David Simpson Calls for Special Session to End Marriage Licensing in Texas

[William Tell]

http://davidsimpson.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/201505CapitolPortraits-7.jpg

Simpson Calls for Special Session to End Marriage Licensing in Texas

June 29, 2015



(Longview, TX) On Monday, House member and Texas State Senate candidate David Simpson announced that he is calling on Governor Abbott to immediately call a special session of the 84th Legislature in light of the Supreme Court’s lawless and unconstitutional redefinition of marriage.


Says Simpson, “In light of the Supreme Court’s actions, I believe that the best way to protect marriage is to divorce marriage from government. I am asking the governor to recall the legislature so that legislation may be immediately considered to remove state and local officials from the process of issuing marriage licenses. In its place, the process of issuing a certificate of marriage will be performed by any willing clergy member consistent with their conscience and in respect for our culture and our heritage. For those who do not wish to have a religious ceremony, any authorized notary may approve a certificate.”


Simpson added, “I cannot and I will not sit idly by while unelected judges redefine the sacred institution of marriage and force our county and state officials to violate their most cherished beliefs. Marriage is a divinely instituted tradition as old as humanity. Government marriage is just another government program and a modern failure. Government has cheapened it, redefined it, and parceled it out for profit. As a Christian, I call on every Texan to reject this aberration and contact the governor to take swift action to end it.”


Representative Simpson just completed his third regular legislative session in the Texas House. He has consistently been ranked as one of the ten most conservative legislators during his tenure in the Texas House of Representatives. More information regarding Simpson’s record of fiscal responsibility can be found at

http://DavidSimpson.com/

—–
If you agree with Representative Simpson, consider making a $25 donation to his campaign. (https://politics.raisethemoney.com/dsimpson)





http://davidsimpson.com/news/simpson-calls-for-special-session-to-end-marriage-licensing-in-texas/

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[dannno]

This SCOTUS decision is working out pretty well for libertarians.

[dannno]

Can someone tell me what effect removing state officials from being involved in marriage licensing accomplishes if the state still recognizes marriage and keeps all the laws which depend upon marital status unchanged?

Could be huge, I think it means that marriage goes back to being a religious institution that is handled by the church and/or a legal contract handled by attorneys that people voluntarily write up and sign. I would presume this means there is less standing for people to sue a Pastor or Priest for not granting a marriage license to a gay couple.

[muh_roads]

Why stop there? Get the whole state out of the union.

[Sola_Fide]

Hmmm. Maybe this will spread.

[tod evans]

The sooner these politicians are boxed up and sent back to DC along with the federal monies the better off everyone will be.

This dude is just another ineffectual Banty rooster fighting to maintain his place on the tit.

Don't be fooled when the whore tells you what you want to hear, stop paying the bitch then listen to her.

[Sola_Fide]

The sooner these politicians are boxed up and sent back to DC along with the federal monies the better off everyone will be.

This dude is just another ineffectual Banty rooster fighting to maintain his place on the tit.

Don't be fooled when the whore tells you what you want to hear, stop paying the bitch then listen to her.

You sure? To my knowledge David Simpson is one of the better ones.

[William Tell]

The sooner these politicians are boxed up and sent back to DC along with the federal monies the better off everyone will be.

This dude is just another ineffectual Banty rooster fighting to maintain his place on the tit.

Don't be fooled when the whore tells you what you want to hear, stop paying the bitch then listen to her.

David Simpson is at the very least as good as Ron Paul, he's better in my opinion, and I follow him closely. He endorsed Ron and introduced a bill to entirely end prohibition of Marijuana.

[tod evans]

I spoke out of turn, my apologies.

:o

[ZENemy]

God I wish these folks weren't all talk (whether on purpose or not that's all they can be) because it would be so nice for this to actually happen.

[William Tell]

God I wish these folks weren't all talk (whether on purpose or not that's all they can be) because it would be so nice for this to actually happen.
Simpson is completely sincere, why you guys are so hostile to him when you agree with him almost everything I will never know.

