State of the States on Marriage
On the heels of a significant federal district court ruling upholding Louisiana’s state marriage law, two other states are taking seriously the “historic and essential authority” they’ve long held to establish marriage policy through the democratic process. In Mississippi, Governor Phil Bryant has moved to intervene on behalf of the state’s marriage law, aiding in its defense before the Mississippi Supreme Court. At issue is whether a same-sex couple can force the state to recognize their “marriage” performed in another state – so that they can then file for divorce in Mississippi! Governor Bryant argues that the state should not be forced to recognize a relationship the people have already voted not to affirm as marriage. His move to defend the people’s interest in marriage comports with the very view set forth by the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor last summer when it emphasized that “the definition and regulation of marriage” has long “been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States.”
On the heels of a significant federal district court ruling upholding Louisiana’s state marriage law, two other states are taking seriously the “historic and essential authority” they’ve long held to establish marriage policy through the democratic process. In Mississippi, Governor Phil Bryant has moved to intervene on behalf of the state’s marriage law, aiding in its defense before the Mississippi Supreme Court. At issue is whether a same-sex couple can force the state to recognize their “marriage” performed in another state – so that they can then file for divorce in Mississippi! Governor Bryant argues that the state should not be forced to recognize a relationship the people have already voted not to affirm as marriage. His move to defend the people’s interest in marriage comports with the very view set forth by the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor last summer when it emphasized that “the definition and regulation of marriage” has long “been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States.”
Since Virginia’s Governor and Attorney General don’t share Governor Bryant’s strong belief in the importance of defending state law, the Virginia House of Delegates has taken it upon itself to ensure that the views of Virginians – including on marriage – are respected. [Yesterday], in a special session, the Virginia House of Delegates votes on a bill that would give the Assembly the right to intervene in cases that challenge state laws when the state attorney general refuses to offer a defense. We applaud the Virginia House for taking seriously the views of Virginians. Indeed, in neighboring state North Carolina, a new poll released just [Wednesday] highlights the fact that even when people disagree on the meaning of marriage, they overwhelmingly support (62% to 26%) allowing voters – not courts or renegade public officials – to decide the question.
State defenses of marriage laws – whether in Mississippi, Virginia, or one of the other 30 states with pending challenges – are important as the Supreme Court prepares to reconvene for its fall term. As the Supreme Court considers how to resolve ongoing challenges to state authority on marriage, we hope the Court remembers what it has said about the importance of respecting the democratic process and allowing voters to affirm the truth about natural marriage.
Life on the Hill
[Thursday] pro-life leaders gathered at the foot of the U.S. Capitol to call for the Senate to act and pass H.R. 7/S.946 the “No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2014” sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) and the Senate companion sponsored by Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.).
FRC’s own Arina Grossu joined a press conference this morning held by Reps. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), Diane Black (R-Tenn.), and Chris Smith (R-N.J.) to highlight the need for the Obama administration to be held accountable and to follow their own law as written when it comes to keeping the abortion surcharge separate from federal subsidies. Arina and these pro-life Representatives called on Congress to get the government out of the abortion subsidy business.
President Obama promised back in September 2009, “Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.” The groundbreaking GAO report I have written about reveals that federal dollars are being used to subsidize abortions in ObamaCare exchange plans. What is new? The Health and Human Services agency provided a wishy-washy response to the stunning report, blaming it on state regulators and insurers.
At the press conference, Arina responded saying “HHS leadership, please explain why 1,036 ObamaCare exchange plans cover elective abortion at the expense of taxpayer funds? We were told ObamaCare does not subsidize abortion.” In an election year when liberals have argued conservatives are engaged in a war on women, this issue points to this lie. Arina additionally pointed out that “women want good healthcare. Healthcare ‘choice’ under ObamaCare is a farce: the choice for pro-life plans is very limited or non-existent in 8 states.” How is there transparency when ObamaCare contains a secrecy clause and, as the GAO report uncovered, 11 of the 18 issuers they interviewed admitted they did not provide information to Americans about elective abortion coverage. The American people should not subsidize abortion against their conscience, and they deserve to know. The Senate should act to pass the House bill to get the government out of the abortion business and allow people the ability not to subsidize the killing of the most innocent among us.
This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.
