As the Wisconsin Senate was poised late Thursday to pass a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, tremors from the continually shifting national debate on gay marriage were felt in California and Massachusetts.
In Massachusetts, the state that kicked off the furor, lawmakers gave preliminary approval Thursday to a similar constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages but allow civil unions.
The California Supreme Court, meanwhile, ordered an immediate halt to the same-sex unions being performed in San Francisco in violation of state law, but did not weigh in on their legality.
In Wisconsin's Capitol, a day after setting aside the matter because of delays, lawmakers started their debate and braced for a long session.
Majority Leader Mary Panzer (R-West Bend) has said there would be no time limits imposed on the debate.
Shifts on the national front should force Wisconsin legislators to act now, said Sen. Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau), author of the measure. It would be irresponsible to stay out of the fray and let courts in another state legalize gay marriages that Wisconsin might then have to recognize, he said.
"We could stick our heads in the sand and pretend it's not raging outside this building, but we can't," Fitzgerald said, in a floor speech that stretched more than an hour.
After nearly eight hours of discussion, legislators had voted down more than half of the 13 amendments to the proposal, offered by Sen. Tim Carpenter (D-Milwaukee), who is gay and an outspoken opponent of the measure.
He spoke openly about discrimination and intimidation that homosexuals endure. Carpenter's amendments address such issues as same-sex partners' rights to access domestic-partner benefits or make end-of-life decisions about their partners.
"Our country has a proud history of amending the Constitution to extend civil rights, not limit them," Carpenter said.
Democrats' hands were tied. The regular session was supposed to have ended today, so to properly consider the amendment, leaders ordered the Senate into an extraordinary session, which can last as long as necessary.
Republican leaders placed about 40 bills with Democratic support at the bottom of the calendar, holding those measures hostage to the debate over the marriage amendment. The rules require that it be voted on first, then the Senate would be free to take action on remaining bills.
Sen. Fred Risser (D-Madison) criticized Republicans for mustering the energy to tackle same-sex marriage for the second time, while ignoring other issues as the clock ran out on the session. In fall, the Legislature sent to Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle a similar definition of marriage, which he vetoed. The Assembly failed to override the veto.
Risser said Wisconsin residents have much more pressing concerns, such as jobs, health care and education.
"That's what we should be here for," Risser said. "There are all kinds of issues on the sidelines."
The proposal is expected to pass with overwhelming support. Proponents estimate they have the support of as many of two-thirds of the Senate's members.
In fall, the Senate approved the bill to change state law by a 22-10 vote.
The debate over the definition of marriage has grown more intense nationally in recent weeks.
In light of the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision requiring the state to start recognizing same-sex marriages by May 17, President Bush called for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to mandate marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Because of that ruling, opponents of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts launched an effort to change their state's constitution. An initial attempt to address the issue last month adjourned when a deadlock couldn't be loosened. Lawmakers in dozens of other states are also taking up the issue.
Sponsors of the measure in Massachusetts say it represents an attempt to find middle ground, but stops short of providing the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. They also argue that it mirrors public opinion on the issue.
At the same time, city officials in some communities have flouted state law and started marrying gay couples. In San Francisco alone, thousands were married after Mayor Gavin Newsom defied California law and started issuing marriage licenses on Feb. 12.
After Thursday's California court decision that put a halt to Newsom's actions, couples waiting for licenses were immediately turned away by City Hall officials.
After several hours of discussion, the debate at the Wisconsin Capitol was already shaping up differently from the one in the state Assembly last week, when proponents spent only a few minutes talking in support of the measure, compared with nearly 15 hours by opponents. Several Senate members on both sides of the issue had taken the floor - for lengthy periods - to deliver their arguments.
Amending Wisconsin's constitution isn't an easy process. Both the Assembly and the Senate must approve identical wording in two consecutive sessions of the Legislature, then a majority of voters would have to support it in a statewide referendum.
If the Senate joins the Assembly, which passed the measure 68-27 last week, the amendment will have cleared the first legislative hurdles. Sponsors plan to introduce it again when the next Legislature convenes in January; if it passes then, voters could weigh in as early as April 2005, but more likely in fall 2006.
Massachusetts lawmakers face similar hurdles. The ban on gay marriages must be approved by its Legislature at least three more times this year, then again during the legislative session that convenes in 2005. It would likely go to voters in the fall of 2006.
Referendum urged
Offering voters the chance to weigh in on the issue is a key reason lawmakers should pass the measure, said Sen. Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin). "I would like to think all of my colleagues would want to allow and encourage the people of this state to make their statement via the ballot," she said.
Under the proposal, the Wisconsin Constitution would be amended to read:
"Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."
State law now defines marriage as being between a husband and wife.
The amendment's second sentence raised concerns among some members on both sides of the political aisle that it might restrict homosexuals from receiving the benefits of domestic partnerships, which are recognized in such cities as Milwaukee and Madison.
Fitzgerald discounted that argument, saying the measure couldn't be used to dismantle any domestic-partner registries already in place, nor would it prohibit businesses from providing benefits. Moreover, he said there were bigger stakes to the debate.
"This is about marriage and what it should be, it's not about benefits packages," Fitzgerald said.
The Associated Press contributed to this story.
