Wow. In case you haven’t seen House Bill 1215 yet, I get the distinct impression that Representative Randolph has some opinions about LGBT persons.
Aside from the fact South Dakota has already lost that battle.. well it’s not aside from that fact, I’m pretty sure that under section 1, subsections 1 and 3 are unconstitutional. . For gosh sakes.
Not to mention, I question whether it might be a stretch to consider the proposed law itself as constitutional under the state’s constitution. Per AG Opinion 17-02:
Our State Constitution mandates that legislative bills meet two requirements. First, each bill must contain an “enacting clause.” S.D. Const. Art. 3, § 18. Second, each bill must contain only one subject that is expressed in the bill’s title. S.D. Const. Art. 3, § 21.
It might be a stretch to say sexual orientation, tax dollars for sex change operations, conversion therapy, drag queen story time, and “a person’s right to practice secular humanism” all fall under “An Act to prohibit the state from endorsing or enforcing certain policies regarding domestic relations.”
What are your thoughts?