Although it has been much discussed, the text of the Defense of Marriage Act is both short and simple:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Defense of Marriage Act’.

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.
(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:
`Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

`No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item:
`1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof.’.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage’ and `spouse’

`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:
`7. Definition of `marriage’ and `spouse’.’.

That’s it. Boiling those words further down, we can see that the Defense of Marriage Act has a basic constitutional problem right at its core. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all laws created in U.S. jurisdiction must comply with it. Article IV, Section 1 mandates that “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” But DOMA lets any state disregard any “public act, record, or judicial proceeding” that creates a same-sex marriage in another state. It uses the exact vocabulary of Article IV to contradict Article IV.

DOMA is on its last leg, having been recently ruled unconstitutional on 10th Amendment grounds and decried by the Obama administration on 14th Amendment grounds. Few if any competent federal judges reviewing the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act under Article IV could allow DOMA to stand on those grounds, creating a third knock against the Act from which it would be exceedingly unlikely to recover.

H.R. 875 has been introduced to the House of Representatives with the hope of preventing that third and final blow against the Defense of Marriage Act — but not on the merits, and not in a straightforward manner. This is the action text of H.R. 875, also known as the “Marriage Protection Act”:

(a) In General- Chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 1632. Limitation on jurisdiction

No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, section 1738C.

Rather than be clear, the sponsors of this legislation want to make you look up the reference if you know where to find it. Section 1738C of Chapter 99 of Title 28 is the part of the Defense of Marriage Act that lets states ignore the same-sex marriage “acts, records and proceedings” of other states, in clear defiance of the Constitution’s Article IV. In an admission that the provision would be ruled unconstitutional, the sponsors of H.R. 875 are trying to deny all federal courts the ability to rule on the constitutional validity of that part of the law. If no judge can review the constitutionality of the law, they figure, no one can knock the unconstitutional law down.

Standing in support of unconstitutional laws and against the check and balance of judicial review are the following cosponsors of H.R. 875:

Rep. Dan Burton (Republican-IN, District 5) — principal sponsor
Rep. Todd Akin (Republican-MO, District 2)
Rep. Rodney Alexander (Republican-LA, District 5)
Rep. Michele Bachmann (Republican-MN, District 6)
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (Republican-MD, District 6)
Rep. Joe Barton (Republican-TX, District 6)
Rep. John Carter (Republican-TX, District 31)
Rep. John Fleming (Republican-LA, District 4)
Rep. Randy Forbes (Republican-VA, District 4)
Rep. Bob Gibbs (Republican-OH, District 18)
Rep. Ralph Hall (Republican-TX, District 4)
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Republican-TX, District 5)
Rep. Walter Jones (Republican-NC, District 3)
Rep. Jim Jordan (Republican-OH, District 4)
Rep. Doug Lamborn (Republican-CO, District 5)
Rep. Jeff Landry (Republican-LA, District 3)
Rep. James Lankford (Republican-OK, District 5)
Rep. Robert Latta (Republican-OH, District 5)
Rep. Donald Manzullo (Republican-IL, District 16)
Rep. Randy Neugebauer (Republican-TX, District 19)
Rep. Ron Paul (Republican-TX, District 14)
Rep. Bill Posey (Republican-FL, District 15)
Rep. Dennis Ross (Republican-FL, District 12)
Rep. Marlin Stutzman (Republican-IN, District 3)
Rep. Joe Wilson (Republican-SC, District 2)