GAY MARRIAGE Republicans try to block courts from rulings

Democrats say the GOP is just trying to appeal to conservative voters.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- No federal court has ruled on state bans on gay marriage, and House Republicans want to make sure none does.
The House was considering legislation today to keep the Supreme Court and other federal courts from ordering states to recognize same-sex unions sanctioned elsewhere.
Continuing their election-year focus on gay marriage, Republican leaders expect the measure to pass easily. Last week, the Senate dealt gay marriage opponents a setback by failing to advance a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions.
Supporters' contention
Supporters said Wednesday the House legislation is needed to protect state bans on gay marriage from federal judges who might rule that a gay marriage that took place in Massachusetts, the only state where it is legal, must be recognized by other states.
"This bill is really a reaffirmation of states' rights," said Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., chairman of the House Rules Committee.
The Marriage Protection Act would strip federal courts of their jurisdiction to rule on challenges to state bans on gay marriages under a provision of a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Democratic opponents said the GOP is pushing ahead with an unconstitutional bill to appeal to socially conservative voters who are a key Republican constituency.
"That's what this is really all about, working their base to a frenzy for the election," said Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill.
No rulings on law
Adding to Democrats' sense that the House legislation is motivated by politics is that no federal court has yet to rule on the 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act. "The legislation is premature," Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., told the Rules Committee.
Nadler said he believes the legislation is unconstitutional, but legal scholars said the constitutional question of stripping jurisdiction from federal courts is unresolved.
"My sense is that Congress has explicit authority in the Constitution ... but it is a largely unexercised power," said Douglas Kmiec, a Pepperdine University constitutional law professor and former legal adviser to Republican presidents.
While Republicans defended states' rights, Democrats said the phrase recalled Southern opposition to desegregation, which was propelled by a series of federal court rulings.
"Today, it's gay marriage. Tomorrow, it could be something else. It's very dangerous for any Congress to move down this road," said Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a civil rights leader.
Some Republicans also cited their desire to avoid setting a precedent that could be used by a Congress controlled by Democrats to satisfy their allies or by lawmakers who wanted to shield future unconstitutional legislation from federal court review.
However, Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., author of the bill, said the issue is too important to ignore. "Simply put, if federal courts don't have jurisdiction over marriage issues, they can't hear them. And if they can't hear cases regarding marriage policy, they can't redefine this sacred institution," Hostettler said when he introduced the legislation in May.