Text of KS HB 2320 (2020)

Enacting the marriage and constitution restoration act.

Back to the bill page

Legislative text is a public record. Where LegiScan supplied it, the CC BY 4.0 credit applies.

Source: LegiScan. Bill data and text from LegiScan (legiscan.com), licensed CC BY 4.0 and used in modified form. LegiScan does not endorse the Trans Data Initiative. License: CC BY 4.0(opens another site). Source page(opens another site)

As introduced

25,674 characters

Open the printed bill (PDF)

Session of 2019 HOUSE BILL No. 2320 By Representatives Garber, Donohoe, French, Helmer, Highland, Huebert and Rhiley 2-13 AN ACT concerning marriage; enacting the marriage and constitution restoration act. WHEREAS, Civilizations for millennia have defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman; and WHEREAS, The United States is a constitutional republic that the state of Kansas is a part of; and WHEREAS, The doctrine of preemption prohibits the state of Kansas from making or enforcing policies that violate the constitution of the United States; and WHEREAS, All state senators and representatives and all executive and judicial officers are bound by oath or affirmation pursuant to article VI of the constitution of the United States to not enforce, respect, favor or endorse policies that violate the free exercise clause or the establishment clause of the 1st amendment of the constitution of the United States, regardless of what political party they are affiliated with; and WHEREAS, The 1st amendment of the constitution of the United States applies to the state of Kansas though the 14th amendment of the constitution of the United States; and WHEREAS, The constitution of the United States is not silent as to how the states must legally define marriage, as acknowledged by the United States supreme court; and WHEREAS, The establishment clause of the 1st amendment of the constitution of the United States, balanced with the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment of the constitution of the United States, has exclusive jurisdiction in informing the state of Kansas how to respond to marriage requests of all kinds that do not involve a man and a woman and how the state must react to all self-asserted, sex-based identity narratives that are questionably real, moral and have a tendency to erode community standards of decency; and WHEREAS, All religion amounts to is a set of unproven answers to the greater questions like "Why are we here?" and "What should we be doing as humans?"; and WHEREAS, The establishment clause of the 1st amendment of the constitution of the United States was never solely designed to prohibit the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 HB 2320 2 government from only respecting and recognizing the doctrines of institutionalized religions, but of non-institutionalized religions, like secular humanism, as well; and WHEREAS, The sworn testimonies of ex-gays, medical experts, persecuted Christians and licensed ministers demonstrate that there is no real proof that a gay gene exists, that the idea that sexual orientation is predicated on immutability is not proven and that sexual orientation is a mythology, dogma, doctrine or orthodoxy that is inseparably linked to the religion of secular humanism; and WHEREAS, The United States supreme court found that secular humanism is a religion for the purpose of the establishment clause of the 1st amendment of the constitution of the United States in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), stating "among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others"; and WHEREAS, Most of the federal courts of appeals have acknowledged that secular humanism is a religion in cases such as Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197, 200-15 (3d Cir.1979), Theriault v. Silber, 547 F.2d 1279, 1281 (5th Cir.1977), Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707, 714, 101 S.Ct. 1425, 67 L.Ed.2d 624 (1981), Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1110 (7th Cir.2003), Real Alternatives, Inc. v. Sec'y of Dep't of Health and Human Servs., 150 F.Supp.3d 419 (3d Cir. Aug. 4, 2017), and Wells v. City and County of Denver, 257 F.3d 1132, 1148 (10th Cir. 2001); and WHEREAS, Secular humanism is also commonly referred to as postmodern western individualistic moral relativism, expressive individualism, and by other names and is centered on the unproven idea that there are no moral absolutes; and WHEREAS, The lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) community is organized, full and has a daily code by which members may guide their daily lives, which makes it a denominational sect that is inseparably part of the religion of secular humanism; and WHEREAS, Instead of having a cross, the ten commandments icon, or star and crescent, the LGBTQ secular humanist community has the gay pride rainbow colored flag to symbolize its faith-based worldview; and WHEREAS, The ideas that "a person is born homosexual," or that "a person can be born in the wrong body," or that "a person can come out of an invisible closet and be baptized gay," or that "to disagree with homosexual orthodoxy premises makes you a bigot" are a series of unproven faith-based assumptions and naked assertions that are implicitly religious and inseparably linked to the religion of secular humanism; and WHEREAS, The government's endorsement of LGBTQ ideology has amounted to the greatest sham since the inception of American 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 HB 2320 3 jurisprudence; and WHEREAS, In the wake of the government's endorsement of LGBTQ ideology, the government's endorsement of LGBTQ secular humanism has not been about "tolerance," but "dominance"; and WHEREAS, In the wake of the government's endorsement of LGBTQ ideology, many citizens who object to the government's endorsement of LGBTQ secular humanism is not based on "bigotry," but on "biology"; and WHEREAS, In the wake of the government's endorsement of LGBTQ ideology, when a secular humanist says that "love is love," what they really mean is that they are amenable to government