House OKs Bill to Limit Federal Court Rulings on Gay Marriage

In a vote against gay marriage, the Republican-controlled House on Thursday approved a bill designed to let state courts rather than federal courts decide whether states should recognize out-of-state marriages between people of the same sex.

The White House-backed measure was approved on a largely party-line vote of 233 to 194.

The bill faces an uncertain fate in the Senate, which last week scuttled a proposed constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage.

The bill, called the Marriage Protection Act, would strip federal judges of authority to hear challenges to a federal law that allows states to decide not to recognize same-sex marriages sanctioned by another state.

Supporters argued that the bill was needed to prevent activist judges from striking down a provision of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which says no state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage allowed by another state.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) said the bill would prevent “unelected, lifetime-appointed federal judges from taking away from the states their right to reject same-sex marriage licenses issued elsewhere if states so choose.”

But Kevin Cathcart, executive director of Lambda Legal, a gay and lesbian legal group, said the House measure “clearly violates our Constitution and will never be allowed to stand.”

The measure’s passage was spurred by a lawsuit filed this week by two lesbians who were married in Massachusetts and sought to have their union recognized in Florida.

Democrats accused Republicans of pushing the bill to motivate social conservatives to turn out for President Bush in the fall election. The bill’s opponents argued that it could lead to efforts to limit courts’ powers to hear civil rights cases.

“While every other American will continue to enjoy the checks and balances that come from three branches of government, the Republicans have decided that if you are gay, you should be able to get along with just two branches of government,” said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.).

The bill’s supporters said the measure was a response to gay marriages in San Francisco and other places after Massachusetts’ highest court this year permitted same-sex marriages in that state.

“Not on my watch will I stand idly by while the courts in Massachusetts redefine marriage in Indiana,” said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.).

Supporters said the legislation would not deny gays their day in court. Instead, they said, it would provide that state courts rather than federal ones would have jurisdiction.

Although some legal scholars have questioned whether the measure is constitutional, Sensenbrenner contends that Congress has the authority “to prevent overreaching” by the other branches of government.

The legislation -- which needs the approval of only simple majorities of both houses of Congress -- has been proposed as an interim step to a constitutional amendment, which must be approved by two-thirds majorities in both houses and three-fourths of state legislatures.

“They couldn’t amend the Constitution last week, so they’re trying to desecrate and circumvent the Constitution this week,” Rep. James P. McGovern (D-Mass.) said.

Some Democrats contend the measure is designed to give political cover to Republicans who oppose gay marriage but are uneasy about amending the Constitution.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said he believed the best strategy for dealing with gay marriage was the proposed constitutional amendment. He predicted that support for an amendment would increase if more courts legalized same-sex marriage.

GOP leaders are expected to bring the constitutional amendment to the House floor this fall.

All 33 California House Democrats voted against Thursday’s measure. Of the state’s 20 Republicans, only Mary Bono of Palm Springs and Doug Ose of Sacramento voted against it.

Bono warned that the bill would open the door to “inconsistent decisions within state-level courts that could not be further heard on a federal level, potentially forcing the citizens of one state to have to follow the federal constitutional interpretations of another state without having the option to appeal the dispute to a federal court.”