NEWS US gays gird for explosive battle over marriage August 7, 2003 SAN FRANCISCO - In 1971, Paul Warwick made history when he sued Washington state to be able to marry another man. But 32 years after courts rejected his pioneering lawsuit, Warwick frets that a brewing national battle over same-sex marriage could provoke an anti-gay backlash and set back years of progress on homosexual rights in the United States. "The gay community is in danger of falling into the religious right's fight over marriage. We will lose that," said Warwick in San Francisco. "We can't fight the marriage battle right now." A similar ambivalence is filling America's gay community as it girds for a confrontation over marriage rights that could feature prominently in the 2004 presidential election. Last week President George W. Bush threw down the gauntlet when he said that marriage could only involve a man and a woman, while the Catholic Church issued a condemnation of gay marriage and adoption as unnatural and immoral. Both statements were cheered by conservative political and religious groups who want to ban official recognition of same-sex couples. Leading Republican senators Rick Santorum and Bill Frist advocate a constitutional amendment that would reserve marriage for heterosexual couples. But most of the nine politicians competing for the Democratic nomination for next year's presidential polls have endorsed some form of official sanction for gay couples while stopping short of endorsing outright marriage. The issue of gay marriage rights has been looming since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, after gay partners of some of those who died were denied the benefits that heterosexual spouses received. Several high-profile legal cases have sharpened the debate in recent weeks. In June the Canadian government announced it would legalize gay marriage following a key court ruling. Two weeks later, the US Supreme Court overturned a Texas sodomy law in a landmark decision that held, essentially, that homosexuality is a private issue outside the realm of the law. Then Massachusetts' state supreme court heard a challenge to its laws denying gay couples marriage rights, as similar cases were pending in New Jersey, Arizona and Indiana. Most analysts believe the Massachusetts court will rule this month in favor of gay unions, prompting calls by conservatives for a national law banning official gay marriage. The issue is so heated, explained California gay rights lawyer Toni Broaddus, because in the United States marriage is both a civil and religious institution, and separating the two is very difficult. At the level of civil law gay couples are now demanding the same legal benefits and protections accorded all married couples. These include tax advantages, inheritance and property rights, family health benefits, and hospital visitation rights. In 2000, Vermont became the first state to fashion a civil union law to guarantee gay couples these rights. Since then 5,914 gay unions have been registered. The same year, California enacted a much narrower domestic partnership law, and more than 21,000 couples have registered under the statute. But although heterosexual marriages are recognized by all states, these unions are not. US marriage law is set by individual states and not by the federal government. "We should be treated equally," said Broaddus, calling for full recognition under existing marriage laws. "Full equality means marriage." But the use of the term "marriage" angers conservatives. They believe that marriage should be reserved for only and man and a woman. And the explosive issue is as a political hot potato for gay rights activists as mush as it is for Bush, said Fred Jankowiak, president of the Silicon Valley chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans, a national conservative gay organization. Bush is under pressure from the far right to block all legal recognition of gay couples. But many moderate republicans support Vermont-style civil union laws, said Jankowiak, a marketing consultant in San Jose. "I think President Bush is personally committed to fair and equal treatment for all Americans. But he is in a tough position -- he needs to get elected again." Instead of marriage, gays should focus on civil union laws, Jankowiak said. "We in Log Cabin are not interested in the word marriage," he said. Warwick, who at 56 remains single since losing his 1971 challenge, agreed. But whatever happens, he said. "This is going to be one of the most decisive battles since the civil rights fight of the 1960s." -Sapa-AFP Talk about it in our forums Related stories US attorney general leaves possibility of same-sex marriage open Bush & Vatican outrages San Francisco gays Bush & Vatican stance on gay marriage outrages San Francisco Top US politician opposes Constitutional amendment on marriage Bush: law defines marriage as union between man and woman Most European countries recognise same-sex marriages Vatican to call on Catholic politicians to oppose gay marriages Oldest wedding magazine publishes first article on gay weddings US poll: only 53% of Americans are against gay marriages Gay couple unites in Argentina, a first for Latin America Canadian govt seeks Supreme Court advice on gay marriages New Zealand to legalise gay marriages, report Bush: Constitutional ban on gay marriage not necessary - yet UK unveils "gay marriages" plan