Bill Information: Marriage Protection Act

[rightcoast]

I'm not a expert on law. I'm very, very far from it. I'm just an average Freeper who tries to keep on top of Congress and proposed legislation.

Sometimes it's hard to decipher the real "nuts and bolts" of a bill, and to get past the spin and rhetoric you're likely to read about in the newspaper or to watch on TV. Here's a small attempt to bring some clarity and definition to a bill making its way through Congress.

108th Congress, U.S. House
108 H.R. 3313
MARRIAGE PROTECTION ACT of 2003

"To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act."

This act would add the following section to the United States Code:

"SEC. 1632. LIMITATION OF JURISDICTION

No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of section 1738c of this title or of this section. Neither the Supreme Court nor any court created by Act of Congress shall have any appellate jurisdiction to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of section 7 of title 1."

Further information:

The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 enacted the following into the United States Code (USC):

"Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

The Defense of Marriage Act made it federal law that no state must be compelled or legally required to recognize another state's same sex marriage law. It also amended the USC definition of marriage:

"Sec. 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

The Marriage Protection Act would deny courts the power to re-interpret, issue rulings, or even hear any cases whatsoever with respect to 1738C or Sec. 7 that are quoted above.

[goldstategop]

It can be passed by a simple majority vote of both Houses Of Congress. Its the thing to try before amending the Constitution. Then let it work its way through the federal courts.

[Humidston]

Soon we'll have to be wording another bill to defend society against beastiality, incest, necrophilia and any other deviant behavior one can conjure up.

It's time to IMPEACH - not create new bills to keep up with this trash being pushed on society!

[rightcoast]

Soon we'll have to be wording another bill to defend society against beastiality, incest, necrophilia and any other deviant behavior one can conjure up.

It's still preferable to (and much more realistic than) a Constitutional amendment.

[rightcoast]

It's time to IMPEACH - not create new bills to keep up with this trash being pushed on society!

What's the history of judicial impeachment, and what is the process? Is it the same as, or similar to, impeachment of an elected officer like the President?

[Kerberos]

"SEC. 1632. LIMITATION OF JURISDICTION"

This portion is easy to understand. In one fell swoop they are eliminating the right of judicial review up to and including the Supreme Court. Or in other words eliminating part of our system of checks and balances, on at least this issue.

Which when you consider that is what the government has been consistently doing, eliminating individual rights, for the last fifty years or more, it makes since. And like many other issues they sell based on some higher moral principal, there will be a certain portion of society that will go for it because after all it is for the greater good of society.

The problem is if they get this through then why not start making other laws that are not subject to judicial review? That's how centralized government gets created.

[DonQ]

There is - and I think there never was - a law which actually prevented any court from considering cases under or challenges to an Act of Congress. Carving out the Defense of Marriage Act for this special sort of immunity is not only unnecessary (I could find only five court decisions mentioning the DOMA since its enactment) but opens the way for yet more such restrictions on courts to prevent challenges to other, less agreeable, laws.

And I think it's more an indicator of political bloodsport than a real and valid social concern that proposals against same-sex marriages have gotten such political popularity (as distinguished, say, from proposals to outlaw abortion or to put the Ten Commandments in public buildings). Same sex couples already live in every city and many towns and whether the partners are, or aren't, officially bound to each other isn't my business, anymore than whether my hetero neighbors have legally valid marriages to each other. This issue is George Junior's "Pledge of Allegiance" and he'll forget all about it on Election Day.

[txradioguy]

I wantd to share a series of posts I got into on the comments section of my hometown newspaper over a story they ran about local officials reaction to the gay marriage "issue". Normally this would be any big thing except I happen to share the same hometown with the POTUS. And I thought it would be interesting for people to see "how it plays in Midland, Texas"

Name: John Wollaston
Date: Feb, 26 2004
Roe v. Wade, taking the words "Under God" out of the Pledge and gay "marriages". What do they all have in common? They were rulings handed down by activist courts and turned into law after they failed to win any kind of support in the Congress. Constitutional amendments like one defending marriage between a woman and a man would be un-necessary if our federal courts hadn't been turned into a law making branch of the government, re-writing the constitution as they see fit. The Federal courts are the last refuge of the Liberal DemocRATS and they use them to interpret and re-write the constitution to fit their twisted view of the world when the majority of the people don't agree with their minority view. It's a shame that in this day and age it's come down to the necessity of having to have a constitutional amendment to protect what has been in the Bible since the beginning of time. And people wonder why the DemocRATS are so opposed to President Bush's judicial appointments! If conservative thinking takes over the federal court system, there goes the DemocRATS last chance to re-write the U.S. Constitution into a new version of the Communist Manifesto!

Now, here was the response to what I said:

Name: Alex Borrowman
Date: Feb, 26 2004
John Wollaston - This is a SECULAR country and not everyone follows what is in the Bible. SECULAR. Not everyone shares yoru views on religion. People are afraid of Conservative judges because of the fear that zealotry will enter into the SECULAR democracy we have in this country.

And here is the reply that I just posted:

Mr. Borrowman said "This is a SECULAR country and not everyone follows what is in the Bible. SECULAR."

Gee, they must not be teaching history in the MISD schools like they did when I went to MHS in 1987. What he said about this country being a "Secular Democracy" is flat out WRONG!!! We are a representative republic founded on Christian beliefs and morals. If we weren't our founding fathers would not have made so many references to God in the Constitution and the Declarations of Independence. This has nothing to do with my personal religous beliefs, of which I did not at any point bring up in my discussion but which Mr.. Borrowman seems to automatically assume to know. This isn't about secular (code speak for anti-Religon) or religous beliefs, it's about morals, guidelines for a society to live by.

You take those away, all at once or slowly over time, you're left with anarchy. This is a dumbing down of what constitutes morals and right or wrong in our country. If you don't draw a line somewhere and say "enough" where does it end? Where does the erroding of our society end and the tenets of what have made us the great nation we are today end?

Why is there no outrage at the fact that the mayor of a city has thumbed his nose at state law in California for his own personal political gain? Mayor Gavin Newsom is allowing gay marriages to occur with his permission and even his participation in direct violation of the states "Defense of Marriage" act. Am I the only one concerned that an elected official is openly thumbing his nose at the rule of law and being celebrated like a hero for it jsut becasue he's supporting the "it" topic of the week?


I don't think that a Defense of Marriage Act would be necessary if the courts of this nation hadn't been packed with activist judges for the last 30 years who look at the Constitution as a living doccument instead of carved in stone as it really is. As un-necessary as it might seem to logical thinking people, the DMA needs to be enacted before the next endangered species in danger of extinction is the Heterosexual Married Couple.

[Ford4000]

This will be the liberal scare tactic but will never happen. The federal judiciary would view such a law as a vote of no-confidence and would begin to curb its excesses to avoid further loss of the power and respect that they covet.

You also fail to recognize that the constitutional power to deny jurisdiction IS a check and balance - on the judiciary.

[Kerberos]

"This will be the liberal scare tactic but will never happen Yeah, that's what they always say, it's just for this one time.

[meenie]

I like to look at some of the examples our political leaders have made to encourage deviant behavior. I can remember when Barney Fag Frank was caught ensconced with a male prostitute in his apartment using his apartment to conduct prositution in Washington. Then we have the deviant behavior of our latest past president to compare.

Both examples were indicative of a complete disregard for law as they were both illegal as well as depraved. Now we wish to amend the Constitution that has been disregarded and ignored in violation of the oaths that these same gentlemen promised to uphold. Spare me the effort of getting excited about a Constitutional amendment that will probably be ignored as the rest of the document has been.

[mrtysmm]

I'm definitely confused now. Can someone explain to me...or show me where to read more on this...this is suppose to help all the states who do NOT legalize gay marriage to defend themselves against "married gays" who try to live in and collect benefits from their state. I understand that...but...what about the statement in the constitution that says ..."full faith and...etc "(I don't know all the wording)...according to statements I've read that superceeds the defense of marriage act. Can anyone direct me? TY

[mrtysmm]

Two ways to remedy the situation....1)vote for conservatives 2)start impeaching judges and leaders who circumvent the law.

[Ford4000]

This would not be the first time that Congress has shielded itself from the courts. My understanding is that it is used a couple of times in every Congress.

[Paul C. Jesup]

I am glad I am not the only one who sees homosexuality as the red harring it is.

[Kerberos]

"My understanding is that it is used a couple of times in every Congress."

Well I have a degree in legal research and writing and I have never heard of such tactic. Now perhaps I missed something. Do you have any examples of other times this has been used and codified?

[Ford4000]

Try this: http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20031006-085845-5892r.htm

[rightcoast]

The "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution confuses me a little as well. Let's look at the relevant text:

"Article IV Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

In reference to the Defense of Marriage Act, Section 1 seems to allow it, in that "Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner" in the way one state's laws and rulings affect another state.

However, Section 2 states that a state's citizens "shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." What is the definition of "privileges" here? And does "several states" imply the United States as a whole, or does it apply to a lesser standard of simply other states?

[rightcoast]

Congress is granted by the Constitution the power to limit the jurisdiction of the judicial branch.

The relevant text in the Constitution:

"Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish...

"Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, ...to controversies between two or more states...

"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

The Congress is given the express power to define exceptions for jurisdiction, with Congressional regulations. This bill (the Marriage Protection Act) if enacted as law would define as an exception that the judicial branch has no jurisdiction over the definition of marriage in the Constitution, nor (if the bill becomes law) does it have jurisdiction over the law declaring that a state is not compelled to recognize any marriage other than that which is between one man and one woman.