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
"Social engineering is not a proper function of government."
Then the Nazgul judges and the legion of homosexual rights lawyers should quit shoving "gay" marriage down our throats.
This has the added bonus of reinforcing the current law which prohibits homosexual marriage for immigration purposes.
A US citizen can petition for any fiance OR spouse to automatically get to enter the USA. A homosexual in Mass., in theory, is entitled to petition the immigration services for a homosexual fiance to enter the USA to "marry" in Mass.
If permitted it would reverse decades of rules which have prohibited the recognition of foreign polygamist marriages for immigration purposes.
this is very good news because we are seeing a plethora of effort to stop this homosexual "imposition" from many fronts.
Has the DNC adopted a plank which endorses homosexual marriage yet?
Aw, jeez. Bush just lost another 500 Libertarian votes.
It is not just "a state" issue. It is also federal because federal law controls immigration. Mass can both up immigration law because a homosexual would have an absolute right to bring in ANYONE who they are "engaged" or have already "same sex married".
IOW one states decision will automatically affect the other 49 states via immigration laws.
(this is not the first time, see utah's state admission.)
One state's desire to finance recreational sex for homosexual must not be a burdent to the other tax payers.
The Constitution is a living breathing document. That's why there are 27 Amendments to date. The Amendments have, for the most part, made the USA a better society.
If Liberals want us to be like Sweden, they should study the statistics of the effects same-sex marriage has had in that country. Not only do they have much higher rates of diseases spreading, but the average homosexual marriage lasts about 2 years and involves an average of 8 extramarital affairs. Those facts alone show it would cause an undue burden on our medical services and courts.
Years ago I never thought we'd be discussing an endorsement of homosexuality via marriage. Years from now we may be facing including pedophilia as an acceptable "sexual orientation". It's what The North American Man Boy Love Association wants. The "anything goes" and "you can't help who you love" has to stop somewhere.
I pity the people who have married with the intent to have a normal family and later found that their mate decided to have a sex change or changed their sexual preference. And Liberal Judges have already been awarding child custody to a "parent" that had a sex change based on the natural or Christian parent possibly raising the children to be biased against the other.
You certainly can't overlook the statistics that 86% of convicted pedophiles are admitted homosexuals, which is a large number in comparison to the 2 to 3% of the population they represent.
If the bill is written so that a state doesn't have the right to decide this issue for itself, then it will fail to get support. If it is written so that each state can make this decision legislatively for itself, then it has a chance of avoiding a filibuster.
The critical issue is the federal court system. Courts must not be telling states that they must accept other states same-sex marriages/unions. Also, that once a state debates the issue and comes up with a DOMA of their own that a Federal Court doesn't overrule it.
McCain will not go for a DOMA that forbids each state to make its own decision. He will almost be forced to go with a law that leaves it up to each state and takes away Federal judicial jurisdiction.
Let's take that sure-win step first. And then build on that.
Good. He don't need them.
My guy, Sensenbrenner, is Chair of Judiciary--which passed the bill through to the House. Of course, he voted FOR it.
Bump for tracking bill and calling congress people.
What the House is doing, though, is to bar federal judges from ruling on gay marriages. This would in effect prevent any rulings that a gay marriage in Massachusetts must be accepted in Iowa.
Marriage to an American citizen no longer equals automatic entry into the US.
So, the feds would retain the right, with same-sex unions as well as straight unions, to deny entry into our country of any engaged/married partner.
And government's exclusive licensing of monogamous heterosexual marriages has prevented the births of children from "laissez faire co-habitation arrangements"? And from casual sex that doesn't even involve cohabitation? And from religious polygamist families? And to Michael Jackson's surrogates?
Earth to Torie: Government-issued licenses have no effect on fertility.
Yes, they should. But the "protectors" of monogamous heterosexual marriages should also work to get government out of marriage. Their noisy insistence that their lifestyle has to be exclusively endorsed and licensed by government is the only claim whatsoever that gays, polygamists, etc. have to the same right.
Good point.
Laws should serve only to protect individual liberty, not to engineer the exercise of that liberty. As a long-ago SC justice put it, "your right to swing your bat ends where my nose begins". Laws should not restrict your right to swing your bat-- should just prohibit you from bashing somebody else's nose with it. Nor should laws give special privileges to people who prefer swinging bats to swinging golf clubs.
If an adult brother and sister want to make whoopee together, I couldn't care less. Any offspring they may produce will be no more likely to be irreparably defective, than the offspring of the druggie welfare crowd, which serious Republican politicians have proposed bribing (with taxpayer funds) to "get married and stay married" -- as they continue to drink, do drugs, sleep around unprotected from pregnancy or diseases, skip boring nuisances like prenatal care, etc.
There's big difference between NO standards, and government management of the intimate personal and family lives of its citizens. And it's not at all clear that Rome would still be a thriving society today, if only its government had clamped down on the private activities of its citizens.
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.