The Wall Street Journal is reporting: “House Votes to Bar Federal Courts From Ruling on [Same-Gender] Marriage.” The Marriage Protection Act was adopted by a 233-194 vote, with 206 Republicans and 27 Democrats supporting it and 176 Democrats, 17 Republicans and one independent voting against it. (You can access the official vote here.) According to the article:
The legislation would strip the Supreme Court and other federal courts of their jurisdiction to rule on challenges to state bans on [same-gender] marriages under a provision of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act. That law defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and says states aren’t compelled to recognize [same-gender] marriages that take place in other states.
This Washington Times article–“House targets marriage validation“–gives a good overview of the constitutional issues being raised by opponents of the legislation:
“This bill is a check on judicial power, and the question is whether we should have the elected representatives of the people, in this case Congress today and the state legislatures in the future, determining marriage policy,” said Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Wisconsin Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. . . “Thomas Jefferson wrote that leaving federal courts as the ultimate arbiter of all constitutional questions is, ‘a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy,’ ” Mr. Sensenbrenner said. “This legislation heeds Jefferson’s wise words.”Opponents instead pointed to the 1803 Supreme Court decision Marbury v. Madison, in which the court established itself as the arbiter of constitutionality. . .
(While to the non-benefits reader this might not seem like a “benefits” issue, the topic greatly impacts the benefits arena and is of keen interest to benefits practitioners. You can access a recent article on the topic here. Read more posts about the issue at Benefitsblog here.)