Ted Cruz submits constitutional amendment to protect marriage

Senator Ted Cruz has submitted legislation to create a constitutional amendment to allow states to determine what marriage is, and not federal judges.

Days before the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on same-sex marriage, Senator Ted Cruz has filed two bills to protect states that bar gay couples from marrying.

Cruz's legislation would establish a constitutional amendment shielding states that define marriage as between one woman and one man from legal action, according to bill language obtained by Bloomberg News.

A second bill would bar federal courts from further weighing in on the marriage issue until such an amendment is adopted.

You know, nearly all the the candidates running for president say that marriage should be decided by the states. That's an easy way of saying nothing of substance. Since federal judges have taken away the states' ability to decide what is and isn't marriage, saying you favor "the states deciding" doesn't change the reality of what is about to happen: as most people expect, the Supreme Court will legalize gay marriage throughout the country. (My personal prediction, as an attorney who watches these things: it will be a 6-3 vote, with John Roberts siding with Anthony Kennedy and the liberals because he wants to be on the winning side.)

First thing I disagree with Ted on.

1. Bad timing. At this exact point in the campaign where he is either at his peak of popularity or a tiny crest he will ride to the top, he needs to put his religion inside his sleeve a bit and focus on economic and political conservatives, and low Info dems who are over obama and don’t like Hillary. More focus now on his religious beliefs will have people whose religion is not their focus for their President turning away from him.

2. Gay marriage is toothpaste out of the tube. While I agree that marriage laws should be a states’ rights issue, cruz is not playing chess with the idea. This is a waste of all effort. If it passed, you’d see political correctness felling states like dominoes anyway, and great states who didn’t fall would become marginalized. They would be HURT economically for being the “ homophobic holdouts.” Gay marriage could have been stopped 5 years ago, but alinsky methods win every time. People would rather be in an ISIS fire cage than ridiculed. It’s over. Gay marriage is here to stay. Cruz should have moved strongly on another issue now, not this one.

If the Bill of Rights does not apply to states, as it didn’t till the passage of 14A and for quite some time thereafter, and still doesn’t today to some extent, then 2A cannot be used against the states as a shield against local or state gun control laws. In that case, all 2A would do is prohibit federal gun control laws.

If you are going to use the Bill of Rights to invalidate certain state laws you don’t like, then you have to accept it will also be used to invalidate certain state laws you do like.

Hey. I’m sure there’s some chance that walker for all his talk might enforce immigration laws after he gets in. All his corporate donors would not pressure him maybe.

Has he declared yet? Is he planning on beating Hilary?

Maybe hillary will enforce the borders.

While I will vote for Ted Cruz if Republican nominee, I don’t see the two Houses of corrupt Congress supporting Cruz’s resolution for proposed marriage amendment with constitutionally required 2/3 majority of each House, particularly since being pro-gay is evidently regarded as a way to win votes. So this is action by Cruz is just smart campaign politicking on his part imo.

Sherman, you need to read my stuff more carefully. Where do you get that I’m using the first ten amendments to invalidate certain sate laws?? I said the feds have no constitutional power over the things mentioned in the first ten amendments

Again, the first ten amendments are pointed directly at the feds, not at the states. They are a reminder of SOME of the things the feds can’t touch and the 14A does not give the feds enforcement power over them. Read post #38 when you have time.

‘If legal immigration is illegal and illegal immigration is legal then what is illegal legal immigration?’

Oh great wordplay. We’ve gotcha sec state dealing uranium to our Cold War rivals and a pandering corporatist walker who hasn’t even declared yet being nastily promoted by freeper, a porous border that no one better than we san Antonians know the onslaught of, getting pushed to the rear of every Spanish speaking government fund taking America hating line, and you’re doing wordplay

Ok I’m an English teacher. An American lit and history teacher. Let’s take a look at your little puzzle

I do the times crossword every Sunday along with the word puzzles. Ok let’s see

‘If legal immigration is illegal and illegal immigration is legal then what is illegal legal immigration?’

Legal immigration is NOT illegal. And illegal immigration is NOT legal. So illegal legal immigration is not illegal, it is only so in the illogical minds of the Cruz hating walker bots here

Is that right?

Cruz is one of my top two choices, the other being Walker. Doesn’t mean I have to agree with him 100 percent, IMO he happens to be dead wrong here, as was your assertion that we need more foreign tech workers. Given how Walker’s stance on this subject resonates with the middle class, I think Walker is better here.

For all practical purposes, the 17A made the judiciary exempt from impeachment.

That mindset now applies not only to the Prez, but to his ministers.

The threat of impeachment as a check on the judiciary/executive is no more.

Thank the 17A.

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.