Marriage Amendment Focus Now Shifts to U.S. House
by Bill Fancher and Jody Brown
July 15, 2004
(AgapePress) - Now that the Senate has effectively shelved the Federal Marriage Amendment for this session, pro-family groups are turning their attention to the House of Representatives, which plans to vote on its version of the legislation sometime in September. Meanwhile, a House committee has passed a measure that could curtail judicial activists' concerted assault on traditional marriage.Supporters of the Federal Marriage failed yesterday in a cloture vote to turn back Democrats' filibuster technique. The 50-48 vote, which came up 12 votes short of the 60 needed to stop debate and force a vote on the FMA, was generally along party lines, with three Democrats voting in favor of the cloture and six Republicans voting against. But as Family Research Council president Tony Perkins puts it: "The Senate's vote [on Wednesday] has left the future of marriage in the hands of un-elected judges -- at least for the time being."
| | 
Tony Perkins |
Perkins, like many other pro-family leaders, wants to make it clear the Senate vote -- while disappointing -- was not unexpected. And it was just "round one" in the debate, he says."We've known from the beginning that this was going to be a long fight," he says in a press release. "What we didn't know was just how little regard senators on the left would have for the American people's will on this issue."
A Deluge of Public Support Ignored
Supporters of the FMA had bombarded Senate offices over the preceding week with phone calls, e-mails, and letters -- to the point where, according to one newspaper report, phones in one office were ringing 300 times an hour and the Senate voicemail system crashed numerous times. But despite the public outpouring in favor of the amendment -- and repeated polls showing 60 to 70 percent of Americans desire the definition of marriage to remain unchanged -- many senators preferred that the measure not be permitted to come up for a vote in an election year.
Like Perkins, Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family is determined to fight on. Dobson calls the defeat of the FMA in the Senate "only the opening salvo in a long battle" to preserve the definition of marriage. The definition cannot be determined by "tyrannical judges or rogue public officials," he says.
"That's why we will continue to bring the issue of marriage back to Capitol Hill until the voters' will is heeded," Dobson states. The respected pro-family leader maintains that the constitutional amendment process is the only way that each state and each state's citizens are involved in the ultimate outcome.
President Bush, while admitting disappointment, is casting the Senate's failure to pass the Federal Marriage as just a temporary setback. At a campaign stop in Wisconsin yesterday, the president said he believes "that traditional marriage -- marriage between a man and a woman -- is an important part of stable families."
In a White House statement, Bush is now urging the House to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment, which he says has been "temporarily blocked in the Senate."
"Activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are not letting up in their efforts to redefine marriage for the rest of America -- and neither should defenders of traditional marriage flag in their efforts," Bush said.
So Take the Judge's Power Away
While efforts continue on behalf of the Federal Marriage Amendment in the House, Indiana Congressman John Hostettler is taking a different approach. Legislation he introduced in October -- known as the Marriage Protection Act of 2003 (H.R. 3313) [PDF] -- has now been passed (21-13) by the House Judiciary Committee. That measure would strip federal courts of jurisdiction over the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996.
Hostettler explained to Associated Press that under the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power to remove issues from the jurisdiction of federal courts -- in this case, any challenges to DOMA.
"That means that states like Indiana that recognize the importance of the traditional institution of marriage as one man and one woman will not be forced by the federal courts to recognize a same-sex marriage license from a state like Massachusetts," the Republican lawmaker says.
And the process for enacting a statute into law is considerably easier than amendment the Constitution. "[B]ecause it's a statute, it only requires a simple majority in the House, a simple majority in the Senate, and the president's signature to become law," Hostettler says. "This could potentially could be a very quick way to stem the onslaught of same-sex marriage across the country."
In Hostettler's opinion, it is high time something be done to fight back against activist judges whose rulings are forcing same-sex marriages on the nation. "The American people are becoming very impatient with the courts -- [and] they're becoming just as impatient with a Congress that should be doing something about the courts," he says.
The Marriage Protection Act would remove the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, as well as inferior federal courts' original and appellate jurisdiction, over DOMA's full faith and credit provision. It would also remove appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme Court and inferior federal courts over DOMA's marriage definition provision. The full House is expected to consider Hostettler's bill next week.
Associated Press contributed to this article.