assets being used to oppress and marginalize anyone who disagrees with their beliefs, which is a position that is categorically "unloving"; and WHEREAS, In the wake of the government's endorsement of LGBTQ ideology, we have learned that people who are "intolerant" of "intolerant people" are "intolerant," people who are "judgmental" against "judgmental people" are "judgmental," and people who are "dogmatic" about not "being dogmatic" are "dogmatic"; and WHEREAS, In the wake of the government's entanglement with LGBTQ secular humanism, there has not been a land rush on gay marriage, but there has been a land rush by many secular humanists to persecute many non-observers of the religion of secular humanism; and WHEREAS, In the wake of the government's endorsement of LGBTQ secular humanism, there has not been a land rush on gay marriage but there has been a land rush by many secular humanists to infiltrate public schools and public libraries with the intent to indoctrinate and proselytize minors to their religious worldview on faith, morality, sex and marriage with the government's stamp of approval; and WHEREAS, There are no ex-blacks but there are thousands of ex-gays; and WHEREAS, Skin-tone is genetic and sexual orientation is faith-based; and WHEREAS, Those who seek to end the government's unconstitutional entanglement with the LGBTQ secular humanist religion are defending the integrity of the civil rights movement lead by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. from an emotional ploy and an unprincipled misapplication of the 14th amendment of the constitution of the United States; and WHEREAS, For any person to suggest that the homosexual civil rights movement, which is not based on immutability or genetics, is equal to the race-based civil rights movement, which was actually based on immutability and genetics, has engaged in an act of fraud and racial animus in-kind that is intellectually, emotionally, sexually and racially exploitative; and WHEREAS, People of color at one point in this country had to ride on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 HB 2320 4 the back of the bus, walk to school and drink from colored water fountains, and for anyone to equate the race-based civil rights plight to the goal of many secular humanists to entangle the government with their religion is a per se act of racial animus that is deeply offensive to many people in the state of Kansas; and WHEREAS, Parody marriages have never been a part of American tradition and heritage and have nothing to do with the substantive due process clause of the 14th amendment of the constitution of the United States; and WHEREAS, It is a long-standing government principle that emotional appeals or sincerity of belief do not allow the state of Kansas to usurp the establishment clause of the 1st amendment of the constitution of the United States or for devout secular humanists to entangle our government with LGBTQ secular humanism; and WHEREAS, The history of parody marriages is that most forms were illegal until recently or they remain illegal today, and they continue to erode community standards of decency; and WHEREAS, All forms of parody marriage equally erode community standards of decency; and WHEREAS, The state of Kansas has a compelling interest to uphold community standards of decency as set forth under the constitution of the state of Kansas and in accordance with the findings of the United States supreme court; and WHEREAS, Community standards of decency do not evolve, but people can become desensitized; and WHEREAS, The enforcement of marriage policies between a man and a woman do not erode community standards of decency and fulfill a series of compelling state interest; and WHEREAS, Individuals who legally marry in the state of Kansas are entitled to a constellation of benefits funded by the taxpayers; and WHEREAS, There are many taxpayers in the state of Kansas who sincerely believe that all forms of marriage that do not involve a man and a woman are immoral and that for their tax dollars to be appropriated to enable immorality is itself an act of immorality that causes them to violate their conscience by the simple act of paying taxes; and WHEREAS, Marriage between a man and a woman arose out of the nature of things, and marriage between a man and a woman is natural, neutral and non-controversial, unlike parody forms of marriage that do not involve a man and a woman; and WHEREAS, Marriage policies that endorse marriage between a man and a woman are secular in nature for purposes of the establishment clause of the 1st amendment of the constitution of the United States, insofar as the policies accomplish their purpose, fulfill a compelling state interest and do 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 HB 2320 5 not put religion over non-religion in their making and in their enforcement, unlike parody marriage policies; and WHEREAS, The legislative branch may sever as a check on the judicial and executive branches; and WHEREAS, The decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015) was called an "egotistic judicial putsch" that causes secular humanists in office to constitute "a threat to American Democracy" by dissenting supreme court justices; and WHEREAS, Stare decisis does not keep Obergefell v. Hodges,135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015) from being overruled, because stare decisis is at its weakest when the court is asked to interpret the constitution of the United States, and because questions which merely lurk in the record, neither brought to attention of the court nor ruled upon, are not to be considered as having been so decided as to constitute precedents; and WHEREAS, The question whether the establishment clause of the 1st amendment of the constitution of the United States has exclusive jurisdiction over informing the states as to which marriages they can legally recognize was lurking in the shadows but was undecided upon by the court in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015). Now, therefore: Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas: Section 