Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ted Cruz to introduce constitutional amendment on gay marriage after Supreme Court ducks appeals
Hotair ^ | 10/07/2014 | AllahPundit

Posted on 10/07/2014 1:35:58 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

“Putting the paddles on the chest of a divisive issue with absolutely no hope of the outcome he promises is a hallmark of Ted Cruz,” says GOP consultant Rick Wilson acidly, the memory of last year’s doomed “defund” effort firmly in mind. Okay, but the fine print on what Cruz wants to do is interesting. Typically when social conservatives start talking up amendments aimed at gay marriage, they’re thinking of a substantive change — namely, a new law of the land that says marriage involves one man and one woman and no other combination. Once that’s in the Constitution, even courts can’t mess with it. (I think!) As The Atlantic notes, though, Cruz’s proposed amendment isn’t substantive. It’s procedural.

“It is beyond dispute that when the 14th Amendment was adopted 146 years ago, as a necessary post-Civil War era reform, it was not imagined to also mandate same-sex marriage, but that is what the Supreme Court is implying today. The Court is making the preposterous assumption that the People of the United States somehow silently redefined marriage in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment.

“Nothing in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the 14th Amendment or any other constitutional provision authorizes judges to redefine marriage for the Nation. It is for the elected representatives of the People to make the laws of marriage, acting on the basis of their own constitutional authority, and protecting it, if necessary, from usurpation by the courts.

“Marriage is a question for the States. That is why I have introduced legislation, S. 2024, to protect the authority of state legislatures to define marriage. And that is why, when Congress returns to session, I will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws.

Note well: Not an amendment that would add one-man-one-woman to the Constitution but an amendment simply to leave the matter in the hands of state legislatures. According to a new poll from YouGov, a majority or plurality of adults in 31 states now favor gay marriage (South Dakotans are split evenly at 43); if the Cruz amendment were adopted, you might still have legalized gay marriage in most U.S. states within, say, 10 years. If you’re going to go to the trouble of getting a bill through two-thirds of each chamber of Congress and three-fourths of the states, why would you settle for a procedural change like that instead of pushing for a substantive change to the law? Every other strong social con in the 2016 field, presumably starting with Huckabee, will be pushing for a substantive amendment to outlaw SSM. Why would Cruz settle for less?

Two reasons: One, his primary base is wider than Huck’s is, and two, Cruz’s amendment is (slightly) more viable than the substantive amendment social conservatives prefer. If Cruz elbows Rand Paul out of the way in Iowa and South Carolina, Rand’s libertarian base will have to decide whether to back someone else in the field or just tune out. Cruz might inherit some of them, but the further he drifts towards Huckabee-an social conservatism, the worse his chances get. And of course, if he wins the nomination and heads to the general, he’ll face a national electorate that’s much warmer to legalized gay marriage than Republican primary voters. This amendment is his attempt to satisfy everyone. For social cons, it’s a signal that he’s with them on the merits. For libertarians and centrists, it’s a signal that he’s a federalist at heart and won’t stand in the way of pro-SSM states going their own way. I’m curious to see what Huckabee and/or Santorum do with that in primary debates. Will they accuse Cruz of selling out social cons by not pushing for the Federal Marriage Amendment instead? Will Cruz tolerate that on the theory that an attack from the right on “values” issue may show centrists that he’s not as “extreme” as the media keeps telling them he is?

As I say, a “let the states decide” amendment is also more salable politically than a “one man, one woman” amendment. In theory it should appeal to the state legislatures whose support Cruz needs to get the amendment enacted; he could even roll this into a broader federalist campaign demanding more state power at the expense of the feds, as some righties who dream of a new constitutional convention advocate. In practice, of course, the amendment is going nowhere: Democratic legislators in Congress and at the state level aren’t going to jeopardize the judicial momentum towards legalized gay marriage, even if Cruz’s idea would put more power in their own hands. (Look how many liberals in Congress are happy to let Obama grab legislative power in the name of enacting a policy they like.) Lefties are highly results-oriented on this issue and right now they’re getting the result they want. They won’t mess with that, especially if it means endorsing an idea proposed by Ted Cruz. Imagine how much better Cruz’s proposal will sound on the stump, though, than the Federal Marriage Amendment does. If he gets up there and says “we need one-man-one-woman as the law of the land,” half the country instantly tunes him out. If he gets up there and says “why can’t the people decide this issue in a democracy?”, he’ll get a respectful hearing even from the undecideds who disagree with him. It’s all part of his populist brand. Ultimately, he’ll frame this as a battle against unelected elite judges pulling power out of voters’ hands more so than a battle against gays getting married.

