March 23 (Bloomberg) -- Republican lawmakers trying to win votes for a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages said they are willing to change the language to ensure states can recognize civil unions.

Senator Wayne Allard, a Colorado Republican and sponsor of the original amendment, said he made ``technical changes'' to make it clear that state legislatures may allow civil unions or other domestic arrangements for homosexual couples, while reserving marriage for the union of one man and one woman.

Senator Orrin Hatch, who supports Allard's amendment, also said ``there may be other approaches that warrant our consideration.'' The Utah Republican is weighing an alternative that would allow states to define marriage, his spokeswoman Margarita Tapia said.

The possibility of several new versions of the amendment came as the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing today with Allard testifying next to U.S. Representative Barney Frank, an openly gay member of Congress. Frank said same-sex marriages wouldn't hurt the institution of marriage.

``It doesn't detract from anyone else. Who are we hurting here?'' said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat. ``Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.''

Four U.S. states and the District of Columbia have civil union or domestic partnership laws, and gay-rights activists said the original amendment would have wiped out those protections. Allard's revised version did little to appease those groups, and the American Civil Liberties Union called it ``a desperate political move.''

Discriminatory

``The new proposal would still write discrimination into the Constitution,'' said Christopher Anders, an ACLU legislative counsel. Anders said Allard's amendment also would deny states the right to have gay marriage and would prohibit court decisions forcing states to extend marriage-like rights.

Representative Marilyn Musgrave, another Colorado Republican, will offer the new language proposed by Allard in the House of Representatives. Musgrave said the only way to preserve traditional marriage is through a constitutional amendment and that an allegation of discrimination ``cheapens the debate.''

President George W. Bush has said he supports a constitutional amendment, while some in his Republican Party say it's unnecessary. Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, defining marriage as between a man and a woman for the purposes of federal law.

Challenge

Gay-rights groups are likely to challenge the constitutionality of that law after the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that a refusal to marry same-sex couples was discriminatory. Massachusetts legislators are pursuing a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriages.

U.S. lawmakers who back a federal amendment say the Massachusetts case and others prompted them to act. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples until he was stopped by court order, and several municipalities across the country followed Newsom's lead.

The new Allard amendment reads: ``Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.''

It differs from the original by fewer than a dozen words, with the major difference being dropped phrasing that would have prohibited state and federal law - in addition to constitutions - from conferring the ``legal incidents'' of marriage.

``There were those who said we were hiding some sort of stealth agenda to deny benefits, and we wanted to clear the air,'' said Matt Daniels, president of Alliance for Marriage, a group working with lawmakers to pass the amendment.

Hatch's alternative, which he hasn't introduced, reads: ``Marriage shall be defined in each state by the legislature or the citizens thereof. Nothing in this constitution shall be construed to require that marriage or its benefits be extended to any other union than that of a man and a woman.''

Vermont is the only state that allows same-sex couples to enter into civil unions, which afford state tax benefits, inheritance rights and the right to leave work to care for an ill partner. California, Connecticut, Hawaii and the District of Columbia have domestic partner laws that provide health-care benefits and other protections. The state arrangements do not confer federal benefits, such as Social Security payments.

Amending the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority vote in the U.S. House and Senate and the approval of three- fourths of state legislatures.

To contact the reporter on this story: Laura Smitherman in Washington at lsmitherman@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: March 23, 2004 16:12 EST