resident Bush will promote a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage beginning with a press conference in the White House Rose Garden this Monday. A vote in the U.S. Senate could come the following day as advocacy groups on both sides mobilize their constituent bases.

   The amendment needs at least a 2/3 majority in both the Senate and House of Representatives, along with ratification from at least 38 state legislatures. It is a daunting task, though, and critics of the measure charge that the real purpose behind S.J. 1 is to allow Republicans to placate the party's religious-right wing that has become disenchanted with the Bush administrations over issues like immigration, budget reform and judicial nominations.

   The Senate version of the proposed amendment states:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

   Americans are deeply divided over the issue of same-sex marriage, but attitudes have been slowly changing. According to the Pew Research Center, a thin majority opposes the practice, but that is down from 63% voicing their disapproval in early 2004.

   The states have been the traditional battle ground for disputes over same-sex marriage. The Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized gay unions in 2003, and the following year the City of San Francisco issued hundreds of marriage licenses to gays and lesbians. But in the 2004 national elections, Mr. Bush and the GOP seemed to benefit from anti-gay referendums in a dozen states, including Ohio which gave Republicans the edge over Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry.

   The politics behind gay marriage is also shaping up as a factor in upcoming elections and the 2008 presidential race. Voters in Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, Tennessee and Wisconsin will decide on ballot referendums over legalizing same-sex unions.

   So far, the Marriage Amendment may face obstacles in the U.S. Senate where backers admit they may be short of even a 50-vote majority. Several Republicans do not support the proposed legislation, and on the Democratic side of the aisle only Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska says he intends to vote for it. The constitutional amendment has provided political fireworks, though.

   The Senate Judiciary Committee approved S.J. 1 on May 18 with a party-line vote. Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA.) and Sen. Russ Feingold, Democrat from Wisconsin exchanged bitter words, with Specter telling his colleague, "Good riddance!"

   Political strategists say that the real purpose behind the Marriage Protection Act is to get legislators on the record in anticipation of upcoming elections, and for the Bush administration to repair bridges with the religious right.

   Rick Scarborough of the Texas-based Christian group "Vision America" said that Mr. Bush is not pushing hard enough for the legislation. "A lot of grassroots will be looking for signals from the White House and right now they're not getting it," he complained to Fox News.

   Conservative activist Richard Viguerie, a powerful backer of anti-gay legislation, said "Everyone recognizes that Republicans are desperate, and they're trying to figure out how to get of this mess." He warned that for many GOP legislators, "one vote for the federal marriage amendment is not going to cut it."

   GOP pollster Ed Goeas said that displaying "higher intensity to vote" on culture war issues like gay marriage could boost election turnout, especially in states where same-sex union initiatives are on the ballot or the focus of court battles.

   "Would a vote for the marriage amendment help? Maybe. Would it hurt? No," Goeas declared.

   Same-sex unions and the wider debate over gay rights have become the most contentious issues of the modern culture war. It is a battle, wrote Jane Lampman in a recent Christian Science Monitor piece, which "is shaping into something more than deep society tradition vs. civil rights. It is a conflict of equality vs. religious liberty."

   Religious groups which have traditionally opposed gay rights now see themselves "under pressure." Lampman cites a decision by the Boston Catholic Charities to end its adoption program rather than serve gay and lesbian couples. The group, which accepts public funding, has been unsuccessful in attempts to have state anti-discrimination statutes waived.

   In high schools and colleges throughout the country, there are disputes over whether Christian clubs may restrict membership to those who embrace their faith-based teachings on homosexuality. A Christian high school in California is being taken to court after expelling two girls suspected of being lesbians.

   There is also what Lampman characterized as a "clamour over textbooks" in states like Massachusetts where some parents and religious groups are complaining about the introduction of literature in classes with stories involving gay themes.

   Conservative columnist Maggie Gallagher described these and other legal battles as "a collision course," and "the battle of our times." Meanwhile, courts are faced with the complex task of weighing First Amendment religious rights with laws against discrimination.

   The sectarian dimension of the gay marriage fracas is complicated by the fact that religious leaders on both sides of the issue have formed powerful and vocal coalitions that are now weighing in on legislation like the Marriage Protection Amendment.

   In conjunction with the Bush talk on Monday, a group of over 100 black pastors advocating passage of the marriage amendment will stage their own event at the National Press Club. Many have also been supporters and beneficiaries of Mr. Bush's controversial faith-based initiative that has funneled nearly $2 billion to religious social programs in the last year.

   Critics warn that if enacted, the proposed federal marriage legislation would mark the first time that government-mandated discrimination received legal status through the amendment process. They also charge that the measure conflicts with existing constitutional requirements for equal protection, and that it could reverse several key court decisions pertaining to privacy and individual rights. One case cited in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in LOVING v. VIRGINIA that declared unconstitutional a state statute against interracial marriage.

   The amendment, critics add, would also further codify hundreds if not thousands of discriminatory practices as they apply to homosexuals, everything from not being eligible for Social Security benefits to health insurance coverage and even the right to visit a hospitalized partner.

   Whatever the outcome of the expected vote, the issue of equal rights for same-sex couples will remain unresolved -- and front-and-center in the American religious civil war.

[text only]