This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2004, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
WASHINGTON - It's an arranged marriage and here comes the divide.
The U.S. Senate is scheduled to hold a bellwether vote on a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage this week, an exercise fueled more by cultural symbolism than political reality, since members on both sides generally expect the measure won't get the two-thirds majority needed for passage.
But neither side in the fight is downplaying the significance of what promises to be a passionate debate culminating in a vote expected Tuesday or Wednesday, with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch of Utah playing a prominent role for the Republican majority pushing for the amendment.
"How this vote plays out will define the rest of the war," said Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, which last week launched the latest wave of a multimillion-dollar national ad campaign opposing the amendment.
"This is the first skirmish line that has been drawn, and no matter how the vote comes out, it's not the end of it," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a coalition of 50 pro-family organizations that is also spending millions on ad campaigns in nine states targeting senators who are lukewarm to the amendment.
While many lawmakers in both parties oppose gay nuptials, there is no clear consensus whether a constitutional amendment is needed or whether a crisis exists requiring such drastic action.
Democrats and opponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment have cited national polls that indicate most Americans believe there are more pressing issues - such as the economy, health care and terrorism - that Congress should concern itself with rather than same-sex couples. But the Republican leadership has maintained that because of the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay weddings in the Bay State last month, a proliferation of states may adopt a de facto policy of support for same-sex marriage, creating a legal chaos while undermining the role of traditional husband-wife marriages and families.
Hatch, whose committee has held four hearings on same-sex marriage in the past 10 months, said 11 states are embroiled in court challenges to their laws prohibiting gay marriage, and in Florida, a challenge has been filed against the current federal law that bans same-sex marriage, the 1996 bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act.
"Courts and renegade public officials, not conservative activists, have made this a national issue, and if we are to protect and strengthen the institution of marriage, there appears to be no way around a constitutional solution to this problem," Hatch said.
Although opposed to gay marriage, Hatch and fellow Utah Republican Sen. Bob Bennett did not rush to embrace President Bush's call in February for a constitutional amendment. Hatch said he wanted to develop alternative language to give states the right to decide what marriages they would recognize, and Bennett wanted to investigate legislative alternatives.
As Republican leaders pushed to make gay marriage a marquee issue before the Democratic National Convention in Boston this month, Hatch shelved his alternative language and Bennett has joined fellow members of Senate GOP leadership in coming out firmly in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment.
But Republicans are far from united on the question of whether altering America's charter for democracy is needed. While social conservatives support the amendment, some conservatives say it's an overreaction. Former Republican Congressman Bob Barr of Georgia says GOP lawmakers can't preach against federal encroachment on states rights when they're pushing to have Uncle Sam rewrite the marriage laws of all 50 states.
"Federalism means that, unless the Constitution says otherwise, states are sovereign," said Barr. "This pertains to marriage."
Pollster Geoff Garin, whose firm was contracted by the Human Rights Campaign to survey Americans' attitudes on the issue, said while the GOP has pushed to bring the question of gay marriage to the forefront in this election year, "it's much more divisive within Republican ranks than among Democrats."
And Democrats are using every opportunity to attack Republicans over the way the majority party has orchestrated this week's high-profile vote. Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee have asked Hatch why he is letting the Republican leadership bypass the normal committee review and send the Federal Marriage Amendment directly to the floor for a vote.
In a June 25 letter to Hatch, the minority members reminded him of a 1979 speech he gave on the Senate floor protesting the then-majority Democrats' attempt to bring a constitutional amendment allowing for direct election of the President and Vice President to the floor for a vote without running it through the Judiciary Committee first.
"To bypass the committee is, I think, to denigrate the committee process, especially when an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, the most important document in the history of the nation, is involved," Hatch said at the time.
When Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., pressed Hatch during a recent committee business meeting why he would allow such a "serious mistake and unfortunate breach of tradition
the gay marriage amendment bypassing the committee, Hatch replied: "The leadership has decided that is the way they are going handle it, and that is all I have to say about it."
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., interjected: "You are part of the leadership."
Amused, Hatch replied: "I am?"
Sen. Patrick Leahy, the committee's ranking Democrat, added with a smile: "Yes, and we are proud of you. We are not going to let them steamroll you."
Said Hatch: "This is a first."