PLACE A CLASSIFIED AD  |  WHERE TO FIND THE BLADE    |   WASHBLADE ON MYSPACE    |   RSS  
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2008
 
Please login or create a new account
  ?
Holiday Gift Guide - Issue One
HOME
CLASSIFIEDS
AUTO GUIDE

THE LATEST
BLADEWIRE
BLADEBLOG
BLOGWATCH
NEWS
 LOCAL
 NATIONAL
 WORLD NEWS
 VIEWPOINT
 ENTERTAINMENT
 ECLIPSE
 OUT IN DC
 CALENDARS
 FITNESS BY GENRE
 BITCH SESSION














EMAIL UPDATES
New to email
updates? Then click here to find out more.
email address

subscribe
unsubscribe
I have read and agree to our terms
and conditions
.


ADVERTISING
GENERAL INFO
E-EDITION
MARKETING

ABOUT US
ABOUT THE BLADE
MASTHEAD
EMPLOYMENT

 

 

 


MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR
LOU CHIBBARO JR.


MORE INFO

MORE INFO

Sen. Sam Brownback
303 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-6521
http://brownback.senate.gov

Sen. Russ Feingold
506 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-5323
http://feingold.senate.gov





Printer-friendly Version

Letter to the Editor

Sound Off about this article







 

MORE NATIONAL

‘Never give up’
Protesters hit the streets as Prop 8 challenged in court

Gay couples married in Calif. speak out on Prop 8
‘We all deserve the rights and dignities that come with marriage’

Gay volunteers helped Obama in battlegrounds
Obama Pride groups mushroomed into army of workers

Will Obama name gay DNC head?
Hildebrand a possible successor to Dean; Nunn assisting with Pentagon transition

National news in brief
Foley breaks silence on scandal


NATIONAL

Marriage ban gets new Senate hearing
Measure could abolish all marriages in Massachusetts

LOU CHIBBARO JR.
Friday, October 28, 2005

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 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 ...

continued on next page


1  |  2

 

email   password
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.


 

national | local | world | arts | classifieds | real estate | about us

© 2008 | A Window Media LLC Publication | Privacy Policy