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.
great idea.
simple a ...dare i say it,.. FAIR
As we've seen from district courts, apparently "states rights" and state "constitutions" mean jack squat when our black robed overlords feel like making up new "rights" that they like.
"Rights" that have never existed before, and are not even recognized by the US Constitution.
So he shouldn’t even try?
So he shouldn’t even try?
Well done, Ted.
This is very necessary, specially if those nine black robed jurists decide to sprong a June surprise on us.
This needs to be passed before then.
And if the Kenyan Klownie vetes it, then override.
Congress has the last word on all judicial decisions, not the Supreme Court.
But Congress likes to always hide behind the Supremes, and let them do their dirty work for them.
It’s a done deal:
Marriage Equality Is Coming To America This June (”Gay Marriage”)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3255853/posts
gesture is great.
we already have the 9th and 10th amendments. if this bill passes’it’s’like saying these twoamend,ents don’t already give the states this power.
They can rule however they want.
But the Constitution gives Congress the last word.
And on this subject there has to be pushback—otherwise there will be no way to define marriage at all.
Number of partners, species of partners, age of consent can then all be decided by the Federal judiciary, regardless of wht the people want. Well, who elected Federal judges?
To which I say, “NUTS”.
My opinion? Everyone can apply for a civil union license but leave marriage up to the states (and churches)
If the individual states would all decide in favor of traditional marriage as the sole definition of marriage, then this would have teeth. Any bad apples, however, will spoil the whole barrel.
unfortunately it's the gays that are not for civil unions. They think that it somehow makes them second class citizens.
Regarding states rights.
One of the reasons the federal government has their nose in this issue is because it is a major part of federal tax laws such as income tax and inheritance laws.
How does Congress challenge the Court in this matter, other than by the amendment process in Article V?
According to the 10 amendment it already is a state issue.
Art. III, Section 2, in part:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
God bless Ted Cruz and the other Republican senators lending their support.
Quite so, as are 95% of other domestic issues where fedgov inserts itself - health care, education, the environment, etc etc etc...
States have no more right to redefine marriage than federal courts do.
The only Person with any legitimate “choice” in matters of protecting innocent life and defining marriage is God. And He made those choices at the beginning of His creation.
The only real question left for us is whether or not we will dutifully conform our laws and practices to His choice, so as to be blessed, or to be a curse to our posterity.
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.