New push for marriage

Allard again seeking amendment banning same-sex unions

M.E. Sprengelmeyer, Rocky Mountain News

Published June 6, 2006 at midnight

Text size

More Local News

More stories »

WASHINGTON - Sen. Wayne Allard squared off against dismissive critics Monday as the U.S. Senate renewed debate over his proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Allard, a Loveland Republican, defended the need to hold the debate even though he has conceded the amendment is likely to fail and several Democrats said the measure is only a divisive, election-year ploy.

"It's not about politics or discrimination," Allard told his colleagues on the floor of the U.S. Senate. "It's about marriage and democracy."

Allard is making his second attempt in two years to win passage of a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

It is designed, Allard said, to pre-empt future court decisions he fears could force states to recognize same-sex marriages such as those allowed in Massachusetts under a decision by that state's Supreme Court.

"Make no mistake about it, traditional marriage is under assault," Allard said during the debate, which started shortly after President Bush made a speech calling on Congress to forward an amendment to the states.

The president said the amendment was needed "so we can take this issue out of the hands of over-reaching judges and put it back where it belongs - in the hands of the American people."

Bush cited the 45 states that have upheld the traditional definition of marriage, either through statutes or state constitutional amendments.

"The people have spoken," Bush said. "Unfortunately, this consensus is being undermined by activist judges and local officials who have struck down state laws protecting marriage and made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage."

Critics claim the proposed amendment would write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution.

"For me, clearly the reason for this debate is to divide this society, pit one against the other," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

The ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., recited a list of issues that he said was being ignored during the marriage debate, including the war in Iraq, gas prices, health care costs and other issues.

"We're not going to talk about any of those things," Leahy said. "That's a testament to misplaced priorities" by Republicans.

With a procedural vote scheduled for Wednesday morning, the amendment appears destined to be shelved, just like it was in 2004. It would take 67 votes for Senate passage - something Allard has conceded he does not have.

Allard has defended the need for a campaign-season vote, saying it's important to put lawmakers on the record and keep the issue moving forward. Critics say that might backfire against Republicans this year.

"I think there's more of a fatigue in the American public about Republicans using divisive issues," said John Marble, spokesman for the National Stonewall Democrats, which focuses on gay rights. "They see it as Republicans being more concerned about politics than policy."

During a news conference last month, Allard denied that political concerns played a role in the timing of the vote. But he said he believed the issue has helped the GOP make inroads with African-American voters who favor the amendment's traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.

In the 2004 elections, gay marriage was one of the issues that prompted James Dobson, founder of the Colorado Springs-based evangelical Christian group Focus on the Family, to campaign to elect Republicans. Since then, Dobson often has put Republicans on notice that they should not ignore the interests of religious conservatives who helped elect them.

Tom Minnery, vice president of public policy for Focus on the Family, said activists have been pushing for a vote on the marriage amendment even if it does not have enough support to pass this year.

"We want to put the Senate and House on record. Let's see where they stand on the traditional definition of marriage," Minnery said.

Focus on the Family recently launched advertisements to put pressure on lawmakers like Sen. Ken Salazar, a Denver Democrat who opposes the constitutional amendment. Still, even Minnery said the political landscape is different than it was in 2004.

"It's going to be a different year, (and) for issues that transcend just the social conservative agenda," Minnery said. "It's the immigration issue that has a lot of people scratching their heads. And I think the issue of gasoline prices has people wondering why we don't drill in our own country.

"There's a whole range of issues that make this a problematic year. It's not just a question of the marriage (issue)."

Colorado has state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Supporters, however, are proposing a state constitutional marriage amendment, which would be less vulnerable to a court challenge.

In the U.S. Senate

• What would the amendment do? It would define marriage nationally as being between a man and a woman and prevent courts from forcing any state to allow civil unions or other partnership arrangements for same-sex couples.

• What is its status? A procedural vote Wednesday morning could either advance it to a final vote or put it on the shelf for the second time in two years.

• What's needed for ratification? The Senate and House of Representatives would have to pass it by two-thirds majorities, and then it would have to be approved by legislatures or constitutional conventions in three-quarters (38) of the states.

• What happens if it passes? State legislatures still could grant civil union or domestic partnership rights to same-sex couples, but same-sex "marriage" would be banned everywhere in the country.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News