The House is nearing a vote on a hotly contested bill that would create the first federal definition of marriage and outlaw same-sex unions in federal law even if a state decides to legalize them.
The bill is expected to pass easily, and conservatives say they can't believe some Democrats are opposing legislation that would define marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman.But opponents have denounced the Defense of Marriage Act as thinly disguised bigotry designed to provoke anti-gay feelings among voters during this year's presidential campaign.
"This bill . . . is an absolute outrage," said Rep. Patricia Schroeder, D-Colo., on the House floor Thursday. "If you think there isn't enough hate and polarization in America, you're going to love this bill."
Debate was scheduled to resume later Friday.
The federal government traditionally leaves regulation of marriage to the states, but supporters said the legislation is needed to blunt the effects of a court case that could lead Hawaii to become the first state to grant gays the right to marry.
If that happens, the Constitution may require other states to recognize gay marriages performed in Hawaii, said the bill's sponsor, Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga. The case is scheduled to go to trial in September.
Marriage is "under direct assault by homosexual extremists all across this country," Barr said.
President Clinton joined the fray Thursday by repeating assurances that he opposes discrimination against any group of Americans. But he nevertheless will sign the bill, the White House said, because he "has long opposed same-sex marriage."
Barr said the bill wouldn't block any state from legalizing gay marriages, but other states would have the authority to reject their validity.
Married gay couples would remain ineligible for spousal benefits under the Social Security and Medicare programs and any other federal benefit reserved for heterosexual couples.
Some opponents believe states already have the power to reject gay marriages performed in other states. And Democrats have said the bill was timed for maximum Republican political advantage.
"How does the fact that I love another man ... threaten your marriage?" asked Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., one of Congress' three openly gay members.
Rep. Steve Largent, R-Okla., contended history shows that gay marriage would hasten the decline of American culture. "No culture that has ever embraced homosexuality has ever survived," he said.
Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, denied suggestions that the bill was politically motivated. "There are some values that deserve protection," he said. "It's a very important family values issue."
Hatch's star witness during the Senate committee hearing was Brigham Young University law professor Lynn Wardle, who said same-sex marriage supporters have long advocated in law journals the use of federal authority to force a state to recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state.