Posted on 04/16/2015 12:35:56 PM PDT by VinL
Neither Sens. Rand Paul nor Marco Rubio signed a friend-of-the-court brief asking the Supreme Court to allow the question of marriage to be decided by the states. Ted Cruz is the only announced presidential candidate from the Senate who’s signed the brief which was joined by 57 members of congress, but only only six Senators.
The brief argues that that — based on the ideas of Federalism — the issue of marriage has traditionally been left to the states and that is where the Supreme Court ought to let it stay. “[O]ut of deference to the States as separate sovereigns in our system of federalism, this Court should be reluctant to intrude into areas of traditional state concern, especially the law of marriage and domestic relations,” the brief argues.
The brief quotes the recent Windsor decision where “this Court emphasized the States’ authority to define and regulate the marriage relation without interference from federal courts.”
The states have traditionally been viewed as the “laboratories of democracy” and therefore the issue of marriage needs to be worked out there, the brief argues:
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Astute analysis.
With 95 percent of the GOP either faking or repudiating conservatism, a third party seems the only option in many cases.
But I support Cruz for president and Cruz only. Rubio, Walker and others are acceptable to the Establishment which means they are mushy in the end and will keep moving the country in the wrong direction.
Walker did the right thing in Wisconsin with the unions and I sent him money to help. But the business elites oppose the unions like I do for their own reasons and Walker pleased them too.
This man has my vote whether or not he’s the Republican nominee.
Right now, he’s the only candidate I’d cross the street to vote for.
This presents its own problems.
To start off with, marriage is a religious sacrament, which the government has long tried to take over, offering incentives to married couples, then mandating that only the government can make a couple “legally” married.
For the conservative and Orthodox churches, a far better solution would be to try and take back their sacrament with an ecumenical agreement. The most important part of which is to *not* recognize secular marriage made outside of this pact.
This would make marriage either religious or secular again.
As before, purely religious marriages would have to shun any government benefits bestowed on married couples; which would mean that government would at first *only* give benefits to secular married people.
But then, there would be pressure for government to discontinue benefits solely because a couple were married.
It took a very long time for us to get to this point, so a fix won’t come overnight. But if you want it done right, it is better to be slow and methodical about things.
chickens buk buk buk baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaak
Thanks for the ping, and glad to support a man like Ted Cruz that supports us!!
Absolutely.
I don’t get it. Gay marriage is a states rights issue if there ever was one.
Rubio’s Amnesty baggage is already more than enough to be showstopper for president - but coming out in support of gay marriage. PAAA-LEEEASE.
(and I used to like him)
I disagree. I'm glad they are in both in the race and I'm going to enjoy both of their candidacies. However there is no chance that I'd ever support or even vote for either of them because they obviously don't fear God.
Thank God for Cruz!
I have thought often about one of the proposed Libertarian perennial proposals, just to eliminate marriage as a secular concept at all.
It has a surface appeal, but on deeper thinking on that I decided it was not a great idea. It is another step is breaking the family, it aligns with the libertarian ideal of hyper-individuality, so I can see why they like it. Each person would have an individual 1 on 1 relationship with the government, the family would be legislated out of existence.
A stay at home Mom would have to file her own tax return. A lot of divorce judges would be out of business, I guess.
Anyway that's not going to happen, so it's mere speculation, I guess.
Marriage creates a vital biological advantage for humans.
In all animals, the male objective is for his DNA to continue in his offspring, through as many females as possible. But females have two objectives: the best male DNA for their offspring, which may include different male DNA for different offspring; and to have the help of a male provider to help her raise her offspring.
But monogamous marriage has a big advantage over this, in that by agreeing to limit it to one female, there is a much greater chance of any offspring with his DNA. For her part, limiting it to one male is in exchange for the same male to provide for her offspring.
And the children of marriage get a huge advantage, in that with two parents they are raised on a “success” mode of behavior. With a single parent, they are raised with a “survival” mode, which means a 60% higher chance of their being a criminal offender.
Leftists have long looked at the corruptions of marriage, the dowry and forced marriage, and concluded that all marriage is just a social “contrivance” which should be discarded.
However, marriage does have a weakness as well. It is that it must be a “socially enforced” contract. That once a couple are married they are “hands off” to other people under penalty of law.
Since government is unwilling or unable to socially enforce marriage, religion intervened to protect it (a very long time ago), making it sacred, so that to interfere with it would break not just the secular law, but the religious law as well.
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.