Gay marriage amendment opposed Maine delegation united; Snowe, Collins say Bush proposal unnecessary

Head Style: head30 – 30 Point, 1 deck, Minion-SemiboldBDN95, Plain; 33; 3 col

Head Style: drop15 – 15 Point, 1 deck, Minion-RegularBDN95, Plain; 19; 3 col

AUGUSTA – Over the weekend, President Bush called on Congress to send to states a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage. None of Maine’s congressional delegation members supports the proposal, which will be debated in the U.S. Senate this week.

“I don’t see it as necessary to be revisiting the issue of a constitutional amendment defining marriage,” said Sen. Olympia Snowe. “I just don’t see it necessary when we have a statute in place that has worked.”

Bush, in his weekly radio address Saturday, said an amendment is needed because of “activist judges” who have undermined the federal law that defines marriage.

“Since 2004, state courts in Washington, California, Maryland and New York have overturned laws protecting marriage in those states,” the president said. “And a federal judge overturned a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. These court decisions could have an impact on our whole nation.”

Bush argued that while nearly every state has laws defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and some have added amendments to their state constitutions, the issue has become a national one that needs a national solution.

“The constitutional amendment that the Senate will consider next week would fully protect marriage from being redefined, while leaving state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage,” the president said Saturday. “A constitutional amendment is the most democratic solution to this issue, because it must be approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate and then ratified by three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures.”

Maine’s other GOP senator, Susan Collins, also disagrees with the president. She said it is not necessary to define marriage in the United States Constitution.

“Traditionally, marriage has been regulated by the states, and I see no reason to change that system,” she said. “If the Defense of Marriage Act were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, which I don’t think it will be, then I would be open to a constitutional amendment because that would be the only remedy.”

Collins said she has long supported state regulation in many areas, including this one, because states are in a better position to determine what is best for their own residents without a mandate from the federal government.

“We don’t need it in the Constitution,” said U.S. Rep. Tom Allen, the Democrat representing Maine’s 1st District. “This really is an attempt by the Republicans to divert attention from all they have failed to accomplish in dealing with health care issues, energy issues, environmental issues and economic issues. They can’t run on their record, so they try to drag in gay marriage. They feel it worked for them in 2004, and so they are trying to play the same old divisive card again.”

Rep. Michael Michaud agreed with his fellow Democrat. The 2nd District congressman said GOP leaders are trying to divert attention from their policy failures by appealing to their conservative core voters.

“I do not support putting discrimination into the United States Constitution,” he said. “The reason why we are dealing with a constitutional amendment to deal with marriage is clearly politics. The president’s numbers are in the tank. They need an issue to resonate with their core base, and they feel this is the issue.”

Both congressmen said there are dozens of important issues before them that likely will not be addressed this year because there is not enough time for consideration by the House and Senate, yet the marriage amendment will consume a lot of debate time even though GOP leaders know it will not get the necessary votes to go forward.

Collins said she agrees that many other important issues will not get addressed this session because the marriage amendment will get consideration.

“I understand that there are many people in our country who are sincere in their belief that a constitutional amendment is needed,” she said. “I just don’t think that it is, and our time could be better spent on other issues.”

The last time the Senate voted on a similar amendment was in 2004 when a move to block further debate failed 48-50. The Senate is scheduled to debate the measure this week, and the House is expected to take up the proposed amendment next month.