A
charge
by
the
director
of
the
National
Gay
&
Lesbian
Task
Force
that
Senate
Democrats
were
backing
away
from
their
commitment
to
oppose
a
constitutional
amendment
to
ban
same-sex
marriage
drew
sharp
criticism
this
week
from
gay
Democratic
leaders.
The
flap
over
whether
Senate
Democrats
may
be
wavering
over
the
Federal
Marriage
Amendment
surfaced
as
Massachusetts
Gov.
Mitt
Romney,
who
strongly
opposes
same-sex
marriage,
abruptly
cancelled
an
expected
appearance
as
a
star
witness
before
a
May
18
Senate
hearing
on
the
proposed
amendment.
Sen.
Orrin
Hatch
(R-Utah),
chair
of
the
Senate
Judiciary
Committee
and
a
supporter
of
the
FMA,
was
expected
to
give
Romney
a
platform
to
discuss
his
strategy
for
passing
a
constitutional
amendment
in
Massachusetts
to
ban
same-sex
marriage.
Hatch
named
the
hearing,
“Preserving
traditional
marriage:
A
view
from
the
states.”
Romney
reportedly
became
concerned
over
the
latest
polls
in
his
state
—
including
a
poll
commissioned
by
the
Human
Rights
Campaign,
the
nation’s
largest
gay
political
group
—
that
show
his
popularity
declining
among
voters.
Among
other
things,
the
polls
show
voters
object
to
his
involvement
in
a
number
of
controversial
social
issues,
including
gay
marriage,
according
to
HRC
President
Cheryl
Jacques.
According
to
sources,
Romney
said
a
scheduling
conflict
in
Massachusetts
prevented
him
from
coming
to
Washington
for
the
hearing.
With
Romney
out
of
the
picture
in
the
Senate
hearing,
attention
on
Capitol
Hill
shifted
to
the
House,
where
gay
U.S.
Rep.
Barney
Frank
(D-Mass.)
was
expected
to
clash
with
famed
conservative
leader
and
failed
Supreme
Court
nominee
Robert
Bork.
Frank
and
Bork
were
scheduled
to
be
among
the
witnesses
at
a
hearing
Thursday,
May
13,
on
the
FMA
before
the
House
Judiciary
Subcommittee
on
the
Constitution.
Frank
was
expected
to
be
the
only
Democratic
witness
at
the
Republican-organized
hearing.
Rep.
Marilyn
Musgrave
(R-Colo.),
the
author
and
lead
sponsor
of
the
FMA,
was
also
scheduled
to
testify
at
the
House
hearing.
Gay
Democratic
leaders,
meanwhile,
expressed
concern
this
week
that
claims
that
Senate
Democrats
were
backing
away
from
their
earlier
commitment
defeat
the
FMA
were
off-base.
The
flap
surfaced
when
NGLTF
executive
director
Matt
Foreman
stated
in
a
guest
editorial
in
the
Washington
Blade
on
May
7
that
a
pledge
last
year
by
Senate
Democratic
leader
Tom
Daschle
(D-S.D.)
that
Senate
Democrats
would
vote
to
kill
the
Federal
Marriage
Amendment
may
no
longer
be
in
effect
if
the
wording
of
the
anti-gay
amendment
changes
to
clearly
preserve
civil
unions.
“We’ve
since
discovered
that
the
Daschle
pledge
was
a
classic
display
of
Washington
legalese,”
Foreman
wrote
in
his
editorial.
“You
see,
it
apparently
applied
only
to
‘the’
Federal
Marriage
Amendment
as
written
last
year.
If
the
amendment
is
reworded
so
it
still
outlaws
same-sex
marriage
anywhere
in
the
country
but
leaves
the
door
open
to
state-based
domestic
partnerships
or
civil
unions,
all
bets
are
off,”
he
wrote.
Foreman
said
he
based
his
assertion
on
conversations
that
Task
Force
officials
and
supporters
in
the
field
have
had
in
recent
weeks
with
key
Democratic
senators
and
Senate
staff
members.
Rep.
Frank
and
veteran
gay
Democratic
strategist
Jeff
Trammell,
who
was
named
last
month
as
a
campaign
adviser
to
Democratic
presidential
candidate
John
Kerry,
called
Foreman’s
assertions
inaccurate
and
unfair.
The
two
insist
that
Senate
Democrats
are
steadfastly
opposed
to
a
constitutional
amendment
to
ban
same-sex
marriage
and
would
help
defeat
such
an
amendment
in
a
Senate
vote
that
could
come
as
early
as
this
summer.
“Matt
is
flatly
wrong,”
Trammell
said.
“He’s
a
smart
guy
who
occasionally
makes
mistakes.”
Trammell
said
he
spoke
in
person
with
Daschle
last
week.
“He’s
as
solid
as
a
rock,”
in
his
opposition
to
a
constitutional
ban
on
same-sex
marriage,
Trammell
said.
Frank,
who
has
led
efforts
in
the
House
to
oppose
the
FMA,
called
Foreman’s
account
“silly.”
He
said
his
own
sources
on
Capitol
Hill
inform
him
that
the
Senate
is
poised
to
defeat
the
FMA,
with
an
“overwhelming”
vote
by
Senate
Democrats
against
it.
Foreman
said
his
editorial
was
generated,
in
part,
by
his
frustration
that
a
possible
softening
of
opposition
to
the
FMA
by
Senate
Democrats
would
force
the
Task
Force
and
other
gay
organizations
to
expend
resources
in
a
Senate
fight
to
defeat
the
FMA.
He
would
much
rather
use
those
resources
to
fight
anti-gay
marriage
amendments
that
have
surfaced
in
the
states,
Foreman
said.
Foreman
noted
that
Jacques
and
other
HRC
leaders
have
also
expressed
concern
that
a
multi-million
dollar
lobbying
campaign
by
social
conservative
groups
could
intimidate
a
number
of
Democratic
senators
to
back
some
form
of
a
constitutional
ban
on
gay
marriage.
Jacques
said
HRC
has
learned
that
backers
of
the
FMA,
including
Hatch,
were
considering
introducing
wide
variations
in
wording
of
an
FMA
in
an
effort
to
lure
opponents
into
backing
it.
“We
saw
this
same
blueprint
played
out
in
Massachusetts,”
Jacques
said.
She
noted
that
supporters
of
a
state
constitutional
ban
on
gay
marriage
in
that
state
added
language
to
the
proposed
amendment
that
called
for
legalizing
civil
unions
in
the
state.
The
civil
unions
clause
succeeded
in
winning
over
several
members
of
the
state
legislature,
which
was
called
to
draft
a
constitutional
amendment
banning
gay
marriage
in
the
state.
The
legislature
passed
the
...