1. The provisions of sections 1 through 6, and amendments thereto, shall be known and may be cited as the marriage and constitution restoration act. Sec. 2. As used in this act: (a) "Community standards of decency" means a standard based on the reasonable observer's perspective that, if offended by appeals to the prurient interest or the patently offensive, would harm the general decency, safety, health and welfare of the community. (b) "Conversion therapy" means a therapeutic practice in which a licensed mental health expert, acting under authorized consent, assists clients in the goal of realigning such client's sexual preference to prefer members of the opposite sex who have corresponding reproductive anatomy. (c) "Marriage" means a legal union that represents an intended lifelong commitment between one person who was born male and one person who was born female as husband and wife, who are of equal but opposite genders, who become spouses of the opposite sex, and who have corresponding sexual anatomy that, if coalesced, have the actual or symbolic potential to create an offspring whom likely has the input of the two spouses with whom the same genetic code and ancestral chain is shared. (d) "Non-secular sham" means a policy, a course or principle of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 HB 2320 6 action adopted or proposed by a state actor that endorses, respects or favors the beliefs of a particular religion where the preeminent and primary force driving the state's action is not genuine, but is a sham that ultimately has a primary religious objective. The term "non-secular sham" refers to a type of policy that is predicated on a series of unproven faith- based assumptions and naked assertions that are implicitly religious. (e) "Parody marriage" means any form of alleged marriage that does not involve a man and a woman. The term "parody marriage" refers to a variety of so-called marriages that do not involve a man and a woman that amount to doctrines that are inseparably linked to the religion of secular humanism. The term "parody marriage" refers to so-called marriages between more than two people, persons of the same sex, a person and an animal, or a person and an object. (f) "Religion" means a set of unproven answers to the greater questions like "Why are we here?" and "What should we be doing as humans?" that are predicated on an institutionalized or non- institutionalized faith-based worldview flowing out of a community that is full, organized and has a daily code by which its members may guide their daily lives. (g) "Secular humanism" means a faith-based worldview that is also referred to as postmodern western individualistic moral relativism and expressive individualism. A belief system that is protected by the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment of the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Kansas, and centered on the unproven assumption that there are no moral absolutes and that on one moral doctrine should be used as the superior basis for law and policy. The term "secular humanism" includes a series of unproven faith-based assumptions and naked assertions that suggest that morality and truth are man-made conventions and that at the heart of liberty is man's ability to define man's own meaning of the universe. The term "secular humanism" refers to a religion that does not fulfill any compelling state interest, but instead, tends to erode community standards of decency. The term "secular humanism" refers to homosexuality, sexual orientation, polygamy, transgenderism, zoophilia and objectophilia, which are self-asserted, sex- based identity narratives, doctrines, dogmas and mythologies that flow directly out of and are inseparably linked to the religion. The term "secular humanism" refers to the belief that man is merely a bundle of chemicals, animated pieces of meat or accidental particles and that nature is all there is. The term "secular humanism" refers to the unproven faith-based assumption that nature is all that there is, but that mankind should still love each other. (h) "Secular policy" means a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a state actor that is natural, neutral, and non-controversial that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 HB 2320 7 is based on self-evident morality and objective truth from the reasonable observer perspective. The term includes procedure that generally accomplishes its goals and does not tend to put religion over non-religion or one religion over another. The term includes a course of governmental action where the preeminent and primary force driving the policy is genuine, not a sham, and not merely secondary to a religious objective. (i) "Sexual orientation" means a mythology, dogma, doctrine or ideology that is inseparably linked to the religion of secular humanism. The term includes self-asserted, sex-based identity narrative that are often predicated on a series of unproven faith-based assumptions and naked assertions that are implicitly religious and have a tendency to erode community standards of decency. Sec. 3. (a) The 1st amendment of the constitution of the United States applies to the state of Kansas though the 14th amendment of the constitution of the United States. (b) All members of the legislature and all executive and judicial officers are bound by oath or affirmation pursuant to article VI of the constitution of the United States to not enforce, respect, recognize or endorse policies that violate the free exercise clause or establishment clause of the 1st amendment of the constitution of the United States regardless of the members' or officers' party affiliation. Sec. 4. (a) Pursuant to the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment of the constitution of the United States, any person within the jurisdiction of this state has the fundamental, existing and individual right to freely cultivate any self-asserted, sex-based identity narrative or self-asserted sexual orientation based on a personal, autonomous choice and to practice secular humanism. (b) A person has the free-exercise