn’t
very
American.”
Anthony
D.
Romero,
openly
gay
executive
director
of
the
American
Civil
Liberties
Union
“The
amendment
before
Congress
not
only
would
define
marriage,
it
would
jeopardize
civil
unions
and
it
would
potentially
even
jeopardize
domestic
partnership
legislation.
...
You
can’t
discuss
tolerance
and
at
the
same
time
talk
about
writing
discrimination
into
the
Constitution.
The
president
would
have
been
better
today
discussing
an
attack
on
infidelity
and
divorce
than
on
gay
and
lesbian
families.” Patrick
Guerriero,
executive
director
of
the
Log
Cabin
Republicans,
a
gay
partisan
group
“Call
it
same-sex
marriage,
civil
unions
or
domestic
partnership,
it
is
...
The
following comments were posted by our readers and were
not edited by the Washington Blade. We ask that you
treat others with respect; any post deemed offensive will
be removed.
“
