Posted on 02/10/2015 6:21:47 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is calling on his colleagues to pass a bill that would make same sex marriage a state issue.
Cruz, along with 11 other Republican senators, re-introduced the State Marriage Defense Act on Tuesday, which aims to allow states to adopt their own definitions of marriage and would block the federal government from applying its own definition of marriage onto states.
“Even though the Supreme Court made clear in United States v. Windsor that the federal government should defer to state ‘choices about who may be married,’ the Obama Administration has disregarded state marriage laws enacted by democratically-elected legislatures to uphold traditional marriage,” Cruz said in a press release.
He added, “I support traditional marriage and we should reject attempts by the Obama Administration to force same-sex marriage on all 50 states. The State Marriage Defense Act helps safeguard the ability of states to preserve traditional marriage for their citizens.”
The bill would force federal government to rely on state law to determine whether couples are considered to be married for the purposes for federal law.
Last year, Cruz and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced the same bill but it was not brought to the Senate floor for a vote.
The proposed act comes about one month after the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case in 2015 that will decide whether the U.S. Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to enter into same-sex marriage. On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to halt a federal ruling that required officials in Alabama to recognize same-sex marriage rights.
Cruz’s effort is joined by Senators Lee, John Boozman (R-Ark.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), James Inhofe (R-Okla). James Lankford (R-Okla.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), and David Vitter (R-La.) Congressman Randy Weber (R-Texas).
Seven of the co-sponsors — Boozman, Crapo, Inhofe, Roberts, Sessions, Shelby and Vitter — were in Congress in 2006 and supported legislation at the time to create a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
I can’t quite get my head around this. Why does the 10th Amendment exist? Where in the constitution does congress get the power to determine the definition of marriage or write laws that already are taken care of by the Bill of Rights? I suppose this is out of fear of what federal courts will do. Or perhaps Cruz doesn’t have the cojones to stand up to Obama if Obama breaks out his pen and phone again. (My comments are directed more at Republicans as a whole than to single out Cruz.)
Take it a step further Ted. Leave marriage to the churches. Why should government have anything to do with it?
Yes, all 3 of them.
Congress has the power to remove issues from the Supreme Court. In other words they can say that the Court may not make decisions on a law they pass regarding marriage.
Is that where that Congressional power comes from? I have never looked it up but have heard both liberal and conservatives admit it is so.
Leave civil union to the states.
Leave marriage to the church.
Why, a queer has as much right to marry a woman as does the next guy.
They said all they wanted was civil union, but they lied.
They want to overturn church doctrine.
just read the bill, It needs to be re-written to just pertain to only same sex marriages. the way it is now a marriage of someone under 18 in a state like WV with parent’s permission would be not a legit marriage if they moved to a state where the law limits it to 18. Not that this is a huge issue but this was only the first one off the top of my head and you know things like this will happen and be used to challenge the bill. -different states also have different rules on how close blood relatives. -and i hate to say it but i have seen polls in southern states that still have 30% ish support for miscegenation laws. Can you imagine the chaos if no one showed up to vote and that one got passed? -eh. im probably worrying over nothing: this bill is pretty irrelevent once the supreme court weighs in anyway, short of a constitutional amendment.
Traditional marriage is outlawed in all 50 states.
Cruz’s effort is joined by Senators Lee, John Boozman (R-Ark.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), James Inhofe (R-Okla). James Lankford (R-Okla.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), and David Vitter (R-La.) Congressman Randy Weber (R-Texas).
Yes, look in post 16.
In most matters the Supreme Court acts like an appellate court, and Congress can make an exception to anything they rule on if they choose to.
The power is there, if Congress chooses to use it.
The Supreme Court will decide this and whether 14th Amendment Protections extend to homos and "homo marriage".
Absent a Constitutional Amendment, Congress is out of this loop.
And Ted knows it.
agreed.
It is a great idea.
After this, do one for abortion.
I suspect that this is ulterior motive of the Marxists/ACLU types that are the real muscle behind the gay rights movement. The gays are just sick pawns in all of this.
Agreed.
Divide and conquer.
NO WAY!
ALL innocent human life should be protected in ALL States.
Should slavery have been left up to the States?
how many states recognize father-daughter marriages from NJ? What if its a Son-Dad marriage?
No, I fully support the effort, but that horse has left the barn long ago.
Appelate courts have held that the 10th amendment is null and void, and that the 14th is "supreme".
But the 14th amendment says NOTHING about "gay marriage".
Doesn't say anything about abortion, either, but we ALL know how THAT has turned out.
The biggest problem is black robed tyrants making $hit up.
I'm really surprised just how few states have just sat there and taken this.
Seems a slam dunk on tenth amendment grounds.
Again, we're not talking 13th amendment with regards to slavery.
Gays aren't slaves.
Nobody is "preventing" them from having "unions".
The US constitution is silent on the matter of marriage anyway.
So we go back to the 10th amendment.
If states don't fight to the death on this, there is no hope of retaining a republic.
Even the gayest of the gays should be outraged by overturning state constitutions by fiat, but they aren't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.