The Constitution and gay marriage.

Antigay activists propose a constitutional amendment to keep gay people from going down the aisle

Claiming that gay marriage rights would accelerate the "tide of family disintegration" in the United States, an ethnically and religiously diverse group of social conservatives called the Alliance for Marriage took the battle against gay rights up a notch in July--proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban gay marriage.

"Our nation cannot go forward unless our laws send a positive message to children about marriage, family, and their future," said Alliance executive director Matt Daniels, announcing the proposal in Washington, D.C., on July 12.

Gay activists and legal experts said the amendment would not just ban gay marriage but could also erode some civil rights protections as well as domestic-partnership privileges for unmarried straight couples. "It's a very sloppily but broadly written attack on gay people and our families and potentially others as well," said longtime civil rights attorney Evan Wolfson.

"States have always had the right to decide what their own marriage laws should be, [which] may very well be [the amendment's] downfall," noted Barbara Cox, a professor and associate dean at the California Western School of Law in San Diego. Indeed, the proposal has already drawn criticism from several conservative lawmakers. "I don't think the Constitution was ever written and set up for those kinds of amendments," Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, told the Omaha World-Herald. "I think those kinds of issues are better left to the states."

The amendment faces an uphill climb before it's added to the Constitution--it first needs the approval of two thirds of the House and Senate and then ratification by 38 states. "It's quite problematic, and it's got us concerned," said Winnie Stachelberg, political director of the gay lobby Human Rights Campaign. "But we don't think that either body [in Congress] believes that this is the issue that should be taking up their time and that the American people want them to address."

Meanwhile, Wolfson said national gay groups should use the attention surrounding the amendment to emphasize a "positive message" about the need for marriage rights. "Instead of going into a defensive posture or merely whining about this attack, we should ... welcome the opportunity to make the affirmative case as to why gay people should have the freedom to marry," he said.