WASHINGTON, DC - The House Judiciary Committee approved July 14, 2004  U.S. Rep. John Hostettler’s Marriage Protection Act (H.R. 3313) by a 21-to-13 margin.
      The bill is expected to be considered by the full House the following week, possibly  as early as Wednesday, July 21.

The Marriage Protection Act has 48 original cosponsors and the support of a number of family groups and legal scholars.

[adapted and extracted from:] http://www.house.gov/hostettler/News/Hostettler-news-2004-07-14-judiciary-passes-mpa.htm This legislation (H.R. 3313) can be seen at http://thomas.loc.gov.
____________________________________________________________

The Marriage Protection Act: H.R. 3313
Concerned Women for America

The Marriage Protection Act: H.R. 3313     10/31/2003
By Michael Schwartz

http://www.cwfa.org/printerfriendly.asp?id=4806&department=cwa&categoryid=family

What is the Marriage Protection Act?

It is an insurance policy that will protect the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) from reckless federal judges who exceed their authority. It invokes procedures spelled out in the Constitution to withdraw from the federal courts jurisdiction over cases that might arise under DOMA.

What is the purpose of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)?

The federal Defense of Marriage Act, enacted in 1996, does two things. First, it defines marriage "for all purposes of federal law" as the union of one man and one woman. Second, it protects states, under the Constitution’s "full faith and credit" clause, from being forced to recognize as a marriage any "union" other than that of one man and one woman. (This presumes that one or more states would legalize phony "marriages.")

So, what would happen to these cases?

Any case that might arise regarding the definition of marriage under DOMA would be decided by a federal district court or administrative court. But there would be no appeal from that decision. Congress has the right to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and all inferior courts, and this legislation invokes that right. As a consequence, there can be no legally binding precedent set by any such case because the decisions of trial courts are not binding under the stare decisis doctrine. (This doctrine says that rules or principles laid down in previous court decisions must be followed.) While it is possible that trial court judges will sometimes deliver incorrect verdicts, at least those misreadings of the law cannot become binding.

Cases that arise under the "full faith and credit" clause will be decided in state courts, which is exactly what Congress intended under DOMA. Again, even a bad court decision would have limited impact and could not set a precedent that would redefine marriage for the whole country.

What impact does the Marriage Protection Act have upon state matters?

It does not affect the states at all (nor does DOMA), so it will have no effect on challenges to state marriage laws currently in progress in Massachusetts(Goodridge v. Department of Public Health), New Jersey(Lewis v. Harris) and Indiana (Morrison v. Sadler). But even if one of those cases should result in the establishment of same-sex unions, the Marriage Protection Act would guarantee that this tragic decision could not be exported to other states via the federal courts.

How does the Marriage Protection Act compare to a federal marriage amendment?

A constitutional amendment would probably be required to prevent a state from redefining marriage. Passing a constitutional amendment, however, requires two-thirds supermajorities in both the House and the Senate, plus ratification by three-fourths of the states. The Marriage Protection Act requires only simple majorities in both Houses of Congress plus a presidential signature. Amending the Constitution is a long-term process, but the Marriage Protection Act can provide immediate protection against the most imminent threat to the definition of marriage – judicial overreaching.

The Marriage Protection Act is sponsored by Rep. John Hostettler (R-Indiana, 8th).

Michael Schwartz is vice president for government relations for Concerned Women for America.
 

Concerned Women for America
1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 488-7000
Fax: (202) 488-0806
E-mail: mail@cwfa.org

___________________________________________
___________________________________________

“H.R. 3313 seeks to utilize the Constitutional authority of Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary to hear cases which may arise as a result of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. The bill provides that: no federal court will have jurisdiction to hear a case arising under DOMA's Full Faith and Credit provision, and;
no federal court will have appellate jurisdiction in a case arising under DOMA’s definition of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’ for purposes of federal benefits."

“In essence the bill says that no federal court will have the opportunity to suggest that DOMA's Full Faith and Credit provision is ‘unconstitutional,’” he continued. “Why may Congress do this? Simply because Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution gives Congress explicit and exclusive authority to regulate Full Faith and Credit relationships between the states."

“There is no need for the federal courts to consider a question about Congress’ authority when Congress’ authority is so clearly expounded in the Constitution. But beyond that, Article I, Section 8 and Article III Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution grant Congress explicit and exclusive authority to create the inferior federal courts, regulate their jurisdiction and regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court."

[extracted from:]
http://www.house.gov/hostettler/News/Hostettler-news-2004-07-14-judiciary-passes-mpa.htm

____________________________________________________________________


United States Constitution, Article III.  The Judicial Power
Section 2., para. 2.  -  "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and
Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have
original Jurisdiction.  In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall
have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under
such Regulations as the Congress shall make."  [emphasis added]


Now that this excellent legislation has passed both the Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee
(June 24), and also now the full House Judiciary Committee (July 14), the next step is the floor
of the US House of Representatives (435 seats).  Please contact the Congressmen in your
state to urge them to vote for Rep. John Hostettler's (R-Indiana) bill, H.3313, the
Marriage Protection Act of 2003 (Introduced in House October 16, 2003).  In addition
to Rep. Hostettler, there are 48 co-sponsors of this bill  ( http:thomas.loc.gov).

Tell your Congressmen that this is definitely a litmus-test issue for the November 2d elections.

E-mail your states' Congressmen:
Congressional Email Directory - http://www.webslingerz.com/jhoffman/congress-email.html

Phone your states' Congressmen:
http://www.numbersusa.com/congressinfo/