One
week
after
the
Senate
defeated
a
proposed
constitutional
amendment
to
ban
same-sex
marriage,
the
House
of
Representatives
voted
233
to
194
on
July
22
to
pass
a
bill
that
would
bar
federal
courts
—
including
the
U.S.
Supreme
Court
—
from
deciding
whether
the
Defense
of
Marriage
Act
is
constitutional.
Gay
civil
rights
attorneys
said
the
bill,
H.R.
3313,
the
Marriage
Protection
Act,
appeared
unconstitutional
and
would
set
a
dangerous
precedent
by
altering
the
balance
between
the
legislative
and
judicial
branches
of
government.
“The
legislation
seeks
to
forever
slam
shut
the
federal
courthouse
doors
to
gay
and
lesbian
couples
challenging
an
anti-gay
federal
marriage
law,”
the
American
Civil
Liberties
Union
said
in
a
statement.
“Last
week,
the
Senate
rejected
amending
the
Constitution,
but
today
the
House
voted
to
violate
it,”
said
ACLU
legislative
counsel
Christopher
Anders.
In
the
vote
on
the
Marriage
Protection
Act,
206
Republicans
and
27
Democrats
voted
for
the
bill
while
176
Democrats,
17
Republicans
and
one
independent
voted
against
it.
While
disappointed
in
the
outcome,
gay
activists
were
quick
to
point
out
that
the
233
vote
total
in
favor
of
the
bill
fell
significantly
short
of
the
290
votes
needed
by
the
House
to
pass
the
proposed
constitutional
amendment
banning
gay
marriage.
"On
the
positive
side,
194
members
of
Congress
rejected
this
mean-spirited,
divisive,
disgusting
and
clearly
unlawful
bill,"
said
Matt
Foreman,
executive
director
of
the
National
Gay
&
Lesbian
Task
Force.
The
House
approval
of
the
bill
appears
to
confirm
the
view
of
its
sponsors
that,
while
many
lawmakers
are
unwilling
to
back
a
constitutional
amendment
to
ban
gay
marriage,
they
have
no
qualms
about
supporting
a
bill
that
bans
federal
courts
from
forcing
individual
states
to
recognize
gay
marriages.
Gay
civil
rights
leaders
were
expected
to
turn
their
attention
to
the
Senate,
with
the
hope
of
persuading
a
majority
of
senators
to
defeat
the
bill.
President
Bush
was
expected
to
sign
the
legislation
if
the
Senate
joins
the
House
in
passing
it.
Wisconsin
Congressman
James
Sensenbrenner,
the
Republican
chair
of
the
House
Judiciary
Committee,
said
the
bill
was
needed
to
ensure
that
federal
courts
don't
force
states
to
recognize
same-sex
marriages
performed
in
other
states.
The
measure
was
approved
by
the
committee
on
July
14.
"Integral
to
the
American
constitutional
system
is
each
branch
of
government's
responsibility
to
use
its
powers
to
prevent
overreaching
by
the
other
branch,"
Sensenbrenner
said.
But
gay
rights
attorney
Paul
Smith,
who
successfully
argued
the
Lawrence
vs.
Texas
Supreme
Court
case,
which
overturned
state
sodomy
laws,
said
the
scope
of
the
proposed
law
was
unprecedented
because
it
targets
gay
citizens
as
a
single
minority
group.
"If
you
deny
the
Supreme
Court
the
power
to
decide
minority
rights,
you
dramatically
alter
the
balance
of
power
between
the
court,
which
exists
to
protect
constitutional
rights,
and
the
Congress,
which
addresses
political
issues,"
Smith
said.
The
House
approval
of
the
legislation
came
on
the
same
day
that
an
independent
federal
commission
studying
the
Sept.
11,
2001
terrorist
attacks
released
its
final
report,
which
criticized
Congress
and
the
Bush
and
Clinton
administrations
for
not
doing
enough
to
prevent
terrorist
strikes
on
the
United
States.
“Congress
today
was
sent
an
historic
message
to
focus
on
terrorism
and
it
focused
on
discrimination
instead,”
said
Cheryl
Jacques,
president
of
the
Human
Rights
Campaign,
the
nation’s
largest
gay
political
group.
“We
will
work
to
ensure
that
this
measure
is
soundly
rejected
in
the
Senate,”
Jacques
said.
Among
those
speaking
out
against
the
bill,
during
a
two-hour
debate
on
the
House
floor,
were
gay
Reps.
Barney
Frank
(D-Mass.)
and
Tammy
Baldwin
(D-Wis.).
“It
is
a
terrible
mistake
to
strip
one
branch
of
government
of
the
power
to
review
laws,”
Baldwin
said.
Gay
Rep.
Jim
Kolbe
(R-Ariz.),
the
only
gay
Republican
member
of
Congress,
voted
against
the
bill,
although
he
did
not
make
remarks
on
the
legislation
on
the
House
floor.
The
House
vote
on
the
Marriage
Protection
Act
took
place
two
days
after
the
House
passed
D.C.'s
fiscal
year
2005
appropriations
bill
without
adding
an
amendment
banning
the
District
from
legalizing
same-sex
marriage.
On
July
7,
Rep.
Jo
Ann
Davis
(R-Va.)
introduced
a
bill
that
would
prohibit
D.C.
from
legalizing
same-sex
marriage
or
recognizing
same-sex
marriages
from
other
states.
Capitol
Hill
observers
expected
Davis
and
House
GOP
leaders
to
attempt
to
attach
the
Davis
bill
to
the
D.C.
appropriations
bill
this
week.
To
the
surprise
of
gay
activists,
House
Majority
Leader
Tom
DeLay
(R-Texas),
a
strong
opponent
of
gay
rights,
persuaded
Davis
and
other
House
Republicans
not
to
attach
Davis'
bill
to
the
D.C.
appropriations
measure.
According
to
the
Washington
Post,
DeLay
said
conservative
and
religious
leaders
opposing
same-sex
marriage
would
not
favor
limiting
a
ban
on
such
marriages
to
D.C.
Instead,
DeLay
reportedly
told
gay
marriage
opponents
that
they
should
devote
their
attention
to
passing
the
Marriage
Protection
Act
as
well
as
the
Federal
Marriage
Amendment,
the
proposed
constitutional
ban
on
gay
marriage
that
the
Senate
voted
down
last
week.
DeLay
said
he
would
bring
the
FMA
to
the
House
floor
for
a
vote
in
September,
the
Post
reported.
DeLay's
office
did
not
return
a
call
by
press
time.
The
Defense
of
Marriage
Act,
known
as
DOMA,
...
