Neither John Boeher nor Eric Cantor is talking about gay marriage. | AP Photos GOP mute as SCOTUS tackles gay marriage

House Republican leaders had a uniform response to the Supreme Court’s decision to take up gay marriage: silence.

The high court’s decision last week to hear two cases relating to same-sex marriage puts that issue at the center of the national debate. And it does so at an exceedingly awkward time for Republicans, many of whom are trying to downplay or moderate their party’s views on social issues to chart a path back to electoral success.


( PHOTOS: 20 gay-rights milestones)

The timing is most uncomfortable for House Republicans, who are playing a key role in one of the cases the court agreed to hear.

In June, the House of Representatives told the Supreme Court that the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act “is an issue of great national importance” that urgently requires the justices’ attention. The 1996 law denies federal benefits to same-sex married couples.

( Also on POLITICO: Gay marriage pressure back on Obama)

But when the court agreed on Friday to hear one of the DOMA cases early next year, the Republican leadership had nothing to say about it.

Advocates on both sides of the issue said they’d seen no statements from Republican lawmakers about the court’s decision to take on DOMA and an even more provocative dispute regarding a ban California voters approved on same-sex marriage.

“I’m personally grateful to Speaker [John] Boehner for being willing to defend the law, but it’s clear GOP elites don’t want to talk about it and want to keep it as quiet as possible,” said Maggie Gallagher, a founder of the National Organization for Marriage and a fellow at the conservative American Principles Project. “That’s so obvious, I don’t see any point in pretending otherwise.”

Tom McClusky of the Family Research Council said he assumes from conversations he’s had with congressional aides that lawmakers are pleased the high court is taking up the issue. “But there’s just radio silence” publicly, McClusky said. “I was disappointed there wasn’t more from the Hill.”

And a top gay-rights activist, who asked not to be named because of his outreach to Republicans, said he hasn’t “heard or seen anything” from GOP leaders or members. “They’re really just hoping this issue will go away.”

POLITICO placed calls or emails to about 10 House members on Monday requesting comment on the court’s announcement. None surfaced for an interview.

( PHOTOS: Celeb tweets about Obama’s gay marriage stance)

The only substantive reply came from a House member Boehner kicked off two key committees last week, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.).

“It is a good thing that SCOTUS is considering the case because it will give the Supreme Court another opportunity to affirm the clear constitutionality of DOMA. Furthermore, it has the potential to overturn the mistaken lower court ruling deeming Proposition 8 unconstitutional,” Huelskamp said of California’s 2008 referendum banning gay marriage.

Spokesmen for Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) were among those who didn’t respond to requests for comment about the high court’s move.

When Boehner announced in March 2011 that he was starting the process that could lead the House to intervene in court cases about DOMA, the speaker said nothing in favor of or against gay-marriage rights. Instead, he suggested that President Barack Obama had abdicated his responsibilities to defend the law President Bill Clinton signed in 1996.

“It is regrettable that the Obama administration has opened this divisive issue at a time when Americans want their leaders to focus on jobs and the challenges facing our economy,” Boehner said then. “The constitutionality of this law should be determined by the courts — not by the president unilaterally — and this action by the House will ensure the matter is addressed in a manner consistent with our Constitution.”

The executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, Clarke Cooper, said the Supreme Court’s decision to take the case could cast Republican leaders in a negative light by calling attention to GOP support for legislation that limits benefits and opposition to measures that would repeal it.

“To the average American, regardless of what they think about marriage, it’s going to look odd for Congress to be defending a statute that is indefensible,” Cooper said. “It’s going to be an extreme challenge for leadership of how do they thread that needle.”

Cooper said he understands that House leaders feel obliged to back the law — which Obama has declined to defend since February of last year, when he and Attorney General Eric Holder announced they’d concluded it was unconstitutional. However, Cooper said his group of gay Republicans is urging House leaders to be as low-key as possible.

“The delicate dance that needs to be done is: How much does leadership want to wrap themselves around the case, or do they want to create a distance of saying this is a perfunctory, administrative role … and we’re going through the motions,” he said. “We would recommend keeping distance. … There’s going to be political risk and loss if it looks like House leadership is going all the way.”

Despite their public silence, there’s little indication in House leaders’ approach to the case that they’re just going through the motions. They’ve hired — at government expense — a lawyer many consider to be the finest Supreme Court litigator of the moment: former solicitor general Paul Clement. When the high court hears the DOMA case, he’s expected to be the leading and perhaps the only voice arguing in favor of keeping the law on the books.

So far, a total of $2 million has been authorized by the House for legal proceedings on the issue, over the protests of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), a House Administration Committee aide said Monday. It’s possible that budget will have to rise to accommodate the Supreme Court litigation, but the high court’s decision to take up the issue could also moderate the expenses by leading to a pause in lower-court litigation.

Clement and the House’s in-house attorney, General Counsel Kerry Kircher, did not respond to requests for comment for this story.

Asked about the political ramifications of the case for Republicans, Boehner spokesman Michael Steel suggested there is no reason defending the law should be seen as a GOP project.

“The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group is bipartisan,” he said, referring to the panel that authorized the litigation on behalf of the House.

However, the two Democrats on that panel — Pelosi and Hoyer — have said they strongly oppose the House’s effort to defend the law. “BLAG does not speak for House Democrats,” Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said Monday.

House Republicans aren’t the only ones in a tricky position due to the court’s moves Friday. The justices’ decision to take up California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage calls attention to the fact that Obama has never made clear whether he believes the U.S. Constitution guarantees gay and lesbian couples the right to marry, as many of his liberal supporters believe. In fact, some of his past comments suggest he doesn’t see such a right.

But gay-rights backers say Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage is broadly consistent with where a majority of Americans is headed on the issue, and Republican leaders are far out of step.

The platform the Republican Party adopted at its convention in Tampa this year not only backs DOMA and salutes the House for its defense of the law but also calls for a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage across the nation.

“Congressional Republicans took the lead in enacting the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of States and the federal government not to recognize same-sex relationships licensed in other jurisdictions. The current Administration’s open defiance of this constitutional principle — in its handling of immigration cases, in federal personnel benefits, in allowing a same-sex marriage at a military base, and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts — makes a mockery of the President’s inaugural oath,” the platform says. “We reaffirm our support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

During the Republican presidential primary, many candidates — including eventual nominee Mitt Romney — spoke out against gay marriage. But during the general election, such rhetoric was rare. Some political analysts traced the relative quiet to a proposal Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-Ind.) first floated in 2010 that the GOP declare a “truce” on social issues. Others noted that the Republican Party’s stance was undercutting its ability to win over young people, who have become overwhelmingly supportive of gay marriage.

“Certainly, getting our teeth kicked in in the general cycle was another reassurance that we Republicans really do not need these issues hanging around the party’s neck like an anchor,” Cooper said, adding that gay-rights issues are being discussed as part of the “after-action review” that party leaders ordered following their poor showing last month. “Taking positions that are exclusionary or perceived as targeting part of the population doesn’t help.”

But Gallagher said the election wasn’t really a test of the appeal of conservative social positions — and Republicans would be unwise to abandon their defense of DOMA.

“The Republican Party tried the ‘truce’ strategy in this election,” Gallagher said. “The problem was not that they ran on social issues and lost. … If you never mention social issues, of course the only people who vote on social issues are going to be the ones who disagree with you.”

“I think it would be of very little political benefit to Republicans to bail out suddenly now at the Supreme Court level,” she said. “It’s very clear the base of the Republican Party very much opposes gay marriage.”