Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

senate Bill S. 1080

Should Same-Sex Marriage Cases be Kept out of Federal Courts?

Argument in favor

This bill would protect state decisions on same-sex marriage from federal court meddling. It’s only fair: the reason we have state governments is so that people in a region can make decisions for themselves.

···
05/01/2015
I'll cite the 10th amendment here. of course everyone should have the right to marry but we cannot violate our constitution people. it's up for the states to decide. I'm not against same sex marriage, I'm against violating our constitution.
Like (38)
Follow
Share
AndyV's Opinion
···
05/01/2015
Since when did the federal government get to decide when states are "screwing up" or "being bigots"? You cannot legislate morality. You cannot legislate Christianity out of existence, either. The state's need to govern themselves, and if the citizens dont like the way they are being governed, they can move to another state that favors their opinions and views and beliefs. THIS IS THE BEAUTY OF AMERICA. THE FACT THAT NOT EVERY CITY IN IT IS A NEW YORK OR A SAN FRANCISCO OR A DETROIT OR A MIAMI. THE BEAUTY IN OUR COUNTRY IS THE STATES RIGHTS TO DETERMINE FOR THEMSELVES WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THEIR CITIZENS.
Like (23)
Follow
Share
Jill's Opinion
···
05/04/2015
We can't let the federal government take away all of states rights. It is the right of states to decide such matters about its citizens.
Like (13)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

Part of the federal government's job is to intervene when states are screwing up or, worse, being bigots. This bill would allow states to legally discriminate against same-sex couples by preventing federal courts from challenging local laws.

BernieSanders's Opinion
···
06/27/2015
"This decision (6/26 Supreme Court Ruling) is a victory for same-sex couples across our country as well as all those seeking to live in a nation where every citizen is afforded equal rights." [twitter.com/SenSanders]
Like (363)
Follow
Share
BananaNeil's Opinion
···
05/01/2015
We are a single nation filled with diverse peoples. Ted Cruz is sponsoring this bill, which allows for states to discriminate against sexual orientation. If passed, it will deny families the tax benefits and hospital visitation rights that are granted to those of a different life style. It is bigoted and it wrong.
Like (100)
Follow
Share
Shane's Opinion
···
05/04/2015
If states treated everyone equally then the federal government wouldn't need to intervene. Much like the 1960s though, states are trying to claim the majorities rights are being infringed upon to justify taking civil liberties from the minority. If states can't be trusted to obey the constitution, then the federal government has to step in and make them.
Like (59)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The house has not voted
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on the Judiciary
    IntroducedApril 23rd, 2015

What is Senate Bill S. 1080?

This bill seeks to promote state rights, religious freedom, and uphold heterosexual unions as traditional marriage. It would do so by limiting the ability of Federal justices to determine the legality of same sex marriage.

Under this bill, no court put into place by federal law would be able to define marriage as between a man and a woman or as not just between a man and a woman. They also wouldn’t be able to compel a state to recognize or not recognize same sex marriage.

Impact

The LGBTQ community, couples who want to get married, state governments, federal judges, marriage equality and heterosexual marriage advocates.

Cost of Senate Bill S. 1080

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In Depth: 

The actual text of this bill as of May 1, 2015 hasn’t been sent to Congress. Sponsoring Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has however, issued the full text of the bill in a press release. It’s kinda weird that he has the text, but hasn’t put the framing language around the bill and sent it in. What’s he so busy with? Running for president or something? Or is it just that he’s writing up an almost identical resolution?


Of Note: 

While this bill would make it so that no court could decide the legality of same-sex marriage, it wouldn’t ban it outright. People could still vote to legalize it, as could state legislatures. 

But here’s the thing: without court-ordered gay marriage, the national picture starts looking a lot different. Out of the 37 states where same-sex marriage is legal, 26 of those states legalized gay marriage after the Supreme Court struck down the federal ban on gay marriage in 2013. Eight approved it via legislature, and another three by popular vote.

And while this bill certainly touches states’ rights issues — it would be a mistake to say that it’s more about those than it is about gay marriage. This bill was sponsored by Sen. Cruz — a man who is very vocal about his disapproval of gay marriage. He says so in his release for the bill: “[f]or millennia, the union of a man and a woman has been the fundamental building block of society.”


