Lawmaker: Money illegally spent for same-sex ‘marriage’

Rep. Dan Flynn

A Texas state lawmaker warns constitutional chaos is developing as states try to adapt to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that redefined marriage.

In a letter from to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, Texas state Rep. Dan Flynn, R-Austin, points out the various agencies affected by the ruling are spending money without permission from the the legislature.

Flynn, seeking an opinion from Paxton, notes that regardless of what the U.S. Supreme Court decides, the state of Texas is run by its own constitution, which allows only lawmakers to authorize funding.

“Absent action by the Texas Legislature, [executive] branch agencies, such as DSHS, have not been delegated authority to promulgate policies or procedures to implement same-sex marriage in Texas or other benefits,” he said. “Therefore, any marriage license issued in contradiction with Texas state law or other policy unilaterally awarding benefits to same-sex couples is invalid.”

Flynn said the obvious solution is for the Texas governor to call a special session of the legislature to address the recent United States Supreme Court and federal district court rulings.

During such a special session, he said, the legislature would have authority, according to the Texas constitution, to “enact laws to modify existing state law.”

“But, what if either the legislature was not called into special session or if, once called, the legislature failed to act in conformance with federal judicial mandates?”

Flynn said it would result in a constitutional crisis.

“Whereas, the federal judiciary might declare Texas’ system of marriage unconstitutional in totality, thus prohibiting future marriage, no authority exists for the federal government to rewrite existing Texas state law or to step into the state’s place by issuing its own federal ‘marriage licenses,” he said.

“The lack of precedent is only surpassed by the unprecedented overreach by the federal judiciary in stepping into the place of the legislative branch, despite the dissent by Chief Justice Roberts,” said Flynn.

Who put the American family in the bull’s-eye? Read “Takedown, From Communists to Progressives How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage” to read the origins of the war.

“However, our state must not ignore Texas law or our own respect for the rule of law simply out of fear of an overreaching federal government.”

He pointed out that the Employees Retirement System of Texas “has unilaterally granted state benefits to same-sex spouses.”

But where does the money come from?

“The Texas Constitution provides that ‘no money shall be drawn from the treasury but in pursuance of specific appropriates made by law,’” Flynn said.

He asked Paxton, “In the event that the Texas legislature does not amend current law, what action could the federal government take to implement same-sex marriage?”

That question already is being discussed in several other states, where officials in some offices have simply stopped issuing any marriage licenses. They argue that since the federal government has taken over the marriage licensing, it is now responsible for issuing the licenses.

Flynn asks if state agencies can spend money that has not been appropriated for “benefits” to same-sex couples.

When the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling, which was vigorously opposed in dissents by four justices, certain states agencies and local governmental officials “raced to implement same-sex marriage, while Texas law remains unchanged,” Flynn said.

He said that happened even though Texas was not part of the case at hand.

“For example, the Texas Department of State Health Services, unilaterally changed the state promulgated marriage license application to delete the blanks for ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in place of ‘applicant one’ and ‘applicant two.’”

But until and unless it is changed, “no interpretation of existing Texas law results in allowance of same-sex marriage.”

“Rather than Texas law prohibiting same-sex marriage, Texas law solely defines marriage ‘only as a union of one man and one woman,’” he said.

“With the removal of Texas laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, no Texas law exists that provides for same-sex marriage. After the federal court’s striking of Texas law that prohibits same-sex marriage, the remaining Texas statues still only define marriage as between ‘a man and a woman.’”

The federal judge who issued the order regarding Texas’ law “does not strike Texas state law providing marriage as between one man and one woman.”

“To do so would effectively strike as unconstitutional all Texas law regarding marriage, with the effect of halting all marriage in Texas – a step that the federal court purposefully avoided,” he pointed out.

“Nor has the federal court written new Texas law. … If anything, Texas law now remains silent upon the issue.”

He pointed out that the legislature could act.

“Instead of ‘a man and a woman,’ the legislature could change the definition of marriage to be between ‘two (or more) persons.’ But, the Texas legislature has not met, nor has it acted.”

And even though “all legislative powers” are vested with the lawmakers, state agencies and local government officials have begun granting permissions that “do not exist,” he said.

So how, he asked the attorney general, are agencies like the Teacher Retirement System, the University of Texas System, the Texas A&M University System and others awarding “state benefits to same-sex couples beyond the limits of Obergefell”?

“I would submit that because only the legislature may appropriate funds, an agency must follow the state law process for receiving additional funding needed to comply with a court order,” he said.

Paxton previously criticized the U.S. Supreme Court, saying it “ignored the text and spirit” of the nation’s Constitution to manufacture a right that does not exist.

WND reported the Supreme Court ruling, which affirmed the First Amendment’s protections for religious liberty, is prompting a backlash from some state employees who contend it violates their constitutional rights.

In Indiana, a longtime county employee filed a lawsuit after she was fired for refusing to process a marriage-license application for a same-sex couple. Linda G. Summers, a Christian, informed her boss that other office employees were willing to take care of those duties when they arose.

A related dispute is developing in Kentucky, where the ACLU is suing a clerk in Rowan County for exercising her First Amendment religious rights.

 

from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2015/07/28/lawmaker-money-illegally-spent-for-same-sex-marriage/

from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2015/07/28/lawmaker-money-illegally-spent-for-same-sex-marriage/