Rep. Paul Workman
Fortunately, it’s just a meaningless, piece-of-crap concurrent resolution that isn’t worth the piece of paper it’s written on.
Rep. Paul Workman, R-Travis County, today filed HCR 110, which would urge President Barack Obama to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. The text of the resolution is not yet available on the Legislature’s website, but it sounds pretty self-explanatory. Obama’s administration, of course, has announced that it will no longer defend a section of DOMA in federal court because it’s unconstitutional. And while Workman’s resolution may be likely to pass, the Obama administration certainly isn’t going to pay it any attention. As such, it’s clearly just an attempt to score political points on the part of Workman and others who support it. Let’s just hope it’s not a sign of things to come as this year’s session proceeds. Last week, State Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, filed a bill that would create a loophole for the Attorney General to block same-sex divorces. Although the main bill-filing deadline has passed, there’s always the danger of amendments.
If you’d like to tell Workman what you think of his resolution, you can e-mail him by going here, and the phone number for his Capitol office is 512-463-0652.
UPDATE: Here’s the full text:
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, President Barack Obama took an oath to “preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” but on
February 23, 2011, he instructed the U.S. Department of Justice to
stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage
Act; and
WHEREAS, The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was passed in
1996 with overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress and
signed into law by then president Bill Clinton; DOMA consists of two
core provisions: it defines the words “marriage,” “spouse,”
“husband,” and “wife” wherever they appear in the U.S. Code as
referring only to the union of a man and a woman, and it defends the
right of each state to reject the redefinition of marriage that has
occurred in a handful of other states as a result of state court
decisions or legislation; and
WHEREAS, Nearly 40 states have enacted laws defending the
institution of marriage, and 31 have embraced traditional marriage
in their constitutions; the Texas Defense of Marriage Act was
signed by the governor in 2003, and the statute was solidified with
a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a
man and a woman, which was approved by voters in November 2005; and
WHEREAS, The constitutional role of the president of the
United States is to execute the laws, not adjudicate them; it is
well-established policy of the U.S. Department of Justice to defend
a federal statute unless no reasonable argument can be made in its
defense, but instead President Obama has unilaterally decided that
DOMA is unconstitutional; the constitutionality of this law should
be determined by the courts, not by the executive branch; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the 82nd Legislature of the State of Texas
hereby respectfully urge the president of the United States to
order the U.S. Department of Justice to defend the
constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act; and, be it
further
RESOLVED, That the Texas secretary of state forward an
official copy of this resolution to the president of the United
States.
Mr. Workman, what are you afraid of? Equal rights does NOT change the way you live, whether in your closet, or not.
Be it therefore highly resolved that the legislature should begin interfering in opposite sex divorces and prohibiting them as well. THEN we’ll see how fast they change their ways of thinking…
They want us all to live by the Bible. Lets remember, the “Bible” says Divorce is forbidden so yes, lets outlaw opposite sex divorces… Lets see if they REALLY want to live by the Bible or if they only choose to use one passage to support their personal prejudices.
Homophobs should not be permitted to hold office. Or any other prejudicial person. Office should never be a place to uphold your PERSONAL prejudices. Lets let “The people” decide.
Proof that Texans are retarded. Park your trailer in Bush’s backyard and you two can talk about Nucular energy.
AFV: I disagree. Not all Texans are retarded. A good many of our lawmakers and church leaders are, however.
Read the resolution or can you not read. Your reaction shows your ignorance.
We need to follow the rule of law even if we don’t like the laws.
The President took an oath to up hold the laws of the United States. If you don’t agree with the law fine, get it changed, but if you start ignoring laws that some don’t like which laws are going to be ignored that protect your loved ones?
T-Bone: Read the President’s and DOJ’s statement to Congress on DOMA (or can you not read). They said that DOMA would continue to be enforced until the courts or Congress change it. However, they will not defend it against challenges in federal court. So the President IS upholding the law.
Besides which, you’re a jerk. (Sorry, couldn’t resist a little ad hominem.)
Roy,
Where would the challenge take place? Federal laws would be challenged in Federal court… not state court. So your are wrong. I’m not being personal, it is just the truth.
The laws are the laws, if we don’t like them, we can change them.
Generally, laws protect us, if the Justice Dept. stops defending certain laws who will protect us from powerful interests who want to pollute our rivers or foreclosure on our homes?
We might not like it but there are three branches of government, and the judicial branch might take a long time to get the answer we want but we need the process in order to protect us.
T-Bone: if laws “protect” us, what protection does DOMA offer? Please be specific in your response, citing specific protective covenants and include examples.
T-Bone, Obama took an Oath to uphold the constitution not “the laws” of the United States. Secondly Obama was a constitutional scholar at Harvard for 12years so I’d put his constitutional knowledge up against yours anyday. The president cannot find a constitutional reason to fight for a law that discriminates against Americans because that (in and of itself) is un-constitutional (read the 14th amendment). Get your facts straight before blurting out your “facts” because clearly you have no clue. Duhhh.
“T-bone” et al,
Clear precedent exists for the Department of Justice to discontinue defense of unconstitutional laws. According to Law.com the Justice department declined to defend unconstitutional laws 13 times during the period from 2004-10 alone (under both the Bush and Obama administration). Other specific examples of the Justice department declining to defend acts of congress include
* Buckley v. Valeo – 1976 – declined to defend portions of a campaign finance law enacted in the wake of Watergate
* INS v. Chadha – 1983 – declined to defend congressional power to block visas
* Hornell Brewing Co. v. Brady – 1993 – declining to defend a law prohibiting the use of the name “Crazy Horse” for any alcholic beverage
Certainly presidential administrations must exercise their power to not defend acts of congress with the utmost diligence, but it is certainly not an unprecedented move, nor is it outside of the purview of the department of justice.
Wow, its telling that this Texas rep is wasting his time fighting something that was essentially over by the end of the 20th century. The issue is settled. Anyone may marry anyone they choose who accepts their proposal. It was always so basic that its hard to believe people are even still yammering against it. For people caught up in a religion and who choose to let that religion and its rules take presidence over whatever they may or may not have wanted to do is their own business and if it makes them happy to follow those rules and only marry persons who fit the rules of the religion, fine, thats their life. But, reality is much much bigger than any religion and encompases all the religions and all the vast number of the rest of us and all the rest of the universe for that matter and so it just makes sense that its basic to marry who you want to and who will have you if you’re not letting some religion eliminate sensible choices for you. So, like women’s right to vote, the battle was fought during the last half of the 19th century and it was just mop-up work and by 1920 all the foolishness had been dispelled with dilligent education and women were allowed to vote, just like they should have always been able to do. So too with us gays. Its mop-up work now and within the next decade or so this will be something that future generations will stare at and wonder how in the world it wasn’t just common sense.
So, since this Rep is foolishly wasting his time on yesterdays news and a battle that has long since been settled, hopefully his constituents will look upon him and see him for what he is, someone firmly focused on the past and clearly not focused on today’s issues, much less looking out for their best interests by planning for a better tommorrow for those in his district. Sad.
*correction Hornell Brewing Co. v. Brady was decided in 1993 but the Justice department declined to defend the law in 1992, under the first Bush administration.
…..thank goodness that we have a President who takes his oath seriously…..to turn his back on DOMA when at least one district court has already found it unconstitutional is, indeed, “preserving” our constitution! Where is it writ that he must defend an unconsitutional piece of crap passed by a bunch of bigots?????