Marshall Response to Supreme Court's DOMA Decision

  Manassas, VA - Delegate Bob Marshall (R-13), the Virginia House of Delegates author of the 2006 voter-approved Marriage Amendment to Virginia's Constitution, called the Supreme Court's decision today striking down the portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) benefiting persons in a traditional marriage an exercise in moral arrogance and a stepping stone to striking down all laws defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Marshall also called on Congress to withhold funding from federal courts and the Obama Administration not to hear any court challenges to state laws upholding one man one woman marriage.

Marshall said, "Justice Kennedy and his majority assume powers of clairvoyance when they claim DOMA supporters acted with malice “to disparage and to injure” same-sex couples;  that they wanted to “demean,”  homosexual couples, and “impose inequality,” on them and to “impose . . . a stigma,” to deny  “equal dignity,” and to render homosexuals as “unworthy,” and to “humiliate” their children."

But these DOMA tax and other federal benefits which applied only to persons  in a traditional marriage did not apply to single persons.  Did DOMA therefore demean, humiliate, and deny dignity to those single people?  No, of course not!

Justice Kennedy and his majority rely on the Fifth Amendment to reach their twisted conclusion. "... the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold ... that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution."

Marshall noted that at the time of the adoption of the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights in 1791 all thirteen states made sodomy illegal.  There is no constitutional history from the Convention of 1789 nor in the official records of any Amendment adopted since then which required the Court to reach their conclusion, which fails to even define marriage.

Marshall pointed to Federal district court judge Vaughn Walker who struck down California Proposition 8 limiting marriage to one man and one woman who acknowledged after his decision that he was in a same sex relationship which should have caused Walker to recuse himself from the case, but he did not.  "I have to question whether one or more of the majority justices are pushing a personal agenda with this decision because there in nothing in the Constitution that substantiates it," said Marshall.

Delegate Marshall stated that "The alleged DOMA created liabilities experienced by same sex "married" couples will be the very reasons same sex marriage proponents will use to bring other cases before the Supreme Court to declare traditional one man, one woman marriage laws in the 38 states that define marriage as between one man and one woman unconstitutional."

Marshall noted, "This decision will have far-reaching adverse and coercive consequences for children, church adoption agencies, the tax status of churches which decline marriage ceremonies to same sex couples, employers, school classroom courses and other areas of American life."

The  Supreme Court ruling did not determine whether states may continue to limit marriage to one man and one woman.  Its DOMA decision has left considerable uncertainty with respect to state tax and welfare laws.

For example, will Medicaid benefits which are joint Federally/state funded be required to be offered to same-sex "married" couples and their families in Virginia even though our Constitution prohibits same-sex marriage?  What happens now when a same-sex couple "married" in another state applies for Medicaid in Virginia as a married couple?

Additionally, what happens when a same sex couple "married" in another state moves to Virginia and files their taxes as "married filing jointly". Traditionally, there's has been reciprocity between the Federal and state tax codes.  This sets up a prescident for a suit against Virginia.

Marshall added, "Federal Judges are supposed to expound the Constitution, not rationalize preferred personal sexual behavior and under the shadow of sleight of hand legalize it as the 'law of the land.'  It is vanity to think that the Laws of Nature and Nature's God may be overturned by the constitutional pretense of the majority Justices."

Delegate Bob Marshall on WMAU, 88.5

WAMU interviewed Delegate Bob Marshall recently on the headlines Virginia has been making on many issues such as immigration, abortion clinic regulation and healthcare. Listen to the interview here.

The following is an except from the WAMU article. We encourage you to visit the website to read the article in its entirety.


Veteran Prince William County State Delegate At Height Of His Powers September 07, 2010 - By Jonathan Wilson

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli plunged into controversy in recent weeks with a couple of major legal opinions, one saying it’s okay for police to question people about their immigration status and another saying the state can more closely regulate abortion clinics.

If you look closely at those opinions, you’ll find a common thread: a guy named Bob Marshall.

In both cases it was a formal request from this Republican member of the House of Delegates from Prince William County that led Cuccinelli to issue his opinions.

The carefully designed political strategy is classic Bob Marshall.


Read the full article at WAMU

Delegate Marshall Never has Been Afraid to Buck GOP

Written by JEFF E. SCHAPIRO AND ANDREW CAIN TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITERSPublished: February 26, 2010 Updated: February 26, 2010 Source: Courtesy of Richmond Times Dispatch

Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William, embroiled in a firestorm over his recent remarks on abortion, never has been reluctant to speak his mind -- or to challenge fellow Republicans.

