Restoring Traditional Marriage in Texas
By
James Scott Trimm
Our nation is built upon the
Constitution. The Constitution limits
the power of government and is a chain that binds the governmental
leviathan. But activist judges who
believe they have the power to act unconstitutionally are destroying our nation. They believe they have the power to violate
the separations of powers, and to violate the rights of the states and the
people.
Major victims of this destruction of the US
Constitution have been the Right to Life and the American family. In the recent judgment from the US Supreme
Court inventing a right to a gay marriage out of thin air, the late Justice
Anton Scalia famously wrote in his dissenting opinion:
"I write separately to call attention
to this Court's threat to American democracy... This practice of constitutional
revision... robs the people of the most important liberty... the freedom to
govern themselves..."
-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
When government intrudes on liberty we do
not say "in for a penny, in for a pound" and then give the government
even more power as its reward for having intruded on liberty in the first
place. So while government should not
be creating marriages, we should not say that in the meantime because the government
has usurped the power to license and certify marriages, the government should
now be allowed to further usurp the power to completely redefine marriage.
According to the Texas State Constitution,
marriage is a union between one man and one woman. I would further add that this union is generally consummated by
the reproductive act. For this reason
we call sexual intercourse "the marital act" and a marriage can be
annulled in Texas if either spouse is permanently incapable of engaging in the
reproductive act.
If two persons desire to enter into a legal
partnership contract that has nothing to do with the reproductive act, then
they should certainly be free to do so.
And what those persons do or don’t do in their own bedroom is none of my
concern. Freedom means that other
people will believe and do things with which I don’t like or agree, and I will
like and do things with which they don’t agree. But that does not mean that we must redefine “marriage”.
Now we get to the key question: does the
federal government have the power to redefine marriage? Does the State of Texas have a path to
restoring traditional marriage in Texas?
No the federal government has no such power
and Texas does have a path to restoring traditional marriage in our state. The solution is to be found in the new 2018
Texas Republican Party Platform which reads:
We believe this decision [Obergefell v. Hodges] , overturning the Texas law prohibiting same-sex
marriage in Texas, has no basis in the Constitution and should be
reversed, returning jurisdiction over the definition of marriage to the
states. The Governor and other elected officials of the State of Texas
should assert our Tenth Amendment right and reject the Supreme Court
ruling.
But how can the Governor and other elected
officials of the state of Texas assert our Tenth Amendment right and
reject the Supreme Court ruling? The
answer is found elsewhere in the 2018 Texas Republican Party Platform which reads:
State Sovereignty: Pursuant to Article 1 Section 1 of the Texas
Constitution, the federal government has impaired our right of local
self-government. Therefore, federally mandated legislation that
infringes upon the 10th Amendment rights of Texas, should be ignored,
opposed, refused, and nullified. Regulation of Commerce in Article I
Section 8 of the Constitution has exceeded the original intent. All
attempts by the federal judiciary to rule in areas not expressly
enumerated by the United States Constitution should be likewise
nullified. Any federal enforcement activities that do occur in Texas
should be conducted under the authority of the county sheriff. (SCOTUS
Ruling in 1997 Mack-Prinz vs. US)
But how can we actually accomplish
this? How can the State of Texas
nullify a federal court ruling from the US Supreme Court? The answer is the Texas Sovereignty Act!
The Tenth Amendment reads:
The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people
This means that the federal government (the
Supreme Court included) does not have any power that the states have not
specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.
Nowhere in the US Constitution is the
federal government delegated the authority to define or redefine marriage.
The Supreme Court claimed to base its
ruling on its interpretation of the 14th amendment. This argument fails for two important
reasons:
First of all the fact that homosexuals are
not interested in entering a union between one man and one woman generally
consummated by the reproductive act, does not mean that they are victims of
discrimination. Likewise if I am not
interested in fighting fires, I cannot demand to be recognized as a fireman and
require that the definition of “fireman” be altered to include me. (By the way this has nothing to do with
religion, and everything to do with reproductive biology.) Homosexuals cannot perform the reproductive
act because frankly, their parts don’t fit together for that act.
Secondly the US Supreme Court is not the
ultimate and final interpreter of the US Constitution. The Supreme Court has become the final
interpreter of the Constitution for one simple reason: because they say they
are. The Supreme Court usurped this
authority, claiming it for itself in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison. Nowhere does the Constitution assign this
role to the Supreme Court, they simply have it because they say they do.
The framers stated that the US Constitution
is a compact between the member states, and that as such, each state has equal
standing in determining for itself the meaning of the Constitution. The tenth amendment states that the states
and the people retain all powers not delegated to the federal government in the
Constitution, and nowhere in the Constitution did the states delegate to any
branch of the federal government the power to be the ultimate and final
interpreter of the Constitution. The
Supremacy Clause never mentions the Supreme court, but appears to indicate that
state judges would make these judgments.
he first bill that can do this answer is HB 1347 the Texas Sovereignty Act!
The Supreme Court has become the final
interpreter of the Constitution for one simple reason: because they say they
are. The Supreme Court usurped this
authority, claiming it for itself in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison. Nowhere does the Constitution assign this
role to the Supreme Court, they simply have it because they say they do.
The framers stated that the US Constitution
is a compact between the member states, and that as such, each state has equal
standing in determining for itself the meaning of the Constitution. The tenth amendment states that the states
and the people retain all powers not delegated to the federal government in the
Constitution, and nowhere in the Constitution did the states delegate to any
branch of the federal government the power to be the ultimate and final
interpreter of the Constitution. The
Supremacy Clause never mentions the Supreme court, but appears to indicate that
state judges would make these judgments.(You can read more about the basis for the Texas Sovereignty Act by clicking here)
Surely any law our state passes that reclaims its
sovereignty will be declared unconstitutional by the federal government, since
they have developed their own precedence on the issue. This has been called the Goliad approach to
sovereignty. You surrender to the
authority you were fighting, ask for mercy and are slaughtered in return.
We must simply pass the Texas Sovereignty Act (HB 1347), that, as a matter of enforceable and implemented law, Texas determines for itself whether or not our laws are Constitutional.
This means the federal courts will also have no power to find the Texas Sovereignty Act itself unconstitutional, because the law itself takes that decision out of their hands and places it in those of our state.
This is the only true path to Texas sovereignty. Any effort that leaves the matter ultimately in the hands of federal courts will fail, because they will simply declare it unconstitutional (though their own usurped power to do so is itself unconstitutional).
We must simply pass the Texas Sovereignty Act (HB 1347), that, as a matter of enforceable and implemented law, Texas determines for itself whether or not our laws are Constitutional.
This means the federal courts will also have no power to find the Texas Sovereignty Act itself unconstitutional, because the law itself takes that decision out of their hands and places it in those of our state.
This is the only true path to Texas sovereignty. Any effort that leaves the matter ultimately in the hands of federal courts will fail, because they will simply declare it unconstitutional (though their own usurped power to do so is itself unconstitutional).
Yes we can restore traditional marriage in
Texas!