FRANK QUESTION ALTERS DEBATE ON GAY MARRIAGE
By Marsha Mercer
28 March 2004

(WASHINGTON) On Capitol Hill last week, the battle over a constitutional ban on gay marriage came down to a simple, poignant question.

"I have to ask," said Rep. Barney Frank, one of three openly gay members of Congress, "who are we hurting?"

The debate may never be the same.

Every day in Washington, lawmakers hold forth about the merits and flaws of countless pieces of proposed legislation. There's almost a staged quality to the routine that opponents and proponents follow. They rarely stray from their talking points.

Those for the amendment to ban gay marriage rail against "activist judges" who must be stopped before they destroy traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Those against it argue about the historic implications of using the Constitution to deny rights for a whole class of people.

Each side complains that the other is trying to make political hay in an election year. And they're both right.

It's rare, however, for anyone on this or any other issue to make a personal appeal or to open his private life to public scrutiny the way Barney Frank did.

"All we are saying is, 'Please, can't we in our lives do this?' " Frank told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"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?"

Frank is one of the brightest and funniest people in Congress, a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts who also is a political pragmatist. He argues that nothing about gay marriage harms traditional marriage and that both can co-exist in America.

The proposed amendment would insert in the Constitution the declaration that "marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

None of the Republicans on the committee who back the amendment said a word in response to Frank's emotional plea. Later, they resumed criticizing state courts and "activist judges."

Frank's words may have emboldened Democrats, however. The next day, the Democratic leader in the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, became one of the few Democratic elected officials to support gay marriage.

Most Democratic officials have taken what's seen as the safe stand. They support civil unions for same-sex couples but oppose gay marriage. That's Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's position.

But when Pelosi was asked point-blank in an interview on Fox News, "Can same-sex couples marry?" she replied, "Yes."

Previously, Pelosi, who represents San Francisco, had said she opposed the amendment, supported legal rights for same-sex couples and stopped short of endorsing gay marriage.

This time, though, when Fox's Neil Cavuto asked if she approved of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to allow gays and lesbians to obtain marriage licenses, Pelosi said she did. About 4,000 gay and lesbian couples have gotten married in San Francisco over the past few weeks.

In her endorsement, Pelosi took a risk and went beyond Frank, who has called the parade of marriages in San Francisco a "spectacle" and the mayor's decision to grant licenses "a well-intentioned mistake."

Frank believes the intensive media coverage of the exuberant couples helped fuel the fire for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He viewed the marriages in San Francisco and elsewhere as basically protest demonstrations that likely will inflame those against gay marriage. Frank would have preferred to let the courts handle the issue.

He may be on to something. President Bush had held off endorsing the constitutional amendment until Feb. 24. He did so amid a blizzard of television and newspaper reports from California showing happy same-sex couples kissing outside the courthouse.

While some people have strong moral and religious objections to gay marriage and others say traditional marriage should be maintained for raising children, most Americans seem ready to grant gays in committed relationships legal rights. My guess is that most people don't want to be bombarded with pictures of men kissing men.

Roughly half the adults surveyed by The Washington Post and ABC News this month said gays and lesbians should be permitted to form legally recognized civil unions that would give them the rights enjoyed by married couples - for example, in health issues, insurance and inheritance.

Only 38 percent of those surveyed in the Post-ABC News poll thought gay marriage should be legal, and 44 percent said they strongly supported a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Nobody expects the constitutional amendment to pass, and the tide seems to be bringing legal rights to gay couples, even if older people would rather not have to think too much about it.

Young people tend to be more tolerant than their elders. In a few years people may wonder what the fuss was about in 2004, when Barney Frank changed the debate over gay marriage by being himself.