Ted Cruz: Leave same-sex marriage up to the states

Washington Times ^ | Wednesday, February 11, 2015 | David Sherfinski

[SoConPubbie]

Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican, is renewing a push for legislation that would leave the decision of whether to recognize same-sex marriages up to individual states and said he plans to introduce a constitutional amendment later this year outlining that marriage is a policy question for state legislatures.

“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,” Mr. Cruz said. “I support traditional marriage and we should reject attempts by the Obama Administration to force same-sex marriage on all 50 states.”

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide this term whether gays and lesbians have a constitutionally-protected right to marry — a prospect Mr. Obama appeared to welcome this week in an interview with Buzzfeed News.

“My sense is that the Supreme Court is about to make a shift, one that I welcome, which is to recognize that — having hit a critical mass of states that have recognized same-sex marriage — that it doesn’t make sense for us to now have this patchwork system,” Mr. Obama said. “It’s time to recognize that under the equal protection clause of the United States [Constitution], same-sex couples should have the same rights as anybody else.”

The Supreme Court declined to intervene in a recent federal ruling against Alabama’s gay marriage ban, with a Thursday court hearing set after Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy S. Moore instructed state judges to obey the state’s law.

“My recollection is Judge Moore had a similar problem with a federal court ruling that you couldn’t put a huge Ten Commandments statue in the middle of your courthouse and, ultimately, federal law was obeyed,

[SoConPubbie]

"If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton "We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all." -- President Ronald Reagan "A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." - Thomas Paine 1792 "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

[BillyBoy]

BillyBoy: Same-Sex Marriage is impossible regardless of what states say about it. Same-sex marriage won’t exist unless God changes human biology so people of the same gender can form a union.

[Genoa]

What happens to full faith and credit? Does Tennessee have to recognize same-sex marriages from Massachusetts?

[stephenjohnbanker]

BUMP

[Beagle8U]

Does Massoftooshits have to recognize plural marriage from Utah, or marriage to farm animals from WA state?

[Augustinian monk]

PING for the next time someone accuses Rand Paul of being a liberal or something for taking same position

[Amendment10]

As mentioned in related threads, the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment (10A) to clarify that the Constitution’s silence on issues like marriage means that such issues are automatically uniquely state power issues.

In fact, PC interpretations of the Supremacy Clause (6.2) aside, the Supreme Court has clarified in broad terms that powers not delegated to the feds expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate marriage in this case, are prohibited to the feds.

”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

But we’re not hearing anybody in corrupt DC mention 10A because, despite RINOs now controlling Congress, it is still one of the best-kept secrets in DC.

[TigersEye]

“My recollection is Judge Moore had a similar problem with a federal court ruling that you couldn’t put a huge Ten Commandments statue in the middle of your courthouse and, ultimately, federal law was obeyed,..."

The author's recollection is incorrect. It was Judge Moore who stood on the ground of the Constitution and the Federal courts who disobeyed it.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[SoConPubbie]

Ted Cruz Ping!

If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.

Please beware, this is a high-volume ping list!

CRUZ or LOSE!

[Oliviaforever]

Ted’s plan will not work as the entire nation is devastated even if one state or one county has Gay Marriage.

[Colofornian]

This is asenine...then we should leave polygamy and bigamy up to individual states, too, eh?

Why not 5 guys & 2 gals in a "group marriage" -- perhaps the lefty loony states could lead the way in opening that door!

[Ransomed]

If it was up to the states it would be held off longer. But if the current trends continue there wouldn’t be a state in the union 20 years from now whose marriage amendment couldn’t just be repealed by a popular vote, in my opinion. There are states who only passed theirs in the 50-60% ranges in the middle of the last decade who probably couldn’t pass them again if a referendum was held now.

Freegards

[DannyTN]

That’s how Fred Thompson lost support of conservatives.

Leaving it to the states is and will be a disaster. Plus leaving it to the states often means leaving it to Federal courts which have been overturning state constitutions and state laws on the matter.

[SoConPubbie]

That’s how Fred Thompson lost support of conservatives.

Leaving it to the states is and will be a disaster. Plus leaving it to the states often means leaving it to Federal courts which have been overturning state constitutions and state laws on the matter.

That was then, this is now.

With all of the meddling by the court into this issue, and given that Ted Cruz IS THE ONLY potential POTUS candidate who has, and continues to take a strong stand on this issue, In Other Words, puts actions to his words, he can only benefit from his fidelity to this conservative policy position.

[SoConPubbie]

This is asenine...then we should leave polygamy and bigamy up to individual states, too, eh?

So, given that you have a mountain the size of Everest to climb to get a Federal law, much less an amendment to the constitution, at the federal level to solve this issue in the manner you propose, don't you think we should do what we can to protect those states that have already done the right thing to stop it in their own backyards?

[DannyTN]

actions to his words???....his words are saying he’ll do nothing as President on this issue...that it’s not a federal issue.

[C. Edmund Wright]

...that’s a bit over the top.....

[Wuli]

Cruz is right.

First: The FEDERAL constitution is mute on marriage, as it was considered at the founding, and should still be considered, a matter that comes under the “rights” left to the states and the people to decide upon; not the Federal government; any of it.

Second: There is no FEDERAL constitutional amendment that adds “sexual orientation” to the protected classes under the civil war amendments, and without such an amendment the supreme court justices cannot - responsibly - make one up by themselves, and thus there is NOT a federal constitutional basis for same-sex marriage on the same grounds as was previously found for interracial marriage.

[Oliviaforever]

I should have used the word detrimental rather than devastating.

[JSDude1]

President Obama wants to claim that a majority of the States now recognize gay marriage, but he conveniently ignores the fact that gay marriage was FORCED upon the majority of those states through Federal Judicial Fiat, not through the legislative processes..

So, lying once again..!!