|
 |
Posted on 02/12/2015 8:38:15 AM PST by SoConPubbie
Sen. Ted Cruz is again putting down a marker in defense of traditional marriage, introducing a bill aimed at protecting states' rights in the same-sex marriage debate.
On Tuesday, Cruz re-introduced the State Marriage Defense Act, which would prevent the federal government from asserting its own definition of marriage on the 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 statement announcing the bill.
"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," he said.
Eleven senators -- John Boozman of Arkansas, Mike Crapo of Idaho, Steve Daines of Montana, James Inhofe and James Lankford of Oklahoma, Mike Lee of Utah, Pat Roberts of Kansas, Tim Scott of South Carolina, Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby of Alabama and David Vitter of Louisiana --- have cosponsored the bill. Texas Rep. Randy Weber introduced a partner bill in the House, which has 22 cosponsors.
It would effectively nullify the marriages of same-sex couples who married in one state and moved to another state where such unions were illegal. Currently, the federal government recognizes, and provides many benefits for, same-sex couples married in a state where gay marriage is legal, no matter where they move.
(Excerpt) Read more at click2houston.com ...
|
|
CRUZ or LOSE!I’d love to see a bill passed which removed the issue of marriage from Federal court jurisdiction.
Ask “what peg has nearly every infringement of states’ rights been hung on?”
And you know the answer - “civil rights”.
The left has been good at framing the states as “civil rights violators in waiting” if the fed doesn’t step in and keep them from doing it.
Good for him, it is about time someone stood up to the homostapo, left radical wing and, the feds.
Everything to the left is about rights while forcing others to accept their agenda.
We don’t need a bill.
Marriage is not addressed in the Constitution. As such, the Federal government has no jurisdiction over it.
All it would take is for the states to say FU.
Throwing the black-robed tyrants in the slammer would be a bonus.
What the hell is our side lawyers doing in court?
I have been saying for years now that it is not a Constitutional right to marry and yet our side seems not able to articulate this nor can they state how they have the same rights as us.
We can’t marry the same sex but can marry the opposite sex just like them, therefore they have the same rights as us anyway.
and yes the states need to say FU.
We DON’T NEED a bill like this.
The first amendment guarantees Christians do not have to celebrate such behavior.
The Tenth amendment guarantees the states and their people have jurisdiction over these matters.
The 14th amendment guarantees that VOTERS in states that decide to protect traditional marriage have equal protection.
Courts have routinely ignored the CONSTITUTION. We don’t need a bill; we need courts that follow the law of the land.
Everything to the left is about rights while forcing others to accept their agenda.
Homosexuals represent only about 1-2% of the population, and were shamed and imprisoned for their disgusting behavior until a few short years ago. They’re not really the problem here. It’s the apparent millions of depraved Americans who have been indoctrinated to embrace the behavior.
And anybody who claims there’s nothing wrong with the behavior is obviously non-Christian. God is not neutral regarding sin. He’s declared in no uncertain terms that unrepentant homosexuals will be cast into hell, and at the very least their behavior should be shamed and proscribed. Our nation apparently now refuses to do so, so we’re having God’s wrath fall on us. Our formerly rich and prosperous nation is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy, $18 trillion in debt. So, far from being a “victimless” crime, our whole nation is paying for support of homosexuality.
True and you put it better than I.
Yeah, but Cruz’s objective is to bolster his standing among the Evangelicals ahead of 2016. The fact that you’re right isn’t germane to Cruz’s presidential unicorn dreams.
As it presently stands under the Constitution, each state can decide whether to prohibit or allow gay marriage, ultimately depending on what a state’s legal majority voters want.
And Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which is justified under the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause, Clause 1 of Article IV, indicates that the states are not required to give effect to gay marriage from another state.
DOMA Section 2. Powers reserved to the states No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
But if patriots want all states to be required to prohibit any kind of marriage except for traditional one man, one woman marriage then the states must amend the Constitution to prohibit all other types of “marriage.”
I’m inclined to think that pro-gay activist justices decided to “test” the constitutionality of gay marriage just so that they could legislate the so-called “right” to gay marriage from the bench.
I also suspect the gay marriage case now being decided is an Alsinky-type deception where state attorneys are possibly working in cahoots with activist justices, state attorneys possibly presenting weak arguments to defend their state’s prohibition on gay marriage.
Very true!
Yet others are shoveling LOTS of snow in Red England. Another storm is heading their way this weekend, along with howling wind and ice-cold temperatures.
“As it presently stands under the Constitution, each state can decide whether to prohibit or allow gay marriage, ultimately depending on what a state’s legal majority voters want.”
Although that may be what “stands under the Constitution”, that is not what is happening.
The citizens of Alabama overwhelming voted in 2006, 81%, that marriage is between a man and a woman, which is being equated with desegregation in the 1960s.
Hi SoFloFreeper. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at pro-gay activist judges and justices who are hiding behind PC interpretations of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protections Clause (EPC) to justify gay marriage.
Contrary to what pro-gay activist judges and justices want everybody to believe about the constitutionality of gay marriage, some scratching on the EPC as it relates to 10th Amendment power to regulate marriage has shown that the Supreme Court has historically clarified that EPC relates to violators of state marriage laws as follows.
To begin with, the congressional record indicates that concern was expressed about how 14th Amendment would affect unique state power to regulate marriage, one lawmaker expressing that he wanted his state to retain the right to prohibit interracial marriage.
“I have no fault lo find with the colored race. I have not the slightest antipathy to them. I wish them well, and if I were in a State where they exist in large numbers I would vote to give them every right enjoyed by the white people except the right of a negro man to marry a white woman [emphasis added] and the right to vote.” — Rep. Andrew J. Rogers, 39th Congress, Congressional Globe, 1866 . (See top half of last column.)
So did the ratified 14th Amendment with its EPC prohibit the states from exercising their unique, 10th Amendment-protected power to regulate marriage, including regulating / prohibiting certain types of cohabitation? The Supreme Court’s decision in Pace v. Alabama (1883) clearly indicates that it did not.
More specifically, the Court didn’t buy an interracial couple’s argument that their relationship was protected by the EPC, but clarified that what the EPC actually did for them with respect to breaking the marriage / cohabitation law was to guarantee that they were equally punished. Here’s Justice Field’s explanation.
The counsel is undoubtedly correct in his view of the purpose of the clause of the amendment in question -- that it was to prevent hostile and discriminating state legislation against any person or class of persons. Equality of protection under the laws implies not only accessibility by each one, whatever his race, on the same terms with others to the courts of the country for the security of his person and property, but that in the administration of criminal justice, he shall not be subjected for the same offense to any greater or different punishment [emphasis added]. Such was the view of Congress in the reenactment of the Civil Rights Act of May 31, 1870, c. 114, after the adoption of the amendment. That act, after providing that all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right, in every state and territory, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, declares, in sec. 16, that they shall be subject”to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.”— Pace v. Alabama, 1883 .
Note that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment where the EPC is found, is also the main author of the quoted language from the Civil Rights Act of 1870 referenced in the excerpt above.
So pro-gay activist justices are unsurprisingly wrongly ignoring 10th Amendment-protected power to regulate marrige as evidenced by Supreme Court case precedent concerning the EPC and marriage / cohabitation.
Note that Pace v. Alabama was later overturned after Constitution-ignoring FDR had “nuked” the Supreme Court with 10th Amendment-ignoring activist justices.
I choose the man who has won 3 elections in 4 years and has led a Renaissance among the Rust Belt states.
And he’s a certified US citizen to boot. :-)
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.