The fundamental definition of marriage should not be up to the states or the courts. Calling up down doesn’t make it so. Ordered liberty means there are some key values held by all.
I’ll still support Cruz, but he does not go far enough on gay marriage. He is not a fraud as others may try to paint him. His position has been consistent.
What does that mean?
Are you saying that government shouldn't be involved in sanctioning marriage in any way? If so, that's certainly a reasonable, if purist-libertarian, position.
But as it stands, and as has been the case for a couple hundred years, marriage has civil implications. So it seems to me that fidelity to the Constitution dictates that IF marriage is to be sanctioned by the state, as marriage is not a federally enumerated power, the 10th Amendment should prevail. That is, it should be up the states.
Let's try it this way. If the state of Vermont, through its elected representatives, decided to allow faggots to marry each other - what authority do you propose would prevent it from doing so?
Hank