Attention: TDR Forum Junkies This CONSERVATIVE ALERT is a special message from
RightMarch.com for Gary Troyer:
ALERT: Despite hundreds of thousands of phone calls,
faxes and emails, and millions of petition signatures,
the Federal Marriage Amendment failed to even get a
vote on the floor of the U. S. Senate last week.
But we have another option to protect traditional
marriage in America... AND protect the constitutional
concept of federalism, where the national government
does NOT intrude into areas that are states' rights.
And it would only require a majority vote in Congress,
NOT the 2/3 majority required for a Constitutional
amendment.
Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN) has introduced legislation
designed to limit the ability of federal courts to
redefine marriage. His bill is H. R. 3313, the "Marriage
Protection Act", which would remove jurisdiction from
certain federal courts over questions pertaining to
the 1996 "Defense of Marriage Act", better known as
"DOMA".
"We are witnessing a concerted, nationwide assault on
marriage," Hostettler said. "As a result, Americans are
asking what can be done to protect this institution
from being manipulated by unprincipled federal courts. "
Recognizing that marriage is not just some social
experiment to be reinvented and redefined by a handful
of unelected ideologues of the federal judiciary,
Hostettler introduced the "Marriage Protection Act" to
limit the federal courts' ability to set a national
precedent that undermines marriage as we know it.
Employing authority granted to Congress by the U. S.
Constitution (Article IV, Section 1), DOMA protects
marriage by stating that no state is required to give
"full faith and credit" to a marriage license issued
by another state, if that relationship is between two
people of the same sex. DOMA also defines the terms
"marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of federal law
and federal benefits as terms only applying to
relationships between people of the opposite sex.
"DOMA is good law and passed in 1996 with broad support,"
said Hostettler. "But marriage opponents know they can
easily find activist judges willing to overturn it and
create a 'right' to homosexual marriage. My bill will
keep the federal courts from taking marriage policy
away from the states where it has always resided. "
The "Marriage Protection Act" addresses that possibility
by removing the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction,
as well as inferior federal courts' original and
appellate jurisdiction, over DOMA's full faith and credit
provision. It also removes appellate jurisdiction from
the Supreme Court and inferior federal courts over DOMA's
marriage definition provision.
Rep. Hostettler's bill will accomplish what the FMA would
not have -- protecting traditional marriage AND
constitutional federalism. We need to PUSH HARD for this
bill -- NOW.
TAKE ACTION: This bill could come up for a vote in House
of Representatives as early as TODAY (Wednesday). We need
to take IMMEDIATE action.
For too long the courts have gone unchecked when they
exceeded their constitutional boundaries. We've forgotten
that our Constitution established a government of "We the
People" -- and the people, through their elected officials,
have the final say in Constitutional questions.
Go to our website below NOW to contact your Representative
for FREE, and tell him or her to vote YES on H. R. 3313,
the "Marriage Protection Act":
http://www.rightmarch.com/072104.htm
NOTE: If federal courts were to strike down the federal
Defense of Marriage Act, then the citizens of states such
as Michigan, California, Virginia, North Carolina, Texas
and Florida who have their own statutes to define marriage
as between one man and one woman would have to recognize
the marriage licenses issued to homosexual couples by
other states that require that practice. The people of
these states should be able to defend and preserve the
institution of marriage.
Limiting federal court jurisdiction is neither a partisan
issue nor a rare occurrence. For example, Senate Minority
Leader Daschle inserted language in legislation enacted
during the last Congress that denied all federal courts
jurisdiction over the procedures governing timber projects
in order to expedite forest clearing. If limiting the
jurisdiction of the federal courts is good enough to
protect trees, shouldn't it be good enough to protect a
state's marriage policy? Be sure to forward this Alert to
everyone you know who wants to voice THEIR opinion to
Congress on the protection of marriage -- AND the
Constitution -- in America. Thank you!
RightMarch.com for Gary Troyer:
ALERT: Despite hundreds of thousands of phone calls,
faxes and emails, and millions of petition signatures,
the Federal Marriage Amendment failed to even get a
vote on the floor of the U. S. Senate last week.
But we have another option to protect traditional
marriage in America... AND protect the constitutional
concept of federalism, where the national government
does NOT intrude into areas that are states' rights.
And it would only require a majority vote in Congress,
NOT the 2/3 majority required for a Constitutional
amendment.
Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN) has introduced legislation
designed to limit the ability of federal courts to
redefine marriage. His bill is H. R. 3313, the "Marriage
Protection Act", which would remove jurisdiction from
certain federal courts over questions pertaining to
the 1996 "Defense of Marriage Act", better known as
"DOMA".
"We are witnessing a concerted, nationwide assault on
marriage," Hostettler said. "As a result, Americans are
asking what can be done to protect this institution
from being manipulated by unprincipled federal courts. "
Recognizing that marriage is not just some social
experiment to be reinvented and redefined by a handful
of unelected ideologues of the federal judiciary,
Hostettler introduced the "Marriage Protection Act" to
limit the federal courts' ability to set a national
precedent that undermines marriage as we know it.
Employing authority granted to Congress by the U. S.
Constitution (Article IV, Section 1), DOMA protects
marriage by stating that no state is required to give
"full faith and credit" to a marriage license issued
by another state, if that relationship is between two
people of the same sex. DOMA also defines the terms
"marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of federal law
and federal benefits as terms only applying to
relationships between people of the opposite sex.
"DOMA is good law and passed in 1996 with broad support,"
said Hostettler. "But marriage opponents know they can
easily find activist judges willing to overturn it and
create a 'right' to homosexual marriage. My bill will
keep the federal courts from taking marriage policy
away from the states where it has always resided. "
The "Marriage Protection Act" addresses that possibility
by removing the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction,
as well as inferior federal courts' original and
appellate jurisdiction, over DOMA's full faith and credit
provision. It also removes appellate jurisdiction from
the Supreme Court and inferior federal courts over DOMA's
marriage definition provision.
Rep. Hostettler's bill will accomplish what the FMA would
not have -- protecting traditional marriage AND
constitutional federalism. We need to PUSH HARD for this
bill -- NOW.
TAKE ACTION: This bill could come up for a vote in House
of Representatives as early as TODAY (Wednesday). We need
to take IMMEDIATE action.
For too long the courts have gone unchecked when they
exceeded their constitutional boundaries. We've forgotten
that our Constitution established a government of "We the
People" -- and the people, through their elected officials,
have the final say in Constitutional questions.
Go to our website below NOW to contact your Representative
for FREE, and tell him or her to vote YES on H. R. 3313,
the "Marriage Protection Act":
http://www.rightmarch.com/072104.htm
NOTE: If federal courts were to strike down the federal
Defense of Marriage Act, then the citizens of states such
as Michigan, California, Virginia, North Carolina, Texas
and Florida who have their own statutes to define marriage
as between one man and one woman would have to recognize
the marriage licenses issued to homosexual couples by
other states that require that practice. The people of
these states should be able to defend and preserve the
institution of marriage.
Limiting federal court jurisdiction is neither a partisan
issue nor a rare occurrence. For example, Senate Minority
Leader Daschle inserted language in legislation enacted
during the last Congress that denied all federal courts
jurisdiction over the procedures governing timber projects
in order to expedite forest clearing. If limiting the
jurisdiction of the federal courts is good enough to
protect trees, shouldn't it be good enough to protect a
state's marriage policy? Be sure to forward this Alert to
everyone you know who wants to voice THEIR opinion to
Congress on the protection of marriage -- AND the
Constitution -- in America. Thank you!
