Constitutional amendment to eliminate provisions relating to marriage and marriage licenses

Brief

What this bill does

If it passes, what actually changes?

This is not an ordinary law. It is a legislative resolution that would put a single yes-or-no question on the ballot for Nebraska voters.

• Sends one question to Nebraska voters at the general election in November 2026.
• The sole operative change: Article I, section 29 of the Nebraska Constitution is repealed.
• Ballot language reads "eliminate provisions relating to recognition of marriage and marriage licenses."
• Submission follows Article XVI, section 1, the constitution's own amendment procedure.
• The resolution never reproduces or quotes the text of Article I, section 29.
• Nothing changes unless voters approve; legislative passage only places it on the ballot.

What it says it is for

Does it do what it claims?

As far as the text goes, the title matches the operative section. What the text cannot confirm is what is actually being removed.

• Title promises to eliminate marriage provisions; section 1 repeals exactly one constitutional section.
• Ballot language adds the word "recognition," which the resolution's own title leaves out.
• Title says "provisions," plural; the operative text repeals a single section, Article I, section 29.
• Both title and ballot describe a subject area, not the repealed section's actual wording.
• Nothing here creates, funds, or amends any program, agency, or statute.

Where Scripture bears on it

What does the Bible say about this?

The question underneath LR5CA is what happens to law when a foundational provision is removed from it. Hebrews 7:12 states the principle that institutional change carries legal change with it: "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." Romans 3:31 puts the opposing instinct — that a change urged in the name of a higher principle should not be assumed to abolish law: "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Both verses speak to the relation between a change and the law that follows it, and neither settles the question actually on the ballot. Neither addresses civil marriage licensing, who may obtain a license, what a state constitution ought to say about marriage, or whether repealing Article I, section 29 would leave Nebraska's law stronger or weaker. The change of law in Hebrews concerns the priesthood, and Romans concerns faith and law, not constitutional text; a reader who wants these verses to decide the vote is asking more of them than they say.

The case each way

What is the strongest argument for, and against?

The disagreement is less about drafting than about whether voters should be asked to strike this constitutional language at all.

• For: Voters, not legislators alone, get the final say at the November 2026 election.
• For: Repeal moves the subject out of the constitution, leaving it to statute and courts.
• For: The ballot question is short and binary, For or Against, mechanically easy to answer.
• Against: The ballot language never tells voters what Article I, section 29 currently says.
• Against: Repeal puts no replacement provision in place governing marriage recognition or licenses.
• Against: A subject-matter label may not convey to voters what they are actually changing.

What is unsettled

What should I be careful about?

This brief reads only the resolution itself. Much of what would matter to a voter sits outside these four corners.

• The text never states what Article I, section 29 contains or when it was adopted.
• No fiscal note, appropriation, or cost estimate for placing the question on the ballot.
• "Recognition of marriage" is nowhere defined in the resolution.
• No effective date beyond the November 2026 election; the text does not say when repeal takes hold.
• The legislative vote threshold under Article XVI, section 1 is referenced, not spelled out here.
• Effect on existing marriage-license statutes and court decisions is not addressed.

Text (1)

• Introduced (application/pdf)

Each link opens the Legislature's own document. The text itself is not in our database yet (fetched lazily); when it lands these pages will carry it verbatim.

All Actions (5)

Votes (0)

There have been no roll call votes on this bill.

Sponsors (1)

• Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh [District 6] — primary sponsor

Amendments (0)

There are no amendments to this bill.

Fiscal Notes & Statements (1)

• Statement of Intent — Statement of Intent

The Legislature's own companion documents; each link opens the official copy.

Committees (1)

Related Bills (0)

No related bill information was received for LR5CA.