WASHINGTON — With Massachusetts' highest court declaring Tuesday that gay couples have the right to marry, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch says it is time to seriously consider a constitutional amendment saying they do not.

"It's time to consider what actions we need to take to safeguard traditional marriage — including the possibility of a constitutional amendment," Hatch, R-Utah, told the Deseret Morning News.

Congress recently passed the Protect Marriage Act, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. But Hatch worries the new ruling could overcome that — and any legislation short of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

"I'm not sure the Protect Marriage Act that we passed would be adequate to avoid the application of the full faith and credit clause (of the Constitution), which means that same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts may have to be upheld in Utah — and that would be a matter of great concern," he said.

He added that the Massachusetts decision "may encourage other lawsuits in other states. The decision by that court may be used as a 'persuasive' (not direct) precedent for the courts."

While he said a constitutional amendment should now seriously be considered, passing it "is easier said than done."

He said a main problem is finding language that will bring together both those who still "would like to find some sort of a legal accommodation" for gays on such things as health care and estates, and "those who don't want any possible recognition of the relationship for fear they (gays) will achieve protected status in the law."

He notes finding common ground is necessary because constitutional amendments must pass both houses of Congress with two-thirds majorities, and then be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

Hatch also condemned the decision by the Massachusetts court.

"This shows what happens when a court legislates from the bench," he said. "There is no reason for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to make this decision. It is the height of judicial activism."

Hatch also said that if the Massachusetts ruling stands, it could unravel marriage laws in other unexpected ways — including possibly leading to the recognition of polygamous unions.

"I think we're a long way from any courts or any legislature accepting polygamous relationships," he said.

"But if this winds up being the law of the land throughout the country through the full faith and credit clause, it's going to be difficult to argue that polygamy has to be banned."

---

E-mail: lee@desnews.com