House Adopts Court-Stripping 'Marriage Protection Act'
Feature Story by civilrights.org staff - 7/23/2004
Following a divisive, emotionally charged floor debate, the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday passed the "Marriage Protection Act of 2004" (MPA) by a vote of 233 to 194. The MPA strips the jurisdiction of federal courts to hear cases involving the interpretation of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.Civil rights groups, including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, strongly opposed the bill.
"LCCR strongly opposes any proposal that would eliminate access to the federal judiciary for any group of Americans," said Wade Henderson, executive director of LCCR. "For over 50 years, the federal courts have played an indispensable role in the interpretation and enforcement of civil rights laws. When Congress has sought to prevent the courts from exercising this role, such efforts ultimately tend to do little more than enshrine discrimination in the law. Fortunately, in most instances, cooler heads prevail."
LCCR and other civil rights organizations drew strong comparisons between the MPA and earlier Congressional attempts at "court stripping." For example, in the 1970s and 1980s, in response to court-ordered school desegregation in the wake of the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling, some members of Congress reacted by attempting to strip federal courts of the ability to hear such cases in the first place.
Human Rights Campaign President Cheryl Jacques, who helped lead efforts to stop passage of the bill, also expressed her disappointment with the House vote.
"Congress today was sent a historic message to focus on terrorism and it focused on discrimination instead," Jacques said. "We will work to ensure that this measure is soundly rejected in the Senate. Like the Federal Marriage Amendment, this bill attempts to undermine our constitutional system for political gain."
Under the MPA, state supreme courts would be the final adjudicators of cases brought forth by gay and lesbian couples involving the interpretation or constitutionality of DOMA, setting the stage for numerous statewide interpretations that would be impossible to reconcile. Members of Congress and civil rights advocates assert that the MPA violates the separation of powers by limiting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
The Bush administration, which supported the failed Federal Marriage Amendment, also backed the MPA and is expected to urge the Senate to pass the bill.
Civil rights advocates say they will continue to fight against the bill while it awaits a Senate vote, pointing out that given international turmoil, the threat of terrorism and a slow economy, few Americans see same-sex marriage as an urgent issue.
"While some politicians push discrimination, American voters have no appetite for division," Jacques said.
