Related articles and links |  1 of 3

"I saw him across the room and that was it," Voorheis says of his partner, Michael Sabatino. A year later in 1979, the two walked down the aisle of Washington Square Methodist Church in New York City after a commitment ceremony that included Gospel readings, hymns, and the Lord's Prayer.

Voorheis and Sabatino say they are pioneers in a movement that seeks equal recognition and legal rights for same-sex couples who want to wed. Both gay-marriage advocates and traditional marriage activists are stepping up their activity in courtrooms and statehouses across the county.

In July, for example, two lesbians living in Massachusetts became the first American couple to travel to the Netherlands to avail themselves of that nation's new homosexual marriage law. The couple is expected to seek recognition in Massachusetts courts.

Also in July, conservative forces began a new phase of the struggle against gay marriage when the Alliance for Marriage, a nonprofit educational organization, proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The proposed Federal Marriage Amendment is backed by a racially and religiously diverse coalition that includes Catholic Richard Neuhaus, Baptist Rich Cizik, and Muslim Aly Abu Zaakah, among 40 others.

"[Homosexual marriage] is a direct attack on the family as an institution," says Bishop George McKinney of the Church of God in Christ, one of the nation's largest African-American denominations. "The idea that marriage can be redefined because some people choose to live a different lifestyle is, in my opinion, utter foolishness."

The proposed amendment states: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

Supporters say an important role for the amendment is to bar activist judges from issuing rulings in favor of homosexual unions. In Alaska and Hawaii, local judges ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, only to have those rulings later invalidated when lawmakers voted for new state constitutional amendments.

Chris Purdom of the Philadelphia-based Interfaith Working Group, says their chief concern is using the Constitution to "impose a particular religious view of marriage on others."

Same-sex couples, because they do not have marriage licenses, do not have access to federal benefits such as immigration and spousal Social Security and tax benefits. Vermont last year became the first state to grant marriage benefits to same-sex partners through "civil unions."

But under the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), such unions are not federally recognized and need not be recognized by other states. Unlike DOMA, which is expected to face legal challenges, a constitutional amendment could not be overturned.

While the amendment would prevent judges and courts from determining how marriage benefits might be approved for same-sex couples, the measure would not prevent state legislatures from enacting civil-union laws. In fact, if approved, the marriage amendment could accelerate efforts by liberal lawmakers to approve same-sex unions without the marriage label, says Purdom.

next page... |  1 of 3

October 1 2001, Vol. 45, No. 12