Cruz: Amend U.S. Constitution to Preserve Marriage Bans

Texas Tribune ^ | Oct. 6, 2014 | Aman Batheja

[SoConPubbie]

div class="photo_caption">U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz in an interview with The Washington Post's Dan Balz at The Texas Tribune Festival on Sept. 20, 2014.

Hours after the U.S. Supreme Court paved the way for same-sex marriage bans to be lifted in five states, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz called Monday for amending the U.S. Constitution to prevent either the federal government or the U.S. Supreme Court from overturning a state's ban on same-sex marriage.

Cruz announced his plans in a statement Monday in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to let stand appeals court rulings allowing same-sex marriages in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. Cruz called the court's decision to let those rulings stand "tragic and indefensible" and expressed concern that it would lead to the overturning of same-sex marriage bans in every state.

Like other statewide Republican officials in Texas, Cruz has been an ardent defender of the state's same-sex marriage ban, which was approved by Texas voters as an amendment to the Texas Constitution in 2005. The Texas ban was ruled unconstitutional by a U.S. District Judge in February. The state immediately appealed that ruling to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

"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," Cruz said. “Traditional marriage is an institution whose integrity and vitality are critical to the health of any society. We should remain faithful to our moral heritage and never hesitate to defend it.”

[Kevin C]

So this would require a Constitutional Convention?? Sounds like it or something of that nature. Ratification by states.

If introduced in Congress, it would require a 2/3 vote in the Senate and a 2/3 vote in the House. Then it would have to ratified by 3/4 of the states. In other words, it has absolutely no chance of passing.

[nicepaco]

You are correct.
It is possible of course that we could elect a congress who would enforce the Constitution by impeachment but it is not very likely as there is nothing in it for them.

[GSWarrior]

I assume that Cruz saying that the SC should not overturn a state's decision on this subject.

In other words, let states decide. I am okay with that.

[SoConPubbie]

The Constitution doesn’t need amending to preserve traditional marriage. The 10th Amendment handles it. What we need is a Supreme Court that recognizes that the federal government has over-reached or, failing that, a Congress that is willing to use its impeachment and removal powers on judges who fail in their Constitutional duties.

Apparently you are wrong as current events prove.

The only solution to this problem is an amendment to the constitution that applies specifically to Marriage just like there is an amendment that applies specifically to speech, guns, etc.

[ScottinVA]

Public perception and positions on Major issues change throughout history.

So, you're convinced the minds of the populace in a rapidly left-turning country can be changed on this issue? How do you propose that?

[BeadCounter]

If introduced in Congress, it would require a 2/3 vote in the Senate and a 2/3 vote in the House. Then it would have to ratified by 3/4 of the states. In other words, it has absolutely no chance of passing.

Thank you for the reponse.

[ScottinVA]

It’d require 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 38 states to pass this measure. I’m not seeing that change in attitude happening soon.

As for force.. you really think an insurgent force could be raised on this issue?

[Author Mike Carnegie]

If such an amendment were ever to be passed and ratified, the U.S. Supreme Court would rely upon “international human rights law” to trump the Constitution and invalidate the amendment. The rule of law is broken.

[ansel12]

Rand Paul supports gay marriage and opposes preventing it, including an amendment.

Question-But it seems what they’re saying is that the Republican Party should stay out of issues like gay marriage.

Paul-I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues. The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by those issues.

[tcrlaf]

“I like his stance on the matter, but that ship has sailed, unfortunately.
“Bull!”

And the hundreds of thousands protesting this decision outside of the Supreme Court will drive the point home...

OH WAIT.......

If “we”, as a group, aren’t willing to get off of our a$$*s and out into the streets about such an important issue as this, why are we even remotely surprised when someone like Scott Walker says that this battle is over, and we lost?

[Responsibility2nd]

Say What???

No, no. Just the opposite. The Supremes DID overturn the State’s decision.

30 States decided they DON’T want queer marriages. The SC said; “Too bad, you’re getting it anyay.”

[SoConPubbie]

If such an amendment were ever to be passed and ratified, the U.S. Supreme Court would rely upon “international human rights law” to trump the Constitution and invalidate the amendment. The rule of law is broken.

Bringing us one step closer to the final solution.

[GSWarrior]

That is what I said in my post, or meant to say. If a state votes for or against gay marriage I don’t want the SC overturning the decision.

[Responsibility2nd]

 

Public perception and positions on Major issues change throughout history.

So, you're convinced the minds of the populace in a rapidly left-turning country can be changed on this issue? How do you propose that?

Stay on target, please. The MAJORITY of the minds of the populace DO NOT WANT queer marriages.

It's a small radical minority (black robed thugs) who are undermining the majority. And the porposal?

A Constitutional Amendment.

Understand now?

[Sgt_Schultze]

Amending it won't matter. The courts have decided that they alone will determine the meaning of everything relating to the Constitution. The courts will decide for themselves how such an amendment will apply, and then they will decide on how they will maneuver around it.

Until Congress begins reasserting its dominion over the courts, nothing will change. Every law needs to be reviewed regarding the role of the judiciary regarding enforcement and application. Several, high level impeachments need to happen to send the judiciary the message that they are operating in a manner that Congress disapproves of, and that they need to stop being aggressive activists.

[PoloSec]

Cruz 2016...

Brave, Courageous and Bold, a man willing and able to stand in the gap!

Every time I read what he says or hear him speak, that tune from Wyatt Earp, resonates in my mind, long live his fame, and long live his glory, and long may his story be told.

[ScottinVA]

And the porposal? A Constitutional Amendment.

I always DID understand it. However... a Constitutional amendment will require assent by 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states. It's a reality thing. THAT I understand. You?

[BeadCounter]

Sure, the majority are for Traditional Marriage. The trick is when you start getting into 2/3rds majority, 66%.

Let’s say North Carolina for example, they supported Traditional Marriage 58%-wise at the time this article was written: https://news.yahoo.com/north-carolina-voters-approve-same-sex-marriage-ban-224655287.html

Getting 2/3rds is difficult and especially is with the current make up of the House and Senate.

2/3rds of the States is 33 States though, that should be close to doable I’d say.

[ScottinVA]

Stay on target, please. The MAJORITY of the minds of the populace DO NOT WANT queer marriages.

I wish I could agree on that point, but the facts say otherwise.

http://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/domestic-issues/attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-marriage-support-reaches-new-high.aspx

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

[ScottinVA]

You need 3/4 of the states to approve.