Constitutional amendment to recognize marriage of couples regardless of gender and race and strike language regarding gender

Brief

What this bill does

If it passes, what actually changes?

This is a legislative resolution, not an ordinary law. It would put a change to Nebraska's marriage clause on the ballot, so voters make the final call.

• Amends Article I, section 29 of the Nebraska Constitution, the section that governs marriage.
• Adds a duty for the state and its political subdivisions to recognize marriage and issue licenses regardless of gender and race.
• Sends the question to the electors at the general election in November 2026.
• Sets ballot language reading "A constitutional amendment to change provisions relating to marriage," with "For" and "Against."
• Directs submission in the manner prescribed by Article XVI, section 1, of the Nebraska Constitution.
• Carries no appropriation, fee, or dollar figure anywhere in the text.

What it says it is for

Does it do what it claims?

Half of the title is borne out and half is not. The added sentence matches, but the language the title says would be struck still appears in this copy of the text.

• Match: the new sentence covers couples "regardless of gender and race," exactly as the title describes.
• Divergence: the section as printed still reads "Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska."
• Divergence: the sentence voiding same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships also still appears.
• The title promises to "strike language regarding gender," but this copy shows no strikeout or deletion markup.
• The ballot language says only "change provisions relating to marriage" and never mentions gender or race.

Where Scripture bears on it

What does the Bible say about this?

This resolution asks whether Nebraska's constitution should require the state to recognize marriages and issue licenses regardless of gender and race, and whether the voters should settle it at the ballot. The verses gathered here touch marriage as something bound up with law, and law as something that can change when what it serves changes — a thematic connection, not a direct one.

• "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." Hebrews 7:12
• "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord." 1 Corinthians 7:39

Neither verse speaks to gender or race in marriage, to who may hold a license, or to how a state should amend its constitution; they show marriage treated as a matter under law and one where liberty of choice appears, but they do not decide the question this ballot measure puts to Nebraska voters.

The case each way

What is the strongest argument for, and against?

The fight is over whether Nebraska's constitution should keep defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.

• For: the amendment states an affirmative duty to issue licenses, not just a permission.
• For: voters themselves decide the question at the November 2026 election.
• For: replacing the older sentences would leave county officials one clear rule to follow.
• Against: the constitutional language now in place is settled, and reopening it invites litigation and confusion.
• Against: as printed, the section would hold flatly contradictory sentences with no rule saying which controls.
• Against: the ballot summary is vague and tells voters almost nothing about what would actually change.

What is unsettled

What should I be careful about?

This reading comes from one printed copy of the resolution, and that copy leaves real gaps a careful reader should not paper over.

• No strikeouts or underlining are visible, so which existing sentences are deleted cannot be determined.
• The new sentence and the "man and a woman" sentence directly contradict each other as printed.
• No fiscal note or cost estimate appears; any election or administrative cost is unstated.
• The phrase "regardless of gender and race" is not defined anywhere in the text.
• The text does not say when the amendment would take effect if voters approve it.
• The copy shows only a first reading on January 10, 2025 and referral to Judiciary; later action is unknown.

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 LR6CA.