[William Tell]

Wow, look at the people commenting on his website, attacking him for 'trying to force your ideology into law'. :rolleyes:

[fisharmor]

Can someone tell me what effect removing state officials from being involved in marriage licensing accomplishes if the state still recognizes marriage and keeps all the laws which depend upon marital status unchanged?

It gets Simpson reelected, and possibly kicked upstairs.

[ZENemy]

Simpson is completely sincere, why you guys are so hostile to him when you agree with him almost everything I will never know.

I don't see any hostility in my post.

Simpson can be the most sincere person that has ever existed but that doesn't mean he can get bills passed in a system that does not allow freedom.

[muh_roads]

Sorry OT, ZENemy, what is the black and red ancap?

[Sola_Fide]

Sorry OT, ZENemy, what is the black and red ancap?

Anarcho-Communism.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

This might catch on. Since "marriage" doesn't mean much of anything, family law might as well just ignore it and focus on custody and inheritance. I think we need to get the men's rights activists on board here. It's not like men get anything out of government marriage anymore. All the laws and decisions are weighted towards the women. Private contracts could only help matters.

[tod evans]

This might catch on. Since "marriage" doesn't mean much of anything, family law might as well just ignore it and focus on custody and inheritance. I think we need to get the men's rights activists on board here. It's not like men get anything out of government marriage anymore. All the laws and decisions are weighted towards the women. Private contracts could only help matters.

I banged around on this guys site before apologizing for spouting off and I've seen nothing that'd point to him being in favor of fully equal parenting with no money changing hands.

"Family courts" are taboo for most politicians but they're an issue for lots of voters.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Huh? What guy? What website? Who apologized? For what? Who spouted off?

[muh_roads]

Anarcho-Communism.

lol, I can't wrap my brain around that.

[tod evans]

Huh? What guy? What website? Who apologized? For what? Who spouted off?

Read the thread dude......

[Sola_Fide]

Wow, look at the people commenting on his website, attacking him for 'trying to force your ideology into law'. :rolleyes:

Irony.

[fisharmor]

lol, I can't wrap my brain around that.

If only it actually existed at some point, so he could point to that and say "there's an example".
Of course if he did that we could just point out that it doesn't exist anymore and that any form of state that doesn't last an infinite amount of time is invalid, and then we'd win.

[Mr.NoSmile]

It wouldn't last long due to pressure or intervention, I'm sure.

[ZENemy]

lol, I can't wrap my brain around that.

I do not subscribe to such nonsense.

This flag has been around since before hyphenated classes of anarchy existed.

I guess I'm going to have to change it now.

[Sola_Fide]

I do not subscribe to such nonsense.

This flag has been around since before hyphenated classes of anarchy existed.

I guess I'm going to have to change it now.

I was just joking man!

[ZENemy]

I was just joking man!

But you were actually right, lol..I looked it up and folks do claim that red and black flag stands for Anarcho-com!

[William Tell]

But you were actually right, lol..I looked it up and folks do claim that red and black flag stands for Anarcho-com!

You were posting as a communist and didn't even know it?:confused::eek::D

[ZENemy]

You were posting as a communist and didn't even know it?:confused::eek::D

:eek::eek::eek::eek::(:(:(

[CaptUSA]

This is a good move. Would have been a freakin' epic move if someone would have done this LAST WEEK!

Seriously. The impetus for divorcing the State from marriage (SWIDT) existed long before this Court's decision. Now, it loses some of that luster.

(Of course, maybe the decision will rally enough people to actually do it... Who knows?)

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Read the thread dude......

Okay, so you're commenting about your own mentally-unstable ranting from earlier in the day? I don't give a crap. Please just address my comment if you must say anything.

[phill4paul]

This SCOTUS decision is working out pretty well for libertarians.

Yup. A state was already leaning towards getting rid of marriage laws (Alabama, I believe) if SCrOTUS ruled in favor of gay marriage. It might have been the best push for liberty without government interference in a long while.

