Wrapping up my comments for this part of the debate, I again rise to support the rule and the underlying bill. This bill does not favor or disfavor any particular result or any group of people. It is motivated by the desire to preserve for the States the authority to decide whether the shield Congress enacted to protect them from having to accept same-sex marriage licenses out of State will hold. This bill does not eliminate any group from the Constitution, but instead, recognizes the 10th amendment of the Constitution which declares that all rights are reserved for the States except those which are specifically given to the Federal Government. I would comment that the observations of the last gentleman are completely contrary to the 10th amendment of the Constitution.
Steve Pearce: “Wrapping up my comments for this part of the debate, I again rise to support the rule and the underlying bill. This bill…”
Editor's note · Context
Supporting a bill related to state authority over same-sex marriage licenses.
Share
More from Steve Pearce
Some of the scariest words known to my constituents are, 'I am from the Federal Government, and I am here to assist you.'
One of the greatest emerging threats to U.S. national security is illicit use of virtual or cryptocurrencies.
Again, these two bills are designed not to bypass anything, not to cause great destruction in the environment, but to be practical, common-sense approaches to how do we reach the economic potential of a state where that potential is ready…
Responsible development shouldn’t be held back by redundant paperwork. By utilizing over 20 years of rigorous environmental data, we are replacing slow, case-by-case reviews with a standardized process that maintains our high environmental…





