WASHINGTON — For the moment, same-sex “marriage” has largely disappeared from the national political debate. Other issues, such as Iraq, terrorist surveillance in the United States, American seaport maintenance and Vice President Dick Cheney’s hunting skills have stolen the spotlight.

But state and federal judges in eight states likely will hand down rulings in 2006 imposing same-sex “marriage” or striking down state bans against it.

This will bring the issue back to life later in the year, with potentially huge fallout in the 2006 midterm elections.

In this context, U.S. Senate Majority Leader William Frist, R-Tenn., has promised a June vote on a federal constitutional amendment to preserve marriage as a union between one man and one woman. That vote, along with the series of pending court cases, could precipitate a repeat of 2004, when state referenda on same-sex “marriage” brought out traditional-marriage voters in key states such as Ohio, Missouri and Arkansas, guaranteeing re-election to President Bush.

Homosexual-rights activists denounced the scheduling of the vote as a cynical political tool designed to excite the Republican base in an election year. “All indications are that those who are pushing to write discrimination into the Constitution do not have the votes,” said Christopher Labonte of the Human Rights Campaign, a Washington-based homosexual political activist group. “This is all about politics, and it has always been about politics.”

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., a leading figure among traditional marriage proponents, agreed that marriage is a strong political issue for the Republican Party, but said it was more than just politics.

“This is and will be a significant political issue,” he said, “but that’s not why we’re doing it. I think it’s a critical issue for America. … We need to support marriage, not redefine it.”

The constitutional amendment faces an uphill battle in the Senate, where it is considered unlikely to pass or even to reach 60 votes. Constitutional amendments require a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate (290 congressmen and 67 senators), followed by ratification in 38 states.

In 2004, when the federal marriage amendment was first considered, supporters could muster only 48 votes for cloture, and it died. The vote this time should be at least somewhat stronger.

For one thing, the Senate has a different political makeup than it did in 2004. Also, during the last vote, some senators deemed the issue “irrelevant” since no court had ever legalized same-sex “marriage.” Others expressed opposition to same-sex “marriage,” but had reservations about amending the Constitution.

New Situation

Now the situation is dramatically different. Three state courts — in Massachusetts, Washington, and Maryland — have already declared that the state must allow homosexual “marriages” (rulings in the latter two states are under appeal).

Moreover, a federal court has struck down a same-sex “marriage” ban that was supported by 78% of Nebraska voters in 2004, and challenges have gone forward to legalize same-sex “marriage” from the bench in New York, New Jersey, California, Iowa and Connecticut.

The question in the Senate is how many senators will support the amendment this time based on the new situation, said Matt Daniels, president of the activist group Alliance for Marriage.

“Apart from an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, this issue will be settled for us by the courts, and it will be settled in a way that tends to the destruction of marriage,” said Daniels. “It is inevitable.”

Daniels said that at this point it is only a question of which moves more quickly — the amendment process or the judges seeking to legalize same-sex “marriage.”

Brownback said that he expects Democrats to make the amendment a party-line vote, as they did when it passed out of subcommittee in November. That would likely result in it garnering between 53 and 57 votes, given the changed composition in the Senate from the 2004 election. “I hate to see the Democrats make this a party-line vote,” he said. “This just isn’t the kind of thing that used to be a partisan issue, whether marriage is between a man and a woman.”

Supporters of the constitutional amendment are circulating a memo that explores the situation in Canada, where same-sex “marriage” was legalized last June. Christians there who have spoken out against homosexuality have already been brought before human rights tribunals and threatened with large fines.

One of them is Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary, Alberta, who wrote a pastoral letter against same-sex “marriage” last January. More recently, a Knights of Columbus council in Vancouver, British Columbia, was fined after it agreed to hold a wedding reception in its hall, then disagreed when it discovered that the wedding was between two women.

Political Fallout

Daniels, whose group campaigns to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman, said that because of the court cases, senators who vote against the amendment this time are clearly supporting same-sex “marriage.” Whether it passes or not, the issue will divide Democrats, forcing them to take a clear stance on marriage when they would prefer to avoid the issue and maintain an ambiguous stance.

“Support for our amendment to protect marriage cuts across partisan lines, said Daniels. “People don’t make up their mind on this issue based on party identification. Increasingly, figures in the Democratic Party are having to confront the fact that most Democrats don’t want to see marriage destroyed by the courts.”

The anticipated June vote will have deep political implications. It could make life very difficult for a handful of Democratic senators, energizing demoralized Republicans and boosting the prospects of senators who vote Yes on the amendment.

Among the affected races, Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, a Catholic Republican and a supporter of traditional marriage, is running to replace retiring Sen. Paul Sarbanes, a Democrat. Steele is widely expected to benefit from a lower court’s decision earlier this year to legalize homosexual “marriage” in the state as his Democratic opponents are forced to take a position. A referendum to ban same-sex “marriage” still may reach the fall ballot.

And in Missouri, Republican Sen. Jim Talent is expected to have a tight race on his hands. He will likely vote Yes and use this issue against his Democratic opponent this fall. Missourians approved a homosexual “marriage” ban in 2004 with 71% of the vote.

David Freddoso writes from

Washington, D.C.