So, I don't support Senator Cruz's approach to a constitutional amendment at all.
Later this year, Sen. Cruz will be introducing a constitutional amendment ... The amendment will make explicit that marriage is a policy question for the democratically-elected legislatures in each of the 50 states.
The definitions of the meaning of words, and the laws of nature and nature's God, are not legitimately open to "democratic" majorities.
The idea that democratic majorities can overrule the natural law is in fact anti-republican.
According to real smart folks like Cicero, and Aquinas, and Blackstone, and Hamilton, laws that violate the natural law are NULL and VOID.
That wise notion was and is the basis for the American republic.
And who, exactly, makes the determination of whether a law violates the natural law and is thus NUL and VOID?
And what about people with different religious beliefs, who just may have different ideas of what is and is not natural law?