Exit quotation from an unnamed Republican aide, finding good news in yesterday’s Supreme Court punt: “We don’t have to agree with the decision, but as long as we’re not against it we should be okay… The base, meanwhile, will focus its anger on the Court, and not on us.”


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2016; constitution; cruz; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; homosexualmarriage; moralabsolutes; samesexmarriage; scotus; supremecourt; tedcruz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 last
To: Conscience of a Conservative

I think you grossly underestimate the opposition to homo marriage. Don’t believe the media lies.


41 posted on 10/07/2014 7:54:26 PM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

I think you grossly underestimate how difficult it is (by design) to pass & ratify a Constitutional amendment.


42 posted on 10/07/2014 8:20:20 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: mountainbunny

You haven’t even seen the proposed amendment and you are posting as if you’re reviewed and analyzed it! TROLL!

Ted Cruz has orders of magnitude more knowledge and experience of the US Constitution and its history than nearly anyone alive especially including TROLLS like you! He would never be so ignorant as you deem him based on a proposal you haven’t even seen!

Cruz specifically pointed to the abuse of the 14th amendment that some of the current and former members of the SCOTUS have committed in stretching its history and intent. It is near certain he intends to write a proposed amendment that curtails rulings based on the 14th.


43 posted on 10/07/2014 9:23:38 PM PDT by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: highball

Your “basic reality” is a fantasy in your own head...or at best in the echo chamber with your faggy friends.


44 posted on 10/07/2014 9:25:30 PM PDT by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

You’re spot on about the lies. The Left is joined at the hip with the homosecual fascists. They are indeed a small group using media amplification to make themselves appear to an enormous group as was recently discovered with the special tweet software that created huge traffic from a tiny group.

The propaganda is part of the war on traditional society.


45 posted on 10/07/2014 9:28:49 PM PDT by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Pride in the USA

Interesting strategy.


46 posted on 10/07/2014 10:31:43 PM PDT by lonevoice (Life is short. Make fun of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

>> the war on traditional society.

Good characterization.


47 posted on 10/07/2014 10:33:08 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; kayak; Chairman_December_19th_Society; little jeremiah; wagglebee; cpforlife.org; ...

Ping!


48 posted on 10/08/2014 12:48:11 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
I have two emails in my inbox right now, dated September 30th, from Ted Cruz raising money for the National Republican Congressional Committee on behalf of "Mitt Romney for President". I assume that the NRCC is using Romney's mailing list from 2012 to help raise money for establishment GOP-e politicians.

This is the exact same NRCC that withholds funds from candidates if they don't toe the GOP-e line, and support John Boehner. That is who Cruz is raising cash for. I find that insulting.

NRCC Withholds Funds After Marilinda Garcia (NH-02) Says She May Not Vote for Boehner http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3211860/posts

So you know what you can do with your exclamation points and screaming "TROLL!" like a small child?

I do not support the GOP-e. Not in any way shape or form. My family does not send money to the "insiders" who are working to negotiate away Conservative values.

You can cry "TROLL!" till doomsday, but I guarantee you this: Nothing at all will come of Cruz's weird, convoluted plan to get around a clause that predates the actual Constitution, and which was written by the Founders not once, but at least twice, because it was so critically important. It is there because it is supposed to be there. The way around the Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers is not some weirdo amendment.

Here is the body of the email if you'd like to see it: http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/look-the-gop-actually-speaks?commentId=3355873%3AComment%3A2931791

Maybe you think joining the GOP-e in another round of same-old, same-old is a stellar plan. That is your privilege. I won't be doing the same.

