Cruz: Amend U.S. Constitution to Preserve Marriage Bans

Texas Tribune ^ | Oct. 6, 2014 | Aman Batheja

[SoConPubbie]

div class="photo_caption">U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz in an interview with The Washington Post's Dan Balz at The Texas Tribune Festival on Sept. 20, 2014.

Hours after the U.S. Supreme Court paved the way for same-sex marriage bans to be lifted in five states, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz called Monday for amending the U.S. Constitution to prevent either the federal government or the U.S. Supreme Court from overturning a state's ban on same-sex marriage.

Cruz announced his plans in a statement Monday in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to let stand appeals court rulings allowing same-sex marriages in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. Cruz called the court's decision to let those rulings stand "tragic and indefensible" and expressed concern that it would lead to the overturning of same-sex marriage bans in every state.

Like other statewide Republican officials in Texas, Cruz has been an ardent defender of the state's same-sex marriage ban, which was approved by Texas voters as an amendment to the Texas Constitution in 2005. The Texas ban was ruled unconstitutional by a U.S. District Judge in February. The state immediately appealed that ruling to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

"When Congress returns to session, I will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws," Cruz said. “Traditional marriage is an institution whose integrity and vitality are critical to the health of any society. We should remain faithful to our moral heritage and never hesitate to defend it.”

[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

[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!

[SoConPubbie]

This will separate the Men from the Boys where conservatism is concerned.

[Responsibility2nd]

God Bless Ted Cruz.

While he’s at it, he should introduce an Amendment stating that life begins at conception.

[demshateGod]

We should call it the 10th amendment.

[BeadCounter]

I’d sure welcome this to happen if possible.

[SoConPubbie]

We should call it the 10th amendment.

Unless it is written specifically into the Constitution where Marriage is concerned, the cowards and evil justices on the Supreme Court will simply ignore it and pretend it doesn't mean what it was meant to.

Sorry, but the only remedy is to deal with it explicitly in the constitution, or deal with it specifically with force.

That is where we are at.

This one issue will separate the sheep from the goats.

[ScottinVA]

I like his stance on the matter, but that ship has sailed, unfortunately.

[knarf]

Marriage is not a Constitutional issue.

It's a state of being for the purpose of propagating the race.

It's a vow from one human to another and two human females .. or two human males .. cannot propagate children, so it can only mean a vow between a natural man and a natural woman

Ted's wrong on this one.

Politics does not nor cannot, address all human conditions

[eekitsagreek]

So what you are saying is that nothing can be done?

[SoConPubbie]

Ted's wrong on this one.

Then I take you think the founders were wrong as well, because NONE of them were against the state level bans on Sodomy or statutes on marriage that existed at the state level at that time.

[SoConPubbie]

I like his stance on the matter, but that ship has sailed, unfortunately.

Bull!

Only if you believe the polls and only if you give up.

Prohibition was in favor at one time, so was slavery.

Public perception and positions on Major issues change throughout history.

Furthermore, there is always a constitutional convention, and finally, force.

[sr4402]

The US Supreme Court is Shameful! Overturning state constitutions especially on Marriage by the Federal Appeals court is no way to make law.

Glad this is right before an Election so we can voice our Displeasure to corrupting administration.

[nicepaco]

The supremes will not be bound by some new words in the Constitution. It means nothing to anyone save a few quaint historians.

[SoConPubbie]

The supremes will not be bound by some new words in the Constitution. It means nothing to anyone save a few quaint historians.

Then we are left with only one recourse, force.

[Responsibility2nd]

Ted’s wrong on this one.

____________________________________

So you agree with the Supreme Court’s desision to overturn State Laws against queer marriage?

If State and Federal Laws mean nothing, then all we have left is the Constitution.

[Bettyprob]

I’m sure the Democrats in the U.S. House, U.S. Senate and in various state legislatures will get right on this.

[BeadCounter]

Who is wrong on this is obviously the SCOTUS and for years and years, States have regulated marriage, now SCOTUS comes in and overturns State Law. That is what is wrong.

“When Congress returns to session, I will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws,”

So this would require a Constitutional Convention?? Sounds like it or something of that nature. Ratification by states.

[Paine in the Neck]

The Constitution doesn’t need amending to preserve traditional marriage. The 10th Amendment handles it. What we need is a Supreme Court that recognizes that the federal government has over-reached or, failing that, a Congress that is willing to use its impeachment and removal powers on judges who fail in their Constitutional duties.

[I know. We’re screwed.]

[BeadCounter]

Exactly, the SCOTUS is taking WAY more power than what the Founding Fathers set them up to do, the system of checks and balances is not working.

Was California’s vote to ban same-sex marriage overturned by just one Judge? Or even if it was 3 federal judges, see, that’s not how the system is suppose to work.

That one Judge upheld Louisiana’s ban. Maybe that’s one state that can stick with it.