Marriage Protection Act

Last updated
Marriage Protection Act of 2004
Great Seal of the United States (obverse).svg
Long titleAn Act to amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.
Codification
Titles amended 28: Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
U.S.C. sections amendedChapter 99 § 1632
Legislative history

The Marriage Protection Act of 2004 (MPA) was a bill introduced in the United States Congress in 2003 to amend the federal judicial code to deny federal courts jurisdiction to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) or the MPA itself. [1] Introduced as H.R. 3313 during the 108th Congress, the Republican-controlled House passed it in 2004, but it did not pass the Senate.

Contents

Text

The version approved by the House of Representatives would have added this text as Section 1632 to Chapter 99 in Part IV of Title 28 of the United States Code (28 U.S.C.   § 1632), governing the judiciary and judicial procedures:

No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, section 1738C or this section.

28 U.S.C.   § 1738C forbade (prior to the Respect for Marriage Act) requiring any state or any other political subdivision of the United States to credit as a marriage a same-sex relationship treated as marriage in another state or equivalent government.

Major actions

On October 16, 2003, the bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by John Hostettler (R–Indiana) and immediately referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. The bill was co-sponsored by Ron Paul of Texas (R–Texas). [2] The legislation passed the House by a vote of 233 to 194. The Senate referred the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 7, 2004, where it died in committee. [3] Hostettler reintroduced the legislation as H.R. 1100 in the 109th Congress on March 3, 2005. It had 76 co-sponsors. It again died in committee. Dan Burton (R–Indiana) reintroduced the legislation as H.R. 724 in the 110th United States Congress, on January 30, 2007, with 50 cosponsors. It died when the 110th Congress ended. Burton reintroduced it again in the 111th Congress on March 3, 2009, as H.R. 1269 and it died in committee. Dan Burton reintroduced it in the 112th Congress on March 2, 2011, as H.R. 875 with 26 cosponsors. It was referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law and the Subcommittee on Constitution.

Analysis

The proposed legislation raises Constitutional questions in relation to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Joanna Grossman, writing for FindLaw, emphasized "the need for the federal courts to weigh in", rather than for states to continue making a public-policy exception when deciding the status of same-sex relationships independently of the decisions of other states, as states have been permitted to do in the case of incestuous marriages. [1] The Act was designed to protect DOMA by prohibiting federal courts from hearing cases like that of Nancy Wilson, who sued to have her relationship with Paula Schoenwether treated as marriage in Florida because it had been treated as marriage in Massachusetts. In that case, the federal court upheld DOMA. [4]

The U.S. Constitution permits Congress to make exceptions to court jurisdiction. The degree to which such exceptions may undermine federal separation of powers, the Equal Protection Clause, or the Due Process Clause, may render the Marriage Protection Act unconstitutional, according to Grossman. [1]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defense of Marriage Act</span> 1996 U.S. federal law, repealed in 2022

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was a United States federal law passed by the 104th United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. It banned federal recognition of same-sex marriage by limiting the definition of marriage to the union of one man and one woman, and it further allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states.

The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), also referred to by proponents as the Marriage Protection Amendment, was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would legally define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. The FMA would also prevent judicial extension of marriage rights to same-sex (gay) or other unmarried homosexual couples.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is legislation proposed in the United States Congress that would prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation or, depending on the version of the bill, gender identity, by employers with at least 15 employees.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Unborn Victims of Violence Act</span> Law that recognizes an embryo or fetus as a legal victim

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, addresses the duty that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." According to the Supreme Court, there is a difference between the credit owed to laws as compared to the credit owed to judgments. Judges and lawyers agree on the meaning of the clause with respect to the recognition of judgments rendered by one state in the courts of another. Barring exceptional circumstances, one state must enforce a judgment by a court in another, unless that court lacked jurisdiction, even if the enforcing court otherwise disagrees with the result. At present, it is widely agreed that this Clause of the Constitution has a minimal impact on a court's choice of law decision provided that no state's sovereignty is infringed, although this Clause of the Constitution was once interpreted to have greater impact.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">District of Columbia federal voting rights</span> Suffrage and representation of the United States capital

Voting rights of citizens in the District of Columbia differ from the rights of citizens in the 50 U.S. states. The United States Constitution grants each state voting representation in both houses of the United States Congress. It defines the federal district as being outside of any state, and does not grant it any voting representation in Congress. The Constitution grants Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the District in "all cases whatsoever".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Hostettler</span> American politician (born 1961)

John Nathan Hostettler is an American politician who served in the United States House of Representatives for 12 years, representing Indiana's 8th congressional district as a Republican. He lost his reelection bid for a seventh term to Democratic challenger Brad Ellsworth in the 2006 midterm election.

The proposed Sanctity of Life Act was a bill first introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) on July 20, 1995, and cosponsored by Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY). It was reintroduced with similar text by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) in 2005 in the 109th United States Congress, 110th United States Congress, 111th United States Congress, and the 112th United States Congress. The repeatedly introduced bill sparked advocacy from anti-abortion activists and opposition from pro-choice activists. The bill has never become law.

The Clean Water Protection Act was a bill introduced in the 111th United States Congress via the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. It proposed to redefine "fill material" to not include mining "waste" under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

The Pledge Protection Act is proposed legislation in the United States Congress that seeks to deprive all Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to the Pledge of Allegiance or its recitation. The bill was first introduced in response to a constitutional challenge to the Pledge by atheist Michael Newdow.