Oh, and just so you'll know: the NRCC & Boehner, with help from Ted Cruz are out doing heavy-duty fundraising and spending for openly gay candidates, including candidates who openly support gay marriage.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/219754-boehner-rakes-in-cash-for-openly-gay-republican

Conservative groups including the Family Research Council and National Organization for Marriage fired off a letter last week to Boehner, National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) Chairman Greg Walden (Ore.) and Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) chiding them for backing DeMaio and Tisei, as well as Senate hopeful Monica Wehby (Ore.), who supports gay marriage.

If this is where you feel you need to tell me how we have to compromise our values to get along, don't even bother.

Somebody is trolling, but it ain't me.

49 posted on 10/08/2014 12:48:25 AM PDT by mountainbunny (Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens ~ J.R.R. Tolkien)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: highball

Please see my post at 49 for references.

Ted Cruz is currently doing fund raising for the NRCC, which is doling out cash to openly gay candidates who are supporting gay marriage as part of their platform. They’ve been doling out the cash publicly in this way since at least last year, and Boehner has made very public statements about making inroads with women, minorities and gays. There is no way Cruz doesn’t know this, yet he’s fund raising for the very people who are run against what he says is a critical moral issue.

I find this disingenuous in the extreme. A circuitous way around the Constitution will never work, and he has to know that.

This is dismaying :(


50 posted on 10/08/2014 12:57:12 AM PDT by mountainbunny (Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens ~ J.R.R. Tolkien)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Bump!


51 posted on 10/08/2014 12:58:11 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
This is what we get when we FAIL to OBEY God.
For it is written: Those who support homosexuals are against our Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ.
These anti Christ people only bring destruction on us ALL.
I have NO sympathy for homosexuals!

Homosexuality is a "Mark" of disobedience.
Someone once asked The answer is in the definition of "REPROBATE". And the reason"why" is given in the Bible.

God has a cure for homosexuals.

"Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect
that God is just,
that his justice cannot sleep forever."


52 posted on 10/08/2014 12:58:55 AM PDT by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

More difficult than getting the American public to accept that buggery is the moral equivalent of marriage?


53 posted on 10/08/2014 5:45:51 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

Exactly. We must never be daunted by the Enemy’s lies or his (fictional) numbers. Right is right, ever and unchanging.


54 posted on 10/08/2014 5:48:29 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: mountainbunny

Hey Troll, give it up it won’t work.

Post your two emails from Ted Cruz from the NRSC to this thread and I’ll get Senator Cruz’ office to respond today.

Do it.


55 posted on 10/08/2014 6:46:00 AM PDT by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

Here you go: http://imgur.com/a/O73Gn

Screen captures of the first email, with the title of “All out War”.

The second email has the exact same text, but the title is “The Cause of Liberty”. I am not posting it because it is repetitive. They were both sent by the NRCC, both were signed by Ted Cruz, and both are using Mitt Romney’s 2012 email list (see third picture).

Other people have received the same email. I posted a link to one recipient yesterday, and here is another: http://knappster.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-question-for-us-senator-ted-cruz.html There are more, if you bother to look.

Ted Cruz is also listed on the NRCC website, and if you look at the NRCC Facebook page cache, you will find Ted Cruz featured on September 30th. See the address below or my fourth screen capture.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3ikOiEUtkIkJ:https://www.facebook.com/NRCC+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Since you love childish name calling, I’m assuming you are too immature to apologize for calling me a troll. That’s okay. I have never needed the approval of people who resort to name calling because they can’t handle facts.

Just know that Ted Cruz shills for the NRCC, and that he’s raising cash for people who are running on a platform of legalizing what Cruz says he hates.


56 posted on 10/08/2014 10:02:57 PM PDT by mountainbunny (Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens ~ J.R.R. Tolkien)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

You’re the one in the “echo chamber”, my FRiend, if you can’t see how badly we’re losing the American public on this one. We’ve lost the last four elections, and even in conservative states polls are tied at best. Pretending otherwise only hurts us further.

Facing uncomfortable facts head-on is a conservative value. We’re strong enough to take it, or at least we should be.


57 posted on 10/09/2014 3:58:33 AM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson