Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2
We bring to your attention the following issues surrounding the SCOTUS
ruling on marriage and its impact on Texas:
1) Left unchecked, the SCOTUS redefinition of marriage sets yet another
precedence of federal judicial activism and tyranny. This ruling was
clearly legislating from the bench, resulting in the usurpation of state law
and the trampling of the will of the people as expressed by voters in
November 2005, when 76% of Texas voters approved a proposed
amendment to the Texas Constitution defining marriage as between one
man and one woman. A majority of voters in only one of the state's 254
counties opposed the measure (60 % of the voters in Travis County, home to
the capital, opposed the amendment).
The Supreme Court took for itself powers not given to the federal
government, violating the 9th and 10th amendments to the US
Constitution. Nothing in the US Constitution requires or authorizes the
redefinition of marriage by the federal government. The Constitution of the
United States says that the federal government has only those powers
specifically granted to it by the Constitutionand that all other powers
belong either to the states or to the people themselves.
2) Left unchecked, the federal government has once again
commandeered state assets (assets belonging to the people of Texas), and
it appears our statewide leaders and legislators have no will to stop it.
Benefits to same sex couples began to flow this week in Texas. The Employee
Retirement System of Texas (ERS) announced that same-sex spouses could
enroll in the Texas Employees Group Benefits Program beginning July 1st.
We are aware of no public meeting or legal process that resulted in this
sudden change. This program extends to all state agency and higher
education employees as well as retired employees eligible for the Texas
Employee Group Benefits Program.
McKinney TEA
Party
Upon what authority did this agency issue these benefits benefits that have
not been authorized by state law? We are incensed that our duly elected
legislature has been bypassed!
3) Left unchecked, this ruling sets the stage for the demise of religious
liberty, which resides in the First Amendment. We urge you to go beyond
mere words and take immediate and decisive action to protect the freedom
of speech, the freedom of association, and the freedom of religion for those
who continue to abide by the truth of marriage as the union of one man and
one woman. The right not to violate one's own conscience is a fundamental
right of the First Amendment (conscientious objection). Currently, many
other professions and providers are crying out for religious liberty
protection such as faith-based adoption agencies, faith-based foster care
agencies, bakers, photographers, florists, Christian schools, county clerks,
and justices of the peace. If people of faith are already protected, why are
legislators promising to file bills next session? The people of Texas should
not have to wait until 2017. Would you have us spend thousands of dollars in
court and risk losing our schools and businesses because our leaders refused
to act? At a minimum, a special session of the legislature is in order!
4) We must NOT take Texas out of the definition of marriage. Why? 1) The
Heritage Foundations Dr. Ryan T. Anderson says, Marriage isnt just a
private affair; marriage is a matter of public policy because marriage (as
3
handed down through generations and based on the biblical definition) is
societys best way to ensure the well-being of children. State recognition of
traditional marriage acts as a powerful social norm that encourages men and
women to commit to each other so they will take responsibility for any
children that follow. 2) Marriage is woven throughout family law (including
adoptions), probate law, and throughout the tax code. The call from some to
"take marriage out of the government's hands" is a simplistic approach to a
very complicated issue. While there is no doubt marriage is defined by God
and not government it was long ago that government got involved in
marriage in ways it is not easily extracted.
5) Finally, we call to your attention 28 U.S. Code 455 - Disqualification of
justice, judge, or magistrate judge, which in plain language reads: Any
justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify
himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be
questioned. Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg should have
recused themselves from the case because it is a matter of public record that
they have officiated gay weddings. We believe the rule of law cries out to be
enforced! Just because pundits and liberal law professors say a statute
doesnt matter, does not make it so. We believe this an issue that should be
raised by Texas.
If there was ever a time to fight judicial activism to stop an overreaching
federal behemoth on the march against individual and states rights, it is
now. Texas needs to lead.
The nation is watching to see if Texas folds. We pray that you do not.
This matter is of vital interest to us and thousands more across the Lone Star
State. Pursuant to our right and duty to petition our elected leaders, we
will not cease to raise our voices against inaction.
For Liberty for Texas,
JoAnn Fleming
Cathie Adams,
Ann Hettinger
Karen Albright
LaDaune Ashley
Steve Baysinger
Elena Blake
Julie Borik
Kelly Canon
Eva Carter
Dr. Dwayne Collins
Connie Curry
Suzanne Dillmann
Sheri Edwards
David Ellis
Pamela Engstrom
Maria Espinoza
4
Toni & Tom Fabry
Sharon Hall
Barbara Harless
Joe Harrison
Cole Hefner
Kelly Horsley
Mary & Dale Huls
Bill Hussey
Camille Johnson
Larry Korkmas
Cyndi Lawrence
Robin & Jim Lennon
Jim & Carla Logan
Matt Long
Dr. Ivette C. Lozano
Julie McCarty
Jerry McIntire
Chuck Molyneaux