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.
Yeah, no doubt.
Were you aiming that at me or young Presley?
My apologies. I thought you were the one that has been spamming us with Scott Walker propaganda, but looking at your posts, it must have been someone else. My bad.
Bottom line is that that the exact same rules apply to everyone.
“Naturally, you are at liberty to marry any consenting adult your heart desires based on equal protection and due process.”
Hmmm. Can you marry more than one at a time, if that’s what your heart desires? How about family members? What if the heart desires a non-human? What if it has nothing to do with what the heart desires, and it’s just a way to get benefits of some kind?
Also, what if somebody else’s heart doesn’t desire to “marry” you? Are they at liberty to refrain from doing so? Are they at liberty to refuse to bake a cake for you? What if they refuse to recognize your “marriage”? Are they at liberty to do so?
I see costs to allowing same sex marriage. I see zero benefits. Homos get their perversions approved by the government. How does society benefit from that?
“What consenting adults do in their bedroom or how consenting adults form their relationships is no business of mine or the State.”
He thinks that marriage has a lot to do with stuff in the bedroom. Ah, silly youth. But seriously, isn’t “gay marriage” simply inviting the government into the bedroom? Isn’t this just homos looking for the all-important governmental stamp of approval for their perversions?
If you marry for sex (whatever kind) you’re going to be real disappointed sooner or later. Having just turned 55 two days ago, I know what I’m talking about. LOL
And The Gods of the Copybook Headings.
You were fine stopping there. It didn’t get better.
Cruz: "I think the proper place to debate those issues is in the legislative chambers."
Both Sen. Cruz and Gov. Walker are sitting on the fence imo, treating the constitutionality of gay marriage as if it was merely a matter of opinion. But hypothetically speaking, even if all citizens supported gay marriage, it remains that the states still have the 10th Amendment power to prohibit constitutionally unprotected gay marriage. The states would need to amend the constitution to expressly make gay marriage a right in order to prohibit the states from prohibiting gay marriage.
He needed a wiser opponent.
Ask him if two spinster siblings (in a non-sexual living arrangement) can “marry” one another to shelter their estate and possibly obtain insurance benefits from a current (or retiree) employment program?
The Blaze hired some libertarian writers. Ted is friends with Beck and they went to that event at the border that angered people. But that aside the Blaze since S.E. Cupp, who one worked there, came out in favor of gay marriage has had some people who are pro-gay marriage. But I a sure you Dana Loesch who has a show on the channel is anti-gay marriage. they have diverse veiw points. I know nothing of this author though as writers have changed at the Blaze since one left to the Washington Examiner and another guy went to Mediaite after being fired.
P.S. Cupp is all over the map and she left to CNN, but when Crossfire was canned she started a weekend radio show on The Blaze Radio with Will Cain so she is still with The Blaze technically. I am not a a fan of Cupp. But I am a huge fan of Dana Loesch who works at The Blaze.
This man has no idea what marrage is, he thinks its about a feeling or mere commitment when it is about famly.
Insolently Equal protection of the law still invoes the law otherwise its just whatever a judge things constitutes equality among men.
Due process of law is also just as depended upon the existances of said law being carried out successfully. Take away the law and what is right or wrong is again entirely up to the arbitrary whim of some judge aka dictator.
Without law under which to decide judgement a judge is a boundless authority, and there is no justice for anyone.
Ditto.
Not going to the link.
Beck lost me forever when he decided to help out with Obamugabe’s plan to flood the country with illegal young people. Everyone at his publication is also un-trustworthy now, IMO.
It was never supposed to be about a “Party” — but rather about reforming American government back within the scope of its specified purpose - TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS.
Individuals either believe in conserving the ideals that caused the founders to constrain that purpose, or not.
Natural Law will eventually end the debate over homosexual unions: A hive full of eunuch drones always dies.
It was never supposed to be about a “Party” — but rather about reforming American government back within the scope of its specified purpose - TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS.
Individuals either believe in conserving the ideals that caused the founders to constrain that purpose, or not.
Natural Law will eventually end the debate over homosexual unions: A hive full of eunuch drones always dies.
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.