MARRIAGE PROTECTION ACT
 

The House will be voting between 1PM and 2:30PM ET on the Marriage Protection Act- a bill to strip federal jurisdiction from the 1996 DOMA.
Call your Representative NOW at (202) 225-3121 and Urge Him or Her to Oppose the Marriage Protection Act.

Not for nothing but how would calling help at this point?

Will they be keeping a tally?

I do this often and have done it most recently in regards to Sudan. They are already in session and either they have the sentiments of their voters or they don't, but I'd like to know if it really does matter at this point.

-Rudey

umm...thanks, but no thanks.

This legislation sets precedent to strip unconstitutional legislation of court review.

Again, can you please tell me why you're making this effort now?

Aren't you wasting your energy and time?

-Rudey

even a last minute, last ditch effort is worth something, unless you're unAmerican.

That's one way of seeing it. Another way of seeing it is that is protects States' rights to legislate as they see fit for their population.

By the way, before you go calling the legislation "unconstitutional," you should do your homework, as most legal scholars say that the constitutional question of stripping jurisdiction from the federal courts is an unresolved one.

[edited because my fingers go too fast over the keyboard and I misspell important words!]

I don't know if it merits calling someone un-American if they won't call, or personally don't think their call will do anything.

If you are making the call - more power to you, but please don't be labeling others as unAmerican if they don't feel the same way.

DOMA is unconstitutional to the Full Faith & Credit clause of the US Constitution.

Hmm. I think I'll take the opinion of the variety of legal/constitutional scholars who have come out across the board to say that this is a gray area.

Good try, though.

do you even know what DOMA does? Prevents states from recognizing marriages performed in other states. Clear violation of Full Faith and Credit.

It's not a last minute, last ditch effort if they won't even hear about your call. It's like saying you studied for the SATs after the exam...or during really.

Eh, I'm about as American as they come.

-Rudey

I am very clear on what DOMA does/proposes to do.

Your knowledge of Full Faith and Credit, however seems flawed, or at least one-sided in nature. The FFC clause argument against DOMA is a weak one, since the Clause can very well be used to defend DOMA.

The FFC clause's explicit language spelling out the role of Congress is precisely what makes DOMA constitutional, without the further need for the Federal Marriage Amendment that some are pushing for.

In fact, Congress has made a number of laws, including those on firearms controls and safety standards, employment discrimination, disability, and rights to unionization, and environmental protection, which have all withstood Constitutional attacks on the basis of full faith and credit.

DOMA isn't the first, and it won't be the last, and the FFC clause (if anything) is certianly not going to be the basis upon which it is defeated.

I thought the federal courts were allowed to try the constutionality of any inter-state law. Isn't that the way it is supposed to work? And state courts review the constituitonality of their laws when brought to court?
It doesn't make much sense to give congress or the states themselves the ability to make a law immune to a court reviewing it's constitutionality. At that point, it is morality and not legality that is the issue.

It passed- mainly along party lines.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...e_gay_marriage

The bill would strip the Supreme Court and other federal courts of their jurisdiction to rule on challenges to state bans on gay marriages under a provision of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act. That law defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and says states are not compelled to recognize gay marriages that take place in other states.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said it could find no precedent for Congress passing a law to limit federal courts from ruling on the constitutionality of another law, although Democrats said opponents of civil rights legislation tried to do the same thing.

The effect of the bill would be to single out gays and lesbians, barring them from going into federal court to seek to have their marriages recognized, several Democrats said. Civil rights groups said the bill is unconstitutional for that reason.

"We face no less than a sign on the courthouse door: 'You may not defend your constitutional rights in this court. You may not seek equal protection here,'" said Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., the House's lone declared lesbian. "Today, the 'you' is gay and lesbian citizens. But who would be next?"