House Republicans
Move to Uphold Marriage Act
Published: March 4, 2011 - New York Times
WASHINGTON — House Republicans quietly moved Friday to uphold the Defense of
Marriage Act, the 1996 law that bans federal recognition of same-sex
marriages, saying they would step in to argue for the measurefs
constitutionality after the Obama administrationfs decision to stop defending
it.
Republican leaders had the option of inserting themselves in the case by
introducing a resolution on the House floor and allowing members to speak out on
the issue. Instead they released a statement of their intent on a Friday
afternoon when the House was out of session.
By choosing that route, Republican leaders illuminated a central problem they
face in the 112th Congress: how to reflect the priorities of traditional social
conservatives when much of the partyfs energy is focused on the federal
budget and the national debt, the animating passions of the freshman class
of lawmakers.
Gov. Mitch
Daniels of Indiana set off a debate within the party last month when he
warned fellow Republicans not to get bogged down in the cultural wars of yore
and to gagree to get along for a little whileh on social issues.
Speaker John
A. Boehner of Ohio took to the political tightrope with an arabesque on
Friday, when he announced in a news release that he would convene the Bipartisan
Legal Advisory Group, made up of the three top Republicans and two most senior
Democrats in the House, gfor the purpose of initiating action by the House to
defend this law of the United States.h
By doing so, Mr. Boehner fulfilled a promise to the more conservative members
of his caucus, who care deeply about the law, by stepping in to defend it. But
he stopped short of creating the appearance of House members distracted from
their spending fight by a battle over gay marriage.
The advisory group can now decide to ask courts to appoint it as a party in
cases involving the marriage act or it can simply file a brief or make an
argument as an interested observer.
gMy personal preference would have been a resolution on the House floor,h
said Bryan Fischer, the director of issue analysis for American Family
Association, a conservative Christian organization in Tupelo, Miss. gBut the
political landscape in 1995 meant that the law passed overwhelmingly,h he said.
gYou may not have the same overwhelming majority on this resolution, so the
optics may not be optimum.h
Support for action by the House to defend the marriage statute came from some
conservative groups and lawmakers. But many freshmen in the Republican caucus
were silent on the matter.
Representative Raúl Labrador, a conservative freshman from Idaho, has not
mentioned the issue, said Phil Hardy, his spokesman. gMy boss is all about the
budgets and finding the waste,h Mr. Hardy said in an e-mail.
Similarly, Representative Michele
Bachmann of Minnesota, who leads the House Tea
Party caucus, has not addressed the statute, even as she released statements
concerning President
Obamafs budget, and freedom
of choice in light bulbs.
gShe does not support gay marriage,h said Doug Sachtleben, Ms. Bachmannfs
spokesman.
gBut I do know that right now she is particularly concerned about defunding
Obamacare, this whole budget process,h he said. gThose are the time-pressing
issues for her.h
The minority leader, Nancy
Pelosi of California, said in a statement that gI oppose Speaker Boehnerfs
effort to put the House in the position of defending this indefensible statute.h
Mr. Boehner said that it was the president, not the House, that was diverting
attention from the budget battles to focus on gay marriage, adding that the
House was simply fulfilling an obligation to defend laws it had passed.
gIt is regrettable that the Obama administration has opened this divisive
issue at a time when Americans want their leaders to focus on jobs and the
challenges facing our economy,h Mr. Boehner said. gThe constitutionality of this
law should be determined by the courts, not by the president unilaterally, and
this action by the House will ensure the matter is addressed in a manner
consistent with our Constitution.h
The move drew rebukes from gay rights groups and some Democrats. gI think
itfs sad that the speaker of the House wants to spend taxpayer funds to
discriminate against people,h said Representative Jerrold
Nadler, Democrat of New York and the lead sponsor of a bill to repeal the
marriage act. gIt is his right to do this. But it is totally wrong.h
Mr. Fischer of the family organization said he would rather have the House
than the Obama administration defend the act. gWe think the Department of
Justice was making a pretty tepid and halfhearted defense,h he said. gThis is
such an important public policy law it needs to be defended by someone who
believes it is good.h