Posted on 07/25/2004 5:46:56 PM PDT by Dubya
WASHINGTON (BP)--An Oklahoma congressman introduced a bill July 22 that goes a step beyond current law by banning same-sex "marriage" nationwide -- including in Massachusetts -- and unlike a constitutional amendment, requires only a simple majority to pass.
Called the National Marriage Law, the bill, if passed, would supercede state laws, thereby voiding Massachusetts' law legalizing same-sex "marriage." In addition, the law would prevent state courts or lower federal courts from hearing challenges to it. Only the Supreme Court would be able to review it.
Sponsored by Rep. Ernest Istook, R.-Okla., the bill has 37 co-sponsors.
"This is the only [bill] which will stop same-sex marriages from occurring immediately," Micah Swafford, press secretary for Istook, told Baptist Press. "It will supercede state laws."
Under the current federal law called the Defense of Marriage Act, states are allowed to legalize same-sex "marriage, although other states can refuse to recognize those "marriages." DOMA also prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex "marriage."
Istook's bill goes a step beyond DOMA by protecting the traditional definition of marriage coast to coast.
Swafford said the bill is meant to be a short-term solution until a constitutional marriage amendment can pass. While an amendment requires the support of two-thirds of both the House and Senate, as well as the support of three-fourths of the states, Swafford's bill would need only the support of a simple majority in each chamber. State legislatures would not be involved.
"[Istook] definitely supports a Federal Marriage Amendment," Swafford said. "We believe marriage is important enough ... that it deserves constitutional protection. But we need a backup plan and we need something that takes effect immediately. It's a long process to amend the Constitution and very difficult, and we need a stop-gap measure until we're able to get a constitutional amendment."
By a vote of 233-194, The House passed a bill July 22 that prevents federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from reviewing the Defense of Marriage Act. While that bill prevents federal courts from forcing same-sex "marriage" on the states, it does nothing to prevent a state court from legalizing homosexual "marriage."
"We need a national standard for marriage,” Istook said in a statement. “The institution of marriage is too important to our families and to our society to let a few activist judges control this issue."
Massachusetts' same-sex "marriage" law came following an order by that state's highest court.
Swafford said GOP leaders are "supportive" of Istook’s bill.
"There's a lot of people out there who feel that we need to do whatever we can to protect marriage," she said.
There is precedence for national laws pre-empting state laws, Istook says.
"For example, Congress outlawed polygamy and the Supreme Court upheld Congress’ power to do so," a statement from his office reads. "Federal statute preempts most state laws under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and states are prohibited from enacting laws, constitutions or other provisions that are inconsistent with the federal statute. This applies but is not limited to issues such as consumer leases, credit billing, hazardous substances, motor vehicle safety, traffic safety, and over-the counter drugs."
The first sentence of the Istook bill is identical to the first sentence of the Federal Marriage Amendment: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."
The bill is HR 4892. --30-- For more information about the national debate over same-sex "marriage," visit http://www.bpnews.net/samesexmarriage
BUMP
WHY did you post that? I think I'm going to vomit now....
Does not belong here, even if "on-topic" of sorts....
Interesting case, but then Utah was not a state at the time, so it is readily distinguishable. I have no idea really how SCOTUS would rule on a statute banning gay marriage. The law on state's rights is murky, and growing murkier, and I haven't followed the ins and outs of how many angels dance on the head of a pin as SCOTUS struggles with the matter. (It does strike me as a bit difficult to fit marriage within the reach of the commerce clause however. :) ) In recent years, SCOTUS has revived states rights a bit. It would granted fit with my public policy view, of where the matter should be decided. Of course, the bill isn't going to pass, as long as the filibuster rule is out there, any time soon. At present, I don't think it would even get a majority in the Senate, but that is just a guess.
I doubt that the above is "good" law these days. :)
Clarence Thomas believes you can't rely on judicial precedence -- you have to go back to the founding document, in this case, the Constitution. If you rely on precedent, then one bad judicial action spawns many more -- like a game of telephone.
I don't see in the Constitution where the feds have authority over marriage. That means it belongs to the states.
Stare Decisis.
What is the constitutional jurisdictions for this federal law to "supercede state laws?"
Art I, Sec 8 , "Powers of Congress"
Cl 3 "commerce clause?"
Cl 17, exclusive legistlative jurisdiction over purchased state land by federal government with state approval?
Article VI, Sec 2
laws made in conjunction with treaties as the law of the land?
But even if you can find federal jurisdiction for this law in one of the three articles listed above, the law still cannot vilate the Bill of Rights and successive amendments.
The law would violate Amendment IX, rights "retained by the people," and Amendment X, rights "reserved" to the states and the people.
Again, this is why I do not call myself a conservative any longer nor do I wish to vote for a Republican.
Conservative implies the desire to "conserve" something. How about conserving the Constitution.
Republicans are just like Democrats in their desire to contol how people wish to live their lives with unconstitutional, anti-liberty, communist/socialist laws but with just a different agenda than the Democrats and at a slower pace.
Can the dems attach the AWB renewal to this Bill? Wouldn't put it past them to try to attach it to anything that comes out of the House.
I don't quite see Republicans as just like Dems, but do agree that if our side increases federal power in the service of pet causes, the power will then be available to the Left to use in the service of their causes whenever they are elected.
All of which is clearly the opposite of the purposes of our founding fathers, IMO.
my congressman is louise slaughter
perfect last name as she is pro abortion
Traditional marriage is on its deathbed. One has only to watch the circus of desperate and irrational measures to "save" and "protect" it to see this. Trampling over states rights, and idiotic proposals like using taxpayer money to bribe welfare cases to get and stay married, are just a couple of examples of what so-called "conservatives" are eager to do in their blind desperation.
Traditional marriage originally evolved because it was what people wanted to do. It's dying because fewer and fewer people want to do it anymore. Maybe the trend will reverse one of these days; more likely it won't. Government shouldn't have a word to say about. In a free country, people should arrange their personal lives the way they see fit, with no interference, and no bribes, from the government. Social engineering is not a proper function of government.
Laws against polygamy are unconstitutional too.
Not according to SCOTUS
Homosexual Agenda Ping - Hmmm, National Marriage Law. I don't know what to think, I'll have to read more and see what you all think.
It does sound good upon first reading.
let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
Very good, concise and correct comments.
"Republicans are just like Democrats in their desire to contol how people wish to live their lives with unconstitutional, anti-liberty, communist/socialist laws but with just a different agenda than the Democrats and at a slower pace."
You are equating crap like Title 9 or whatever it is with homosexual marriage. All the Republicans in Congress and/or the White House (at various times, not singling out GW) are not necessarily conservatives, and they have passed laws and promoted causes which many conservatives, myself included, have vociferously disagreed with.
BUT - the Republican party has up until now at least nominally stood for conservative values and principles. Although not strongly enough. It sounds as though if the GOP was more conservative you'd like it even less.
I consider it "anti-liberty" for a few Nazgul-like judges and homosexual activists (homosexuals being at most 2% of the population, and supposedly a lot of them don't even support the "gay" agenda) to force same sex marriage down everyone's throats.
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.