Last week, the House of Representatives passed the Marriage Protection Act (MPA) by a vote of 233-194. The Act is designed to remove from all federal courts the authority to determine the constitutionality of a provision in the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that says no state is required to recognize same-sex "marriages" from another jurisdiction.

While Liberty Counsel president Mat Staver applauds the passage of the MPA, he says it does not solve the problem the nation faces with state courts.

"It will clearly not resolve the same-sex marriage issue because we're still facing that battle in the state courts," Staver explains, "and indeed it will still happen in the federal courts as well, where people claim that they should be married under the federal constitution."

Mat Staver

According to Staver, the MPA does not prevent activist judges from imposing same-sex marriage on a state.

"State courts will still be able to interpret the federal Defense of Marriage Act and potentially rule it unconstitutional, so it just removes some of the courts but not all of them," he says. "And we know that the real problem we're facing right now is from the state courts, because [legalized homosexual marriage in] Massachusetts came from the state courts, not the federal courts."

Staver is adamant that the only way to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman is by a Federal Marriage Amendment. There will be a national policy on marriage, he says -- and it will be decided either by the courts or by the people.

Gender a 'State of Mind'?
A recent case in the Florida courts demonstrates the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment -- and the confusion that can result if the definition of marriage is left up to courts. The case involved a trans-sexual "marriage" in which a county judge ruled that gender was primarily a state of mind and, consequently, that particular "marriage" did not violate Florida's Defense of Marriage Act. Last week, a Florida district court of appeals voted unanimously to overturn that decision, saying the state does not recognize trans-sexual marriage.

The court also ruled that the question of whether trans-sexuals are authorized to marry a member of their birth sex "is a matter for the Florida legislature and not the Florida courts to decide."

Liberty Counsels Mat Staver applauds the higher court's ruling, calling it a "tremendous victory for traditional marriage and common sense" and a "huge setback for the trans-sexual and homosexual agenda." Liberty Counsel represented one of the parties in the case, Linda Kantaras, who became a Christian during the "marriage" and realized her relationship with her partner was improper.

© 2004 AgapePress all rights reserved.

E-mail this page to a friend

Printer-Friendly Version

Read all of our current headlines