New bill will strip all federal courts of any jurisdiction to rule on issue of marriage, which according to the Constitution is a state issue and was never relinquished by the states to the federal courts. This bill will invalidate yesterday’s ruling and reinstate all state bans on gay marriages. See the list of 30 states where citizens went to the polls and voted to ban gay marriages, those will be reinstated by the new bill. In only 2 states: MD and ME the citizens ever voted to legalize gay marriage
Posted on | June 27, 2015 | 9 Comments
Washington, D.C. – Congressman Steve King released the following statement after introducing his bill “Restrain the Judges on Marriage Act of 2015.” This bill strips federal courts of jurisdiction to hear cases related to marriage. The effect of the bill would prevent federal courts from hearing marriage cases, leaving the issue to the States where it properly belongs.
“For too long, federal courts have overstepped their constitutionally limited duty to interpret the Constitution.” Said King. “Rather, federal courts have perverted the Constitution to make law and create constitutional rights to things such as privacy, birth control, and abortion. These unenumerated, so-called constitutionally-protected rights were not envisioned by our Founding Fathers.
My bill strips Article III courts of jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction, ‘to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, any type of marriage.’ Second, my bill provides that ‘[n]o federal funds may be used for any litigation in, or enforcement of any order or judgment by, any court created by an Act of Congress.’
I urge the House to bring this bill to the Floor. If passed, my bill would stop the Court from destroying traditional marriage and preserve the votes of millions of voters in States that have passed bans on same-sex marriage.”
5 lawyers sitting on the Supreme Court told citizens of these 30 states that they are slaves and their will and their votes on a purely state issue do not count.
To view the bill text, click here.
| State | Year | Support vote % | Title | Amendment (in relevant part) |
| Georgia | 2004 | 76%[11] | Constitutional Amendment 1[12] | (a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state. (b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage.[13] |
| North Dakota | 2004 | 73%[11] | North Dakota Constitutional Measure 1[14] | Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.[15] |
| State | Year | Support vote % | Title | Amendment | |
| California | 2008 | 52%[16] | California Proposition 8[17] | Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.[17] | |
| Oregon | 2004 | 57%[11] | Oregon Ballot Measure 36[18] | Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.[19] | |
| Utah | 2004 | 66%[11] | Constitutional Amendment 3[20] | Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.[21] | |
| Oklahoma | 2004 | 76%[11] | State Question 711[22] | A. Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. Neither this Constitution nor any other provision of law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. C. Any person knowingly issuing a marriage license in violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.[23] | |
| Virginia | 2006 | 57%[24] | Marshall-Newman Amendment[24] | That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.[25] | . |
| Wisconsin | 2006 | 59%[26] | Wisconsin Referendum 1[26] | Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.[27] | |
| Colorado | 2006 | 56%[26] | Colorado Amendment 43[28] | Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.[28] | |
| Nevada | 2000, 2002[b] | 69.6%; 67.1%[b] | Nevada Question No. 2[10] | Only a marriage between a male and female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state.[29] | |
| Idaho | 2006 | 63%[26] | Idaho Amendment 2[26] | A marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.[30] | |
| North Carolina | 2012 | 61%[31] | North Carolina Amendment 1 | Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.[32] | |
| Alaska | 1998 | 68%[33] | Ballot Measure 2, Joint Resolution 42[33] | To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman.[34] | |
| Arizona | 2008 | 56%[16] | Arizona Proposition 102[35] | Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.[35] | |
| Kansas | 2005 | 70%[36] | Proposed Amendment 1[37] | (a) Marriage shall be constituted by one man and one woman only. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void. (b) No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage.[38] | |
| Montana | 2004 | 67%[11] | Montana Initiative 96[11] | Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.[39] | . |
| South Carolina[c] | 2006 | 78%[26] | South Carolina Amendment 1[26] | A marriage between one man and one woman is the only lawful domestic union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This State…shall not recognize…any other domestic union, however denominated.[40] | |
| Florida | 2008 | 62%[16] | Florida Amendment 2[41] | Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.[41] | |
| Alabama | 2006 | 81%[42] | Sanctity of Marriage Amendment (Amendment 774)[43] | No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex… A union replicating marriage of or between persons of the same sex in the State of Alabama or in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state as a marriage or other union replicating marriage. | |
| Michigan | 2004 | 59%[11] | State Proposal – 04-2[44] | To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.[4][45] | |
| Kentucky | 2004 | 75%[11] | Constitutional Amendment 1[46] | Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.[47] | |
| Tennessee | 2006 | 81%[26] | Tennessee Amendment 1[48] | The historical institution and legal contract solemnizing the relationship of one man and one woman shall be the only legally recognized marital contract in this state.[48] | |
| Ohio | 2004 | 62%[11] | State Issue 1[49] | Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.[50] | |
| Texas | 2005 | 76% | Proposition 2 | (A) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. (B) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage. | |
| Arkansas | 2004 | 75%[11] | Constitutional Amendment 3[51] | (1) Marriage consists only of the union of one man and one woman. (2) Legal status for unmarried persons which is identical or substantially similar to marital status shall not be valid or recognized in Arkansas.[52] | |
| Louisiana | 2004 | 78%[11] | Constitutional Amendment 1[53] | Marriage in the state of Louisiana shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall construe this constitution or any state law to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any member of a union other than the union of one man and one woman. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.[54] | |
| Missouri | 2004 | 72%[55] | Constitutional Amendment 2[56] | To be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman.[57] | |
| Mississippi | 2004 | 86%[11] | Mississippi Amendment 1[11] | Marriage may take place and may be valid under the laws of this state only between a man and a woman.[58] | |
| South Dakota | 2006 | 52%[26] | South Dakota Amendment C[26] | Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in South Dakota. The uniting of two or more persons in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other quasi-marital relationship shall not be valid or recognized in South Dakota.[59] | |
| Nebraska | 2000 | 70%[60] | Initiative Measure 416[60] | Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska.[61] |
statistics:
| RacerJim |
Submitted on 2015/06/28 at 7:49 am
Average support for ban in 30 states: 70% Percent of states with ban: 60% Percent of population in states with ban: 69% Yet, GLBTQs et al say the majority support same-sex marriage. BALONEY! |
Comments
9 Responses to “New bill will strip all federal courts of any jurisdiction to rule on issue of marriage, which according to the Constitution is a state issue and was never relinquished by the states to the federal courts. This bill will invalidate yesterday’s ruling and reinstate all state bans on gay marriages. See the list of 30 states where citizens went to the polls and voted to ban gay marriages, those will be reinstated by the new bill. In only 2 states: MD and ME the citizens ever voted to legalize gay marriage”
Leave a Reply
EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !
Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day
OrlyTaitzEsq.comTAITZ REPORT
Official Facebook
IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!
Historic DVD Now Available!
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
Advertisement / Sponsors
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
Ste 100
Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
orly.taitz @gmail. com
(949) 766-7687
--------------------------------------
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
--------------------------------------
Bumper Sticker
$9.99 thru PayPal--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------Orly Taitz Photo Collections
June 27th, 2015 @ 10:17 pm
Great post…
Do you think a bill will suffice or do we need an amendment to the Constitution? Scott Walker is proposing the amendment route.
Scott Walker calls for Constitutional amendment to let states define marriage
By DANIEL STRAUSS 6/26/15 11:55 AM EDT
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, seizing the moment after the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, called Friday for a Constitutional amendment that would allow the states to decide whether gay marriage should be legal.
Walker’s call came shortly after the high court ruled 5-4 that same-sex couples could marry across the country, overturning a number of state same-sex marriage bans.
Story Continued Below
The ruling was “a grave mistake,” the Republican governor said, touting his support for amending his state’s constitution “to protect the institution of marriage from exactly this type of judicial activism.”
“As a result of this decision, the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage,” Walker said in the statement.
Read more: https://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/scott-walker-ban-gay-marriage-constitutional-amendment-119470.html#ixzz3eKJtVR4V
June 28th, 2015 @ 6:03 am
it is harder to amend the constitution, takes much longer, you need ratification of the states
June 28th, 2015 @ 7:49 am
I need to remind everyone that those in the most powerful offices of government are not required to be drug free, including the Judges of the Supreme Court. The recent rulings on this issue and similar issues of constitutional law are strong evidence that at least 5 of the sitting Supreme Court Justices are not thinking clearly in their interpretation of the plain English as written in the Constitution. “Shall not be abridged” for instance means just the opposite to them when it becomes necessary to abolish the very freedom it was designed to protect. “Congress shall not pass any Bill of Attainder” means that Congress can tax us unequally any amount for any reason. Discrimination is illegal except when we do it by law.
June 28th, 2015 @ 7:49 am
Average support for ban in 30 states: 70%
Average support against ban in 2 states: 52%
Percent of states with ban: 60%
Percent of states w/o ban: 4%
Percent of population in states with ban: 69%
Percent of population in states w/o ban: 2.25%
Yet, GLBTQs et al say the majority support same-sex marriage. BALONEY!
June 28th, 2015 @ 8:50 am
Dissolve the SCOTUS.
Remove the cancer. Judiciary in Congress, do it.
Indict the 9 Justices for Treason & Immorality.
Begin the trials at GITMO.
No excuses, Danno!!!
June 28th, 2015 @ 11:05 am
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/huckabee-if-obama-wh-can-put-up-rainbow-lights-dont-complain-if-i-put-up-nativity/
June 28th, 2015 @ 1:31 pm
If you ask me, there are a lot of Republicans (yes, most of them in name only) who are secretly very happy with the decision because it means they can now say ‘well, it’s the law and we must follow it.” They don’t want to take a stand, so they will talk a good game but they will find excuses not to support this bill. Sad, but true.
June 28th, 2015 @ 4:45 pm
that is true, that includes Bush, Rubio, Christie, Kasich
June 28th, 2015 @ 8:07 pm
Orly,
I have an attorney question for you.
We talked about the passing of a bill and an amendment to the the Constitution, but what about the health issue?
New Laws are needed for “Same Sex Marriages.”
The Supreme Court decision on gay marriage must be amended by stating gay marriage is a health risk to the community.
As we know gays are prohibited from giving blood. If you have ever given blood this is one of the questions, “have you had sex with another man”.
Many STD are transmitted by homosexuals. Therefore there should be a mandatory WAITING PERIOD for a same sex marriage license to be issued.
Tests must be required at the application time and at the time the marriage license is issued.
A waiting period of X number of days is needed to see if there is any disease present in the same sex applicants.
State and local government can pass these laws for same sex marriages.
I believe this would be covered by the 10th Amendment for States Rights.