Skip to comments.Legislation Introduced to Protect State Sovereignty Over Definition of Marriage
Posted on 01/10/2014 9:15:11 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Rep. Randy Weber (R-Texas) introduced a bill Thursday that would keep a state's definition of marriage for the legal residents of that state for the purposes of federal law.
If passed, the bill would require federal agencies to look at how a person's marital status is defined in their home state when determining their marital status for federal law.
If, for instance, a same-sex couple lives in a state that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman and that couple got married in a state that has redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, federal law would not recognize their marriage because their home state would not recognize their marriage.
"The 10th Amendment was established to protect state sovereignty and individual rights from being seized by the federal government," Weber said. "For too long, however, the federal government has slowly been eroding state's rights by promulgating rules and regulations through federal agencies.
"I drafted the 'State Marriage Defense Act of 2014' to help restore the 10th Amendment, affirm the authority of states to define and regulate marriage, as well as, provide clarity to federal agencies seeking to determine who qualifies as a spouse for the purpose of federal law. By requiring that the federal government defer to the laws of a person's state of legal residence in determining marital status, we can protect states' constitutionally established powers from the arbitrary overreach of unelected bureaucrats."
The legislation is needed, Weber believes, because of last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision in U.S. vs. Windsor. The Court struck down the part of the Defense of Marriage Act that says marriage will be defined as one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law. The Court did not say, however, whether federal law would recognize a same-sex marriage if the couple got married in a state that allows them to get married but lives in a state that does not allow them to get married. Federal agencies, therefore, have been left to decide that question until Congress passes legislation to address it.
In August, the IRS issued a rule saying that it would recognize same-sex marriages in states that do not recognize same-sex marriage.
Weber's bill has the support of Family Research Council, National Organization for Marriage, the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, U.S. Conference on Catholic Bishops, Concerned Women for America, and Heritage Action.
"The State Marriage Defense Act is consistent with the ruling in Windsor," Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said, "which reiterated that states have the 'historic and essential authority to define the marital relation.' The current Obama administration policy is doing the very thing which the Court condemned - 'creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State.'
"The State Marriage Defense Act serves to protect state definitions of marriage against what the Court called efforts 'to put a thumb on the scales and influence a state's decision as to how to shape its own marriage laws.'"
DOA in the senate.... unless we win in 2014, and even then, you have to override Murcowski and Portman.
Yes, but it will never be implemented. If it was passed and signed into law (highly doubtful), it will be overturned by some ‘rat activist judge.
Why is it no surprise that Scott Tipton has not co sponsored this? His record is I’ve not seen his name anywhere -sometimes he votes as I would have my representative do— But he seems to avoid any co-sponsorship.
Theoria yup this Evil Admin is divorced from the Rule of Law.If Holder—or his main man Obama were Christian they would Know that in the Sacred Writ: Jesus -that Rabbi from Nazareth ,whose Name is claimed by those Americans that call themselves Christian as reflected in Mark chapter 10: 6-9 and by Matthew 19: 4-6 Jesus Christ cited the Law of Moses when asked when asked by the Torah Law (Hebrew Law) scholars.seems if it was good enough for Jesus Christ it ought be good enough for Christians Those called by His holy Name even today.I don’t give a flip what the queer nation— or our Reprobate and Evil Administration says is law.I recognize what My Lord and Savior called “marriage” anything else will harm children.
“... for the purposes of federal law.”
This is at best a stopgap measure. Any state law can be overridden at the federal level and the queers’ ultimate goal is a federal law perverting “marriage” to include butt-pluggers and other sodomites.
If we were governed in accordance with the Constitution, the answer might be "no". But unfortunately your question is inaccurate. The real question would be "With our COURTS, is this legislation necessary?" And of course the answer is ABSOLUTELY YES.
It's a fine gesture and nothing more. Return the states to the senate and the seating of anti-10th Amendment judges will be stopped cold. Only then can we possibly return to constitutional freedoms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.