Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sen. Ted Cruz speaks against same-sex marriage (Prefers States to decide it)
Dallas News ^ | 03/27/2013 | Gromer Jeffers Jr.

Posted on 03/27/2013 7:44:30 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Sen. Ted Cruz said Tuesday that he was against same sex marriage and hoped the U.S. Supreme Court would continue to let individual states grapple with the issue. “I support traditional marriage between one man and one woman,” Cruz said after speaking to the Richardson Chamber of Commerce. “The Constitution leaves it to the states to decide upon marriage and I hope the Supreme Court respects centuries of tradition and doesn’t step into the process of setting aside state laws that make the definition of marriage.”

Currently federal law defines marriage and the union of a man and a woman. But the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments today on California’s ban on same-sex marriage. And on Wednesday the high court will take up the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the Bill Clinton-era law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Polls show that over the decades more Americans, including Republicans, are beginning to support the concept of same-sex marriage.

Cruz, a Republican from Houston, has captivated conservative and tea party followers with his aggressive support of principles involving state’s rights, smaller government and the Constitutional rights of individual Americans.

At the Richardson Chamber luncheon, he said he was against efforts in Congress to mandate additional background checks on gun buyers.

“We will oppose moving to proceed on any bill that strips Second Amendment rights for law abiding citizens,” Cruz said.

(Excerpt) Read more at trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 113th; cruz; cruz2016; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; homosexuality; ssm; tedcruz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-124 next last

1 posted on 03/27/2013 7:44:30 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Aside from making sure I don’t marry my sister, or first cousin, I can find no reason for the state to be involved at all.

My priest ordained my marriage. Not my mayor.


2 posted on 03/27/2013 7:47:14 AM PDT by Noamie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; AuH2ORepublican
It all comes down to Kennedy again:

Against: Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts

For: Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, and Ginsburg

Kennedy?? - Even though he wrote the opinion on Lawrence, he may be inclined to let it stand given the comments he made on judicial restraint.
3 posted on 03/27/2013 7:50:29 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I am hoping that Cruz does not “evolve” while he serves in Congress!!

We must all PRAY without seizing that the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld.

In TX. several liberal school districts are adopting civil marriage benefits for partners at a great expense to the taxpayers (Pflugerville adopted and Austin on their agenda)! Funny thing is same sex couples cannot create babies...and teachers in public schools depend on students in classes!!


4 posted on 03/27/2013 7:52:16 AM PDT by YouGoTexasGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I would like to know, when I got married, I had to submit to a blood test to make sure I had no venerial diseases.

Question - do they still require that and if so, would gays be willing to submit to VD testing in order to marry?

5 posted on 03/27/2013 7:53:00 AM PDT by Slyfox (The Key to Marxism is Medicine ~ Vladimir Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Noamie; All

good for you and how it works for you , I;m sure that blood test from the Govt will make it sure you don’;t marry your sister or cousin..

Cruz yet again speaks up shows no cowardly action.

If only our side had guts like Cruz, Sarah, Col West, Michelle Bachmann , instead we have whiny little pansies who run for cover on issues like this and that only helps the communist agenda to be further pushed.
For anyone thinking this is not a commuinist agenda then look at the rules for communists back in 1963 and they wanted to use a party to push this and they did , the Dem party but now they are geting in the GOP too, by using the sticker slogan of no Govt shold be involved.

Time to purge the GOP of the cowards and infiltrators


6 posted on 03/27/2013 7:54:10 AM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Noamie
Aside from making sure I don’t marry my sister, or first cousin, I can find no reason for the state to be involved at all.

Lets have a serious conversation:

Devil's Advocate: Why should the state be allowed to prevent you from marrying your sister or first cousin? What if they are infertile? Wouldn't this be a restriction of your pursuit of happiness?

7 posted on 03/27/2013 7:54:18 AM PDT by frogjerk (Obama: Government by Freakout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Noamie

>>>Aside from making sure I don’t marry my sister, or first cousin, I can find no reason for the state to be involved at all.

My priest ordained my marriage. Not my mayor.<<<

Other than preventing you from marrying close relatives or multiple people at the same time or people of the same sex, and handling divorces, all government really does is register marriages, so that the parties of the marriage have proof for legal and tax purposes.

The argument that “government should get out of the marriage business” is false argument becasue government really isn’t in the marriage business any more than it is in the real estate business when it registers property deeds.


8 posted on 03/27/2013 7:54:25 AM PDT by Above My Pay Grade (The people have the right to tell government what guns it may possess, not the other way around.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

It is no longer required


9 posted on 03/27/2013 7:54:50 AM PDT by frogjerk (Obama: Government by Freakout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

exactly

You give a blood test to the Govt for obvious resons, they then issue the certificate but are these homosexuals goingto now sumbit to this test


10 posted on 03/27/2013 7:55:26 AM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The question is not about our personal opinions on marriage. The question is about the law. The US Constitution makes no reference to marriage. Therefore the regulation of marriage was left to the states. States do in fact regulate marriage. The age at when a person can marry is regulated. The age at when a person can marry with or without parental consent varies from state to state. Can first cousins marry? Can second or third cousins marry? Can a one person have more than one spouse? Utah permitted once permitted polygamy, but later outlawed to gain admission into the union. Fact is this is a STATE issue. What is there to discuss?????


11 posted on 03/27/2013 7:56:00 AM PDT by Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Above My Pay Grade

they use that sticker slogan to ushh that agenda within our party and use our convention and websites using that sticker slogan.

Remember when in the 20’s the elft wanted beer etc to be banned and used religion to get the right to sign on , well they;re now using noGovt in this to try and infiltrate our message and stance


12 posted on 03/27/2013 7:57:10 AM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Above My Pay Grade
The argument that “government should get out of the marriage business” is false argument becasue government really isn’t in the marriage business any more than it is in the real estate business when it registers property deeds.

BINGO!

Now if some say that the courts or judges should not be marrying people and that is the government's involvement in marriage that should be cut off - I'm ok with that because there are plenty of mail-order reverends or captains of ships that will marry for a nominal fee.

13 posted on 03/27/2013 7:57:47 AM PDT by frogjerk (Obama: Government by Freakout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Kennedy?? - Even though he wrote the opinion on Lawrence, he may be inclined to let it stand given the comments he made on judicial restraint.

That would be ironic. Because that argument is the best reason to overturn the 9th Circuit.

14 posted on 03/27/2013 7:57:48 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

I got married over 20 years ago. I don’t recall any blood tests.


15 posted on 03/27/2013 7:58:51 AM PDT by shelterguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Noamie

Bingo! This is only a problem because some ‘bright’ legislator decided to put marriage into the tax code to conduct his own social engineering experiment. Government should just stay out! Marriage is a religious practice and the only reason these commie/atheists want to get married is to pay less taxes.


16 posted on 03/27/2013 7:59:54 AM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

For gays 6-3[Alito, Thomas, Scalia].

Roberts and Kennedy will side with the others.


17 posted on 03/27/2013 8:00:01 AM PDT by Theoria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Polls show that over the decades more Americans, including Republicans, are beginning to support the concept of same-sex marriage.”

Minus the brainwashing at least 90% of the population would be against same sex marriage. It is not God’s plan and most of us know that. The best way to worship God is to respect His plan.


18 posted on 03/27/2013 8:00:19 AM PDT by Josephat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Above My Pay Grade

“government really isn’t in the marriage business any more than it is in the real estate business when it registers property deeds.”

And that’s precisely the problem. Marriage is a religious practice and yet you think it’s no different than a property deed. The LGBT community agrees with you!


19 posted on 03/27/2013 8:10:00 AM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

When we concede the line of battle to same-sex “marriage,” we’ve pretty much lost.

If we can’t redirect attention to the REAL battle, the immorality and destructiveness of homosexuality itself, we will never win.


20 posted on 03/27/2013 8:11:55 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines

What is left is federal marital status since states have differing laws. There is conflict between DOMA and states that allow gay marriage. That conflict has to be dealt with and fed rules established on how to classify couples for tax and benefit purposes.


21 posted on 03/27/2013 8:18:20 AM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

The reason why the Left is pushing this is to further weaken the family. Legal “marriage” will remove the natural law principle from any legal opposition to homosexuality.

