s. The Constitution does not mention marriage at any point. However, in 2003, proposals to prohibit same-gender civil marriage by amending the Constitution were introduced into Congress by Representative Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) and Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO). In 2004, the Senate measure was killed after a procedural vote to move the measure to the Senate floor for final consideration failed, 48 to 50 (12 short of the 60 votes required by Senate rules). Despite the measure's defeat in the Senate, the House of Representatives also scheduled a vote. The vote tally, 227 for and 186 against, fell short of the 290 votes needed for approval.
Legislators and public-policy makers have come to recognize pediatricians as credible and independent sources of expertise on matters of child well-being and family life. During the 2004 hearings on this measure, individual pediatricians provided testimony focusing on the well-being of children of same-gender parents and on the potential benefits of civil marriage for these families.15,16
In 2005, 2 Senate joint resolutions17 and 1 House joint resolution18 were introduced. All 3 measures would establish a new amendment to the US Constitution, often referred to as the “federal marriage amendment,” that defines marriage as the union of 1 man and 1 woman, thereby prohibiting same-gender couples from marrying. President George W. Bush has frequently stated his support for such an amendment.
Hearings on these bills have been held. Two pediatricians were invited to testify before the US Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights on the matter of same-gender couples, gay and lesbian parents, their children, and the related rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage.19,20
In early 2006, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, MD (R-TN), and Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) announced their intentions to bring the same-gender civil marriage ban amendment to the floor for a vote by the full Senate. The House Republican leadership also signaled the likelihood of a vote on that matter in the lower chamber.
An amendment to the US Constitution requires a two thirds vote of approval by the US House and Senate and ratification by three quarters of the states for passage.
EFFECTS OF PUBLIC POLICIES ON SAME-GENDER COUPLES AND THEIR CHILDREN
Legal and Financial Effects
Civil marriage is a legal status through which societal recognition and support are given to couples and families. It provides a context for legal, financial, and psychosocial well-being, an endorsement of interdependent care, and a form of public acknowledgment and respect for personal bonds. Opponents of same-gender civil marriage often suggest that the legal recognition afforded by civil marriage for same-gender couples is unnecessary, noting that all of the rights and protections that are needed can be obtained by drawing up legal agreements with an attorney. In reality, same-gender partners can secure only a small number of very basic agreements, such as power of attorney, naming the survivor in one's will (at the risk of paying an inheritance tax, which does not apply to heterosexual married couples), and protecting assets in a trust. Even these agreements, however, represent only the “best guesses” of the legal community and may not withstand challenges from extended family members of the couple. Such challenges are not rare given the lack of societal understanding and acceptance of homosexuality and same-gender partnerships. Moreover, legal agreements cannot win for the couple and their children access to the rights, benefits, and protections afforded by the federal and state governments to heterosexual married couples.
As noted earlier, the Government Accountability Office has identified a total of 1138 federal statutory provisions classified to the US Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving rights, benefits, and protections.7 In addition, there are numerous state-based programs, benefits, rights, and protections that are based on marital status.
For same-