Last week, the House considered a piece of legislation titled the "Marriage Protection Act."
One might think that a bill with such a name would help strengthen relationships, reduce promiscuity and unwed pregnancy and further instruct people on the importance of communication to a successful relationship.
Unfortunately the so-called Marriage Protection Act (MPA) would do none of these things.
What the MPA does do is take away Americans right to Due Process. It represents a radical departure from our Constitutional and legal tradition in an effort to prevent federal review of the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA). This "court stripping" legislation attempts to prevent future court decisions that might allow same-sex couples with marriage licenses be considered married regardless of what state they were in.
The Marriage Protection Act precludes federal courts from reviewing the constitutionality of the cross-state recognition section of "the Defense of Marriage Act."
Should this legislation be signed into law, the result would be that if DOMA is challenged, the 50 State Supreme Courts would each issue a separate and final ruling on the cross-state recognition section of DOMA. The Supreme Court, whose job is to settle conflicting or contradictory state and federal court rulings, would then have its hands tied, thus unable to resolve the ensuing confusion.
Stripping our federal court system of its independence, sets a dangerous precedent and threatens the underpinnings of our free and democratic society. If we decide to wall off the federal courts ability to rule on this issue, where will such actions stop? One can easily foresee a number of other hot button social issues with which this country is clearly divided being blocked in a similar fashion.
Furthermore, we already have sufficient legislation to allow individual states the ability to retain and structure marriage laws the way they see fit. While I opposed and continue to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which passed the House back in 1996, this law is still fully functional and in effect. Since then, it has not been invalidated by any court anywhere in the country.
I am troubled that at a time when there are many more pressing matters needing to be discussed and deserving of debate, the House took up another classic example of an election year wedge issue designed for maximum political impact. This legislation flies in the face of our system of checks and balances and has no place in our democracy.