Marriage Protection Act of 2004

MARRIAGE PROTECTION ACT OF 2004 -- (House of Representatives - July 22, 2004)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 734, I call up the bill (H.R. 3313) to amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act, and ask for its immediate consideration.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to H.R. 3313, the so-called "Marriage Protection Act," a misnomer that would make George Orwell smile. The fact is, just like the Federal Marriage Amendment, this Court Stripping bill is unnecessary, unwise, and serves as little more than a distraction from the many urgent matters facing our Nation.

Like the Federal Marriage Amendment, the Court Stripping bill is not needed. The Defense of Marriage Act remains the law of the land and its Constitutionality has not been overturned in any United States court. Furthermore, H.R. 3313 is a grave threat to the protection and enforcement of civil rights laws, and will erase decades of social progress all in the name of "marriage protection."

Historically, the judicial branch has often been the sole protector of the rights of minority groups against the will of the popular majority. Cases such as Brown v. Board of Education come to mind. The Court Stripping bill would deny the courts the ability to hear challenges to a legislation by a specific minority group, in this case gays and lesbians, thus creating a slippery slope where any law could be subject to "courtstripping."

This is a serious challenge to our fundamental system of checks and balances. The Court Stripping bill is the first, and undoubtably NOT the last, effort by the Republican Congress to hamstring an independent Federal judiciary. This reckless bill would take away even the Supreme Court's authority to decide on a Federal law.

Those who are advocating the Court Stripping bill today use the argument of "judicial activism" in Massachusetts and other States as a justification. Make no mistake about it, these same arguments were also advanced by defenders of segregation in the South in response to the Brown v. Board of Education decision and other decisions such as Loving v. Virginia that invalidated State anti-miscegenation law.

There are so many issues that this Republican-controlled Congress has failed to address. We don't have a budget. We haven't passed all of our appropriations bills we are engaged in, with no end in sight, and our economy has failed to generate the jobs necessary to keep the GDP growing. Meanwhile, this Republican Congress is taking up a divisive, discriminatory, and completely unnecessary legislation just to appeal to their far right base and to drive a wedge into this upcoming election. It is cynical and simply dead wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this hateful, unconstitutional, and discriminatory legislation.