Senator
Sam
Brownback
(R-Kan.)
held
a
hearing
on
Oct.
20
on
a
proposed
amendment
to
the
U.S.
Constitution
to
ban
gay
marriage,
saying
swift
approval
by
Congress
and
the
states
was
needed
to
protect
the
country
from
“judicially
imposed
same-sex
marriage.”
The
hearing
before
the
Senate
Judiciary
Subcommittee
on
the
Constitution,
Civil
Rights
&
Property
Rights
attracted
far
less
media
attention
than
a
similar
hearing
last
year,
prompting
some
gay
rights
groups
to
predict
the
anti-gay
amendment
would
die
in
committee
this
year.
However,
as
the
Blade
went
to
press,
the
full
Senate
Judiciary
Committee
released
an
agenda
for
its
regularly
scheduled
weekly
mark-up
hearing
for
Thursday,
Oct.
27
that
included
the
Marriage
Protection
Amendment
as
one
of
the
agenda
items.
Neither
Senator
Arlen
Specter
(R-Pa.),
chair
of
the
Judiciary
Committee,
nor
a
member
of
his
staff
could
be
reached
by
press
time
to
determine
whether
Specter
plans
to
arrange
for
the
committee
to
vote
on
the
amendment
or
to
modify
it
with
new
legislative
language.
Mark-up
hearings
are
held
to
determine
whether
a
bill
or
amendment
should
be
changed
before
the
committee
holding
the
mark-up
decides
whether
to
approve
it
and
send
it
to
the
floor
for
a
vote
or
defeat
it
in
committee.
Some
supporters
and
opponents
of
the
Marriage
Protection
Amendment
have
proposed
various
changes
for
the
measure.
It
was
unclear
at
press
time
whether
Specter
or
other
committee
members
would
introduce
changes
at
the
mark-up
hearing.
Last
year,
the
Senate
and
House
defeated
the
measure
after
supporters
fell
short
of
obtaining
a
two-thirds
majority
vote
of
approval
needed
to
pass
a
constitutional
amendment.
“It’s
our
understanding
that
this
will
go
nowhere
this
year,”
said
Christopher
Barron,
political
director
for
Log
Cabin
Republicans,
a
national
gay
GOP
group.
Barron
said
Republican
insiders
on
Capitol
Hill
have
told
Log
Cabin
that
the
Senate
and
House
legislative
calendars
are
full
between
now
and
the
end
of
the
year
and
Republican
leaders
in
the
House
and
Senate
have
no
intention
of
bringing
the
amendment
up
for
a
vote
in
2005.
“We
expect
it
may
come
up
next
year,
just
in
time
for
the
2006
midterm
elections,”
Barron
said.
A
staff
member
for
a
Democratic
lawmaker,
who
spoke
on
condition
of
anonymity
because
the
staffer
didn’t
have
authorization
to
speak
to
the
media,agreed
with
Barron’s
assessment.
“Brownback
is
playing
up
to
his
social
conservative
constituency,”
the
staff
member
said.
“Just
one
year
ago,
the
issue
of
marriage
was
center
stage
in
the
national
political
debate,”
said
Brownback,
who
chairs
the
subcommittee.
“When
the
people
spoke
at
the
voting
booth
last
November,
they
approved—by
decisive
majorities—every
one
of
the
11
state
amendments
protecting
traditional
marriage.”
Brownback
said
he
called
the
hearing
to
discuss
what
he
called
“popular
support”
for
protecting
traditional
marriage
and
to
examine
how
a
constitutional
amendment
is
needed
to
stop
“judicial
activism”
by
state
and
federal
courts,which
he
said
have
threatened
the
institution
of
marriage.
Boston
College
law
professor
Scott
FitzGibbon,
Brigham
Young
law
professor
Richard
Wilkins,
and
Marquette
University
political
science
professor
Christopher
Wolfe
all
testified
in
favor
of
the
amendment.
The
three
said
a
constitutional
ban
on
gay
marriage
was
necessary
because
“activist”
federal
judges
were
likely
to
overturn
state
laws
that
ban
same-sex
marriage.
Wilkins
argued
that
the
U.S.
Supreme
Court’s
2003
decision
in
Lawrence
vs.
Texas,
which
overturned
state
sodomy
laws
on
privacy
rights
grounds,
could
open
the
way
for
federal
courts
to
strike
down
state
marriage
laws
banning
same-sex
marriage.
“The
reasoning
in
Lawrence
erodes
democratic
control
of
debatable
—
and
unquestionably
difficult
—
issues
of
moral
concern,”
Wilkins
said.
“Accordingly,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
Lawrence
raises
a
fundamental
question
regarding
the
constitutional
process
for
defining
marriage
in
America.
He
said
court
interpretation
of
Lawrence
in
cases
challenging
state
marriage
laws
has
yet
to
be
determined,
but
a
constitutional
ban
on
gay
marriage
is
needed
to
insure
that
marriage
remains
as
an
institution
between
a
man
and
a
woman
only.
Two
witnesses
invited
by
Senator
Russell
Feingold
(D-Wis.),
the
ranking
Democratic
member
of
the
subcommittee,
testified
against
the
amendment.
Christopher
E.
arris,
an
assistant
professor
of
pediatrics
at
Vanderbilt
University
School
of
Medicine,
aid
a
constitutional
ban
on
gay
marriage
would
be
harmful
to
families
headed
by
same-sex
couples,
especially
children
in
such
families.
“Regardless
of
one’s
individual
feelings
regarding
same-sex
relationships,
I
think
everyone
agrees
that
all
children
need
the
care
and
concern
of
a
loving
family
and
the
legal
protections
this
structure
can
provide,”
Harris
said
in
written
testimony
submitted
to
the
subcommittee.
“I
appear
before
you
today
as
a
pediatrician,
a
father,
and
a
gay
African
American,”
he
said.
He
cited
studies
showing
that
there
is
“no
measurable
effect
on
the
quality
of
parent-child
relationships
or
the
children’s
mental
health
and
successful
socialization”
between
children
raised
by
heterosexual
married
couples
and
those
raised
by
single
or
coupled
gay
parents.
Louis
Michael
Seidman,
a
professor
at
the
Georgetown
University
Law
Center,
said
the
proposed
constitutional
amendment
“reflects
remarkably
poor
lawyering”
and
would
give
unprecedented
power
to
federal
judges
in
the
area
of
domestic
relations
law.
Seidman
argued
that
the
Marriage
Protection
...
