As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on the issue of same-sex marriage, 11 lawmakers have re-introduced the State Marriage Defense Act which will protect states from any efforts by the federal government to impose a definition of marriage that is not supported by democratically-elected state legislatures.
“Even though the Supreme Court made clear in United States v. Windsor that the federal government should defer to state ‘choices about who may be married,’ the Obama Administration has disregarded state marriage laws enacted by democratically-elected legislatures to uphold traditional marriage,” said Sen. Ted Cruz, one of the 11 sponsors of the bill.
“I support traditional marriage and we should reject attempts by the Obama Administration to force same-sex marriage on all 50 states. The State Marriage Defense Act helps safeguard the ability of states to preserve traditional marriage for their citizens.”
Cruz believes that in the Windsor case, the Supreme Court improperly struck down a federal statute, Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), that defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the union of one man and one woman. At the same time, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the states’ longstanding authority to define marriage.
The U.S. Bishops, in a letter supporting the new bill, explained that various agencies of the Executive Branch have begun using a “place of celebration” rule rather than a “place of domicile” rule when determining the validity of a marriage for purposes of federal rights, benefits, and privileges.
“By employing a ‘place of celebration’ rule, these agencies have chosen to ignore the law of the state in which people reside in determining whether they are married. The effect, if not the intent, of this choice is to circumvent state laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” writes Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone, Archbishop of San Francisco and the Chairman of the USCCB’s Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage.
“The Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor, however, requires the federal government to defer to state marriage law, not disregard it. Your bill would remedy this problem by requiring the federal government, consistent with Windsor, to defer to the marriage law of the state in which people actually reside when determining whether they are married for purposes of federal law.”
This is the second time around for the bill which got nowhere in the Democratically-controlled Senate.
Sen. Cruz is joined by Senators John Boozman, R-AR, Mike Crapo, R-ID, Steve Daines, R-MT, James Inhofe, R-OK, James Lankford, R-OK, Mike Lee, R-UT, Pat Roberts, R-KS, Tim Scott, R-SC, Jeff Sessions, R-AL, Richard Shelby, R-AL, and David Vitter, R-LA. Congressman Randy Weber, R-TX, introduced a companion legislation in the House.
Later this year, Sen. Cruz announced that he will be introducing a constitutional amendment to further protect marriage and to prevent judicial activism. The amendment will make explicit that marriage is a policy question for the democratically-elected legislatures in each of the 50 states.
© All Rights Reserved, Living His Life Abundantly®/Women of Grace® http://www.womenofgrace.com
