By Bob Roehr
The Senate Judiciary Committee turned again to the subject of same-sex marriage and the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) to the Constitution that would ban it. This time it was a June 22 meeting of the full committee, chaired by Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
'Traditional marriage is under attack,' asserted Hatch in his opening statement. 'Courts and renegade public officials, not conservative activists, have made this a national issue. If we are to protect and strengthen the institution of marriage, there appears to be no way around the constitutional solution to this problem.'
Reflecting on the fact that Massachusetts began to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on May 17, he said, 'The point is not that civilization will come to a screeching halt, but that people begin an unprecedented and unwise slide into accepting a divorce between marriage and child-rearing. For this reason, many believe same-sex marriage will likely act to undermine the health of families over time.'
Ranking Democrat Patrick Leahy (Vermont) lambasted the hearing and the amendment as politics pure and simple. 'This debate is not about preserving the sanctity of marriage, it is about preserving a Republican White House and Senate.'
He chastised the Committee for finding time to hold four hearings on same-sex marriage 'Instead of hearings on the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the FBI's troubling and costly computer problems, FBI lab problems, FBI foreign translation problems, and the bipartisan SAFE Act.'
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney devoted most of his opening statement to a factual recitation of the course of events in that state, characterizing the Court's decision as 'a fundamental break with all of our laws, experiences and traditions,' which he opposes.
He raised some of the issues of how the state might spend federal money and qualify beneficiaries for programs. 'For example, we have been told that we cannot use federal funds to provide meals for an elderly same-sex spouse if the person's eligibility for the services is due to their spousal status.'
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prohibits recognition of same-sex marriage for federal programs, can cut both ways. While spousal status does not qualify one for eligibility for Medicaid, when it comes to meeting income eligibility criteria, only the applicant's income, not the family or spousal income counts toward that ceiling of eligibility to receive benefits.
Similarly, 'CMS [the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] has notified us that federal transfer of asset rules regarding spouses will not apply, nor will spousal impoverishment provisions apply to same-sex spouses.'
Romney called for 'An amendment that restores and protects our societal definition of marriage, blocks judges from changing that definition and then, consistent with the principles of federalism, leaves other policy issues regarding marriage to state legislatures.'
BARR'S RESPONSE
Bob Barr, the conservative Republican and former congressman from Georgia, was the sole witness to speak against the FMA. He was disturbed by the rush to get it to a vote on the floor of the Senate. 'I urge you, Mr. Chairman, to oppose efforts to circumvent your Committee on an issue of such monumental, lasting and wide-ranging importance.'
He harshly criticized the actions of San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom and the Massachusetts Supreme Court in pushing for gay marriage. 'However, some of my fellow social conservatives are today pulling a 'Newsom' with the Federal Marriage Amendment, and even more indefensible from a conservative perspective, they are trying to use the Constitution as their tool.'
Barr then turned his attention to Mitt Romney. 'The Governor is pleading for this Congress and the federal government to protect him against the Massachusetts state constitution, the Massachusetts legislature, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and most ironically, the people of Massachusetts if they eventually ratify the proposed Massachusetts constitutional amendment.'
He invoked federalism in arguing against the FMA. 'Marriage is a quintessential state issue.' And Barr worried, 'If we begin to treat the Constitution as our personal sandbox, in which to build and destroy castles as we please, we risk diluting the grandeur of having a Constitution in the first place.'
Barr acknowledged 'the erosion of the nuclear family ... . Restoring stability to these families is a tough problem, and requires careful, thoughtful and, yes, tough solutions. But homosexual couples seeking to marry did not cause this problem, and the Federal Marriage Amendment cannot be the solution.'
Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign and a former Massachusetts state senator said, 'Clearly you do not have to support same-sex marriage rights to be against the FMA. Bob Barr and I see eye-to-eye that this amendment would undermine our Constitution.'
'Not one more dime of taxpayer money should be wasted debating a discriminatory amendment that its sponsors already admit has no chance of passing,' said Patrick Guerriero, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans. 'It is an abuse of the Constitutional process and a disservice to the American people to ignore the important business pending before the Senate in order to play politics with our nation's founding document.'
The Senate Republican leadership has said they will schedule a vote on the FMA in mid-July, though it is not clear what language will be put to a vote. The confusion is in part because the leadership is bypassing a vote in the Judiciary Committee, which would clarify the situation.
Two Republican members of the Committee have stated their opposition to the FMA, so it is likely that the leadership would lose that vote. They have chosen a strategy that avoids such a display of weakness.
Social conservatives continue to assert that politics is not involved in scheduling a vote on the FMA immediately prior to the Democratic National Convention, but few observers buy that argument, they say it's all about politics.
One concern is whether Sen. John Kerry, the presumed Democratic nominee for president, will be present to vote on the amendment or whether he conveniently will be on the campaign trail.
There also is a growing fear among gay advocates that Democratic Leader Tom Daschle will renege on his stated opposition to the FMA and vote for it. The vote may be an issue in his tight reelection campaign. If Daschle caves in to right-wing pressure then several other Democrats are likely to follow.
