Gays face off in D.C.: under the threat of congressional veto, two out politicians are battling over how the city should recognize same-sex couples.

Is it time for the city of Washington, D.C., to take baby steps or a bold leap in the move toward LGBT equality? Tension between those two approaches is playing out on the city council as its members grapple with securing marriage rights for gay men and lesbians.

In what could be a bold-stroke tactic, councilman Jim Graham, a gay Democrat, is considering introducing a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. And even the prospect of the bill has been enough to ring alarms among some of the city's gay residents.

The danger, many fear, is that if the D.C. city council were to pass such a controversial bill, it would bring forth the ire--and retribution--of the GOP-led Congress. Washington, unlike any other jurisdiction, is partly controlled by Congress. Congress can veto any city council--approved bills, a power it tends to exercise only on hot-button political issues such as school vouchers or needle exchange programs.

Congress almost certainly would reject a D.C. measure legalizing gay marriage.

Councilman David Catania, who is also gay, is championing a more incremental approach to securing marriage rights for gays and lesbians. Catania, an independent who left the Republican Party over its stance on same-sex marriage, says Congress could go even further in response to such a bill and block other potential advances for gay rights. And Catania recalls the last time the D.C. government tangled with Congress over gay rights issues: For a decade Congress withheld funding the city needed to implement a 1992 D.C. law that recognized domestic partnerships. It took years of lobbying a reluctant Congress to reverse that, he remembers, an ordeal he doesn't relish repeating.

Catania instead backs building on the approach outlined in a bill the council adopted January 4, which confers a wider range of legal rights to domestic partners, including gay couples. The bill would give domestic partners the same powers of attorney and immunity from testifying against one another as married couples, and it would create alimony-like arrangements if partnerships are ended.

His tack is pragmatic, not idealistic. "We should be taking important steps forward that are sustainable and that do not generate a response that would eviscerate all our advances," he says. Catania is careful not to use the word "marriage" in describing the kinds of rights the council-passed bill provides gay couples, fearing that even the milder bill might draw opposition and a possible veto from conservatives in Congress.

Graham is aware of the potential fallout from pushing a full same-sex marriage bill. "I'm very conflicted," he says. "In my heart and mind I know it is the right thing to do. But I want to not only do the right thing but the effective thing."

Still, Washington's unique system of congressional approval for city legislation puts it in a position to force same-sex marriage to the forefront. "Here we can create the agenda," Graham says. "We could galvanize this as a national issue."

That's tantamount to picking a fight, and Graham knows it. And he says he wants to make sure the debate is a healthy one.

For now Graham is holding off on introducing such a bill, in light of the uproar just the mention of the controversial legislation has elicited among those who fear a dustup with Congress would end in a setback for gay rights. Perhaps the best approach, he says, is to just wait for a more sympathetic Congress. Maybe next year, he says, the climate will be better. And by then the national marriage-equality lobby will be ready. "When this happens, it is going to take an enormous amount of energy from the gay community to combat," Graham says. "Otherwise, Congress would slap us like a fly."

Heil is a congressional reporter for National Journal Group's CongressDaily.