"Bob Marshall marches to his own beat, and sometimes that rhythm is in time with us and sometimes it's not," said G. Paul Nardo, chief of staff to House Speaker William J. Howell, R-Stafford.

It was Marshall whose lawsuit led the Virginia Supreme Court to throw out, as unconstitutional, the state's 2007 transportation-funding package, which then-Attorney General Bob McDonnell, now governor, had approved and Howell had hoped would pave the way to Republican gains in that fall's House elections.


Statement Concerning Capital News Service Article

MANASSAS, VA - A February 22nd Capital News Service story claimed, “Western Prince William Del. Bob Marshall (R-13th) says disabled children are God’s punishment to women who have aborted their first pregnancy.” I never made this statement. I believe that all children, no matter their background are a blessing from the Lord, not a punishment. Capital News Service never called me about these alleged comments.

No other reporter who attended the same February 18th press conference regarding Planned Parenthood funding made the same claim for the simple reason that I never made such a statement about disabled children.

A video of the press conference bears this out. (May be accessed in its entirety at the end of this article)

Furthermore, my personal and public life show a respect for unwanted or disabled children, including our adoption of three children, my bills to provide for health insurance for autistic children, and my bill this year requiring that women be informed of possible problems in future pregnancies from abortion.

I acknowledge that my extemporary remarks could have been better chosen to explain the medical research findings which show a high incidence of complications following induced abortions.

I understand how disability groups could react, but they are reacting in part to words I never said, never meant, and don’t believe. But I apologize to all for the misuse of my words especially to disabled Virginians or others offended.

My purpose was to show how authentic medical findings demonstrate that abortion has consequences beyond the death of the child being aborted. That is why I have proposed HB 334, which passed the House of Delegates 95-2, and which requires women undergoing abortion to be offered medical articles concerning possible complications in future pregnancies.

I take my oath of office seriously, and believe it is important to protect my constituents by ensuring full transparency about a procedure that may adversely impact their future reproductive health. That is why I strongly believe that Planned Parenthood, which performs one-fourth of abortions nationwide and opposes protecting women with this vital information, should not be funded by Virginia taxpayers.

Children, whether wanted or unwanted, intended or unintended, “normal” or disabled, are blessings from a loving God, and I will continue to fight on their behalf and on behalf of the courageous families who care for these wonderful children.

Fighting for you,

Delegate Bob Marshall 13th District Delegate


FULL TRANSCRIPT: Verbatim. The TRT is 2:05:

"Thank you very much for coming here today. We are dealing with an attempt to defund, frankly, a malevolent organization. And I say that because you know people by their fruits. In 1960, 65, the out of wed-lock birthrate for blacks was 25 percent. I think it was about 23 percent in 1960 - it was 5 percent for all races. Now it's 40 percent. It's 72% for blacks, 51% for Latinas. These are the fruits of planned parenthood. OK. Nothing else. More heartache. More guys who are completely irresponsible and think that women have one function and one function only for a few minutes. OK. But this just isn't affecting our families, our inner cities, our communities and our state. This poison animates a world-wide population control program that the United States funds and which is unnecessarily making us enemies overseas. We are attacking traditional family structure in a way that no country should be doing. These aren't my words. Go read a book by Denesh DeSouza. Ok. He's looking at it from a cultural, historical perspective. This organization should be called Planned Barrenhood cause they have nothing to do with families, they have nothing to do with responsibility. One-fourth of all abortions are done by Planned Parenthood in the United States. Ok. The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion who have handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first-born of any, Nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children. In the Old Testament, the first-born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There's a special punishment Christians would suggest, and with the knowledge they have from faith has been verified by a study by the Virginia Commonwealth University.  First abortions of the first pregnancy are much more damaging to the woman than latter abortions. None of these are good for anybody but this organization has had its time. They have failed in their efforts and we need to defund them and not have them receive a dime of public money."

Virginia leader chomping at the bit to fight 'Obamacare'

WND Exclusive DOCTOR'S ORDERSIncoming AG to feds: Hands off my state Posted: January 16, 2010

By Anita Crane Source: Courtesy of © 2010 WorldNetDaily

Officials in Virginia a short time ago joined attorneys general in a dozen other states to object to the provisions of "Obamacare," the pending legislation that would give the federal government unprecedented control of health care, and the state's incoming attorney general is chomping at the bit to get to work on the issue.

Ken Cuccinelli, who will take the oath of office this weekend, said it's a simple matter of the government lacking authority to impose the decisions members of Congress are making for their constituents.

"I believe the individual mandate violates individual rights," Cuccinelli said in an interview. "I do not believe the federal government has the legal authority in the [U.S.] Constitution to mandate that individual Americans purchase health insurance.

