Constitution tweak not in cards, 5 say

WASHINGTON - Despite their unanimous opposition to the concept of gay marriage, members of Arkansas’ congressional delegation are in no hurry to support a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would bar same-sex unions.

On Wednesday, shortly after the Supreme Court found sections of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, U.S. Rep. Tim Huelskamp, a Kansas Republican, said he was prepared to file a constitutional amendment in the House blocking gay marriage. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act barred federal recognition of gay marriages. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, struck down that provision Wednesday.

On Capitol Hill, Arkansas’ representatives, all Republicans, didn’t rush to join Huelskamp. In fact, Rick Crawford said he’ll oppose efforts to change the Constitution.

Like the other Arkansans, Steve Womack disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling but said he didn’t have a position on amending the Constitution.

“I’ve never given a lot of thought to it, because throughout my life, I never imagined we’d be sitting where we are today,” he said. “This issue has moved very fast. This thing here has accelerated over the past several years. I’m having a hard time with it.”

It’s a marked change since 2006, the last time a constitutional amendment was taken before Congress. Then, Sens.Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln, both Democrats from Arkansas, voted with their party to block a final vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment. The vote was 49-48, short of the 60 needed to proceed to a final vote. It would have needed 67 votes to pass.

In the House that year, a proposed anti-gay-marriage amendment fell on a 236-187 vote, well short of the 290 votes needed for passage. Democratic Rep. Vic Snyder opposed it. His Arkansas colleagues, Democrats Mike Ross and Marion Berry, and Republican John Boozman, voted for the amendment.

Boozman, now a senator, believes most of the battles over same-sex marriage will be fought at the state level, said his spokesman, Patrick Creamer.

Creamer said Boozman would still support, in principle, an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage, but that such an effort would be difficult.

“He’s acutely aware that the likelihood of getting this passed through both chambers of Congress and ratified by the states is extremely slim,” Creamer said.

Rep. Tim Griffin said he wouldn’t commit his support to a constitutional amendment. “I will look closely at it,” he said.

Griffin said the high court barred the federal government from discriminating against gay married couples, but the justices hadn’t said whether state laws prohibiting same sex marriage are constitutional. As a result, the issue is “muddled,” he said.

Further action at the state level and a possible future review by the Supreme Court would add clarity, Griffin said. So would an amendment to the Constitution, but “we have to consider how long it takes to get constitutional amendments enacted,” he said.

Rep. Rick Crawford said he is against changing the Constitution because doing so would get the federal government involved in what should be a state and “biblical” issue. He said he was open to extending federal benefits to same-sex spouses if it were done outside of the institution of marriage.

“If we want to talk about some other form of recognizing those unions, that’s something we can talk about, but I don’t think amending the Constitution is the answer.”

Pryor said he opposes gay marriage but does not think that changing the Constitution is necessary.

“It’s not a constitutional issue,” he said.

A spokesman for Rep. Tom Cotton said Cotton was unavailable for comment.

In recent years, public attitudes about gay marriage have changed dramatically, according to some surveys, including the Pew Research Center and Gallup polls. Both organizations showed that after years of opposition to same sex unions, beginning in 2012, more Americans favored recognizing gay marriages than disapproved of it.

In their 2012 party platform, Republicans stressed the need for “preserving and protecting traditional marriage.”

But with the last election lost and polls showing increasing support for gay marriage, some Republican campaign advisers have urged the party to drop its hard-line stance on the issue.

For example, former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, who came out as gay in 2010, has pushed the party to change its focus and promote marriage as a conservative institution to be enjoyed by all adults.

“No smart political party, no successful company says ‘let’s be satisfied with yesterday’s customers,’” he told Politico, a Washington trade publication in an April interview. “They say ‘how do we anticipate the needs of tomorrow’s customers, consistent with who we are.’”

Boozman said it is true that attitudes nationally have changed, with more young people demonstrating an acceptance of gay unions.

“It’s a generational thing,” Boozman said Wednesday, the day the Supreme Court announced its decisions.

But Boozman said he was unconcerned about the national trend and preferred to stay focused on the prevailing view in Arkansas, where 75 percent of voters approved a 2004 state constitutional amendment that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Failed efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution in 2004 and 2006 seem like “light-years ago,” because of changes in attitudes about gay marriage, said Michael Cole-Schwartz, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, a national homosexuals advocacy group.

In 2006, Massachusetts was the only state that recognized same-sex nuptials. Since then, 11 states and the District of Columbia have approved gay marriage. In 2012, President Barack Obama became the first sitting president to support the issue, and the Democratic Party made support for gay marriage a part of its national platform.

“The way the American people have evolved on this issue, it’s not surprising that politicians aren’t jumping on the bandwagon to get behind [amending the Constitution], Cole-Schwartz said.

This week, Human Rights Campaign began polling Arkansas voters about their views on gay marriage. Cole-Schwartz said the results will be announced when the group’s president - Arkadelphia native Chad Griffin - speaks in Little Rock on July 8 at the University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service.

Jerry Cox, president of the Family Council, a conservative advocacy group in Little Rock, said acceptance of gay marriage is not inevitable.

He likened this week’s Supreme Court decisions to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion. He said many people thought that decision would put an end to the public debate. Instead, he said, Roe has energized abortion opponents for decades and abortion remains a crucial political issue.

“The social issues have a way of swinging like a pendulum,” he said. “I’d like to think the pendulum will swing back on this issue like it did on abortion.”