Courser Introduces Legislation Ending State Involvement In Marriage As SCOTUS Ruling Draws Near

By Brandon Hall
(Email him at WestMiPolitics@Gmail.com)

With the United States Supreme Court about to rule any day on the legality of same-sex marriage bans across the U.S., State Rep. Todd Courser is introducing legislation to end the State's role in the marriage license process. Those who want a marriage through a church can do so, and all other marriages can be handled via submitting a marriage affidavit from the two parties involved to a local County Clerk.

Courser introduced a series of bills Wednesday that will facilitate that, House Bills 4731-4733...

Courser tells WMP that:

 "America stands at a crossroads on marriage. Our U.S. Supreme Court will any day render it’s decision and may then throw out thousands of years of established understanding and in so doing grant the right to homosexual marriages. It would be an unconscionable decision made without Constitutional justification and over the will of the people.  Five Justices can take it upon themselves to take the holy God inspired and the defined institution of marriage of being between one man and one woman and turn it into a government sanctioned institution that is now defined by the power of government.  The ruling if it goes against the traditional understanding of marriage brings with it many long range unforeseen implications for society in America and for the rest of the world. 

In anticipation of this decision, I have entered a bill to end Michigan's public official’s role in performing marriage ceremonies.  When the door was opened to government involvement in marriage, like any other area where government "gets its nose under the tent,” you then submit to government distortions of marriage through regulations.  If this legislation becomes law it will protect our public officials from having to perform same sex marriages and put the marriage licensing business back in the position of being in the realm of the churches and religious leaders. This only affects the licensing components related to performing the ceremonies themselves. As the government got into the licensing of marriages, it left behind what God intended and became an institution to be changed and adjusted as the secular powers saw fit."

Part of HB 4733 says that Michiganders not wanting to have a religious ceremony may file an affidavit of marriage with their County Clerk:

"a marriage that is not contracted by a formal ceremony according to section 1( 2) may be acknowledged by filing an affidavit of common law marriage with the county clerk. The affidavit of common law marriage shall be signed by both parties, notarized, and must include all of the following:

(a) The place where each party resides.

(b) The full legal name and age of each party as they appear on or are calculable from a certified copy of the birth certificate, the current driver license or state personal identification card, the current passport or visa, or any other certificate, license, or document issued by or existing under the laws of any nation or of any state, or a political subdivision of any state, that is accepted as proof of identity and age.

(c) The full name by which each party will be known after the marriage, which shall become the full legal name of the party upon filing of the marriage certificate.

(d) That the parties are not disqualified from or incapable of entering into marriage."
Here is the full statement from Courser:

Today I entered a bill to end the state's involvement in the sanctioning of marriage. Right now, as it sits with the decision from our U.S. Supreme Court looming, our elected officials could be forced to perform same sex marriages; if this happens then the liberal left will use this Supreme Court decision as a hammer to advance their liberal agenda. If the Supreme Court surprises everyone and decides to uphold the institution of marriage then I will simply will have the option to then withdraw the bill. The winds of secular progressivism gives me the sense that our Supreme Court is handing us their next step in the end of traditional morality for America. This bill simply put will end our elected official’s involvement in performing marriage ceremonies. 

It is incredibly important that if the Supreme Court rules against traditional marriage that our elected officials are not forced to violate their conscience and be forced to perform gay marriages. Further note on another piece of legislation being drafted - I have asked for drafting of a bill to protect pastors from being forced to perform gay marriages as well.

America stands at a crossroads on marriage. Our U.S. Supreme Court will any day render it’s decision and may then throw out thousands of years of established understanding and in so doing grant the right to homosexual marriages. It would be an unconscionable decision made without Constitutional justification and over the will of the people.  Five Justices can take it upon themselves to take the holy God inspired and the defined institution of marriage of being between one man and one woman and turn it into a government sanctioned institution that is now defined by the power of government.  The ruling if it goes against the traditional understanding of marriage brings with it many long range unforeseen implications for society in America and for the rest of the world. 

