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.
ROFL. I didn't even catch that part.
That's in the good ole Constitution.
Can't remember the reference, but I'll post it when I get home. It's kind of reasonable when you think abut it if we are a federal Republic, you can't have states going around trying to nullify the legislative acts of other states.
But that assumes that the states will act legally.
That's why the Constitution mandates the federal governemtn to guarantee to each state a "republican form of gevernment," i.e. non-tyrranical. I'd say that should extend to a ban on judicial tyrrany.
There is some cleaning up overdue in the federal judiciary as well as in the states. We need to get on this problem soon.
>you can't have states going around trying to nullify the legislative acts of other states<
...
Where is (forced on states) reciprocity for marriages
written in federal law?
It comes from Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, a.k.a. the "Full Faith and Credit" clause:
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.
Say in State A, both the male and the female must be 18 years old to marry, whereas in State B, the female can be 17. A couple consisting of an 18-year old male and a 17-year old female cannot marry in State A. But if they marry, quite legally, in State B and then move to State A before the female turns 18, State A is, on the basis of the above section of the Constitution, required to recognize them as legally married.
At least, that's how it's been interpreted so far. Now, the question is whether or not the various DOMA's that have been passed by the State legislatures will prevent a same-sex couple from Massachusetts from moving to a state with a DOMA and having their Massachusetts marriage recognized. My personal guess is, no; in the absence of a Constitutional amendment, those laws won't stand.
Take a look at the United States Constitution, Article 4, 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."
I don't want to get into a general exegesis of this article, but suffice it to say that this is the Constitutional backbone of the problem, and why a same-sex couple "married" in Massachussets may be able to force the governemtn of Arkansas to recognize the marraige. As written, Arkansas must give "Full faith and credit" to the public acts and records of the state of Massachussetts.
Now, the Congress has the right to legislate the "Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof," but that does not extend to the substance of the issue, only the procedural issues of proof, i.e. does a marriage liscence need to be produced...
Now, if you are looking for explicit language dealing with recipricocity for marriages, you won't find it. The drafters were going for more general language when they put the Constitution together, but that doesn't mean that the clause as written doesn't cover marriage.
protecting marriage is not a base issue, it is a national issue which crosses all lines.
Protecting marriage is a unifying issue.
Promoting homsoexual marriage is a dividing issue.
Kerry is a divider by supporting homosexual marriage with his 100% HRC rating.
Domain ID:D560828-LROR
Domain Name:NAMBLA.ORG
Created On:11-Oct-1996 04:00:00 UTC
Last Updated On:18-Jul-2004 07:23:01 UTC
Expiration Date:10-Oct-2005 04:00:00 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:R11-LROR
Status:OK
Registrant ID:tuOyMD9O3nISjuCI
Registrant Name:Floyd Conaway
Registrant Organization:NAMBLA
Registrant Street1:537 Jones St No 8418
Registrant City:San Francisco
Registrant State/Province:CA
Registrant Postal Code:94102
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.2128078578
Yeah. I just checked their website. They give this contact info there:
Homosexual Agenda Ping - Interesting what the Congresscritters (supposedly) have said about the Senate cloture thingummybob not happening, and whether it'll turn out to be a good thing or bad thing.
Oh, and this is what one of the signers of the Constitution [I think that's who he is; this quote is from www.federalist.com] had to say about marriage:
"The most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband
and the wife become in law only one person.... Upon this principle
of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage
depend. This principle, sublime and refined, deserves to be
viewed and examined on every side." --James Wilson
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist. Warning: it be busy. Usually.
How is the Sierra Club similar to NAMBLA?
Well, I stand corrected. There IS a Peter Herman and yet another pervert.
You know, I made a cursory search of the NAMBLA website looking for any mention of the name and didn't find this. Of course, I was in a hurry to get the heck off the site and I didn';t see this link.
Neither was I able to find any NAMBLA press releases on the site.
Perhaps I jumped to a certain conclusion too quickly, but if that press release is genuine, then these pevs have successfully become a parody of themselves.
I found it by doing a Google search for "Peter Herman NAMBLA".
And are there any other instances of the Congress passing laws that say the courts do not have jurisdiction over a certain subject or topic?
Fellow Patriots: This is extremely important to support the stripping effort. It is time that the courts are brought back into line with the mainstream views of America -- those that are consistent with the founding principles. We must mount a two-prong attack on the court's violation of our principles -- this the stipping effort plus the continued effort to change the constitution.
Another vital (but parallel) effort is to define the unborn as individuals entitled to the rights of citizens under the constitution.
This is the email address that showed at the whois at dnhsstuff.com:
aschweitzer2@yahoo.com
It's the "full faith & credit clause" of the U.S. Constitution.
This author must not have read the constitution lately. It clearly GRANTS Congress the authority to limit jurisdiction in Article 3, Sect 2, I believe. There's no "arguably" about it.
Read the article its almost the same thing wor for word but a different subject i did a search on the fellow who wrote the letter his name popped up in the sierra website archives
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.