Posted on 07/18/2004 7:35:18 PM PDT by paltz
Realizing that a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage faces little chance of passing soon, if ever, House Republicans yesterday discussed alternative approaches, including stripping federal courts of jurisdiction over the issue, passing a federal law to define marriage and using the appropriations process to ban gay marriage in Washington.
All the legislative action on gay marriage is currently in the Senate, but the House GOP is rapidly developing its own tactics. Leaders will take their first step next week when they take up Rep. John Hostettler’s (R-Ind.) “jurisdiction stripping” bill. This would bar federal courts from hearing lawsuits related to gay sex and marriage.
While the House will not debate a constitutional amendment before the summer recess, it might take it up when Congress resumes in September.
Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) told reporters yesterday that he plans to use “jurisdiction stripping” measures to achieve other social policy goals as well. [For an example of the legislative language that would be used, see below.
For example, he will push legislation to stop federal courts from hearing lawsuits related to the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.
The U.S. Constitution establishes only the Supreme Court but leaves it to Congress to “ordain and establish” the lower federal courts. Arguably, therefore, Congress has the right determine the federal courts’ jurisdiction.
“That [Supreme Court] building is the Taj Mahal. … Everybody should stay away from it,” he said about Congress’s past unwillingness to challenge Supreme Court decisions.
DeLay said the time is “not quite ripe” to apply the GOP’s new legislative tactics to the issue of abortion.
The majority leader’s decision to consider voting on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is a change of tack. When authorities in San Francisco began issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples in the spring of this year, DeLay appeared to oppose amending the Constitution.
But yesterday he told reporters that the Senate action had moved the politics of the issue ahead. “The fact that the Senate brought it up for a vote made you all write about it,” he said, adding, “The debate has been joined.
“The protection-of-marriage amendment is not an offensive action; it is a defensive action taken in direct response to the brazen usurpation of legislative authority by four judges in Boston.”
A senior Republican lawmaker, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the amendment had been brought up by conservative activists in hopes of stirring grassroots support close to the election. “Gay marriage is a big base issue.
Activists see the issue as one of timing, too. They’re [politically astute]. But the Senate jumped the gun, which puts us in an awkward situation,” the lawmaker said.
Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) echoed DeLay: “Congress is not choosing to do this. … It is important to educate the American people.”
Lawmakers kicked aides out of their weekly conference meeting yesterday to discuss alternative approaches to blocking gay marriage. Members of the Republican Study Group also discussed the issue.
Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-Va.) has proposed a Definition of Marriage Act (DOMA) for Washington, D.C. DOMA has defined marriage in 38 states but not in the District of Columbia, which the Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate.
Davis told The Hill that one idea would be to vote on her proposal as an amendment to the D.C. appropriations bill. “That’s a thought; it’s something we are contemplating,” she said. “It depends on leadership.”
Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.) sent a “Dear Colleague” letter yesterday to lawmakers decrying the need for a “Plan B” in case a constitutional amendment fails to pass.
Istook wrote that the goal is “straightforward so that every Member of Congress is clearly on the record; Have immediate impact, so the same-sex marriages happening in Massachusetts do not continue to threaten the institution of marriage; [and] Require passage by only a simple majority in Congress.”
Aides said such a law would be unconstitutional, however, because it violates the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.
The prospect for passing an amendment remains bleak after yesterday’s 48-50 defeat in the Senate.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who chairs the Senate Judiciary’s Constitutional subcommittee, told reporters: “I think [the House] can learn from our experience in debating this issue,” adding that had the Senate just voted on a measure defining marriage between a man and a woman would have given proponents at least 10 more votes. The cloture motion, however, still would have failed.
Sheesh, what a can of worms.
Please tell me this is satirical...please?
I'd back this a lot more than a constitutional amendment.
It's high time these activist judges like that tyrant Stephen Reinhardt, are reigned in.
Is that actually real, or is it a Saturday Night Live type thing.
how screwed up in the head can you get?
More than one way to skin a cat!
What do you mean? They're DemocRATS.
Maybe the sexually charged comment about Kerry and Edwards wasn't in there, but I'd bet on the rest.
Apparently, I'm not the only one who thinks the FMA was rushed to a vote too soon. The White House political people observed that in 2000, there were 4 million Evangelicals who didn't vote. They decided that the FMA would be their strategy for making sure this didn't happen again. So they decided to have an early FMA vote to force liberal senators from red states (e.g. Tom Daschle) to vote pro-homosexual. But in the event, they were 12 votes shy of cloture, so they didn't get the vote itself. The two Johns didn't even bother showing up to vote, they didn't need to. Ouch! So by turning marriage into wedge politics, I'm afraid they may have guaranteed gay marriage in all 50 states.
As for the idea of passing legislation to limit the powers of judges, is this really a good idea? There's a reason there's a judiciary: it is a check on legislative and executive power. We might regret taking away their power someday. But in the meanwhile, it looks a bit desperate to talk of such things. Kind of like FDR trying to stack the Supreme Court in the 1930s by making it have 15 justices, when the Court ruled against his socialist programs.
including stripping federal courts of jurisdiction over the issue
They are getting closer FINALLY!
How about forcing the judicial activists OFF the bench through the impeachment proceedings since they have been breaking the laws now with impunity for several decades now!
Nah --- those damned rinos have no guts!
"As for the idea of passing legislation to limit the powers of judges, is this really a good idea? There's a reason there's a judiciary: it is a check on legislative and executive power."
I understand your concern, but the checks and balances haven't worked for a long time. The courts must be brought into line. If congress has the constitutional power to limit court juridictions, now is the time to try it. Yes, there is a risk it could get out of hand - but like I said, the courts already are. Maybe it will sober up drunken liberal judges to the fact they are not above the "consent of those ruled."
This item is an example of excellent satire. Why?
Because it too easily could be real. Does anyone have a single doubt how NAMBLA members will contribute and vote?
But the tip-off is the "Peter Herman" as in "Pee-Wee".
My Congressman at work!!! Go get em John.
May I ask where you found that? I'd like to find a link to it so I can use it in an ongoing debate in our neighborhood over Kerry vs. Bush.
Thanks!
What is the argument behind the claim that:
State 'A' (or fed) must recognize (all) the
marriages of State 'B' ?
"If skinning cats is your thing"...Personally it seems a bit messy. Cats, worms, snakes, its all pretty weird I'd say.
I can't wait to see how they will handle the divorces from the Massachusetts gay marriages. That will be a hoot...Gee whose clothes are whose, and who gets what, its coming!
Pee Wee is a pervert, as is NAMBLA, I think those people should have to register as sex offenders in every state.
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.