Posted on 07/22/2004 1:46:06 PM PDT by unspun
House Votes to Support Traditional Marriage
By David Thibault
CNSNews.com Managing Editor
July 22, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - U.S. House members Thursday voted to strengthen a law that defines marriage as an act between one man and one woman. By a vote of 233 to 194, the House action is also seen as a defeat for homosexual activists seeking to export the legal rights of marriage from one state to another.
Massachusetts has legalized homosexual marriage and San Francisco city officials earlier this year allowed thousands of homosexual marriages to take place, but most states and local jurisdictions still legally limit marriage to heterosexuals.
The Marriage Protection Act, if signed into law, would prevent federal courts from hearing challenges to a key provision of the similarly titled Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which became law in 1996.
DOMA's Full Faith and Credit section asserts that states do not have to recognize marriages from other states that violate their own state laws or public policy.
"The House has done its part today to build a wall of defense around the institution of marriage," said Michael Schwartz, vice president for government relations at the conservative organization, Concerned Women for America.
Federal judges will not be able 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," Schwartz added. "Now we need the Senate to act quickly to pass this legislation."
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), America's largest homosexual activist group, labeled the Marriage Protection Act "a dangerous and discriminatory measure" that would "block access for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community to the judicial system."
HRC President Cheryl Jacques also criticized the timing of Thursday's House vote, which occurred just after the 9/11 Commission report was issued.
"Congress today was sent a historic message to focus on terrorism and it focused on discrimination instead," Jacques stated. "We will work to ensure that this measure is soundly rejected in the Senate."
And unlike a constitutional amendment, all this needs is a majority of the Senate and the President's signature.
Hopefully all of the "states rights" RINOS that voted against the Constitutional Amendment will vote to pass this. It gives the powers back to the states and lets them and the people of the states decide the issue.
This is unprecedented, isn't it ? I don't think there has ever before been a limit placed what the courts can rule on by congress. If it passes, I have a short list to add to limits which include partial birth abortion, flags, pledge of allegiance, mention of God, prayers.
An interesting stance indeed. Finally, the branch of the People is standing up and taking on the activist judicial interlopers.
I'd be interested in hearing the perspectives of FR's more constitutional jurisprudential set, about this, including the subjects you bring up.
Anyone have a FR Constitution/Attorney ping list?
HEH HEH wonder if Kerry and Edwards are going to conveniently miss this vote!
Interesting....
It has been done before (the Alaska oil pipeline is one I remember being mentioned here before).
Let me guess, the Senate will filibuster?
Yes, it should expose the phony states' rights advocates.
Yeah, I know...
"This is unprecedented, isn't it ?"
Not at all! Congress used to do it more than they do now but just last year Congress passed a law to allow clearing underbrush in South Dakota and removed the law from the jurisdiction of the Courts.
FROM THE FIRST JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789 TO THE PRESENT, CONGRESS'S USE OF ITS AUTHORITY TO LIMIT FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION HAS BEEN CONSISTENT AND BIPARTISAN
See here for a full history of this. http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp108:FLD010:@1(hr614)
There will be a filibuster.
But this will flush out all those who are hiding behind the state's rights excuse.
I pray that this restriction on judges is FULLY and EXPERTLY explained to the American people so that they totally understand what a filibustering senator is opposing.
To oppose this law means that he was LYING about wanting states to be able to make their own decisions on this matter.
John McCain BEWARE!
I can just about hear Sonorous Sen. Specter now: "I have grave reservations about attempts of the Congress to interfere with the work our Judicial Branch must do on the Federal Level, to interpret the Constitution so as to defend our citizens against abuses of (Scottish) law...."
See the link above
No need for a Constitutional amendment when the Constitution already gives Congress the power to make itself the final word on these issues.
Well... (gulp)... you can call your conservative citizen's organizations to make sure they hit all the appropriate Senators hard -- both on this and the judicial filibuster reform for the next Congress! (And, yes, W. will be re-elected --and I'll be eager to tune into the 700 Club on Nov. 3. ;-)
Organizations such as CWA, Family Research Council, NRA, GOA, Christian Coalition (yeah, they're still around), etc., etc., etc.
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.