The House of Representatives Passes Marriage Protection Act
Immediate Release. July 24, 2004 On July 22, 2004, the House of Representatives passed mainly on a party line vote of 233-194 the Marriage Protection Act (H.R. 3313). The measure would prohibit the Supreme Court and other federal courts from deciding challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act which prohibits a state from being forced to accept a same-sex union (‘marriage”) from another state.
In all but a few instances, Congress is given the power by Article III of the Constitution, which establishes the Supreme Court, to create other federal courts to limit those inferior courts' jurisdiction completely, and to curb the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.
“Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a women by God and has been accept as such for thousands of years and this is what the American people believe, accept and want,” said Dr. Joel P. Rutkowski, president of the American Voice Institute of Public Policy. “When the will of representatives of the actual people is usurped by the courts that declares a legislative act or the action of an elected executive unconstitutional what it is doing is exercising control of the prevailing majority, and this is wrong constitutionally, ethically as well as morally,” added Dr. Rutkowski.
The government of the United States (US) is to function with “the consent of the governed” since the form of government entrusted by the Founders is a republic. For too long, this nation's constitutional checks and balances have been distorted by an oligarchy known as the US judicial system. Homosexuals are afforded all the protections of the Constitution that any other American is. However, what homosexual activists are looking for is special rights based on sexual preference that is their choice, and that is wrong.
“The Marriage Protection Act is just one step towards thwarting the current assault by America's courts on the Judeo-Christian values of faith and family cherished by tens of millions of Americans. Instead of being interpreters of the Constitution, courts throughout the land, have become policy-making bodies that reflect the ideological preferences of the justices (the minority) and not the American people. These individuals' policy-making largely reflects the justices' values instead of a closely circumscribed rendering of constitutional or statutory language, “ said Dr. Joel P. Rutkowski.
[To view how your representative voted visit:
Marriage Protection Act of 2004]
Joel P. Rutkowski, P.h.D.
President, The American Voice Institute Of Public Policy
to the American Voice Institute of Public Policy Home Page