The State Secrets Protection Act, S. 2533, ("SSPA") was a bill first proposed in the U.S. Senate during the 110th Congress by Senators Kennedy, Leahy, and Specter on January 22, 2008. Senator Kennedy put out a press release explaining the rationale behind introducing the SSPA. Hearings were held before the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 13, 2008. On Thursday, April 24, the committee approved the proposed legislation, voting 11–8 to send the bill to the full Senate for consideration.

Since 2005, federal legislation has been introduced in the 109th Congress, 110th Congress, 111th Congress and the 112th Congress to amend Title 28 United States Code section 1259 to allow members of the United States Armed Forces to appeal court-martial convictions when the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denies a petition for grant of review or extraordinary relief. In the 112th Congress the Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2011, H.R. 3133 was introduced in the House of Representatives and the Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2011, S. 1664 was introduced in the Senate. Both bills are currently pending.

In United States politics, the Freedom of Choice Act was a bill which sought to codify into law for women a "fundamental right to choose to bear a child; terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or terminate a pregnancy after viability when necessary to protect her life or her health". It sought to prohibit a federal, state, or local governmental entity from denying or interfering with a woman's right to exercise such choices; or discriminating against the exercise of those rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information. Provides that such prohibition shall apply retroactively. It also authorizes an individual aggrieved by a violation of this Act to obtain appropriate relief, including relief against a governmental entity, in a civil action".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shark Conservation Act</span>

The Shark Conservation Act of 2009 (SCA) was passed by the 111th United States Congress that amended the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act and the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to improve the conservation of sharks. The bill was approved by the House of Representatives on March 2, 2009 by voice vote. It was taken up by the Senate and amended to incorporate further changes to Magnuson-Stevens, known as the International Fisheries Agreement Clarification Act. The Senate passed the amended bill as the Shark Conservation Act of 2010 on December 20, 2010 by unanimous consent, and the next day the House accepted the amendment, again by voice vote. The bill was signed into law by President Barack Obama on January 4, 2011.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Respect for Marriage Act</span> 2022 U.S. federal law

The Respect for Marriage Act is a landmark United States federal law passed by the 117th United States Congress and signed into law by President Joe Biden. It repeals the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), requires the U.S. federal government and all U.S. states and territories to recognize the validity of same-sex and interracial civil marriages in the United States, and protects religious liberty. Its first version in 2009 was supported by former Republican U.S. Representative Bob Barr, the original sponsor of DOMA, and former President Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA in 1996. Iterations of the proposal were put forth in the 111th, 112th, 113th, 114th, and 117th Congresses.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Research Works Act</span> Proposed US legislation

The Research Works Act, 102 H.R. 3699, was a bill that was introduced in the United States House of Representatives at the 112th United States Congress on December 16, 2011, by Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) and co-sponsored by Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY). The bill contained provisions to prohibit open-access mandates for federally funded research and effectively revert the United States' National Institutes of Health Public Access Policy, which requires taxpayer-funded research to be freely accessible online. If enacted, it would have also severely restricted the sharing of scientific data. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, of which Issa is the chair. Similar bills were introduced in 2008 and 2009 but have not been enacted since.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">ENFORCE the Law Act of 2014</span>

The ENFORCE the Law Act of 2014 is a bill that would give the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate both the standing to sue the President of the United States in a federal district court to clarify a federal law in the event that the executive branch is not enforcing the law. Under the bill, appeals to a court's decisions could be reviewed directly by the United States Supreme Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act</span> Former congressional bill

The No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act (NOPEC) was a U.S. Congressional bill, never enacted, known as H.R. 2264 (in 2007) and then as part of H.R. 6074 (in 2008). NOPEC was designed to remove the state immunity shield and to allow the international oil cartel, OPEC, and its national oil companies to be sued under U.S. antitrust law for anti-competitive attempts to limit the world's supply of petroleum and the consequent impact on oil prices. Despite popular sentiment against OPEC, legislative proposals to limit the organization's sovereign immunity have so far been unsuccessful. "Varied forms of a NOPEC bill have been introduced some 16 times since 2000, only to be vehemently resisted by the oil industry and its allied oil interests like the American Petroleum Institute and their legion of 'K' Street Lobbyists."

The Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States (STATES) Act was a bill proposed in the 115th United States Congress that would recognize legalization of cannabis and the U.S. state laws that have legalized it through their legislatures or citizen initiative. It was introduced on June 7, 2018, by Senators Cory Gardner and Elizabeth Warren. A companion bill was introduced the same day in the House of Representatives, sponsored by Earl Blumenauer and David Joyce. The act would amend the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 to exempt from federal enforcement individuals or corporations in states who are in compliance with U.S. state, U.S. territory and the District of Columbia, or tribal law on cannabis, with certain additional provisions such as minimum ages. The banking provisions of the STATES Act have been reintroduced as the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act of 2019 in the 116th U.S. Congress by Ed Perlmutter in the House, and by Jeff Merkley in the Senate. As of September 18, 2019, the House bill had 206 cosponsors, and the Senate bill had 33 cosponsors.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Grossman, Joanna (2004-07-27). "The Proposed Marriage Protection Act: Why It May Be Unconstitutional". Writ. FindLaw . Retrieved 2012-01-26.
  2. Ron Paul (September 30, 2004). "Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized". Archived from the original on July 2, 2010.
  3. Peter, Alex. "Walking Towards Love" . Retrieved 28 December 2021.
  4. "Federal judge dismisses same-sex marriage lawsuit in Fla". The Baltimore Sun . Associated Press. 2005-01-20. Retrieved 2012-01-26.