[Davis Democrats] From Congressman Mike Thompson-response to constitutional amendment re marriage

[John Chendo]

Thank you for contacting me regarding recent efforts to change the way the
federal government addresses marriage.  I appreciate hearing from you and
knowing your opinion on this issue.

During this session of Congress, two proposals were introduced in the House
of Representatives which relate to the federal definition of marriage.

The first, H. J. Res. 56, proposes a Constitutional amendment that would
define marriage in the United States as the union of a man and a woman.
The legislation further prohibits the Constitution or any state
constitution, or state or federal law from being construed to require that
marital status or its legal benefits may be conferred upon unmarried couples
or groups.

I see two problems with this proposal.  First, the definition of marriage is
a responsibility historically shared between states and individual churches.
Second, existing federal law called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
already defines marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman.
Given these facts, it is my view that a Constitutional amendment is not
necessary to further define the bond of marriage.

This is by no means a position that I have come to in a partisan fashion.
In fact there are many who share this view.  Former Republican Congressman
Bob Barr, the author of the Defense of Marriage Act, has said:

"Marriage is a quintessential state issue.  The Defense of Marriage Act goes
as far as is necessary in codifying the federal legal status parameters of
marriage.  A Constitutional amendment is both unnecessary and needlessly
intrusive and punitive."

Vice President Cheney has said:

"First of all, to be clear that people should be free to enter into their
relationships that they choose.  And secondly, to recognize what's
historically been the situation, that when it comes to conferring legal
status on relationships, that is a matter left to the states."

When it became clear that there was not enough support within the Congress
to pass a Constitutional amendment, a second bill was introduced that took a
troubling approach to this issue.   H.R. 3313 would deny federal courts
jurisdiction to hear or decide any question regarding the interpretation of
the Defense of Marriage Act.  This new legislation would essentially block a
federal court from hearing a case regarding DOMA.  Blocking a court from
hearing any case regarding any federal law strikes directly at the values
and principles upon which our great country was founded.  Separation of
powers is a central tenant to our government and passing this legislation
would create a terrible precedent.

Given the challenges we face as a nation, and the division that is now seen
throughout America, we must weigh the real needs of our country very
carefully.  We continue to deal with what is sure to be a long-term war on
terrorism.  In addition, we are facing the challenge of record debt and
deficits.  For the first time in history we are facing a $7.4 trillion
national debt on which we pay $1 billion in interest every single day.  The
prescription drug coverage plan put in place by the Administration this year
has been terribly confusing for seniors and less than 4 million have
enrolled.  Veterans returning home from Iraq are facing enrollment in a VA
healthcare system that is underfunded by over $2 billion.  Failure to
address these and other critical issues does a disservice to all Americans.
Furthermore, the efforts by some to politicize marriage issues will only
divide our country further.

Again, thank you for contacting me regarding this issue.  Please contact me
in the future on this or any other matter of concern to you or to our
district.
Sincerely,

MIKE THOMPSON
Member of Congress
http://www.mikethompson.house.gov

You cannot reply to this email.  If you would like to email me, please visit
http://www.house.gov/writerep

------ End of Forwarded Message