NY Journal News

N.Y. delegation splits on gay marriage ban

By KEITH EDDINGS
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: July 14, 2004)

As the Republican effort to force a vote on amending the U.S. Constitution to outlaw gay marriage struggles for enough support even to bring it to a vote in the Senate today, the four Democrats who represent Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties in Washington are lining up against the effort, while the delegation's lone Republican is suggesting she would support it.

The delegation is split more evenly on gay marriage itself.

Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles Schumer have opposed gay marriage. Both reissued statements yesterday saying civil unions performed by the states — which provide fewer rights than marriage and are not recognized by the federal government — are enough. Rep. Sue Kelly, R-Katonah, also opposes gay marriage, while Democratic Reps. Nita Lowey of Harrison and Eliot Engel of the Bronx say the issue should be left to the states to decide.

"Senator Clinton has long supported civil unions and does not support amending the Constitution to address this issue," said Nina Blackwell, a spokeswoman for Clinton.

Blake Zeff, a spokesman for Schumer, said, "Senator Schumer opposes gay marriage, but supports civil unions and doesn't believe this issue should be in the Constitution."

In 1996, Schumer supported the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing gay marriages performed in any state. Clinton was not in the Senate when the act was approved, although her husband, former President Clinton, signed it.

Yesterday, both Hillary Clinton and Schumer spoke against the proposed constitutional amendment on the floor of the Senate.

In the House of Representatives, Kelly supported the Defense of Marriage Act and said yesterday that she would "consider proposals to ensure the law's intended purpose is met." Pressed about whether that means Kelly would support the proposed constitutional amendment, spokesman Kevin Callahan said only, "She believes (marriage) should be between a man and a woman."

Lowey and Engel came closest to supporting gay marriage, but both stopped a small step short of making declarative statements.

"I believe that gays and lesbians in long-term, committed relationships are entitled to the same rights and benefits as heterosexual married couples," Lowey said through aide Julie Edwards. "What that relationship is called, and how it's performed, should be left up to the states."

Lowey said she opposed the proposed constitutional amendment because it "could deny gay and lesbian couples and their children basic rights, protections and benefits like hospital visitation and inheritance. It could also overturn civil unions or domestic-partnerships rights already enacted by the state and local governments."

Engel went further.

"Rep. Engel believes all gay and lesbian couples should have full rights and benefits, whether it's called marriage or domestic partnerships," aide Gary Meltz said. "Amendments to the Constitution should not be offered to drive wedge issues in a political season. The federal courts have ruled over and over that the issue of marriage is a matter for states to regulate."