House Debating Marriage Protection Measure Today
by Jody Brown
July 22, 2004
(AgapePress) - Members of the U.S. House of Representatives are debating legislation today that would bar federal courts from hearing challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). While conservatives may agree on the necessity for the Marriage Protection Act, not all of them are optimistic that it will be effective in protecting traditional marriage.
Earlier this week, a lesbian couple from Florida who received a legal marriage license in Massachusetts July 2 filed suit to have their marriage recognized as legal in their home state. Their suit is a direct challenge to the federal DOMA, which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman and says states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The scenario is one predicted by pro-family groups in the wake of last year's Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling, which effectively legalized homosexual marriage in that state.
While debate has raged on Capitol Hill over a proposed Federal Marriage Amendment that would amend the U.S. Constitution and limit marriage to a man and a woman, the Marriage Protection Act (MPA) (H.R. 3313) -- sponsored by Indiana Congressman John Hostettler -- has come to the forefront. The measure 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.
Pro-homosexual activists claim that H.R. 3313 is a direct attack on the separation of powers between the branches of the American system of government, and that it would undermine the crucial role of the courts in ensuring the protection of minorities. But as Hostettler points out, Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution gives Congress explicit and exclusive authority to regulate Full Faith and Credit relationships between the states.
"We've forgotten that our Constitution established a government of 'We the People' -- and the people, through their elected officials, have the final say in Constitutional questions," he stated when he introduced the bill in October 2003.
Unlike a constitutional amendment, which would require a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and then ratification of 38 states, the MPA -- like any other statute -- requires only a simple majority vote by the House and Senate and the president's signature.
Story developing...
