Lawmaker: Congress can halt same-sex ‘marriage’ in tracks


A state lawmaker with expertise in constitutional issues says there’s a strategy that would allow Congress to halt the legalization of same-sex “marriage” by the U.S. Supreme Court in its tracks.

The court’s 5-4 ruling Friday abolished all state laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

But Virginia Delegate Robert G. Marshall contends Congress “can immediately take action on a strategy to block the Obama administration’s implementation of the court’s decision through the use of riders to appropriations bills which will come before Congress this summer and fall.”

“Suggested by James Madison, both liberals and conservatives have successfully used this strategy to change public policy over the past 50 years,” he wrote. “This approach is constitutional. It can be set in motion within days, if not on the very day of a Supreme Court decision. … And, if pursued by defenders of real marriage, this approach will require every 2016 congressional and presidential candidate to take a position on marriage.”

Read the history of the attacks on marriage and the family, from the days of Karl Marx and Margaret Sanger to those now pushing for mandatory recognition of same-sex “marriage,” in “Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left has Sabotaged Family and Marriage.”

He said Congress can use its power of the purse, if it chooses.

“Does Congress have this power? Yes! The Constitution provides, that, ‘No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law …’ Art. 1, Sect. 9.”

It was James Madison, Marshall said, who explained, “This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”

The report is by William J. Olson, who served in several positions for the Reagan administration, and Herb Titus, a longtime constitutional law professor.

The law firm William J. Olson, P.C., has issued a series of reports on the issue of marriage, funded by United States Justice Foundation.

Marshall explained that the strategy already has been used to cut off American military aid and end the Vietnam War in 1975, stop federal funding of abortion on demand through Medicaid with the Hyde Amendment and halt a Jimmy Carter plan to demand predominantly Christian schools prove they were not discriminating on the basis of race to keep their tax-exempt status.

Marshall explained the use of the 14th Amendment’s transformation from its original purpose of protecting black Americans after the Civil War into “a mandate for same-sex ‘marriage.’”

“The decision must be challenged immediately and effectively,” he said. “Many millions of Americans who voted to support and adhere to the millennia old consensus on marriage must question the authority and judgment of the court if it wrongly applies the Constitution, while arrogantly charging that Americans who disagree with them are bigoted and hateful.”

Amendments could prevent the removal of tax-exempt status for any church or group that declines to participate in same-sex marriage. They also could prevent requirements that federal contractors accommodate same-sex marriage.

“An appropriations bill is much easier to pass than a normal bill. Because funding bills are necessary to keep the government open, they must be considered and passed yearly. Other bills can be buried in committee, but appropriations bills cannot be ignored,” he explained.

He said the bottom line is this: “If our Republican House of Representatives and our Republican Senate place an appropriations rider on all spending bills stating ‘no funds appropriated hereunder may be used to implement the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell,’ it would not undo or reverse a Supreme Court same-sex ‘marriage’ decision. However, it would make Obergefell a decision that was never enforced at the federal level.”

Further, he said Congress could limit Supreme Court justices to a single law clerk.

“If the justices have so much time on their hands that they can attempt to defy the laws of Nature and Nature’s God, they may become more circumspect in crusading for the liberal agenda,” he said.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s