Gay lawmaker Frank speaks out against amendment

By The Associated Press and Los Angeles Times

	J. SCOTT APPLEWHITE / AP Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., clasps his hands over his face after testifying on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Rep. John Lewis is at right.
	E-mail this article Print this article Search archive

WASHINGTON — Speaking in highly personal terms, a gay member of Congress yesterday challenged supporters of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages, asking "who are we hurting" when homosexuals want to express the same emotional commitment as other Americans.

"All we are saying is, 'Please, can't we in our lives do this?' " said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. "When I go home from today's work and I choose, because of my nature, to associate with another man, how is that a problem for you? How does that hurt you?"

He drew no immediate reply from Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans supporting the proposed amendment.

Frank's appeal was unusual in Congress, where lawmakers clash on matters of politics and policy but seldom refer to their personal lives — much less sexual orientation — in an attempt to influence legislation.

Although congressional approval of a constitutional ban on gay marriage is considered unlikely this year, the hearings marked a new round in the intensifying struggle over the issue as the 2004 election campaign intensifies. Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle accused supporters of the amendment of seeking to use it for political gain.

Sen. Wayne Allard and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, the Colorado Republicans who are the amendment's main sponsors, said it is needed to curb the power of "activist judges" seeking to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who presided over the hearing, agreed, saying: "These activists have given us no choice. Either we define marriage in the Constitution or they will redefine it for us, and the people will lose out."

"The issue of marriage is the purview of the states, not of the federal government," countered Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Throughout U.S. history, she said, "the states have proved entirely capable of dealing with this issue."

The issue has gained momentum after the court ruling in Massachusetts, a spate of same-sex marriages in San Francisco and elsewhere, and President Bush's call for Congress to vote on a proposed amendment.

Polls consistently show the public opposes gay marriage. But the division of opinion is far closer on the question of a constitutional ban, and Republicans appear eager to require Senate Democrats to vote publicly on the issue.
 
Frank's home state has played a major role in the national debate on gay marriage in recent months, after a ruling by Massachusetts' highest court that the state's constitution guarantees gay couples the right to marry. The Legislature is laboring to write a constitutional amendment on the issue, with a public referendum to follow.

"If people decide to allow it, you who do the constitutional amendment will cancel the rights of the people of Massachusetts, and I do not think that is an appropriate response to make here," Frank said. "And certainly not to the threat that millions of people are threatening to commit love."

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company