right to conduct a marriage ceremony that does not involve a man and a woman and other rituals that are in accord with such person's self-asserted, sexual orientation and to live as married people do, free from governmental interference, as long as the ceremonies and lifestyle practices do not conflict with other state and federal law. Sec. 5. (a) The state has a compelling interest to uphold community standards of decency and a duty to not make or enforce policies that put the religion of secular humanism over non-religion and to not make and enforce policies that are preempted by the establishment clause of the 1st amendment of the constitution of the United States. The unproven truth claims flowing out of the religion of secular humanism tend to erode community standards of decency and cannot be respected, endorsed, favored or recognized for the purposes of this section or the establishment clause of the 1st amendment of the constitution of the United States. (b) Under this section, the establishment clause of the 1st amendment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 HB 2320 8 of the constitution of the United States, and the state's compelling interests to uphold community standards of decency, the state is prohibited from enforcing, endorsing, respecting or favoring the following policies for being non-secular shams that cultivate indefensible legal weapons against non-observers of the religion of secular humanism and for having the effect of excessively entangling the government with the religion of secular humanism, while eroding community standards of decency: (1) Policies that permit legally recognized or respected marriage of any form of parody marriage that does not involve a man and a woman; (2) policies that authorize the state to appropriate benefits to individuals who entered into a parody marriage of any kind that does not involve a man and a woman; (3) policies that permit counties to issue marriage licenses to individuals who seek legal recognition and respect of a marriage that does not involve a man and a woman; (4) policies that treat sexual orientation as a suspect class or as a basis of prohibited discrimination under the assumption that sexual orientation is predicated on immutability or genetics; (5) policies that treat sexual orientation as a suspect class or as a basis of prohibited discrimination under the assumption that parody marriage that does not involve a man and a woman are a part of American history or heritage; (6) policies that respect a person's unproven belief that they were born the gender that does not accord with the anatomy with which the individual was born; (7) policies that permit the state to appropriate tax dollars to pay for sex change operations; (8) policies that ban conversion therapy; (9) policies that permit public libraries and public schools in the state to partner with nonsecular organizations to promote, sponsor, host, favor, or endorse the drag queen storytime or other similar, related secular humanist programming that target children with apprehension that the government approves; (10) policies that mandate pronoun changes to respect the plausibility of secular humanist ideology; (11) policies that respect, condone, ratify or affirm homosexual, transgender, zoophilia, objectophilia, polygamy, orthodoxy and sexual orientation as if the doctrines were plausible, moral or decent and not a political ploy or an imperialistic power play; and (12) policies that permit a person or parent to change the sex on a birth certificate that does not accord with the anatomy that the person was born with. (c) The state shall no longer be in the parody marriage funding and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 HB 2320 9 endorsement business and shall disentangle itself from the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) secular humanist church pursuant to this section and the establishment clause of the 1st amendment of the constitution of the United States. The state shall not, through any government action create, enforce or respect any LGBTQ or any other secular humanist policy whether directly or symbolically. The state shall maintain the separation of church and state, which includes separating itself from the non-institutionalized religions such as secular humanism, expressive individualism and postmodern western individualistic moral relativism. Sec. 6. (a) Policies that respect and endorse a marriage between a man and a woman shall continue to be enforced because the policies are natural, neutral, non-controversial and secular in nature. The state will continue to enforce, respect, endorse and recognize marriage policies between a man and a woman because such marriage policies have a primary secular purpose, accomplishing non-religious objectives and do not put religion over non-religion, unlike policies that respect the various forms of parody marriage, which do not involve a man and a woman. The state will only issue marriage licenses to a man and a woman who meet the requirements by the governing state agency, because such state action is secular and does not excessively entangle the government with any religion nor does the recognition endorse a religion. (b) Policies that respect and endorse a marriage between a man and a woman fulfill a compelling state interest by upholding community standards of decency and such policies are not a critic on religion. (c) The state shall continue to enforce and recognize that marriage policies that respect a legal union that represents an intended lifelong commitment between one person who was born male and one person who was born female as husband and wife, who are of equal but opposite genders, who become spouses of the opposite sex, and who have corresponding sexual anatomy that, if coalesced, have the actual or symbolic potential to create an offspring whom likely has the input of the two spouses with whom the same genetic code and ancestral chain is shared. Sec. 7. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its publication in the statute book. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36