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 measure’s constitutionality after the Obama administration’s 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 party’s 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 “agree to get along for a little while” 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, “for the purpose of initiating action by the House to defend this law of the United States.”

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.

“My personal preference would have been a resolution on the House floor,” said Bryan Fischer, the director of issue analysis for American Family Association, a conservative Christian organization in Tupelo, Miss. “But the political landscape in 1995 meant that the law passed overwhelmingly,” he said. “You may not have the same overwhelming majority on this resolution, so the optics may not be optimum.”
believes it is good.”

Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/us/politics/05marriage.html?ref=us