www site     



pearceyreport.jpg
   RSS 
Link to us   
HomeStoreAboutTotal TruthBlogContactDonateSpeakingArchives
pro-existence banner no. 2 black by Rick and Nancy Pearcey.jpg

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Rep. King Announces Bill to "Restrain the Judges on Marriage"

By Rick Pearcey • April 23, 2015, 09:24 AM

Lauretta Brown reports at CNSNews.com:

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) has introduced a bill that would block the federal courts, including the U.S Supreme Court, from hearing or deciding cases involving the definition of marriage.

King discussed his on legislation on Capitol Hill Wednesday, saying that it "follows Constitutional principles" as outlined in Article 3, Section 2, which reads: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

"King believes Congress has the authority to tell the federal courts they have no jurisdiction to hear any case on marriage," Brown reports.

"And we have the authority to prohibit any funding from being used to enforce or adjudicate any decision on marriage,” Kings is quoted as saying.

“Congress has the authority to establish all the federal courts, and we’re directed to establish one by the Constitution. That one is the Supreme Court. All the other federal courts are created by Congress at the discretion of Congress," King said, according to Brown.

What happens if King's proposal becomes law? "That would mean that the federal courts would no longer hear cases on marriage. They would revert back to the states, and the states then would define what marriage is, and most of the states have defined marriage between a man and a woman,” Brown quotes King as saying.

Comment: It should be noted that a) in speaking of courts and states "defining marriage," such governmental entities would be making merely legal definitions, and the b) such legal definitions may or may not be true to reality.

Clearly, if a court decides, or the voters of a state decide, that "marriage" allows, for example, that a U.S. president can "marry" a horse, it does not follow that marriage per se has been redefined.

Instead, what has happened is that a society has moved to a point where it cannot, or willfully refuses, to reject counterfeit "marriage" (between man and a man or a man and a horse, let us say) and the real thing (between one man and one woman).

Codifying a counterfeit never changes a sham into an actuality. "Homosex Marriage" is an oxymoronic sham of the first order. It has all the validity and purchase of Monoply money.

Related
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"
Memo to Conservatives: Accepting Homosex "Marriage" Opens Door to Unlimited Statism"
Memo to Supreme Court: Who Respects the Human Body? Not Homosexuals