"I have always defined marriage as between a man and a woman," he said Wednesday. "Recent court cases that could redefine marriage have renewed the debate over this issue. I believe this federal amendment is the best option available to Congress to uphold traditional marriage."

Matheson, like Bishop, will vote for the amendment. Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, is in Utah caring for a sick family member and will miss the vote, but he has supported the amendment.

Bishop actually supports a different approach, one already passed by the House that would invoke a rarely used provision of the U.S. Constitution that would specify that this issue is not subject to interpretation by the courts.

"It is an appropriate way to balance powers without a constitutional amendment," Bishop said. "Clearly, the judiciary is the problem."

Hatch and Bishop both point to the Massachusetts Supreme Court as the reason Congress is even debating the amendment. That court interpreted the state constitution, as well as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to allow same-sex marriages.

"By a one-vote majority, they brought it to the forefront. If not for them, it would not even be a major issue right now," Bishop said.

Hatch used the Massachusetts case during his speech to the Christian Coalition, saying, "There's no better example of how judicial activism destroys our liberty.

"Judicial activism destroys the people's right to govern ourselves, to have our values influence public policy and define the culture," he added. "America needs judges who know their proper place and are committed to stay there."

For all the hyperbole surrounding the measure, it is doubtful the measure will garner the two-thirds support to move it to the Senate for another vote. Even House leadership admitted as much.

"Even though we won't pass the amendment Thursday, it doesn't preclude us from bringing it back next year, and the year after that, and the year after that," DeLay said.

---

Contributing: Scripps Howard News Service

E-mail: spang@desnews.com