In anticipation of this decision, I have entered a bill to end Michigan's public official’s role in performing marriage ceremonies.  When the door was opened to government involvement in marriage, like any other area where government "gets its nose under the tent,” you then submit to government distortions of marriage through regulations.  If this legislation becomes law it will protect our public officials from having to perform same sex marriages and put the marriage licensing business back in the position of being in the realm of the churches and religious leaders. This only affects the licensing components related to performing the ceremonies themselves. As the government got into the licensing of marriages, it left behind what God intended and became an institution to be changed and adjusted as the secular powers saw fit.

I, like so many of you, stand wholeheartedly and unequivocally for traditional marriage and feel it should never have been opened by legislation to be within the Federal realm of authority. The proper role of regulation in the area of marriage, if at all, should have remained with the states. The Supreme Court, in this decision on marriage will be redefining marriage to being a contract between individuals and their government, and that will simply be a changing definition based on the needs and whims of government. Regardless of which way the Supreme Court decides, from here forward marriage will be whatever our Supreme Court decides. The contract that had been in place was between the man and wife on one side and God and His Holy word on the other side of the contract. I stand absolutely and completely behind the idea that marriage is between one man and one woman.  This U. S. Supreme Court decision will potentially throw out thousands of years of Judeo Christian history and will be used as a massive hammer from the progressive movement over many areas of religious liberty and freedom of expression, within churches, within commerce and throughout society in general. It is one more step in the tearing down of the Judeo Christian foundation of our country.

A little history of how we have gotten here is probably appropriate.  Historically our Federal Government has not had a role in marriage.  There is no place in our Federal Constitution that gives it a right to intervene in marriage.  Marriage laws really didn't start to appear in any significance until right after the civil war and were in regards to inter-racial marriage and also as a way to curtail the Mormon polygamy issues.  Then they appeared in full force at the beginning of the last century. The Federal government is a government of limited power.  Its role is supposed to be limited to those powers enumerated in the Federal Constitution.  The states however are governments of general power and could properly regulate marriage and have done so in many instances over many years. If there is a role of government to play in marriage, it is at the State level not at the Federal level. However, in either case of state or Federal involvement in marriage, it was inevitable that the power of government would be used to destroy traditional marriage.

Constitutionally the Federal Government has no proper role in marriage.  If there is a proper role for government in marriage, it lies properly within the purview of the States’ authority not the Federal government. This bill would prevent that from happening and would take our public officials out of the equation. The bill would still require a signed affidavit with two witnesses of the ceremony officiated by a religious leader, but it would no longer have the state sponsoring the unions and it would close the door to forcing our public officials to partake in the memorializing of the ceremonies. I believe to have a strong society we need to encourage traditional family values of one man and one woman in a committed relationship for life and that children are best raised in such an environment where a committed mother and father pour into the children love and support from both a mother and a father; there is no question as to the value of this model in the lives of children or the husband and wife.

When we as a nation started to take steps to "protect marriage" by various measures, including but not limited to the Defense of Marriage Act, we also opened the door for Federal and State involvement in marriage and allowed a secular government to have authority over the definition of marriage. If we really wanted to protect the institution of marriage at the Federal level, it should not have been with a Federal Statute but rather a Constitutional Amendment; this was not done. These various entries into the marriage business by the government inserted the secular power of the state into a spot where it was never intended to be by our Founding Fathers. It also gave a massive hammer to those in power to redefine the institution of marriage and more broadly the concepts of religious freedom and liberty.  This is where we stand today. 

In closing, my heart is broken for the spiritual health of our nation. My earnest hope and prayer in bringing this effort, and in all of my efforts, is to see the revival in all of our lives, our marriages, our families, our communities and of course for our nation, to be reawakened to the beauty, majesty and awesomeness of a loving God who in writing His love story to us has sent His one and only son to die for us and yet given us the freedom to accept or reject Him and His plan for our lives. In all this I will again ask you to recommit to praying for our nation and for the Leaders who are given by God to lead us forward in these precarious times."

_______________________________________________________________________

Brandon Hall is a lifelong political nerd from Grand Haven, and is the Managing Editor of West Michigan Politics.
>>>Email him at WestMiPolitics@Gmail.com 

Facebook

Twitter

Photo By Darlene Dowling Thompson