Jul 23, 2004  |  By: LOU CHIBBARO JR.  | COMMENTS     

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.

Federal DOMA unconstitutional?
The Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, defines marriage under federal law as a union between a man and a woman and allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

During the Senate debate last week over the FMA, supporters argued that a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was needed because federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court would likely strike down DOMA.

FMA supporters, including Senator Wayne Allard (R-Colo.), the FMA's chief sponsor, said the Supreme Court would likely rule that DOMA violates the Constitution's full faith and credit clause, which requires states to honor contracts and other legal agreements issued in other states.

Many of the senators who opposed the FMA disputed Allard's argument, saying a constitutional ban on gay marriage wasn't needed because DOMA would most likely withstand a constitutional challenge.

This week, gay activists expressed concern that members of the House and Senate who used this argument to justify their opposition to the FMA would feel constrained to vote for the Marriage Protection Act.

"The many senators who justified their vote because the nation already has a DOMA will have a hard time objecting to this legislation," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force.

Rep. John Hostetler (R-Ind.) introduced the Marriage Protection Act last year with little public notice or debate.

The bill states, "No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of [DOMA]."

"This legislation protects the people's right to decide state marriage policy under DOMA, which Congress passed overwhelmingly and President Clinton signed into law," said Sensenbrenner, at the time the House Judiciary panel passed the bill on July 14.

Supporters of the measure cite Article III of the Constitution, which states, "The judici