Ted Cruz: Gay Marriage Rulings 'Danger to Our Liberty'

newsmax ^ | 11 Mar 2015 02:59 PM | Andrea Billups

[SoConPubbie]

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz lashed out at same-sex marriages Monday, telling radio station WHO that he plans to introduce a constitutional amendment that would allow individual states to ban such unions, The Huffington Post reported.

"We have seen judges, and especially the Supreme Court, ignoring the law," Cruz told WHO host Jan Mickelson.

"If the courts were following the Constitution, we shouldn't need a new amendment, but they are, as you put it quite rightly, 'making it up' right now and it's a real danger to our liberty," Cruz added.

Cruz has been both blunt and outspoken on what he describes as a national "assault" on traditional marriages. It is a social issue that sets him apart from others who may be pondering entering the 2016 GOP presidential field, the Des Moines Register noted.

. . . . .

Cruz in February introduced legislation, the State Marriage Defense Act, that would keep the federal government from offering recognition of same-sex marriages in those states that continue to ban them. It has the support of 11 other senators.

"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.

"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."

[EternalVigilance]

Going to all that trouble to amend the Constitution just to say that the states CAN ban fake sodomite “marriage,” but not that they MUST?

What a colossal waste of time, energy and money.

[Monorprise]

We can’t amend the federal Constitution every time Federal employees decide to rewrite it. We need to address the corruption of the Federal ‘court’.

We do that and their usperations can be reversed, We don’t do that, and no amendment we pass will really mean anything in the long run.

[Jim Noble]

Ex parte McCardle is what you're looking for.

[Monorprise]

“Going to all that trouble to amend the Constitution just to say that the states CAN ban fake sodomite “marriage,” but not that they MUST?

What a colossal waste of time, energy and money.”

Marrage is a domesic institution, that makes it a state not federal consern, which should be left there. That said your right it is a wast of time, in that the Corrupt Federal employees will simply rewrite the amendment in a few decades to achieve the same effect.

You can’t have a Federal Constitutional Government when hand picked Federal employees can dictate and redictate what that constitution means on a whim.

That is called rule of men not law, and the difference is the change in meaning & practice those Federal employees demand after 150+ years in complete defiance of common law jurisprudence, as well as the text of the law.

Either we abolish and stop this form of dictatorial behavior or there won’t be a point to amending the constitution only they can ‘read’.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Why should the government be involved in marriage?

Ummmm...because married couples create beautiful, stable families who later become productive members of society, and in turn create more beautiful, stable families.

Go to any inner-city hell-hole and see what happens when families become non-existent.

[EternalVigilance]

The correct amendment, one that recognizes only one man one woman marriage anywhere throughout American government, would be far less susceptible of being twisted by anyone.

[Monorprise]

“The Founding States made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about things like marriage mean that such issues are automatically and uniquely state power issues. So I am concerned that Cruz’s suggestion for a constitutional marriage amendment which gives the states powers that they have already retained for themselves is seemingly trying to turn the Constitution into powers delegated to the states. The Founding States made the federal Constitution primarily to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.”

It is the Federal employee’s in black robes that have been making the Federal Constitution into little more than an enumeration of Power of the State rather than Federal Government.

Ted Cruz is simply playing their game. Unfourntatly there is no possible way to retain a Constitutional republic when its own subject employees can on a whim redefine the text of that Constitution. Overtime the Federal employees will simply continue to do what they’ve already chosen to do over the past century and rewrite the Constitution into whatever they want piece by piece, case by case. In other words rule of men, men who happen to wear black robes and claim the title of judge, even as they act like legislators changing laws 150+ years old to the effect massive change in Society.

The truth is short of dealing with this problem, changing the text of the Federal Constitution is meaningless.

[Monorprise]

“The correct amendment, one that recognizes only one man one woman marriage anywhere throughout American government, would be far less susceptible of being twisted by anyone.”

I agree, and for a few decades the Federal employees may even been obliged to observe such language, but there is more than one way to make an omelet particularly when they can rewrite any other text, to achieve the ideological and political goals of the injustices on the federal ‘court’. We have seen it before both at the Federal, and State level (remember the behavior of the California ‘courts’?).

Leftist in this country over the last 100 years have crafted an entirely new ‘legal’ ideoligy designed to empower them and their hand picked ‘judges’ to make law without the people.

[WIBamian]

Remember October, 2014?

This is the month that Governor Walker from Wisconsin stated he would work to implement gay marriage in Wisconsin.

When Walker spoke to the millions of Conservatives in Wisconsin who opposed gay marriage, he said, "For us, it's over in Wisconsin".

Is this the man Conservatives want to lead the nation as President of the United States?

Gay marriages to resume in Wisconsin as Supreme Court rejects appeals

[EternalVigilance]

I’ve said it many times, but I’ll say it again: This free republic cannot possibly be saved unless and until we learn to tell lawless judges to go to hell.

[EternalVigilance]

Is this the man Conservatives want to lead the nation as President of the United States?

Not me.

[eyeamok]

Thank you, that’s the case, too bad nobody in Congress can read any more.

[nonliberal]

It's qute a bit simpler than that.

Let's use this as an example: Baptists say that they will only perform and recognize marriages of one man and one woman. Fine. That is their right as a denomination.

Presbyterians say that they will perform and recognize marriages between one man and one woman but they will also perform and recognize same sex marriage. Fine. That is their right as a denomination.

The problem arises when the government stepped in and recognized the marriage of the baptists and not the marriage of the presbyterians. That is a blatant violation of equal protection and not even CLOSE to being Constitutional. See the problem? The government stepped in where it didn't belong.

[nonliberal]

Apples and oranges.

What about those of us who don't have (and quite frankly, don't really want) kids? And I am not talking about family breakdown here. I am talking about an overreaching government sticking its nose in marriage. The family breakdown is a result of the same overreach but is a different issue.