Top Stories of 2004: Pro-Family Crowd Hails House Marriage Protection Act Victory
by Jenni Parker
December 27, 2004
(AgapePress) - Pro-family groups are praising the U.S. House of Representatives for making a strong show of support for traditional marriage through their decisive passage of the Marriage Protection Act (MPA) by a vote of 233-194. However, several are saying the legislation, although a step forward, does not go far enough.
The MPA (H.R. 3313) is designed to bar federal judges from ordering states to recognize homosexual marriages that other states have approved. The act does this by removing jurisdiction from the federal courts to hear challenges to DOMA or to the FMA. If the Senate also approves the measure and the president signs it into law, same-sex couples who want their Massachusetts marriages or marriage licenses recognized in other states would be without recourse in the federal courts.
Voices from the forefront of the battle to defend traditional marriage, pleased that U.S. lawmakers seem to be realizing that marriage is under attack, are hailing the passage of H.R. 3313 as an important win. Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family Action, the Family Research Council, and Vision America were among those groups that issued overjoyed responses upon learning that the House had voted in favor of the bill.
Michael Schwartz is Concerned Women for America's vice president for government relations. On Thursday, after the House voted in favor of the MPA, he commented that the legislative body had "done it's part to build a wall of defense around the institution of marriage." The next step needed, he said, is for Senate to act quickly to approve the legislation.
In the meantime, Schwartz was gratified to note that "Congress will not allow federal judges to use the Full Faith and Credit clause as an excuse to overturn the governing bodies of states that choose to defend marriage from the wildfire that activists have started in Massachusetts.
The reaction of Vision America president Rick Scarborough was, "Finally, finally there's a legislative body with the courage to stand up to judicial tyranny." He commented Thursday that Congress had "heaped glory on itself" by passing the MPA, unlike the Senate, which "disgraced itself" by its recent failure to support a constitutional amendment protecting marriage.
Scarborough says he will be interested to see what the Senate does with the MPA, since many liberal Senators argued against the last marriage protection legislation before Senate by protesting that such matters should be left up to the states. In his recent statement he noted, "That's exactly what The Marriage Protection Act does -- it says the federal courts can't interfere. Liberal senators will have to change their tune once again, making manifest their hypocrisy."
Federal Marriage Amendment Still Needed
James Dobson, chairman and founder of Focus on the Family Action, was also pleased about the House FMA vote, but his exultation was tempered. "While this legislation will not protect marriage across the nation, it will prevent un-elected rogue judges in federal courts from overturning the will of the people," he said.
But as Dobson pointed out, even if the MPA becomes law, marriage will still be vulnerable. The Supreme Court could simply declare the law unconstitutional, forcing a face-off between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. The Focus on the Family spokesman believes only one thing can resolve the issue -- a federal constitutional amendment that enshrines the God-ordained definition of marriage in the law of the land.
"Before the institution of marriage is fully out of reach of the U.S. Supreme Court," Dobson says, "passage of a Federal Marriage Amendment will be necessary. We will not rest until that has been accomplished."
Family Research Council president Tony Perkins had a similar response. While he and the FRC applaud the House for passing the MPA, he noted that it is "only a statute" that, like the DOMA, can always be struck down in a federal court. "For that reason," Perkins said, "we will continue to push for both the House and Senate to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution protecting marriage. Only then will the hands of activist judges be tied."
Nevertheless, the FRC spokesman feels the passage of the MPA was a significant victory, and he says the vote was necessary for two reasons. "Firstly, Congress is well within its authority to limit the ability of activist judges at the federal level to redefine marriage out of existence," he said.
Secondly, Perkins pointed out, the MPA vote allows U.S. citizens to see where their representatives stand on this issue. He suggests that MPA voting record should be used "as a gauge for voters to see whether their members of Congress truly believe that marriage should remain an institution reserved for one man and one woman."
