HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 22, 2004
Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor
of the Marriage Protection Act (HR 3313), I strongly urge my colleagues to
support this bill. HR 3313 ensures
federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing
a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state. The
Marriage Protection Act thus ensures that the authority to regulate marriage
remains with individual states and communities, as the drafters of the
Constitution intended.
The practice of judicial activism-
legislating from the bench- is now standard procedure for many federal judges.
They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as outdated, instead
treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in
any given case. For judges who see
themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than
the letter of the law they are sworn to interpret and uphold.
With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than
on upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by
judges they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court last
June. The Court determined that
Texas has no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct,
because these laws violated the court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Regardless of the advisability of such laws, the Constitution does not
give the federal government authority to overturn these laws.
Under the Tenth Amendment, the state of Texas has the authority to pass
laws concerning social matters, using its own local standards, without federal
interference. But rather than
adhering to the Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a state matter, the
Court decided to stretch the “right to privacy” to justify imposing the
justices’ vision on the people of Texas.
Since the Lawrence decision, many Americans have expressed
their concern that the Court may next “discover” that state laws defining
marriage violate the Court’s wrongheaded interpretation of the Constitution.
After all, some judges simply may view this result as taking the Lawrence decision
to its logical conclusion.
One way federal courts may impose a redefinition of marriage on the
states is by interpreting the full faith and credit clause to require all
states, even those which do not grant legal standing to same-sex marriages,
to treat as valid same-sex marriage licenses from the few states which give
legal status to such unions. This
would have the practical effect of nullifying state laws defining marriage as
solely between a man and a woman, thus allowing a few states and a handful of
federal judges to create marriage policy for the entire nation.
In 1996 Congress exercised its authority under the full faith and
credit clause of Article IV of the Constitution by passing the Defense of
Marriage Act. This ensured each state could set its own policy regarding
marriage and not be forced to adopt the marriage policies of another state.
Since the full faith and credit clause grants Congress the clear authority to
“prescribe the effects” that state documents such as marriage licenses have
on other states, the Defense of Marriage Act is unquestionably constitutional.
However, the lack of respect federal judges show for the plain language of the
Constitution necessitates congressional action so that state officials are not
forced to recognize another states’ same-sex marriage licenses because of a
flawed judicial interpretation. The
drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to limit federal
jurisdiction to provide a check on out-of-control federal judges. It is long
past time we begin using our legitimate authority to protect the states and the
people from judicial tyranny.
Since the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote in
both houses of Congress (and the president’s signature) to become law, it is a
more practical way to deal with this issue than the time-consuming process of
passing a constitutional amendment. In fact, since the Defense of Marriage Act
overwhelmingly passed both houses, and the president supports protecting state
marriage laws from judicial tyranny, there is no reason why the Marriage
Protection Act cannot become law this year.
Some may argue that
allowing federal judges to rewrite the definition of marriage can result in a
victory for individual liberty. This claim is flawed. The best guarantor of true
liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to
liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the
power of the federal government over the states. Allowing federal judges
unfettered discretion to strike down state laws, or force a state to conform to
the laws of another state, leads to centralization and loss of liberty.
While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states,
government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution
of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government
regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and
customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many
people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other
requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church- not
the day they received their marriage license from the state. Having federal
officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition
of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to
liberty.
Mr. Speaker, Congress has a constitutional responsibility to stop
rogue federal judges from using a flawed interpretation of the Constitution to
rewrite the laws and traditions governing marriage. I urge my colleagues to
stand against destructive judicial activism and for marriage by voting for the
Marriage Protection Act.