"A corollary to that is that the [Senate] bill, as it is currently written, requires state governments to set up healthcare exchanges to facilitate individual mandates. I do not believe that under the Constitution the federal government has the authority to dictate or effectively force states into its bureaucracy,” he said.

The opposition is just one of the moves afoot to challenge the Democrat plan should it eventually succeed and be adopted as law. The outgoing Virginia attorney general, Bill Mims, had joined with 12 other Republican state attorneys general to object to the Senate's version, which exempts Nebraska from paying Medicaid fees.


Marshall’s HB 10 Bill challenges right of “Obamacare” to force Virginians to purchase health care

“Congress has never, in 220 years, mandated that individuals purchase any private service or good, until now. Both the U.S. House and Senate health insurance “reform” bills approved by Virginia Senators Jim Webb and Mark Warner threaten our families with jail time and fines up to $25,000 if we do not purchase health insurance that Obama Health Czars think is good for us whether we want it or not.

Marshall Introduces Health Bill

By Cheryl ChumleySource: Courtesy of

Health care overhauls coming out of the nation's capital may be in flux, but Del. Bob Marshall, R-Dist. 13, isn't waiting for the final version and has instead introduced early legislation at the state level guaranteeing Virginians control of their coverage.

On Dec. 7, Marshall prefiled the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act that "protects an individual's right and power to participate or to decline to participate in a health care system or plan," according to the summary of H.B. 10.

The idea is to halt any federal requirement for individuals to purchase health insurance.

Such regulation has been hotly debated along mostly party lines in Congress, and the White House has maintained the mandate for all to buy or else pay a fine is necessary in order to keep health care costs affordable.

The mandate has been subject to scrutiny from legal analysts, and some say a constitutional challenge looms should that aspect of health care reform pass.

"To compel someone to enter a contract with the threat of a fine or a year jail time … that's an un-precedented use of several powers in the Constitution," Marshall said. "It's never been done."


Gun Control Opponents Hope to Reshape Handgun Laws

Source: Courtesy of The Washington TimesBy: William C. Flook Examiner Staff Writer January 3, 2010

Virginia lawmakers have filed bills to abolish the state’s one-handgun-per-month rule and allow college faculty to carry a concealed weapon on campus.

Gun control opponents in Virginia's legislature are proposing what would amount to a vast roll-back of handgun regulations, hoping to capitalize on a friendlier administration in Richmond to undo long-standing firearms restrictions.

Conservative lawmakers have filed a flurry of bills including abolishing the state's one-handgun-per-month rule and allowing college faculty to carry a concealed weapon on campus.

Despite the arrival of Republican Gov.-elect Bob McDonnell, who has an A rating from the National Rifle Association and campaigned on a pro-Second Amendment platform, none of the bills necessarily will have an easy time getting passed when the General Assembly goes into session later this month. Proponents of stronger gun laws have become much more vocal and focused since the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre and are likely to oppose the measures alongside many legislators.


Marshall Seeks to Defy Feds on Health Care

By: William C. Flook Examiner Staff Writer December 10, 2009 Source: Courtesy of The Washington Examiner

One of the Virginia House's most conservative members is seeking to insulate the commonwealth from national health care mandates, submitting the first in what could be a flurry of bills to defy the federal government next session.

Del. Bob Marshall, R-Manassas, filed legislation -- dubbed the "Virginia Health Care Freedom Act" -- proposing to block federal requirements that would fine residents for going without health insurance. The individual mandate is included in health care overhaul legislation passed by the U.S. House, which is now under consideration by the Senate.

Marshall's legislation would also "protect an individual's right and power to participate or to decline to participate in a health care system or plan," according to the bill's summary.

"We see a threat that's coming down the road here for individual mandates that's got to be addressed," Marshall said. "This is something that state legislatures have to address. And frankly, if we don't address it, we are morally delinquent to our citizens."


School Board Presses For More Control, Money From State

By Alex BahrSource: Lessburg Today

Members of the Loudoun County School Board met with local state delegates and senators this morning to express their hopes and concerns for the coming General Assembly session.

Topping the list of priorities for School Board members was concerns about cuts in local and state funding for education and how to better implement policies and regulations for counties such as Loudoun that experience rapid growth that further stresses the school systems' operating and construction budget.

Board member John Stevens (Potomac), who chairs the board's Legislative/Policy Committee that drafts the legislative packet outlining the board's priorities for legislators, said the legislators should to take a close look at the laws regarding local funding based on equal property tax rates for residential and commercial properties, which he said represent a "throwback to a time older than public education itself," in which a select few wealthy land owners were expected to fund much of the services offered by local governments.