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 ...
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.
“For gays 6-3[Alito, Thomas, Scalia].
Roberts and Kennedy will side with the others”
DITTO.
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.
This guy looks better and better.
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.
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.
“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.
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)
“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.
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.
The people of my state already decided 60/40 against it. However we also decided against affirmative racism but that’s going to the supreme court too.
It’s the old Baptists and bootleggers argument.
How about in the Declaration where Life is enumerated specifically (as the primary) as an unalienable right? That would seem to indicate that government the founders were to found is indeed interested in incentivizing procreation.
“Tax breaks are given all of the time for other certain beneficial activities to society”
Right. And the central planners decide what’s beneficial. The problem of course is that they are all marxists.
So now they have decided that gay marriage is beneficial and they wanna shove it down your throat, when in fact they never should have gotten involved in the first place.
Funny thing is same sex couples cannot create babies...and teachers in public schools depend on students in classes!!”
But I’m sure that the rates for their Obamacare plan would be reduced since it would not have to include any funds to cover birth control, abortion or maternity benefits. /s/
Ok, so lets roll back the clock - how do you propose or when exactly did the "government get into the marriage business"?
I repeat: in a communist state the state OWNS the children (and the parents.)
I’m interested in fishing. I don’t claim to own the fish.
In a republic, as we’re supposed to be (but aren’t), the government has legitimate areas of interest as spelled out by the very nature of being a government. In ours, those areas of interest are spelled out in the constitution.
The preamble clearly defines the over-arching goal of the ensuing constitutional provisions. One of those is to “promote for the general welfare.”
That would be saying that “in general, we are interested in lots of things that end with good results instead of bad results.”
Under the specific authorities granted to Congress is this: “provide for the ...general Welfare of the United States”.
The 5th amendment suggests areas in which government will be involved by limiting its involvement: No person shall ...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
The government has no legitimate interest in my emotional feelings. It does have an interest in little kids running around with or without direction and support.
Having either the federal or state governments regulate marriage is not anybody’s preference. Sen. Cruz is talking like he does not understand the Founding States’ division of federal and state government powers.
The Founding States made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about things like marriage, abortion, euthenasia, etc., means that such issues are automatically uniquely state power issues. State power to regulate euthanasia, for example, is basically why the Supreme Court did not interfere in the Terri Shiavo case imo.
I don’t think so. Government has no business telling people that they should procreate. This is not an activity that should be regulated.
People should be free to do what they want with their lives and they shouldn’t get tax breaks because they happen to agree with the marxists in charge.
No, I think of marriage as a sacred institution. I believe that no fault divorce laws have done tremendous damage to our nation. Of course, if Christians actually held their marriage vows to be as sacred as they are, we wouldn’t have no fault divorce or it wouldn’t matter much.
My point is that government has really never heavily regulated marriage. The union of one man and one woman, as instituted by God, was correctly viewed both by religious people and secular people as the foundation of the family and of society and therefore worthy of legal recognition. The also realized that it made sense to treat the two people as a single unit for many purposes.
Government simply understood this and therefore registered marriages, normally peformed by churches, and gave the married couple appropriate treatment under the law. It also took on the role of handling divorces.
I believe that Bible believing churches should begin to require any couple wishing to marry in their churches to sign an iron clad, pre-nuptial agreement, based upon the Biblical view of marriage. For example, anyone divorcing their spouse for reasons other than adultery or abandonment would get nothing.
Those who marry outside of such an agreement should be considered fornicators.
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.