The push by conservative Congressmembers and right-wing political activists to amend the U.S. Constitution to permanently ban same-sex marriage — and perhaps civil unions and domestic partnerships — could inspire a burst of gay activism that rivals such gay milestones as Stonewall and ACT UP, activists and commentators say.

“They’d better think long and hard before they push this because they’re going to have a war on their hands,” Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Tony Kushner told The New York Times. “A real movement for an amendment will electrify this community and bring about an entire new generation of dissent and civil disobedience.”

“The fight against the Federal Marriage Amendment, as this ugly piece of work is nicknamed, is the Gettysburg of the gay rights movement,” declares syndicated commentator Ann Rostow. “It’s all or nothing. Because, if the right to marry is preempted by this constitutional travesty, our life partnerships will remain second-class, morally suspect, extra-legal, unrecognized and unequal for the indefinite future.”

The version of the amendment that has been introduced in Congress reads: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”

The phrase “the legal incidents thereof” leads some observers to fear the amendment could not only ban same-sex marriage but may be interpreted by courts as interfering with civil-union and domestic-partnership laws as well. Other observers, however, say the use of the word “require” leaves states free to extend spousal rights to same-sex couples although they can’t be required by a constitution or law to do so.

Amending the U.S. Constitution is difficult. It requires a two-thirds yes vote in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and ratification by at least 38 state legislatures. But uncertainty over whether antigay forces could scale those hurdles, activists say, is no reason to ignore the threat — because the consequences of the amendment’s passage could be dire.

“The right says that our LGBT movement is engaged in a war to bring down Judeo-Christian civilization,” says National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Executive Director Matt Foreman. “I agree with Tony Kushner that they are the ones imposing war on us, and the Constitutional amendment is the line in the sand. If that gets crossed, there will be people getting arrested in the offices of the people who are supporting this amendment. There will be marches in the streets. We will be calling these people the bigots that they are.

“To date there has been no political consequence to elected officials getting behind this heinous piece of legislation but once this thing actually starts moving, we definitely have it in us to make this ugly. I, for one, will be right there. The Task Force will be right there.”

Foreman says the amendment drive will only take off if George W. Bush explicitly pushes it.

“It will not go unless Bush pulls the trigger,” he said. “And George Bush will pull the trigger if they determine it will help him solidify his base and provide a useful wedge. It’s impossible to predict. What I do know for sure is that this is being focus-grouped to death to determine how the president can use it for his own reelection needs.”

Foreman believes that if Bush pulls the trigger, the amendment “will certainly pass the House of Representatives and come very close to passage in the Senate.”

“We need to lobby our members of Congress,” he said. “We need to speak candidly to our families and friends and associates and ask them to contact their elected representatives. What the organized movement can do is work much better together and drop our institutional egos to confront and defeat the challenges that are cropping up all over the country.”

Lawyer Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom To Marry, is among the activists who feel the amendment also imperils domestic-partnership and civil-union laws.

“The amendment is written to put a thumb on the scale against any measure of protection for gay families or unmarried non-gay people’s families, and the groups that are circulating this attack on the Constitution have a clear track record of saying one thing and then doing another when it comes to their antigay agenda,” Wolfson said. “California provides dramatic evidence. When pushing the Knight Initiative, [antigay activists] claimed it was just to bar marriage not domestic partnership. Now, these same groups are in court in California seeking to overturn AB 205, which [expanded the spousal rights available to registered partners] but does not provide for marriage.”

Wolfson says the gay movement faces three key tasks.

“First, we must secure the civil-marriage licenses we have won in Massachusetts,” he said. “We need to get resources there to support the groups, beginning with Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, to fight the politicians who are not following the law. Second, we need to repel attacks, including the [federal] Constitutional amendment; other hateful, discriminatory attacks in Congress; and attacks in state legislatures. Third, we need to enlist more voices into this public debate. As the middle moves toward us, they need to hear more diverse messengers delivering the message of marriage equality.”

Individual gays and lesbians can make all the difference, Wolfson says.

“Ask others to speak out against discrimination, to understand what’s at stake in the marriage movement, to not let their silence be construed as support for discrimination,” he said. “Each one of us needs to ask our nearest and dearest to learn why this is important to us personally, why discrimination is wrong for families and the country, and to understand how we’re under attack and need their help. Begin with families, friends and coworkers and really have the conversation. Then, pick your favorite organization that is working on this and get involved.”

Wolfson says the gay community can beat back the Constitutional amendment “if we mobilize and fight it.”

“We have to avoid panic but also complacency,” he said. “We need to seize this opportunity to have a very important discussion with America — because we’re winning that discussion.”

Jon Davidson, senior counsel at Lambda Legal, agrees with Wolfson that the Constitutional amendment, as currently written, endangers domestic-partnership statutes of all sorts.

“It’s definitely a threat to civil-union laws and to domestic-partnership laws and to other laws that provide protections to same-sex couples and their families,” Davidson said. “The second sentence will nullify civil-unions laws. You wouldn’t be able to use the civil-unions law in Vermont, for example, to require that you be given whatever spousal rights might be in question. It doesn’t prohibit a state from voluntarily giving benefits, but anybody who doesn’t want to do it voluntarily doesn’t have to. Legislatures couldn’t require that the benefits be granted.”

Davidson also agrees that Bush’s full-on support is essential if the amendment is to have a chance of passage, and he, too, says gays and lesbians must contact their elected representatives.

“It is really important that members of Congress and state legislatures hear that this is as unacceptable of a thing as could possibly be done against the gay community, and that everybody who votes for this will never get a gay person’s vote or a cent of their money ever again regardless of what else they do,” he said.

“The idea that we would amend the guiding document of our government to make gay people permanently unequal cannot be defended on any ground.”

A New York Times/CBS News poll released Dec. 21 found that 55 percent of Americans support amending the Constitution to permanently ban same-sex marriage. Forty percent oppose the idea.

Pollsters questioned 1,057 Americans by telephone between Dec. 10 and Dec. 13. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points, and the Times also noted, “Responses about gay rights tend to be influenced somewhat by the wording of the questions.”