[William Tell]

Here's a great audio interview with David.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/libertyeasttexas/2015/06/29/east-texas-liberty-interviews-david-simpson

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Contumacious]

Can someone tell me what effect removing state officials from being involved in marriage licensing accomplishes if the state still recognizes marriage and keeps all the laws which depend upon marital status unchanged?

Everything is fucked up.


The SCOTUS has forced a gargantuan welfare state upon the nation since 1935, but they are all upset about SSM. Unbelievable.

[DFF]

The union between a man and a woman is the foundation of society.

It's not something to be taken lightly.

[tod evans]

The union between a man and a woman is the foundation of society.

It's not something to be taken lightly.

Well there's a rather large group who disagrees and they've managed to get the highest court in the land to see things their way.

Still want to work within their system?

[CaptUSA]

The union between a man and a woman is the foundation of society.

It's not something to be taken lightly.I would counter that voluntary association is the foundation of society, but to each his own.

[Origanalist]

Okay, so you're commenting about your own mentally-unstable ranting from earlier in the day? I don't give a crap. Please just address my comment if you must say anything.

That's a bit harsh, don't you think? Tod Evans is one of the more mentally stable people here in my opinion.

[Cleaner44]

Can someone tell me what effect removing state officials from being involved in marriage licensing accomplishes if the state still recognizes marriage and keeps all the laws which depend upon marital status unchanged?

The effect is that people won't have to beg the government for permission and pay a fee to get a licence for the "privilege" of getting married.

[Vanguard101]

Why hasn't Ron ever endorsed this man?

[XTreat]

The week conservatives realized libertarians were right all along.

[William Tell]

Why hasn't Ron ever endorsed this man?

I have no doubt he will for State Senate, they know each other well, David hangs out with Ron at events.

[Sola_Fide]

The week conservatives realized libertarians were right all along.

One can only hope.

[Zippyjuan]

Why hasn't Ron ever endorsed this man?

Comments from Ron Paul on the issue in the past:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ron-paul-personally-opposed-to-same-sex-marriage-but/

“Who’s married and who isn’t married. I have my standards but I shouldn’t have to impose my standards on others. Other people have their standards and they have no right to impose their marriage standards on me.”

“But,” he continued, “if we want to have something to say about marriage it should be at the state level, and not at the federal government.”

In his newest book, Liberty Defined, Paul’s chapter on “Marriage” states, “In a free society…all voluntary and consensual agreements would be recognized.” He adds, “There should essentially be no limits to the voluntary definition of marriage.”

“Everyone can have his or her own definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it would qualify as a civil contract if desired…Why not tolerate everyone’s definition as long as neither side uses force to impose its views on the other? Problem solved!”

[Created4]

Why stop there?

Federal tax breaks for married couples. The IRS will require some kind of "proof."

[Created4]

How many laws does Texas have on the books which have a "marital status" caveat to them? Now, how many of those laws will be made "marital status"-agnostic by this proposed legislation?

^^^ This is the reason that there will still need to be some kind of "proof" of marriage. I don't think all the other laws will become "agnostic."

[Feeding the Abscess]

The week conservatives realized libertarians were right all along.

Much like with Libertarian Party pandering to various minority groups, the group(s) in question will still vote for the major party that panders to them.

Don't count on any significant portion of the conservative base on this issue to vote for anyone other than a dyed in the wool Republican.

https://scontent-lax1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/11667496_441967309309103_6014048646506589406_n.jpg ?oh=04709b1bad5e100b5eccfd97ecb843a1&oe=55E95C6D

https://scontent-lax1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/v/t1.0-9/11403375_1604245389841671_5360955111838867683_n.jp g?oh=8b6c4350076957afb2eeffb3534e47db&oe=561955B2

[Sola_Fide]

https://scontent-lax1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/v/t1.0-9/11403375_1604245389841671_5360955111838867683_n.jp g?oh=8b6c4350076957afb2eeffb3534e47db&oe=561955B2

I like that one.