Media:

Sponsoring Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) Press Release

The Hill

Washington Blade

Bloomberg

Think Progress (Opposed)

Yahoo News


Summary by James Helmsworth 
(Photo Credit: Flickr user Tracy Russo)

AKA

Protect Marriage from the Courts Act of 2015

Official Title

A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts to consider cases involving same-sex marriage.

    I'll cite the 10th amendment here. of course everyone should have the right to marry but we cannot violate our constitution people. it's up for the states to decide. I'm not against same sex marriage, I'm against violating our constitution.
    Like (38)
    Follow
    Share
    "This decision (6/26 Supreme Court Ruling) is a victory for same-sex couples across our country as well as all those seeking to live in a nation where every citizen is afforded equal rights." [twitter.com/SenSanders]
    Like (363)
    Follow
    Share
    We are a single nation filled with diverse peoples. Ted Cruz is sponsoring this bill, which allows for states to discriminate against sexual orientation. If passed, it will deny families the tax benefits and hospital visitation rights that are granted to those of a different life style. It is bigoted and it wrong.
    Like (100)
    Follow
    Share
    If states treated everyone equally then the federal government wouldn't need to intervene. Much like the 1960s though, states are trying to claim the majorities rights are being infringed upon to justify taking civil liberties from the minority. If states can't be trusted to obey the constitution, then the federal government has to step in and make them.
    Like (59)
    Follow
    Share
    What?! Of course not, geez. That's what the courts are for. Read the constitution. Man.
    Like (43)
    Follow
    Share
    When does separation of church and state come into play. Oh I see, you only want to apply it when you want to.
    Like (39)
    Follow
    Share
    The rights of citizens should be protected, rather than dependent on the whims of popular opinion.
    Like (29)
    Follow
    Share
    Since when did the federal government get to decide when states are "screwing up" or "being bigots"? You cannot legislate morality. You cannot legislate Christianity out of existence, either. The state's need to govern themselves, and if the citizens dont like the way they are being governed, they can move to another state that favors their opinions and views and beliefs. THIS IS THE BEAUTY OF AMERICA. THE FACT THAT NOT EVERY CITY IN IT IS A NEW YORK OR A SAN FRANCISCO OR A DETROIT OR A MIAMI. THE BEAUTY IN OUR COUNTRY IS THE STATES RIGHTS TO DETERMINE FOR THEMSELVES WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THEIR CITIZENS.
    Like (23)
    Follow
    Share
    They use to think mixed marriages between different races should be kept out...
    Like (19)
    Follow
    Share
    We can't let the federal government take away all of states rights. It is the right of states to decide such matters about its citizens.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    Due to the divisive nature of the issue, the courts should decided so it will be a law that protect all individuals. A matter of civil rights shouldn't be left to individuals or churches
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    It is simply not the role of the federal government to define marriage.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Stop the war against Christians and Catholics.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    As the summary says: This bill seeks to promote state rights, religious freedom, and uphold heterosexual unions as traditional marriage. It would do so by limiting the ability of Federal justices to determine the legality of same sex marriage. Under this bill, no court put into place by federal law would be able to define marriage as between a man and a woman or as not just between a man and a woman. They also wouldn’t be able to compel a state to recognize or not recognize same sex marriage. I STILL CRUZ WITH TED!
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Under no circumstances should the majority dictate what civil liberties minorities are entitled to. And it's up to federal courts to prevent any local government from legalizing discrimination. Liberty and Justice for All.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    This needs to stay in state courts, this is why the 10th amendment was written into law. If our judges were competent, this wouldn't be an issue!
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    If the courts were kept out of cases regarding civil rights, segregation would still be the norm. There are issues on which the electorate moves too slowly or not at all, and it's for that reason that the judicial branch of our government must have review of ALL laws. Keeping one entire branch of government out of marriage equality cases also sets a dangerous precedent; if we can keep the judiciary out of marriage laws, why not abortion laws? Or when issuing arrest warrants?
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    I'm with Ted, Sen Cruz. Marriage is between a male and a female. Bible says so. Final answer: Male and Female should be recognized in a Federal Court.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    "I believe SCOTUS' decision is a grave mistake. 5 unelected judges have taken it upon themselves to redefine the institution of marriage." - https://twitter.com/ScottWalker/status/614465213132374016
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Legislatures of the States should be making laws - not unelected federal judges. Communist Judges can work their way into the justice system and interpret the constitution any way they want and force the states to follow their personal opinion. Do not allow Federal Judges to infringe on popular and state sovereignty.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE