But Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., called the vote and pending amendment a "cynical election year ploy." She said this only "pops up like clockwork around election year time."

She said such an amendment is unnecessary because the states handle marriage rules and make their own decisions that should be respected.

"The fact that two gay people decide they want to take care of each other for the rest of their lives and care about each other for the rest of their lives, that doesn't threaten my marriage one bit," said Boxer, who noted she has been married for 44 years.

She said if someone's marriage is threatened by a gay couple getting married, "their problems go way deeper than they are caring to admit."

Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, will vote yes on the procedural vote but would like to see more work on the actual language of the proposed amendment, said spokeswoman Mary Jane Collipriest. He supports the need for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but the pending one now is too vague, she said.

Without an approval of the procedural vote, the pending amendment could not be changed on the floor or voted on directly, she said.

Hatch tied the fact the amendment would only get a procedural vote to some people not wanting to have an up-or-down vote on the amendment on their record.

"The bottom line is that some liberal interest groups are attempting a redefinition of marriage, and they are out there all alone on this issue," Hatch said. Vast majorities of Americans support traditional marriage. But some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so dependent on these activist groups for support that they sometimes feel they cannot go against them."

---

E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com