

A group lobbying for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage concedes that its chances are slim with Democrats controlling Congress. So now it's setting its sights on state legislatures. The Washington, D.C.–based Alliance for Marriage wants to build a nationwide network of state lawmakers who would support a constitutional amendment, the group's leaders said Monday in an interview with the Associated Press.
''There is no question that the shift in the balance of power in Washington has, for the time being, made it difficult to reintroduce the federal amendment in Congress,'' said Matt Daniels, the group's founder and president.
But voters in several states approved ballot questions opposing same-sex marriage. And ultimately, three fourths of state legislatures would have to approve an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
''We believe the day is coming when the Marriage Protection Amendment will be sent to the states,'' said Bob Adams, vice president of the alliance. ''The time to organize for that is now, not 10 years down the road.''
Arline Isaacson, a leader of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, acknowledged the anti–marriage equality lobby has had success in state legislatures, 45 of which already have passed laws or constitutional amendments prohibiting marriage for gay and lesbian couples.
The antigay groups ''are extremely well-funded and very well-organized,'' Isaacson said. ''I don't doubt they will happily pour those resources into preliminary organization of the states.''
Massachusetts is the only state in the country that allows same-sex marriage. Connecticut, New Jersey, and Vermont allow civil unions for same-sex couples.
But Massachusetts lawmakers voted at the end of the last session to allow further consideration on a proposed constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage.
''We are fighting with everything we've got to preserve our marriage rights,'' Isaacson said, although she acknowledged that marriage equality supporters do not currently have enough votes to prevent the amendment's passage. (David Weber, AP)
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.
Be the first to comment on this story.
If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.
All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.
See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.
Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.