Posted on 03/27/2013 7:44:30 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Sen. Ted Cruz said Tuesday that he was against same sex marriage and hoped the U.S. Supreme Court would continue to let individual states grapple with the issue. “I support traditional marriage between one man and one woman,” Cruz said after speaking to the Richardson Chamber of Commerce. “The Constitution leaves it to the states to decide upon marriage and I hope the Supreme Court respects centuries of tradition and doesn’t step into the process of setting aside state laws that make the definition of marriage.”
Currently federal law defines marriage and the union of a man and a woman. But the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments today on California’s ban on same-sex marriage. And on Wednesday the high court will take up the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the Bill Clinton-era law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Polls show that over the decades more Americans, including Republicans, are beginning to support the concept of same-sex marriage.
Cruz, a Republican from Houston, has captivated conservative and tea party followers with his aggressive support of principles involving state’s rights, smaller government and the Constitutional rights of individual Americans.
At the Richardson Chamber luncheon, he said he was against efforts in Congress to mandate additional background checks on gun buyers.
“We will oppose moving to proceed on any bill that strips Second Amendment rights for law abiding citizens,” Cruz said.
(Excerpt) Read more at trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ...
Would THAT answer be on google?
I am too exhausted to even enter it.
Now, maybe I should be insulted. I was forced by state law to be tested for VD and now gays don't have to? Where is the logic in that?
This is all way beyond stinking.
“Fact is this is a STATE issue. What is there to discuss?????”
Whether a state that DOES NOT recognize or allow a homosexual union/marriage in their juridiction should have to recognize one done in another state?
Hence the necessity of DOMA. Because of “full faith and credit” in the COTUS, it makes it an important issue that goes beyong a state’s borders.
What good is it for one state to forbid or not recognize a homosexual union IF a “couple” can cross state lines to get recognized elsewhere and then come back home?
Personnally, I don’t think ANY state should be able to have homosexual marriage that confers the same benefits/rights that hetereosexual marriage does for tax and other reasons.
Our states going to have to institute “reciprocity” agreements between states on all marriages because of the homosexuals? I am afraid so. Maybe we need to do so. I have never liked “Vegas” marriages anyway. It is a problem though.
DOMA needs to stand to prevent chaos.
“provide for the ...general Welfare of the United States”
After that, the Constitution goes on to enumerate powers for the federal government. Those powers are enumerated to “promote the general welfare”. The Preamble is not a grant of power. That slippery slope has caused a lot of harm. It’s the reason the federal government literally pays women to have children out of wedlock. Let’s not try to wield that particular ring of power for our own ends.
“Government simply understood this and therefore registered marriages, normally peformed by churches”
Exactly. The problem is that Christians are now a minority in this country and the government definition of marriage is evolving into something that Christians don’t recognize or support. The only solution here is to remove government from the equation. Otherwise, gay marriage will become the law of the land and polygamy, etc.. will likely follow.
DOMA shouldn’t be necessary. The Full Faith and Credit Clause should not require a state to recognize contrary legislation from another state. Even the gay marriage advocates aren’t really trying that tactic, though it might actually work with a liberal enough judiciary. They are proceeding under equal protection and due process arguments, which will invalidate DOMA, if successful.
The preamble, in this instance, ties specifically to an enumberated power of Congress in Art I, Sect 8:
Under the enumerated powers granted to Congress is this: “provide for the ...general Welfare of the United States”.
1st sentence, iirc.
I’m curious. If a man and a woman stand in front of a secular figure like a judge, say some oaths that do not involve God, and register a piece of paper, what have they actually done? Are they “married”? If so, what does that even mean? I have never understood atheistic or non-religious or whatever the term is “marriage”. What is the point? I mean for the individuals, not the state. That’s a separate question.
I guess the answer is: who all could or might ask you for a copy of your marriage certificate? Proof? The IRS? An employer? An adoption agency? Any others?
Read that way we do not have a government of enumerated powers. Anything at all could fall under that, like Obamacare. They can’t “Promote the General Welfare” by doing anything other than exercising the powers they have been granted. It’s a restatement of why certain powers are being granted; the power to tax in the instance of Article I, Section 8. Reading things into the Constitution that aren’t there is how we got some really bad decisions.
While I see where you’re coming from, the state does have practical, passive interest in procreation, mainly for purposes of military and taxes. If you have way too many old people and few young people, problems can arise. For instance, if a draft were instituted, you’d need to have a certain amount of people eligible to defend the country. It is a passive interest though. They cannot do things like China has done.
But if he wants states to decide it, isn’t he saying that he’s AGAINST the Defense of Marriage Act?
I am trying to approach this from a legal and constitional framework. Marriage (like drivers licenses) is regulated by the states.
The liberals now use the 14th Amendment to justify everything under the sun, even though its only intent was to confer the same rights to newly freed slaves as everyone else.
Funny thing is same sex couples cannot create babies...and teachers in public schools depend on students in classes!!
Devil’s Advocate: What happens when technology gets to the point where a baby can be created from two parent’s DNA and gestated in an artifical womb?
That would be good in that abortion could be ended as the baby fetus could be transplanted to the artifical womb to finish it’s term.
But bad in that your argument against gay marrige would be nullified, well at least that particular argument.
“While I see where you’re coming from, the state does have practical, passive interest in procreation”
I agree and that’s the problem. That’s why the ‘state’ is now pushing gay marriage. It didn’t make sense before but now you have technology like in-vitro fertilization that allows gay people to procreate. This line of argument will inevitably lead to gay marriage and to polygamy, I hope you can see that.
You forgot OR TO THE PEOPLE
Think about this: Once the Courts decide a marriage is no longer between ONE man and ONE woman, there is an ARMY of prolific Muslims here ready to spawn from harems.
They will just work around it like they do in the UK...
But yeah, I can see this being an issue.
Aside from making sure I don’t marry my sister, or first cousin, I can find no reason for the state to be involved at all.
Lets have a serious conversation:
Devil’s Advocate: Why should the state be allowed to prevent you from marrying your sister or first cousin? What if they are infertile? Wouldn’t this be a restriction of your pursuit of happiness?
Buit the state could MAKE you buy a Banjo that you have to wear around all of the time as a TAX....
Thanks Just-us Roberts....
Of course, as we have all learned in the past days, nothing we do or vote on (prop 8) is valid! /s
I was just thinking about you as I read the title of this post and here you are! :)
Yeah, so did we....twice. When the first ballot measure passed, the LGBT community set out with their petitions again. The result was Prop 8. We won that, too. 52-47. LGBT tried the petitions again and got nowhere so off to court they went.
And here we are, at the USSC, and waiting for THEIR decision while OURS is being ignored!
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.