Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

House Judiciary Committee Approves State Marriage Protection Legislation
usnewswire.com ^ | 7/14/2004 4:10:00 PM | no byline

Posted on 07/14/2004 1:37:11 PM PDT by weegee

To: National Desk

Contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn, 202-225-2492, both of the House Committee on the Judiciary

WASHINGTON, July 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The House Judiciary Committee today approved by a 21-to-13 margin legislation that would ensure States continue to decide state marriage policy. H.R. 3313, introduced by Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.) and amended today by the Committee, removes the federal courts' jurisdiction to hear cases involving the provision in the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that allows States to decide whether to legally recognize out-of-state same-sex marriage licenses.

Article III, Section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution provides that the lower federal courts are entirely creatures of Congress, as is the appellate jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court, excluding its very limited original jurisdiction.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wis.), stated, "This legislation protects the people's right to decide state marriage policy under DOMA, which Congress passed overwhelmingly and President Clinton signed into law. The Constitution allows the exercise of 'judicial power,' but it does not grant the federal courts unchecked power to define the limits of its own power. Integral to the American constitutional system is each branch of government's responsibility to use its powers to prevent overreaching by the other branches. Far from violating the 'separation of powers,' as some have alleged, this legislation that leaves state courts with jurisdiction to decide certain classes of cases would be an exercise of one of the very 'checks and balances' provided for in the Constitution."

"Limiting federal court jurisdiction is neither a partisan issue nor a rare occurrence. For example, Senate Minority Leader Daschle inserted language in legislation enacted during the last Congress that denied all federal courts jurisdiction over the procedures governing timber projects in order to expedite forest clearing. If limiting the jurisdiction of the federal courts is good enough to protect trees, shouldn't it be good enough to protect a state's marriage policy?" Chairman Sensenbrenner added.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: activistjudges; clintonlegacy; congress; constitution; defenseofmarriageact; doma; hostettler; houseofreps; hr3313; judicialactivism; marriage; marriagelaws; samesexmarriage; senate; statesrights

1 posted on 07/14/2004 1:37:15 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kjenerette; Van Jenerette

...issue file.


2 posted on 07/14/2004 1:40:32 PM PDT by Van Jenerette (Our Republic - If we can Keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weegee

If they can pass this, the liberal judiciary will throw it out in a flash.


3 posted on 07/14/2004 1:41:02 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weegee

All the votes against from the Rats. I would love to see Tommy Daschund filibuster a state's rights measure on the Senate floor. I think its a sensible first step before we go to the drastic expedient of amending the Constitution.


4 posted on 07/14/2004 1:42:50 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weegee
Finally, someone in Congress showed some guts. Congress has limited the authority of the federal courts plenty of times (Clinton had to sign the bill limiting the access of death row inmates) and this is the best and easiest way to stop the Aassachusetts decision from being forced onto the rest of the country.
5 posted on 07/14/2004 1:43:52 PM PDT by COEXERJ145
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Let 'em. It will help convince conservatives a federalist solution doesn't work. What its about is building the case for protecting marriage.


6 posted on 07/14/2004 1:44:03 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

What do you mean? Diane Feinstein said that the states were quite capable of handling gay marriage. Why would she not support legislation that helps to insure that is the case? :-)


7 posted on 07/14/2004 1:45:06 PM PDT by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Don't we need a Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution? I do not want Democrats involved in in a Convention at all.

States rights are important. Maybe it'll keep the gays busy if they have to go state-state. Maybe it will shift some Dem states further to the center, if not the right.


8 posted on 07/14/2004 1:47:13 PM PDT by reformedliberal (Proud Bush-Cheney04 volunteer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969

Exactly. If the Democrats vote down this legislation, it exposes them as a bunch of hypocrites. And as radicals on the issue of gay marriage. Either way, we win.


9 posted on 07/14/2004 1:47:21 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: reformedliberal

This is an intermediate step designed to make sure the federal judiciary leaves state laws on marriage alone. A sensible solution no one I think, should object to. At the same time it helps to build a case for amending the Constitution in the event the federal courts do throw it out.


10 posted on 07/14/2004 1:49:20 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Meanwhile, Massachusetts is stuck with a lot of weddings that no one can stomach, all because some judges had their gay associates look up some law.


11 posted on 07/14/2004 1:58:53 PM PDT by bitt (take a week off from the local rag - and tell them why!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bitt

It is amazing that some common sense reared its ugly head in the House. The Congress has complete control over the lower courts and their jurisdiction.


12 posted on 07/14/2004 2:04:20 PM PDT by meenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: weegee

Not bad. Unfortunately it elevates the power of state courts in that the feds cannot rule against, say, the Mass. Supremes who overstepped their role. It locks in that ruling and ends the lawsuit challenging them, leaving those idiots all powerful but for the wimpy name change that MIGHT happen a few years from now.. But at least it leaves it to the individual states. Besides, there is no chance in the world that our Supreme Court will rule justly. I can just move to the state with the best Amendment. So far Nebraska is best. That's the good news. It would stop the overturning of the Nebraska Amendment.


