**[Protect Marriage Now!]{.underline}**

> **[Co-Sponsor Statutory Protection!]{.underline}**
>
>  
>
> Dear Colleague:
>
>  
>
> I support the Federal Marriage Amendment to protect marriage.
>
>  
>
> But we also need a \"Plan B\" in case we are not successful yet with
> that amendment.  That plan should meet three criteria:
>
> \--Be straightforward so that every Member of Congress is clearly on
> the record.
>
> \--Have immediate impact, so the same-sex marriages happening in
> Massachusetts do not continue to threaten the institution of marriage.
>
> \--Require passage by only a simple majority in Congress.
>
>  
>
> Please become a co-sponsor of the bill to do just that.  This is a
> straightforward and simple federal statute that defines marriage in
> the United States, for all purposes, as consisting solely of the union
> of a man and a woman.  This is broader than our 1996 enactment of
> DOMA-the \"Defense Of Marriage Act\".  The definition of marriage is
> identical, but DOMA applied that definition **only** *for purposes of
> federal law*.  This bill applies this definition of marriage toward
> **all** purposes in the U.S.
>
>  
>
> You\'ve heard some people claim they oppose same-sex marriage, but
> don\'t want to amend the Constitution.  Let\'s put them to the test,
> and give them a chance to show they\'re sincere. 
>
>  
>
> This new federal statute would pre-empt all state laws and state court
> rulings to the contrary (including pre-emption of the Massachusetts
> Supreme Court\'s ruling), because federal law, under the
> Constitution\'s Supremacy Clause, controls over all state law and
> state constitutions.
>
>  
>
> There is one additional protection in this bill, to assure that
> litigants cannot rush to our most liberal courts to get a judge to
> invalidate this nationwide prohibition on same-sex marriages.  Only
> the U.S. Supreme Court is given jurisdiction to hear any challenge to
> this law (under our constitutional authority to define which courts
> have original jurisdiction over various causes of action). This will
> provide statutory protection while we continue to promote stronger
> protection of marriage via a constitutional amendment. 
>
> The proposed language states:
>
>  
>
> Section 1. Marriage in the United States
>
> \(a\) In General. \-- Marriage in the United States shall consist only
> of the union of a man
>
> and a woman.  
>
> \(b\) Jurisdiction \--
>
> (1)  U.S. Supreme Court\--The Supreme Court of the United States shall
> have original jurisdiction to hear and determine a claim arising under
> this section.
>
> (2)  Other courts\--Except as provided in paragraph (1), no Federal or
> state court shall have jurisdiction to hear or determine a claim
> arising under this section.
>
>  
>
> Please remember that this is a \"backup\" plan; marriage is so
> important that I still wish to protect it with a constitutional
> amendment.  And marriage is so important that I also want to protect
> it while we continue to pursue that amendment.
>
>  
>
> This will be introduced immediately, so to become an original
> co-sponsor, please contact Deborah Shelby of my staff at 5-2132.
>
>  
>
> Sincerely,
>
> S/
>
>  
>
> Ernest J. Istook
>
> Member of Congress
>
>