Michael Gehrig is something of an anomaly - a gay man who voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election. He did not make this decision lightly.

Now, nearly four years later, Gehrig still approves of many of the President’s policies. That’s why it was so particularly insulting when, on February 24th, Bush declared his support of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have defined marriage as solely the union of one man and one woman.

“The FMA has changed my party views incredibly,” says Gehrig. “I know this is a sound bite, but [the FMA] really is writing hatred into the Constitution.”

On July 14th, the U.S. Senate killed the proposed amendment.

The Senate’s decision has been hailed as a victory for civil rights by groups such as the Human Rights Coalition, an advocacy group for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans.

“This is discrimination and election-year politics, pure and simple,” says Mark Shields, Deputy Director of Media Relations for the HRC. “The U.S. constitution has only been amended 17 times since the Bill of Rights and it has never been amended to deny a single group of Americans rights and protections that every other American takes for granted.”

Despite its defeat in the Senate, many gay Americans remain angry about the FMA, and concerned about its future.

“I think our membership is still outraged,” says Chris Barron, the political director of the Log Cabin Republicans, a conservative group that works for homosexual rights. “I think they’re still outraged because it’s not going away,” he continues. “Tom DeLay [the House majority leader] has said that the House will likely vote on the FMA sometime in September.”

That’s earlier than was previously expected.

DeLay also stated, "Marriage is a spiritual bond between one man and one woman. I came to realize, in the end, we're going to have to do a constitutional amendment if we want to protect marriage."

The FMA comes on the heels of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage. The November 18, 2003, ruling has been a steady source of controversy since its inception. On May 17, the first same-sex marriages were performed in Massachusetts.

Certain groups, like the Alliance for Marriage, believe that same-sex marriage goes against “common sense.” The AFM did not answer our request for more information, but according to a statement made by the AFM’s president. Matt Daniels, “Most Americans believe that gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose. But they don’t believe they have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society.”

The definition of so-called “traditional” marriage, however, has undergone changes in recent history. Until 1967, interracial marriages were prohibited in a third of U.S. states. Marrying outside of one’s class used to be considered socially unacceptable in Western nations. In American and ancient history, marriage was a privilege denied to the enslaved.

Some, however, are concerned that the legalization of gay marriage will to the rapid devolution of marriage and, possibly, of culture itself. This “slippery slope” argument most often relates to fears of polygamy, although some take it further.

Even the so-called “activist judges” in Massachusetts defined marriage as a union between two people.

That’s exactly how Gehrig sees it. He recalls being taught in Catholic school that marriage is a commitment that two people make to each other. His teachers, he says, “stressed that’s where marriage gets its sanctity from- the bond between two people.”

There is grave opposition to the FMA even among those who do not necessarily support same-sex marriage. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, “the nation’s oldest, largest, and most diverse civil and human rights coalition,” is vehemently against the FMA. The LCCR “does not take a position for or against same-sex marriage,” according to a letter the coalition wrote to Congress in opposition to the FMA.

Yet, the LCCR considers the FMA “antithetical to one of the Constitution’s most fundamental guiding principles, that of the guarantee of equal protection for all.” Dozens of organizations signed the letter, including such varied groups as the Japanese American Citizen’s League, the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the NAACP.

The NAACP, in its statement to the Senate, pronounced the FMA “extraordinarily broad,” and advised that “under no circumstances should the Congress reverse 225 years of constitutional history by using a constitutional amendment to restrict the civil rights of our citizens.”

Even the author of the Defense of Marriage Act, Bob Barr, spoke out against the FMA. Barr, who is an opponent of same-sex marriage, told Congress that he believes the FMA “takes a power away from the states that they have historically enjoyed.”. DOMA, which was signed into law in 1996 by President Clinton, defines marriage as a strictly heterosexual union for federal purposes, but left it up to individual states to define and recognize marriages.

Chris Barron stresses the “huge difference” between DOMA and the FMA. The FMA, he explains, “defines marriage for all the states and invades an area of the law that has been the province of states for 225 years.” Additionally, the amendment “goes as far as to threaten civil unions and domestic partner benefits,” says Barron.

But the arm of DOMA has just been extended. Little more than a week after the Senate killed the FMA, the House voted in favor of the Marriage Protection Act. The bill authored by Alexander Hostettler of Indiana, limits the courts jurisdiction with respect to DOMA.

Barron considers the Marriage Protection Act to be “another anti-gay bill.” The bill, says Barron, “purports to strip the federal courts’ jurisdiction to review cases dealing with the Defense of Marriage Act.” It affects “not just regular courts but the Supreme Court as well.”

Both Barron and Shields agree that opposing the FMA has been a bipartisan effort. “This is not democrats against republicans,” says Shields, “this is democrats and republicans against extremists.”

“Absolutely,” Barron concurs. Rather than losing members because of the FMA, the Log Cabin Republicans have actually doubled their membership since Bush called for the amendment. “This is really a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican party,” he says. “It can either be the party of Schwarzenegger and Giuliani or it can be the party of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.”

And opponents of same-sex marriage need not fear that the FMA’s defeat in the senate will lead to gay marriage. It’s often forgotten that no U.S. senator supports same-sex marriage. “I think we have to be clear about this,” says Barron, “nobody in the Senate voted against the FMA because they support same-sex marriage.”

While he’s still very angry over the FMA, Gehrig isn’t exactly running into the arms of the Democrats. He doesn’t believe Kerry will fight for gay Americans. “We don’t have a party,” says Gehrig, “nobody’s on our side.”

“I respect that half this country doesn’t want me on the planet,” he says. “It’s their upbringing, that’s their opinion they’re entitled to it. But I don’t want them making my life difficult.”
   Email this article to a friend