Whether to amend the U.S. Constitution to outlaw gay marriages is a question that's provoking arguments across the country. But it's one the public will never vote on directly. The idea -- proposed last week by President Bush -- would ultimately be decided by state legislators in at least 38 states, assuming it gets enough support in Congress first.

There is no guarantee that an amendment would win wide support. While some legislators in conservative states say there's passionate support for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, others say that altering one of the nation's founding documents raises troubling questions.

``There's a number of people that are out there ... in the Legislature, that have strong feelings and opinions on this. But as far as using the Constitution to express those feelings, I don't think there's as much support,'' said Chuck Gipp, the GOP leader in the Iowa House.

Already, Iowa and 13 other states are seeking this year to amend their state constitutions to ban same-sex marriages. But if Indiana is any clue, it'll be a tough fight.

Last week, Democrats in the state House refused to let a Republican leader speak on amending the state constitution, spurring GOP members to walk out; Democrats heckled them as they left. ``This is the most critical piece of the people's business,'' shouted GOP Rep. Brian Bosma.

That's in a state where only a simple majority is required for an amendment to pass. Democrats control a bare majority in the House, and Republicans control the Senate.

At least eight states require super-majorities of three-fifths or more of all legislators in each chamber, making the requirement for three-quarters of states to ratify a federal constitutional amendment even more difficult.

``It's a high hurdle,'' said Alan Rosenthal, an expert in legislatures at the Eagleton Institute of Politics at New Jersey's Rutgers University. ``What's going to drive it is events. If there's significant undermining of the status of marriage in California or Massachusetts, I think that will have a big impact on the states.''

States in recent years have already acted broadly in opposition to the prospect of same-sex marriages, passing so-called Defense of Marriage laws in 38 states. And four have already amended their own constitutions to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

But the developments in Massachusetts, where the state's top court ruled that the state constitution requires recognition of gay marriages, and in San Francisco, where the city has challenged the state's law refusing to recognize such marriages, have taken the issue to a new level.

Bush's call to amend the Constitution raised the stakes that much higher. Seven states already are debating resolutions that would ask Congress to seek a constitutional amendment.

``I hope that this election year rhetoric will run smack dab into reality and cooler heads will prevail,'' said South Carolina state Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, a Democrat. ``People will understand that this document has served us well for over 230 years.''

But Republicans in her state say the mood is clear: ``It would pass overwhelmingly,'' said GOP state Rep. Jim Harrison, who oversees the House Judiciary Committee. Legislators are also moving ahead on a bill to bar recognition of legal benefits for domestic partners.

The rules for a constitutional amendment require a two-thirds majority in each house of Congress before it goes to the states. Three-quarters of the states must ratify (or, in a variation, could be asked to hold constitutional conventions).

Governors' signatures are not required under the Constitution.

Many amendments have been proposed and argued, but few have actually gone to the states. The most celebrated recent failure -- the Equal Rights Amendment, which would have enshrined equality between men and women -- missed by three states, winning ratification in only 35.

``It will be a very difficult and potentially divisive debate both in Congress and in the states, should it ever get out to the states,'' said Seth Kilbourn, national field director with the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign. ``The American public is split on this issue. There is clearly no consensus for amending the Constitution.''

Gipp, in Iowa, said the writers of the Constitution intended it to be a slower, drawn-out process to ensure wide support and thorough discussion.

``When you're dealing with the Constitution, it should be tough to change that,'' Gipp said. ``It takes away that reactionary feeling, that split-second reaction and replaces it with an orderly, thoughtful process, a cooling off process.''

Send mail to email@gaypasg.org with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 1998 - 2008 Gay & Lesbian Political Action & Support Groups
Last modified: June 21, 2008 by Outstanding Web Stuff