Posted on 02/06/2015 11:30:45 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Ted Cruz claims to be a “constitutionalist,” but expects us to believe that the issue of gay marriage should be left to “debate…in the legislative chambers.”
In response to President Barack Obama’s comments about gay marriage in the State of the union, the Texas senator said:
I think the proper place to debate those issues is in the legislative chambers.
I’m a constitutionalist…From the beginning of this country, marriage has been a question of the states, and we should not have the federal government, or unelected judges, setting aside the policy judgment of the elected legislatures and imposing their own instead.
Wrong.
The Supreme Court decided to review marriage equality cases this spring. This concerns me because the Fifth Circuit Court, which presides over my home state of Texas, also took up a marriage equality case. However, the Fifth Circuit may refrain from making a decision until the Supreme Court decides.
The Supreme Court has historically refrained from considering this social question. In the 1970s Baker v. Nelson was dismissed due to a “lack of federal question.”
On such a contentious issue, however, it is no surprise judges would refrain from taking a particular side. I still find it ridiculous because they are appointed for the very purpose of making these kinds of decisions. A judge can make a legal decision concerning the Constitution without political repercussions.
Understanding the judiciary branch and how it works with the other branches is very important. The executive branch constitutes a form of elected and limited monarchy with a single leader given the power of the U.S. military. The legislative branch is representative democracy with the power of the purse, and it limits the power of the executive by being the source of law and funding. The judiciary branch is aristocratic in nature separating them from public opinion, and they check the constitutionality of actions by the executive, the legislative and the states, and they possess no executive force of their own. This combination of three government types constitutes a Republic.
According to Article III of the U.S. Constitution settling controversies over the law, such as gay marriage, by a view of the Constitution is directly within the Supreme Court’s authority.
Cruz wants these issues settled in the legislative chambers. The legislative chambers exist for the reason their name implies, to write legislation. It is not their purpose to interpret presently existing law or to concern themselves with legal disputes.
Secondly, the State has not always been involved in marriage. This is a recently formed argument that the states have a “principal interest” in marriage for regulating procreation. When in actuality, it’s none of the federal, state, or local government’s business to regulate relationships for procreation. Personally, I’d prefer to live in a republic where we keep the government out of our private lives… especially our sex lives.
Claiming to be a constitutionalist entails understanding the constitution in depth. Cruz is perfectly right in upholding the principle of the 10th Amendment, that authorities not within the federal government are reserved to the states. I would argue that a person’s relationships and sex life are not within the just authority of any government, but that’s not the point I will make here.
The constitution already tells us how we should address the issue of gay marriage.
The Fifth Amendment tells us that no person may be deprived of liberty without the due process of law, and the 14th Amendment tells us that no State may deprive a person of liberty without due process and ensures equal protection under the law.
You’ll notice in the text there are no caveats. You are guaranteed you will not be deprived of liberty and the State will treat you equally.
Naturally, you are at liberty to marry any consenting adult your heart desires based on equal protection and due process. There are literally thousands of benefits handed out to married couples that are not available to homosexuals, a blatant violation of equal protection. I would argue giving special treatment to married couples is a violation of equal protection, but I’m just a crazy libertarian that’s all about equality and stuff.
It is absolutely crucial that Texas, being central to a current gay marriage case, lead the charge in equality and liberty. We should not call ourselves “constitutional” conservatives, nor should we act as many of them do.
As Glenn Beck has mentioned we should be classic liberals. We don’t want the government meddling in our lives. As it is put in Plato’s Republic, “Justice means minding one’s own business and not meddling with other men’s concerns.”
What consenting adults do in their bedroom or how consenting adults form their relationships is no business of mine or the State.
Knowing what the constitution says and holding to consistent classical liberal principles demonstrates that this is not a decision for the legislature or the states. It is a decided principle of liberty, and the Supreme Court should have the courage to say it, the executive branch should have the courage to enforce it, and we as free people should have the sense to respect it even if we don’t like it.
Oh, by the way. I wrote all of this while wearing a “Vote for Ted Cruz” T-shirt I got at CPAC.
This issue was discussed from a constitutional point of view in a debate hosted by Patriot Talon. It was a debate between Professor Eric Lopez (my old Constitutional Development professor) and Father Key. This was a fascinating discussion I recommend taking the time to watch.
***********
Presley Sanderson is an autodidact and a student majoring in economics and minoring in political science at the University of Texas at Tyler (UTT). Prior to UTT he was self-educated (home schooled) beginning in the fifth grade and continuing into high school. Most of his personal studies include the literature of the Classical and Enlightenment eras.
