.svg) | |
| Long title | An 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 amended | Chapter 99 § 1632 |
| Legislative history | |
| |
TheMarriage Protection Act of 2004 (MPA) was a bill introduced in theUnited States Congress in 2003 to amend thefederal judicial code to denyfederal courts jurisdiction to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of theDefense of Marriage Act (DOMA) or the MPA itself.[1] Introduced asH.R. 3313 during the108th Congress, the Republican-controlled House passed it in 2004, but it did not pass the Senate.
The version approved by the House of Representatives would have added this text as Section 1632 to Chapter 99 in Part IV ofTitle 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 theRespect 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.
 | This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(January 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
On October 16, 2003, the bill was introduced in the House of Representatives byJohn Hostettler (R–Indiana) and immediately referred to theHouse Committee on the Judiciary. The bill was co-sponsored byRon Paul ofTexas (R–Texas).[2] The legislation passed the House by a vote of 233 to 194. The Senate referred the bill to theSenate Judiciary Committee on September 7, 2004, where it died in committee.[3]Hostettler reintroduced the legislation asH.R. 1100 in the109th Congress on March 3, 2005. It had 76 co-sponsors. It again died in committee.Dan Burton (R–Indiana) reintroduced the legislation asH.R. 724 in the110th 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, asH.R. 1269 and it died in committee. Dan Burton reintroduced it in the112th Congress on March 2, 2011, asH.R. 875 with 26 cosponsors. It was referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law and the Subcommittee on Constitution.
The proposed legislation raises Constitutional questions in relation to theFull Faith and Credit Clause. Joanna Grossman, writing forFindLaw, 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 ofsame-sex relationships independently of the decisions of other states, as states have been permitted to do in the case ofincestuous marriages.[1] The Act was designed to protect DOMA by prohibiting federal courts from hearing cases like that ofNancy Wilson, who sued to have her relationship with Paula Schoenwether treated as marriage inFlorida because it had been treated as marriage inMassachusetts. In that case, the federal court upheld DOMA.[4]
TheU.S. Constitution permits Congress to make exceptions to court jurisdiction. The degree to which such exceptions may undermine federalseparation of powers, theEqual Protection Clause, or theDue Process Clause, may render the Marriage Protection Act unconstitutional, according to Grossman.[1]