Ohio Lawmaker Proposes Resolution to Impeach Judge Over Homosexual ‘Marriage’ Rulings

BeckerCOLUMBUS, Ohio — An Ohio lawmaker is reiterating his call to impeach a federal judge over his recent rulings on same-sex ‘marriage,’ after he vowed last week to strike down the state’s ban on homosexual weddings.

Representative John Becker (R-Union Township) told reporters that U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Black is trampling both the state and federal constitution with his rulings.

“In an epic display of arrogance and incompetence, Judge Black announced that he will require the people of Ohio to disregard the Ohio Constitution and force the recognition of ‘homosexual marriages’ performed outside of Ohio,” his office wrote in a recent statement. “He persists in allowing his personal political bias to supersede jurisprudence.”

As previously reported, Black, appointed by Barack Obama, issued a ruling in December that required state officials to recognize same-sex “marriages” on death certificates.

“[T]he question is presented whether a state can do what the federal government cannot – i.e., discriminate against same-sex couples … simply because the majority of the voters don’t like homosexuality (or at least didn’t in 2004),” he wrote. “Under the Constitution of the United States, the answer is no.”

Now Black advises that he will soon strike down the state’s ban on same-sex ‘marriage,’ which was approved by the majority of voters in the 2004 election, causing Becker to reiterate his call for Black’s impeachment.

Becker currently has a resolution before lawmakers on the matter, but it has not yet had a hearing. Resolutions are different than law in that they do not require action, but merely serve as a position statement.

  • Connect with Christian News

“Whereas the federal government has an ever-growing propensity to violate state sovereignty,” the resolution states. “Whereas the impeachment of rogue federal judges will begin the process of restoring state sovereignty to the original intent of the United States Constitution…”

“Whereas Judge Black has demonstrated his incompetence by allowing his personal political bias to supersede jurisprudence,” it continues. “[N]ow therefore be it resolved that, in consideration of the above, we, the members of the 130th Ohio General Assembly, respectfully urge the Ohio Congressional delegation to initiate impeachment proceedings against Judge Timothy S. Black of United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.”

Becker says that the entire matter hinges on state sovereignty—the right of the Ohio government to rule its own state as it wishes. He said that the revocation of state’s rights has been a growing problem in America.

“The federal government has an ever growing propensity to violate state sovereignty. Although this has been a trend since the early 19th century, it has accelerated exponentially in recent decades,” Becker explained. “Rather than the solution, the federal judiciary has been the primary problem … This will begin the process of restoring state sovereignty back to the original intent of the U.S. Constitution.”

Becker is a Christian and is married with one child.

A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Sam

    Yes, yes, yes! Impeach, impeach, impeach!

  • Thank you Mr Becker. You are right on the ball. Amendment 10 gives to the various States the right to legislate in matters not controlled by the constitution. Keep up your good work.

  • Aaron Clark

    Was this judge correct in using the 14th Amendment exclusively in his decision?

    What does the 14th Amendment mean? The 13th Amendment outlawed slavery. But the previously slave states denied the right to vote to male ex-slaves (women had no right to vote in federal elections). The 14th Amendment was written to establish the rights of male ex-slaves and penalize any state which did not give male ex-slaves the right to vote.

    Remember, Sections 1 AND 2 were inseparable parts of the one purpose of the 14th Amendment. The language of Section 1 can only be understood in the context of Section 2. This amendment did not give women the right to vote nor to have the many rights given to men but denied to women. Only male ex-slaves were the intended target of the 14th.


    Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

    Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

    Section 1.
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Section 2.
    Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the MALE inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such MALE citizens shall bear to the whole number of MALE citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”


    Neither women nor gays were included in the “All persons…citizens…equal protection…due process…” Homosexuality was universally condemned in the U.S. “Gay marriage” was never contemplated in this amendment.