Legal prohibitions against the adoption of children by homosexuals will be eliminated, and homosexuality will suffuse government school curricula, right down to kindergarten. Any opposition to homosexuality will become “hate speech” and “hate crimes.”


22 posted on 03/27/2013 8:18:51 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Gay Marriage and Abortion are alike, in that if left up to the States, North Dakota would outlaw them both and California would mandate them both.

;-)


23 posted on 03/27/2013 8:20:48 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie (Due Process 2013: "Burn the M*****-F***er Down!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

Question - do they still require that and if so,

**************

Google is your friend sometimes.

http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/blood_test_requirements/

Gays I have no idea....


24 posted on 03/27/2013 8:23:08 AM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Exactly right.

Everyone know what a marriage is, and that two people of the same sex cannot constitute a marriage. All this nonsense about “whether they should be permitted to” is nothing but an end-run around the issue of their disgusting and wicked practices.


25 posted on 03/27/2013 8:23:36 AM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Noamie
I can find no reason for the state to be involved at all

1. It will make your culture more dangerous.

2. The state has no interest in your love life.

3. The state has an interest in the potentially procreative unit....mother/father bonded with and rearing the child.

4. Children have a right to their own father and mother.

26 posted on 03/27/2013 8:27:56 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Noamie
My priest ordained my marriage. Not my mayor.

For another person (or group of people) it would be their Muslim Iman, or Bishop Romney, or the priest of the gay goat church, for the atheist it would be himself and the others involved.

27 posted on 03/27/2013 8:28:00 AM PDT by ansel12 (" I would not be in the United States Senate if it wasnt for Sarah Palin " Cruz said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Which state marriage definition would Cruz have the feds recognize for the military, and immigration, and all the other federal situations involving marriage?

How about when the couple moves to another state?


28 posted on 03/27/2013 8:30:15 AM PDT by ansel12 (" I would not be in the United States Senate if it wasnt for Sarah Palin " Cruz said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

There were even comments from the bench yesterday indicating some thinking that this should be an issue to be decided by the states.

That gives some hope that SCOTUS might overturn the 9th Circuit Court’s action to overturn the citizen referendum on California Prop-8.


29 posted on 03/27/2013 8:32:35 AM PDT by Iron Munro (Welcome to Obama-Land - EVERYTHING NOT FORBIDDEN IS COMPULSORY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Roberts is in the “for” camp.


30 posted on 03/27/2013 8:32:52 AM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Sen. Ted Cruz ... prefers States to decide it

Bingo.

31 posted on 03/27/2013 8:36:50 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas

I really didn’t think this issue mattered. I mean were at war...23 million underemployed...wages stagnant..gws about to fly this summer...kids saddled with student debt with lousy prospects..Obamecare flailing. This was a masterful job by the media to deflect away from the nuts and bolts failure of Obama and get the public convinced that this is the civil rights issue of our time.


32 posted on 03/27/2013 8:38:11 AM PDT by Blackirish (Forward Comrades!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“The state has an interest in the potentially procreative unit”

Stalin couldn’t have said it better.


33 posted on 03/27/2013 8:39:24 AM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
...and homosexuality will suffuse government school curricula, right down to kindergarten. Any opposition to homosexuality will become “hate speech” and “hate crimes.”

Sad, but true. Their "endgame" is coming to pass.

34 posted on 03/27/2013 8:39:31 AM PDT by Jane Long (Background checks? Dandy idea, Mr. President. Shoulda started with yours. - Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

The two “swing votes”, as long as they are part of this court, will be Kennedy and ROBERTS. Roberts is a liberal.
End of story.


35 posted on 03/27/2013 8:39:45 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
“The Constitution leaves it to the states to decide upon marriage and I hope the Supreme Court respects centuries of tradition and doesn’t step into the process of setting aside state laws that make the definition of marriage.”

I don't disagree at all. But does that mean that Cruz would support overturning DOMA?

36 posted on 03/27/2013 8:41:59 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

Regrettably, I’m not interested in having a serious conversation on the internet.

My opinion isn’t based on procreation or biology, it’s about keeping sex out of the family unit and the complications that sex among blood-related family members can create.

