With
an
expected
Senate
vote
on
the
Federal
Marriage
Amendment
less
than
two
weeks
away,
Virginia
Republican
George
Allen
has
announced
he
plans
to
support
the
measure,
ending
several
months
of
indecision
over
the
matter.
In
April,
Allen
said
he
would
only
support
the
FMA,
which
would
ban
same-sex
marriage,
as
a
“last
resort.”
But
he
told
the
Associated
Press
last
week
that
federal
law
was
unlikely
to
protect
the
traditional
definition
of
marriage
based
on
research
and
legal
developments.
“Unfortunately,
the
last
resort
of
amending
the
Constitution
will
be
necessary
to
effectuate
that
goal,”
Allen
said.
He
expressed
his
concern
that
judges
“will
be
making
these
decisions
and
obviating,
negating
the
will
of
the
people
in
the
states.”
Allen
has
long
opposed
marriage
rights
for
gay
couples.
But
he
did
not
initially
join
GOP
colleagues
sponsoring
the
FMA
and
earlier
this
year
said
that
the
Defense
of
Marriage
Act,
passed
in
1996,
was
sufficient
in
protecting
marriage.
Some
say
that
Allen,
who
was
undecided
on
the
amendment
for
months,
was
likely
feeling
pressure
from
conservative
colleagues
and
lobby
groups
for
casting
a
favorable
vote
in
June
to
add
“sexual
orientation”
as
a
protected
category
to
the
federal
hate
crime
law.
“We
met
with
him
and
urged
him
not
to
let
that
political
heat
push
him
into
a
position
where
he
felt
he
had
to
support
some
version
of
this
amendment,
but
I
think
that
is
the
reason
why
he
supported
it,”
said
David
Lampo,
president
of
the
Virginia
Log
Cabin
Republicans,
a
gay
partisan
group.
“He
is,
however,
worried
about
his
religious-based
supporters
and
he
is
responding
in
a
way
that
we
don’t
support.”
GOP
leaders
in
Congress
have
indicated
they
will
schedule
a
vote
on
the
FMA
sometime
during
the
week
of
July
12.
Sen.
John
Warner
(R),
the
other
senator
from
Virginia,
remains
undecided
about
the
FMA.
John
Ullyot,
a
spokesperson
for
Warner,
said
that
while
the
senator
believes
marriage
should
remain
the
union
of
one
man
and
one
woman,
he
“thinks
Congress
must
proceed
with
great
caution
anytime
it
considers
amending
the
Constitution.”
Lampo
said
that
after
a
meeting
with
Warner,
“he
seems
to
be
genuinely
undecided”
on
the
issue.
In
Maryland,
Democratic
Sen.
Barbara
A.
Mikulksi,
who
has
a
generally
pro-gay
voting
record,
has
not
issued
a
position
on
the
Federal
Marriage
Amendment,
and
her
office
did
not
respond
to
repeated
Blade
inquiries
on
the
subject.
A
spokesperson
for
the
state’s
other
Senate
Democrat,
Paul
S.
Sarbanes,
said
the
senator
will
oppose
the
FMA.
Equality
Maryland,
a
gay
rights
group,
is
asking
its
members
to
contact
Mikulski
and
Sarbanes
to
urge
them
to
oppose
the
FMA.
Last
week,
the
House
Subcommittee
on
the
Constitution
heard
from
two
social
conservatives
who
have
long
opposed
gay
rights.
Phyllis
Schafly,
president
of
the
Eagle
Forum,
testified
in
support
of
the
FMA
along
with
former
Rep.
Bill
Dannemeyer
(R-Calif.).
The
Human
Rights
Campaign,
the
nation’s
largest
gay
rights
group,
noted
that
Schafly
once
said
gays
should
not
work
in
the
food-handling
business
and
that
Dannemeyer
once
compared
the
gay
rights
movement
to
Nazi
Germany.
“Featuring
testimony
by
two
long-time
opponents
of
equality
proves
the
argument
that
this
is
about
discrimination,”
said
Cheryl
Jacques,
president
of
the
Human
Rights
Campaign.
“Using
the
Constitution
to
deny
Americans
the
right
to
marry
would
undermine
the
Constitution
itself
—
a
document
meant
to
ensure
our
freedoms,
not
take
them
away.”
Citing
a
General
Accounting
Office
report,
Schafly
said,
“man-woman
marital
relationship
is
integral
to
the
Social
Security
system
and
pervasive
to
our
system
of
taxation.”
“The
widespread
social
and
familial
consequences
of
DOMA
also
impact
on
adoption,
child
custody,
veterans
benefits
and
the
tax-free
inheritance
of
a
spouse’s
estate,”
said
Schafly,
whose
son
was
outed
in
the
early
‘90s.
“We
know
that
Congress
has
the
unquestioned
power
to
prevent
an
activist
judge
from
doing
what
all
your
previous
witnesses
have
predicted.
…
It
is
imperative
that
Congress
stop
federal
judges
from
asserting
judicial
supremacy
over
our
rights
of
self-government,”
she
said.
Last
week,
the
National
Coalition
of
African-American
Ministers
held
a
news
conference
on
Capitol
Hill
to
voice
its
support
for
the
FMA.
Meanwhile,
another
news
conference,
sponsored
by
HRC
and
the
National
Black
Justice
Coalition,
was
also
held
on
Capitol
Hill
and
featured
black
clergy
supportive
of
gay
and
lesbian
equality.
Jasmyne
Cannick,
media
director
of
the
National
Black
Justice
Coalition,
said
that
social
conservatives
and
evangelical
Christians
are
pressuring
African-American
churches
to
support
the
FMA.
“There
is
definite
pressure,”
Cannick
said.
“I
don’t
see
that
African
Americans
would
support
writing
discrimination
into
the
Constitution
just
because
of
what
we
as
a
people,
historically
speaking,
have
experienced.”
Donna
Payne,
who
serves
as
HRC’s
senior
constituency
organizer
and
chairs
the
National
Black
Justice
Coalition’s
religious
committee,
said
that
African-American
churches
are
typically
very
conservative,
but
are
quiet
about
gay
and
lesbian
issues.
“The
nature
of
the
church
is
not
to
talk
about
it,”
Payne
said.
“There’s
a
shame
around
it.
But
these
other
churches
are
going
further
and
telling
them
that
if
we
receive
the
right
to
marry,
then
we
can
come
to
their
churches
and
demand
that
they
marry
us.
“Some
ministers
are
really
thinking
that
if
we
get
this
right,
black
gay
people
are
going
to
rush
to
their
churches
and
demand
marriage,”
she
said.
“Well,
that
is
not
true.”
Pastor
Vick
Bolton
of
World
Changers
Church
International
in
College
Park,
Ga.,
who
attended
last
week’s
news
conference
of
African-American
ministers
who
support
the
FMA,
said
black
churches
are
not
being
“pre-empted
or
co-opted
by
conservatives.”

‘My
opinion
is
that
I
don’t
care
one
way
or
the
other,’
said
California
Gov.
Arnold
Schwarzenegger,
...
|
 |
|
|
|