Posted on 10/06/2014 3:23:04 PM PDT by BurningOak
WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, today issued the following statement regarding the Supreme Court’s decision to reject requests from five States to review state laws that prohibit same-sex marriage.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to let rulings by lower court judges stand that redefine marriage is both tragic and indefensible,” said Sen. Cruz. “By refusing to rule if the States can define marriage, the Supreme Court is abdicating its duty to uphold the Constitution. The fact that the Supreme Court Justices, without providing any explanation whatsoever, have permitted lower courts to strike down so many state marriage laws is astonishing.
“This is judicial activism at its worst. The Constitution entrusts state legislatures, elected by the People, to define marriage consistent with the values and mores of their citizens. Unelected judges should not be imposing their policy preferences to subvert the considered judgments of democratically elected legislatures.
“The Supreme Court is, de facto, applying an extremely broad interpretation to the 14th Amendment without saying a word – an action that is likely to have far-reaching consequences. Because of the Court’s decision today, 11 States will likely now be forced to legalize same-sex marriage: Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Utah, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming. And this action paves the way for laws prohibiting same-sex marriage to be overturned in any state.
(Excerpt) Read more at cruz.senate.gov ...
This is it. Americans must stand up. Ted Cruz has my vote but two and a half years from now is too late and a dollar short. America must take to the streets and resist now. Federal Marriage Amendment needs to be introduced TODAY.
Not that I think it would happen but if one state refused to honor the decision, whats the worst that could happen?
What if Oklahoma said “No...you do not have the right to overturn our Constitution.”
You do not have authority over this issue.
Period.
Might get real interesting real fast.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again and I’ll keep saying it as long as it is necessary that ...
TED CRUZ IS A ONCE IN A GENERATION AND PERHAPS LIFETIME SUPERSTAR LEADER WHO IS SO QUICK IN HIS THINKING AND POLITICAL INSTINCTS THAT HE WILL TAKE HIS PLACE BESIDE RONALD REAGAN AS THE ICON OF CONSERVATISM.
HE IS DESTINED TO BE PRESIDENT; NOTHING CAN STOP IT.
That is exactly where Ted Cruz should be!
Nothing but our apathy, defeatism and inaction, that is.
BTTT
Oklahoma receives billions in federal dollars. Obama would make a friendly call to the governor and remind him where social security checks come from. A state must achieve financial independence from Washington before it can start saying no to the black robbed tyrants.
BTTT!
Man I hope you're right, but I'm looking at a country that elected obama twice! The GOPe just wants to go along and the millennials are more libertarian than conservative. I'm not sure the USA has the character to elect a strong, smart Christian conservative.
I hope you’re right. We need a hero!
I disagree with you, he will be greater than Reagan. Never forget that Reagan appointed turncoats on the court are the reason we are in this situation today. That said, I pray for his election, but the nation has changed, are there enough God loving patriots left to elect such a man?
Oklahoma has a woman governor. Speaking of GOP war on women, per Democrat criteria, Oklahoma has a woman Republican governor. How can this be, if the GOP has a war against women????
Sen Cruz is doing what the GOPe Leaders aren’t...not surrendering to leftists on any issue.
States don’t have to surrender either. Ignore these judges and not issue these licences or even better stop issueing marriage licences period.
Not quite yet:
I’m seeing it.
Good to hear. Missouri voluntarily surrendering without court order was infuriating.
As evidenced by the Supreme Court's strange silence, imo, about the constitutionality of controversial gay marriage, I sometimes wonder what is actually going on behind closed doors in legal circles concerning gay marriage. I wonder if so-called anti-gay marriage states are actually working in cahoots with pro-gay activist justices, these states possibly making anti-gay marriage laws as pawns for judges to strike down and for activist justices to ignore, both sides of the fence actually wanting to promote gay marriage? (Isn't this a Marxist / Alsinki-type stategy?)
Gay marriage is unconstitutional for the following simple reason imo. The states have never amended the Constitution to specifically protect so-called gay “rights,” such as gay marriage. This means two things under the Constitution.
The Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about things like marriage means that such issues are uniquely state power issues.
Since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage, gay marriage is not a constitutionally protected right.
Also, regardless what the corrupt media wants everybody to think about the Supreme Court's decision concerning DOMA, Section 2 of DOMA is still in effect. Section 2 is reasonably based on Congress's Article IV, Section 1 power, the Full Faith and Credit clause, to regulate the effect of one state's records in the other states, and gives the states the power to ignore gay marriages recognized in other states. But Section 2 is wrongly being ignored by both judges and justices imo.
DOMA Section 2. Powers reserved to the statesNo 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.
So the states are free to make 10th Amendment-protected laws which discriminate against constitutionally unprotected gay “rights,” such as gay marriage imo, as long as such laws don’t unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
Again, the troubling question is why are legal professionals who are supposed to be protecting state laws prohibiting gay marriage evidently not arguing the above points in defense of such laws?
I know what you are saying. But Reagan had a democrat Congress to contend with. And he could not foresee how the Left would control the Courts all the way to the top. Homosexual normalization was not even on the radar in his time.
We have the benefit of hindsight.
Your criticism of Ronald Reagan for his decisions is analogous to criticizing the Founders for not outlawing slavery in the final draft of the Constitution.
But I have also remarked in the past year that Ted Cruz could surpass Ronald Reagan. I am impressed with this knowledge and quickness. You see what he has done today. He’s been doing these kinds of responses since the first day he was in office. And his words are his words, not the words conforming with poll data.
Still I give RR the greatest respect because he was the first to take on the establishment, the Left and Communism.
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.