Why the federal marriage amendment will fail; the battle over a federal amendment banning same-sex marriage may be waged in Congress this summer. But history suggests it isn't going to be easy to pass.

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, sighed in relief after President Bush's much-hyped interview on NBC's Meet the Press in February. Rumor had it that Bush would tell host Tim Russert that he supports an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning gay marriage. But the president didn't utter one word on the subject.

"Every day that goes by that he doesn't come out in support of the amendment is a good day for us," says Foreman. Those days may be at an end, however: As The Advocate went to press, The Washington Post reported that Bush is preparing to endorse a sweeping anti-gay marriage amendment.

Expecting just that constitutional gambit from the far right, gay rights groups are already bracing to fight the mother of all civil fights battles in Congress, which could begin this summer.

Amending the U.S. Constitution is nearly impossible. Only 17 amendments have been added since the original Bill of Rights was ratified by Congress 213 years ago. Even the 1919 prohibition amendment--repealed after 14 years--was a century-long movement in the making. The Federal Marriage Amendment would need the support of every single Republican in the Senate and House of Representatives--in addition to 16 Democrats in the Senate and 62 Democrats in the House. Then it would need ratification by simple majorities in both houses of 38 state legislatures. In some respects Janet Jackson would have a better chance of singing in the 2005 Super Bowl.

David Garrow, a civil rights and Constitution expert who teaches law at Emory University in Atlanta, doubts that such an amendment would make it through both houses of Congress. "Using the federal Constitution to cut back on and limit personal rights and liberties that are recognized by an individual state--that's utterly unprecedented. I think it's very difficult to imagine that you're going to get two thirds of state legislatures to actually do this. There ere simply too many public officials out there who not only know enough gay people personally but who are going to be reluctant to put themselves at historical risk."

Yet gay rights groups are not waiting for Capitol Hill lawmakers to learn a history lesson. They see a growing backlash against same-sex marriage across the country. Both Democrats and Republicans supported the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages and allowing states to deny such recognition, which was signed into law by Bill Clinton. Most of the candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination don't support gay marriage and have become artful at dodging questions about the issue. And adding fuel to the fire was the February ruling by the Massachusetts supreme judicial court that determined gays and lesbians are entitled to full marriage, not just civil unions.

"I don't think we should underestimate the kind of danger our community is in--in both in the Congress and in the states right now," says Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay political group. "One thing we don't know is an exact wording of an amendment, whether it be the Federal Marriage Amendment or a watered-down version that is more palatable to folks." If the president were to support the marriage amendment, "he would certainly be jeopardizing the more than 1 million votes from us and our families in the 2000 election," Guerriero says. "Log Cabin would be in a position where it would have to consider whether it would endorse a Republican incumbent."

That's the problem. No one in Washington is sure how the final version of such an amendment would be worded. "I think that storm is brewing within the ranks of the conservative party," says Cheryl Jacques, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign. "There is the Musgrave amendment"--the version the Post reported Bush will support--"which strikes not just a definition of marriage but also any benefits that a gay couple might get through civil unions or domestic partnership. There are some who want to make that language more moderate. There are some who want that strengthened."

Lawmakers who support such an amendment might reap short term political gain but will do long-term damage to their legacy, Garrow says. "Does the national Republican Party want to put itself on the wrong side of history like Southern white Democrats did in the 1950s?" he says. "Will Bush really invest in this? How will this look 40 to 50 years from now? There's no denying that public opinion about gay people has changed over time faster than public opinion on anything else."

Meanwhile, groups from the NGLTF to the Log Cabin Republicans are lining up lawmakers to vote against the amendment, if such a vote is scheduled. With some legislators the groups are malting the case that it is a form of gay bashing. "Instead of getting into heavy-duty discussion about gay marriage, we get into conservative principles," Guerriero says about lobbying Republicans. "We talk about the broad nature of the Federal Marriage Amendment. In 10 years a majority of Americans will be on our side on almost every single issue, if they aren't already."

Groups are also banking on the fact that some conservative Republicans don't want the federal government making laws on matters that can be decided by individual states. Even former Georgia congressman Bob Barr, a Republican who championed DOMA, has dismissed the amendment as unnecessary and intrusive.

"Lawmakers who believe the U.S. Constitution is being used as an election-year tool will not support this amendment," says David Noble, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats. "To say that we will tinker with the U.S. Constitution is extreme, no matter what wording choices they choose."