His studies have included "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine, "Poor Richard’s Almanac" by Benjamin Franklin, "The Way to Wealth" by Benjamin Franklin, "Republic" by Plato, "Rights of Man" by Thomas Paine, "Moral Sentiments" by Adam Smith, all four books of "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith, and many other works of philosophy, politics, and economics.
Presley has spent the majority of his life in a small town in Texas providing him the solace of solitude in long walks of contemplation where he argues with himself, recites speeches, and ponders philosophy. His innate interest in the causes and solutions to the human condition provides constant cause for thoughtful meditation.
In tandem with his early education, he also honed leadership, rhetorical, and servile skills by staying active in the community with local and county 4-H, 4-H Ambassadors, Texas 4-H Senate (where he wrote and debated bills on the Texas senate floor in mock legislature), National 4-H Congress, Henderson County Teen Court (where he was a juvenile attorney over real cases), and more. Today, he is a member of the College Constitutional Conservatives and The Economics Society on the UTT campus. He has also been elected delegate to the Republican State Convention.
He is the first Campus Contributor to The Blaze, a writer for Patriot Talon, and the author of The Lyceum Blog.
Presley’s mind has left the building...
The Supreme Court decided to review marriage equality cases this spring. This concerns me because the Fifth Circuit Court, which presides over my home state of Texas, also took up a marriage equality case. However, the Fifth Circuit may refrain from making a decision until the Supreme Court decides......Naturally, you are at liberty to marry any consenting adult your heart desires based on equal protection and due process. There are literally thousands of benefits handed out to married couples that are not available to homosexuals, a blatant violation of equal protection. I would argue giving special treatment to married couples is a violation of equal protection, but I’m just a crazy libertarian that’s all about equality and stuff.
That brain full of mush should do more research. At least one of the couples that is pushing this matter is seeking a DIVORCE, they want the state to recognize their (out of state marriage) for the purpose of separation and dissolution, not love.
Selling the argument based on emotion is a LIE.
Let’s see.....Ted Cruz has argued 9 cases before the Supreme Court, and was called by Alan Dershowitz, famed liberal Harvard lawyer, the smartest student he ever taught.
How do we balance these 2 opinions, hmmmmmm.......?
It is impacting private businesses that are contracted to photograph events (which requires attending the 'offensive' ceremony).
Lawyers are not required to take cases or defend positions they oppose.
It is also impacting the public schools (which have taken up the mantle to indoctrinate children in the "normalcy" of same sex sodomy ("your parents are WRONG that this is a sin, it is not, and it should be celebrated!").
It is also impacting the lives of children who are adopted into same sex households.
So much for the repeated lie that this is just the actions of consenting ADULTS in private. Kids are affected at the school level (where they are even sheltered and applauded for engaging in homosexual activity) as well as at the household level (two parents of the same sex when they may want a NORMAL household arrangement).
Beck Says the Tea Party Has to Change Its Name: ‘We’ve Got to Find New Language’
I think we’re finally seeing that which was always there.
Sounds like he has spent his life so far navel gazing in isolation from the real world.
I love my mother; she loves me.
Given that situation, young Presley would of course have no objections to our marriage.
States didn’t start issuing licenses (permission from the gov’t) to get married until later in the 1800s. It was a religious institution until then. After people married they registered it or made it public to protect children and property in case of divorce or death.
Ted is talking about this being a “states rights” issue .. and should not be a FEDERAL issue at all.
I agree with him.
I want a harem of at least four wives of different types, so I take it that this Whiz Kid has no objection? Right?
“Wrong” begs the question of a Standard.
By what standard is he wrong and why is that standard “better” than another standard that says he’s right?
Leftist response to this: “kerblbufb blubf blllrbf.... HOMOPHOBE!”
Related;
Colorado Democrats block bill aiming to keep boys out of girls’ changing rooms
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3254841/posts
“You are guaranteed you will not be deprived of liberty and the State will treat you equally.”
The queers are treated equally! A queer can marry any woman that will have them, exactly the same as everyone else.
A carpet muncher can marry any man that will have them, just like any other woman can.
Absolutely.
Glenn Beck would probably be okay with you having 4 wives...
I’ve provided sufficient example to counter the “consenting adults in private” and “two people in love” memes he uses. He has not discovered any “truths” himself, he echoes the convenient (but false) talking points of Big Lib.
Actually, no.
It has to be a woman who is not closely related to him, who doesn't have a "loathsome social disease" and who is not already married.
There are already lots of restrictions on marriage; one of them just happens to be that there be exactly one male among the participants.
You think you are going to get us to turn on Cruz with a pro-LGBTQHBFJHT hit piece?
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.