Oct 28, 2005  |  By: LOU CHIBBARO JR.  | COMMENTS     

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.

Political theater

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 ...