University of International Relations.
Opponents Of Gay Marriage Divided .
A broad array of religious groups and conservative political activists has united behind the idea of a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. But the fledgling coalition is deeply divided about what, exactly, the amendment should say. .
.
.
At issue are not merely the fine details of legislative wording but the amendment's very purpose: Should it ban only same-sex marriage, or also take aim at Vermont-style civil unions and California-style partnerships that some opponents say amount to marriage in all but name? .
Underneath that dispute, moreover, are differing calculations about what language would appeal to the general public, and what would excite grass-roots conservatives. "It's purity versus pragmatism," said Glenn T. Stanton, a senior analyst at Focus on the Family, one of the groups leading the charge against gay marriage. "Do we go for everything that we want, or take the best we think we can get?" .
Although they are early in the process of trying to win a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states, some conservatives worry that the political clock is ticking and the drive to amend the Constitution will be doomed unless they can reach consensus. .
Since the Supreme Court overturned a Texas law against sodomy in June and the highest court in Massachusetts declared Nov. 18 that same-sex couples have a right to marry, conservative groups have acted with a new urgency, vowing to make gay marriage a major election issue in 2004 and calling for passage of a constitutional amendment by 2006, an extremely fast timetable by historic standards. .
At least three versions of the amendment are circulating in Washington. The leading text, and the only one introduced in Congress, is two sentences: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.