Besides, the Pursuit of Happiness should be kept within the bounds of sense and reason. Otherwise it’s simply the pursuit of pleasure. A distinction should always be made.


37 posted on 03/27/2013 8:44:48 AM PDT by Noamie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

Wrong. Stalin would have said that the state owns the children and the parents.

What I wrote is little different than saying, “I have an interest” or “The Church has an interest”.

Why?

Because having an interest is saying that it is an area that impacts on you in some way.

So, can you defend your accusation that I am a Stalinist? Do you have proof? Or are you just exercising your pie-hole?


38 posted on 03/27/2013 8:45:00 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: manc

The next republican to evolve on homosexual “marriage” will be Spanky Christy. He’ll probably do the old Bill O’Reilly song and dance, saying he’s for civil unions for homosexuals, and could care less about the marriage debate one way or the other. Bill O’Reilly should be denied communion. He goes against the Church teachings on marriage. He also says it’s fine with him if homosexuals adopt children, again going against the teachings of the Catholic Church. Both Christy and blowhard O’Reilly are CINOs (Catholic in name only).


39 posted on 03/27/2013 8:45:34 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Ironically, for the atheist, it would be the State. They know no higher authority.


40 posted on 03/27/2013 8:46:50 AM PDT by Noamie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines

What is left is federal marital status since states have differing laws. There is conflict between DOMA and states that allow gay marriage. That conflict has to be dealt with and fed rules established on how to classify couples for tax and benefit purposes.


41 posted on 03/27/2013 8:47:31 AM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

“For gays 6-3[Alito, Thomas, Scalia].

Roberts and Kennedy will side with the others”

DITTO.


42 posted on 03/27/2013 8:47:34 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

When the Supreme Court said sodomy was legal the next logical step for the sodomites is to sue so they can get “married”.
Sodomy HAS ALWAYS BEEN ILLEGAL down through the ages. George Washington had you shot if you were caught performing the act in his army. Barry Bath House knows more than Washington about sodomy. Ask Larry Sinclair.


43 posted on 03/27/2013 8:52:21 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This guy looks better and better.


44 posted on 03/27/2013 8:52:47 AM PDT by ZULU (See: http://gatesofvienna.net/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Noamie

Think about this: Once the Courts decide a marriage is no longer between ONE man and ONE woman, there is an ARMY of prolific Muslims here ready to spawn from harems.


45 posted on 03/27/2013 8:53:54 AM PDT by ZULU (See: http://gatesofvienna.net/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
Fact is this is a STATE issue. What is there to discuss?????

As Mark Levin said last evening, they want to constantly take another bite at the apple. That is, they are not happy with the results that come from state wide ballot initiatives (even in California!) so their next "bite" comes by going to the courts, and they keep "biting" all the way up to the Supreme Court.

46 posted on 03/27/2013 8:56:35 AM PDT by zzeeman ("We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

“Think about this: Once the Courts decide a marriage is no longer between ONE man and ONE woman, there is an ARMY of prolific Muslims here ready to spawn from harems.”

I apologize if I gave the impression that I am for gay marriage. I am not.


47 posted on 03/27/2013 8:56:57 AM PDT by Noamie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion
This is only a problem because some ‘bright’ legislator decided to put marriage into the tax code to conduct his own social engineering experiment.

Question: Why shouldn't the source of citizens be given a tax break? Tax breaks are given all of the time for other certain beneficial activities to society (i.e. charity)

48 posted on 03/27/2013 8:57:36 AM PDT by frogjerk (Obama: Government by Freakout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“can you defend your accusation that I am a Stalinist?”

Don’ take it personally. I don’t think you are a Stalinist. Just misguided on this subject. You won’t find anywhere in the constitution that government should incentivize or take any ‘interest’ in procreation. In China, for example, it’s a different story and over there you’ll find that the ‘state’ takes a lot of ‘interest’ in this activity.


49 posted on 03/27/2013 8:57:56 AM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I think the best result is to find no standing in federal court and let the California Supreme Court ruling stand. That then leaves it up to the pro-Same Sex Marriage to pass a new referendum.


50 posted on 03/27/2013 9:01:06 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-124 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson