WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic senators on Sept. 4 said they opposed a constitutional amendment to preserve the definition of marriage as the union between a man and a woman only, saying the law defining marriage as such is not at risk.

They were responding to witnesses in a Judiciary subcommittee hearing who pushed for an amendment because they believe the law may soon be challenged in court.

“No courts have questioned that law ... I don’t think anyone has seriously suggested that law is in danger,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont).

The law known as the Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996. It denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows states to ignore same-sex unions allowed elsewhere. Some politicians, including President Bush, have been concerned that U.S. courts might overturn the federal law.

Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said he organized the hearing to determine whether more laws were needed to strengthen the Defense of Marriage Act. He insisted it was not intended to consider a constitutional amendment.

But Democrats said it is the ultimate goal of some Republicans.

Though no amendment has been proposed in the Senate, a measure was introduced in the House.

Supporters of an amendment said it is needed to protect children and to help stem the disintegration of families.

Maggie Gallagher, president if the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, testified that marriage is a key social institution for the protection of children.

Other witnesses said it is only a matter of time before the traditional marriage definition is challenged, particularly as states pass laws recognizing gay unions. The Supreme Court recently struck down a Texas law that made gay sex a crime, overturning an earlier ruling that said states could punish gays and lesbians for having sex.

Among the opponents of an amendment was Keith Bradkowski, the partner of Jeff Collman, an American Airlines pilot who was on the first of the four planes hijacked by terrorists in the Sept. 11 attack.

Bradkowski said he had a committed relationship with Collman though they were never legally able to marry. He described his difficulties proving his relationship with Collman after his death, such as trying to obtain a death certificate. He said the definition of marriage should be left to the states.

“Jeff and I only sought to love and take care of each other. I do not understand why that is a threat to some people,” he said.