South Carolina and Texas lawmakers who oppose same-sex marriage are sponsoring bills that would eliminate salaries for state and local officials, including judges and county clerks, who grant marriage licenses to gay couples or recognize such unions.

Voters in both states have approved constitutional bans on same-sex marriage, but gay and lesbian couples in South Carolina have been able to wed since a November federal court ruling. A federal judge struck down Texas’ marriage ban in February of last year, but the decision is on appeal.

South Carolina state Rep. Bill Chumley, a Republican, says he doesn’t care what the federal courts say. He wrote the South Carolina bill and says he’s been in indirect contact with the Texas lawmaker, Republican Rep. Cecil Bell, who’s sponsoring nearly identical legislation.

“I don’t have a problem with the people it might affect,” Chumley says. “I don’t judge them. Our issue is with the amendment to the [state] constitution being thrown out. I believe the people of South Carolina have a sovereign right to say what they want and they have done that.”

Bell says he was inspired by Chumley’s bill and worries federal courts legalizing same-sex marriage would cause “the moral degradation of the fabric that holds Texas together.” He says such rulings would also be a “total usurping of the sovereignty of the state of Texas,” which he intends to prevent.

The lawmakers say they are defending their states' 10th Amendment rights, and Chumley in particular has a record of dramatically pushing for his state’s prerogative to chart its own course. In 2013, he unsuccessfully pushed legislation to imprison or fine officials who implement the Affordable Care Act.

Unfortunately for the legislators, legal scholars say the bills' fates – should they become law – are tied to the fates of the state marriage cases.

“If the federal courts end up finally concluding – likely as a result of a Supreme Court decision – that there is a federal constitutional right to have one’s same-sex marriage recognized by states, then these laws would obviously be unconstitutional,” says Eugene Volokh, a professor at the University of California-Los Angeles School of Law.

Both bills say the legislation is immune from federal court challenges under the Constitution’s 11th Amendment, which limits the ability of people to sue states. Volokh says that's not accurate and that the bills “obviously can’t trump federal law.”

The bills also order state courts to dismiss any challenges to the legislation. It’s unclear if those provisions are permissible under the separation of powers established in state law.

Volokh additionally points out that withholding judges’ pay appears to violate the South Carolina Constitution, which says salaries cannot be diminished during their term in office.

Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, agrees the legislation likely would be found unconstitutional if federal courts find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, comparing the bills to state abortion restrictions that are often struck down.

In Texas, Turley adds, the legislation might backfire on supporters by giving same-sex couples another opportunity to challenge the state’s marriage ban.

“The interesting prospect would be for a challenge to this law to move more quickly in the courts than the same-sex marriage ban challenge,” he says. “If a court were to get to the final merits on this legislation first, it could feel obligated to broaden the review to first consider the constitutionality of the same-sex ban before evaluating the constitutionality of the collateral limitation.”

Bell disagrees that his effort may inadvertently help supporters of same-sex marriage. “I don’t think that’s the case," he says. “That side of the world has never needed any incentive to litigate. They litigate for no reason at all.”

The legislators say they disagree with the legal experts that federal courts would strike down their proposed laws if marriage bans are dumped. Bell says that would require judges to exceed their constitutional role by legislating and by ignoring states’ 10th Amendment rights.

“In South Carolina, we don’t believe that’s proper,” Chumley says.

Gay Marriage Cartoons View All 45 Images

Thirty-six states recognize same-sex marriage, as do some American Indian tribes and the District of Columbia. The federal government recognizes such marriages legally performed by states, regardless of a couple’s residency.