13 posted on 07/14/2004 2:26:30 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

But, would this not mean the Mass SC ruling could be overturned by state lawmakers, and thereby be immuned to appeal to or intervention by federal courts?


14 posted on 07/14/2004 2:34:39 PM PDT by azhenfud ("He who is always looking up seldom finds others' lost change...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud

It could not be overturned by state lawmakers alone. It could only be overturned lawmakers and citizens together amending their constitution by spelling out the definition of a word that has had a clear meaning since the beginning of language development. But Mass. lawmakers have already wimped out and are offering the people a vote on an amendment that would ban marriage but constitutionalize civil unions that equal marriage. It's a stupid distinction. Word play. Talk about a waste of time.


15 posted on 07/14/2004 2:39:10 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
It could not be overturned by state lawmakers alone. It could only be overturned lawmakers and citizens together amending their constitution by spelling out the definition of a word that has had a clear meaning since the beginning of language development.

Or they could remove their judges via an Article of Address. Their state constitution gives them that opportunity.

16 posted on 07/14/2004 3:54:33 PM PDT by inquest (Judges are given the power to decide cases, not to decide law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: inquest

Why aren't they doing that?


17 posted on 07/14/2004 5:10:23 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Lack of political will. The homosexual propaganda machine is extremely effective, especially in Massachusetts. Even people who are opposed to it don't want to say it out loud, for fear of appearing "bigoted".

But that can change.

18 posted on 07/14/2004 5:14:01 PM PDT by inquest (Judges are given the power to decide cases, not to decide law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: weegee

Gay Marriage Roll Call Vote

The 50-48 roll call by which the Senate blocked a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Supporters of the amendment fell 12 votes short of the 60 they needed to advance the bill.

On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote to advance the measure and a "no" vote was a vote to stop it.

Voting "yes" were 3 Democrats and 45 Republicans.

Voting "no" were 43 Democrats, 6 Republicans and 1 Independent.

X denotes those not voting.

Democrats Yes

Byrd, W.Va.; Miller, Ga.; Nelson, Neb.

Democrats No

Akaka, Hawaii; Baucus, Mont.; Bayh, Ind.; Biden, Del.; Bingaman, N.M.; Boxer, Calif.; Breaux, La.; Cantwell, Wash.; Carper, Del.; Clinton, N.Y.; Conrad, N.D.; Corzine, N.J.; Daschle, S.D.; Dayton, Minn.; Dodd, Conn.; Dorgan, N.D.; Durbin, Ill.; Feingold, Wis.; Feinstein, Calif.; Graham, Fla.; Harkin, Iowa; Hollings, S.C.; Inouye, Hawaii; Johnson, S.D.; Kennedy, Mass.; Kohl, Wis.; Landrieu, La.; Lautenberg, N.J.; Leahy, Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Lieberman, Conn.; Lincoln, Ark.; Mikulski, Md.; Murray, Wash.; Nelson, Fla.; Pryor, Ark.; Reed, R.I.; Reid, Nev.; Rockefeller, W.Va.; Sarbanes, Md.; Schumer, N.Y.; Stabenow, Mich.; Wyden, Ore.

Democrats Not Voting

Edwards, N.C.; Kerry, Mass.






Republicans Yes

Alexander, Tenn.; Allard, Colo.; Allen, Va.; Bennett, Utah; Bond, Mo.; Brownback, Kan.; Bunning, Ky.; Burns, Mont.; Chambliss, Ga.; Cochran, Miss.; Coleman, Minn.; Cornyn, Texas; Craig, Idaho; Crapo, Idaho; DeWine, Ohio; Dole, N.C.; Domenici, N.M.; Ensign, Nev.; Enzi, Wyo.; Fitzgerald, Ill.; Frist, Tenn.; Graham, S.C.; Grassley, Iowa; Gregg, N.H.; Hagel, Neb.; Hatch, Utah; Hutchison, Texas; Inhofe, Okla.; Kyl, Ariz.; Lott, Miss.; Lugar, Ind.; McConnell, Ky.; Murkowski, Alaska; Nickles, Okla.; Roberts, Kan.; Santorum, Pa.; Sessions, Ala.; Shelby, Ala.; Smith, Ore.; Specter, Pa.; Stevens, Alaska; Talent, Mo.; Thomas, Wyo.; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.

Republicans No

Campbell, Colo.; Chafee, R.I.; Collins, Maine; McCain, Ariz.; Snowe, Maine; Sununu, N.H.

Others No

Jeffords, Vt.


19 posted on 07/14/2004 8:40:41 PM PDT by take
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson