Posted on 02/10/2015 3:25:06 PM PST by SoConPubbie
WASHINGTON, DC -- Today U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, along with 11 fellow Senators, re-introduced the State Marriage Defense Act, which respects the definition of marriage held by the people of each state and protects states from the federal government's efforts to force any other definition upon them.
“Even though the Supreme Court made clear in United States v. Windsor that the federal government should defer to state ‘choices about who may be married,’ the Obama Administration has disregarded state marriage laws enacted by democratically-elected legislatures to uphold traditional marriage,” said Sen. Cruz. “I support traditional marriage and we should reject attempts by the Obama Administration to force same-sex marriage on all 50 states. The State Marriage Defense Act helps safeguard the ability of states to preserve traditional marriage for their citizens.”
In Windsor, the Supreme Court improperly struck down a federal statute, Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), that defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the union of one man and one woman. At the same time, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the states’ longstanding authority to define marriage.
Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has overruled that state authority, as various federal agencies are recognizing same-sex marriages in states that only recognize traditional marriage, creating what the Windsor decision condemned: “two contradictory marriage regimes in the same state.”
The State Marriage Defense Act remedies this problem by requiring that the federal government defer to the law of the state where a couple resides to determine whether the couple is married for purposes of federal law.
Sen. Cruz is joined by Senators John Boozman, R-AR, Mike Crapo, R-ID, Steve Daines, R-MT, James Inhofe, R-OK, James Lankford, R-OK, Mike Lee, R-UT, Pat Roberts, R-KS, Tim Scott, R-SC, Jeff Sessions, R-AL, Richard Shelby, R-AL, and David Vitter, R-LA. Congressman Randy Weber, R-TX, today is introducing companion legislation in the House.
Sens. Cruz and Lee introduced the State Marriage Defense Act last year, but the Democratic-controlled Senate refused to bring it to the floor.
Later this year, Sen. Cruz will be introducing a constitutional amendment to further protect marriage and to prevent judicial activism. The amendment will make explicit that marriage is a policy question for the democratically-elected legislatures in each of the 50 states.
###
The Alabama Supreme Court is trying to do nullification right Now. You think Blam is going to send troops over gay marriage? Well OK he’s screwy enough to do it but guess what? They are all overseas.
This is not 1861 and the President is not going to send troops over Common Core, Gay Marriage and Illegal aliens. Get real.
And who, exactly, makes the determination of whether a law violates the natural law and is thus NUL and VOID?
“This is not 1861 and the President is not going to send troops over Common Core, Gay Marriage and Illegal aliens. Get real.”
That’s not how it went down in 1861, and it’s not how it would go down today either. The issues were eventually solved by armed conflict, because nullification failed to resolve them, but the troops didn’t just invade in response to nullification.
The point is, nullification had no teeth to settle the issue. If it did, then there wouldn’t have been any need for secession, and then there wouldn’t have been a war.
And what about people with different religious beliefs, who just may have different ideas of what is and is not natural law?
While I appreciate Ted’s efforts and determination to uphold and protect traditional marriage, this legislation would not deter the liberals from their current course of action. The reason is that they are equating the denial of a lifestyle CHOICE with historical discrimination against blacks.
But it is a specious analogy, as the discrimination against blacks turned on an immutable characteristic, i.e., skin color, which is clearly reprehensible. Laws that define marriage as between a man and woman regulate lifestyle CHOICES. Yes, it is a choice as to what type sexual or domestic relationship you decide to engage in.
Many people would apparently like to engage in sexual behavior with animals or under age girls. If such people are now able to make the case that they are somehow born or unalterably “wired” that way, and should not be discriminated against, will any laws against such behavior now be deemed unconstitutional?
Unless Cruz and the whole rest of the country can rebut these specious comparisons, there is not going to be any way to stop this. BTW, who is arguing this before the Supremes?
The 10th amendment is in the Constitution. It has nothing to do with the Civil War. Its a lawful way for states to nullify unconstitutional laws.
If the state of Alabama says they will not allow gay marriages what is the fed govt going to do about it? How about nothing.
Amen!
“The 10th amendment is in the Constitution. It has nothing to do with the Civil War. Its a lawful way for states to nullify unconstitutional laws.”
Sorry, but in the lead up to the Civil War, “Federal supremacy”, derived from Article 6, Clause 2, became the law of the land, rendering the 10th Amendment completely toothless. That was the end result of the nullification battle, and that is where it has stood ever since. You can stand on Constitutional principles all you want, but without the force to back them up, they are going to be of little comfort.
“If the state of Alabama says they will not allow gay marriages what is the fed govt going to do about it? How about nothing.”
Well, if the Feds decide this is a civil rights issue, and Alabama is in violation of Federal law or court decisions on the matter, then they can take some pretty drastic steps to enforce it, just as they do for other civil rights matters. Remember, the southern states are still under federal monitoring of elections from the 60s and they are unable to pass election-related laws without federal approval. The feds doing something similar with regards to marriages is not hard to imagine.
“If the state of Alabama says they will not allow gay marriages what is the fed govt going to do about it? How about nothing.”
I concur as long as the state doesn’t use force of arms or claim secession, but just refuses to comply and refuses to follow judicial “rulers” wearing “federal” robes. As long as there is NO violence on the part of the state, then the federal government dares not resort to violence. The state’s action would embolden other conservative states like Alabama and Oklahoma to resort to “non-violent resistance.” IF either side (state or federal) resort to violence...they lose the argument in the eyes of the rest of the country. The aggressor would lose public support.
The only question in my mind is if the people of the State of Georgia feel strongly enough about this to so act?
“As long as there is NO violence on the part of the state, then the federal government dares not resort to violence.”
They don’t need to resort to violence. They can just use their existing civil rights apparatus to force the states to comply. Failing that, they can use the power of the purse, just like they did to mandate speed limits, drinking ages, etc.
“The only question in my mind is if the people of the State of Georgia feel strongly enough about this to so act?”
Good question. We are probably about next as we do not currently allow gay marriage. My guess is that Our RINO federal dollar Ho Governor Nathan Deal would buckle under without a fight. Our Supreme Court I don’t know. Our SOS is pretty conservative. Hopefully we would fight it. Time will tell.
“Well, if the Feds decide this is a civil rights issue, and Alabama is in violation of Federal law or court decisions on the matter, then they can take some pretty drastic steps to enforce it, just as they do for other civil rights matters. Remember, the southern states are still under federal monitoring of elections from the 60s and they are unable to pass election-related laws without federal approval. The feds doing something similar with regards to marriages is not hard to imagine.”
IMO if the federal government attempted any heavy handed maneuvers (as you suggest) over this issue, it would be a PR disaster which would be a big win for the state of Alabama and would get them backing by other conservative states like Oklahoma, Arkansas, et. Al. It would HELP restart “state’s rights” again. The 10th would start getting more respect. While it is true that the Civil War set a precident that diminished the 10th....it did not repeal it. Therefore, it just needs the right push to get it back into play. A heavy handed federal government towards the citizens of a state would problem the push.
Everyone is born with a basic understanding of simple right and wrong.
It’s called CONSCIENCE.
With that screen name, I’m pretty sure you know what I’m talking about.
Even tiny children know it’s wrong to murder people, or to steal their stuff, or to make slaves out of them.
And they know daddies and mommies go together, not daddies and daddies, or mommies and mommies.
“Failing that, they can use the power of the purse, just like they did to mandate speed limits, drinking ages, etc.”
That won’t work on this issue - not in the South. However, it shows why we need a strong candidate like Ted Cruz to push against federal abuse.
Getting him elected is the only hard part.
Added onto conscience, of course, the founders had a common religious understanding of the revealed word of God. From the Christian Bible.
And they strictly warned us about the destruction that would come upon us, and on this republic, if we abandoned that plumb line of principle.
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”
— President John Adams
IMO its not the 60’s and its not civil rights we are talking about. Racial stuff. So with the tinder box emotions going on in the country right now all it would take is for Barry to try to send some Feds down here to jack around with an individual state over gay marriage or immigration etc and I think the SHTF. I can only speak for my own region.
As we go forward the Federal Govt’s only prayer to continue to control the states given the outrageous behavior of the SCOTUS is through federal dollars. At some point the states are going to start telling them to shove it.
That’s a possibility. Pretty much a “nonviolent resistance” type of strategy. Get your enemy to overstep and then they look like a bully and lose public support.
However, we don’t hold the institutions which shape public opinion, so that could be an uphill battle.
“However, we don’t hold the institutions which shape public opinion, so that could be an uphill battle.”
The MSM does have a great deal of sway. However, there influence is waning. I think it is doable, as I suggest. However, the state MUST NOT even remotely resort to violence. Those in the federal government that want to stomp on states rights MUST be showed to be bullies.
States need to assert their sovereignty. The constitution is fundamentally a treaty that establishes a super-state (federal government) subject to its terms. The super-state is a creation of the states and subservient to the treaty.
If abrogated, the treaty is void.
Senator Cruz needs to take a cue for Sen. Rand Paul and AUDIT THE FED! That might bump up against his wife's interest, as a $600,000 dollar a year General Manager at Goldmann Sachs, the company that pretty much wrote the rules on TARP and other Government funded bailouts for the super-rich bankers.
NEVER stop fighting for what is right !!!
SEN. RAND PAUL: AUDIT THE FED
AP/Stephan Savoiaby SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY)10 Feb 2015585
If the Federal Reserve was a real bank, without extraordinary powers, it would be insolvent.
The Fed has $4.5 trillion in liabilities and only 57 billion dollars in equity. It is leveraged at 80:1, nearly three times greater than Lehman Brothers when it failed.
Nearly 40 percent of the Fed’s liabilities are said to be mortgage-backed securities – the question needs to be: How many are distressed home loans?
What does that mean? It means the dollar that was once as good as gold ultimately became backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. And since the panic of 2008, your dollar is now backed by bad home loans, bad car loans, and derivatives.
Is anyone comforted?
Over the past one hundred years the dollar has lost 96 percent of its value.
If the Fed were forced to do, what every ordinary bank must do—take its “assets” and mark them to their current market value—many believe the Fed would be insolvent.
So, after the banking crisis of 2008, we got alarmed and we passed regulations. The only problem is, we passed regulations on the banks that weren’t involved and gave more power to the bank that was involved—the Fed.
No bank in Kentucky failed during this crisis, yet Dodd-Frank pummeled our small community banks with crippling regulations.
What we really needed was more oversight of the Fed, not small community banks.
If the Fed has purchased more than $2 trillion dollars of “distressed” assets, don’t taxpayers deserve to know what they bought?
Did they buy the assets of friends and acquaintances?
Did they buy any liabilities from companies they used to work for?
Maybe someone should ask about the revolving door from Wall Street to the Treasury to the Fed and back again. Are there any conflicts of interests?
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and I don’t agree on much, but I thought he did a great job of describing the Fed and the bank bailouts as: “A clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re on your own individualism for everyone else.”
Some say the Fed is already audited.
Well, when the auditor came to Congress, she was asked the identity of the debt bought by the Fed. She didn’t know.
When pressed on the case she responded, “We do not have the jurisdiction to directly go and audit reserve bank activities.”
Some worry about Fed independence.
I do too. I worry about the Fed’s independence from the Executive branch. The Fed is supposed to be overseen by Congress. Congress created the Fed. The Fed is now in every nook and cranny of banking regulation since Dodd-Frank and it is a necessity that we not let the Executive branch gain unlimited power.
With Dodd-Frank, we created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency with unprecedented regulatory powers and no Congressional oversight.
Any audit of the Fed should attempt to bring regulatory power back under the control of Congress.
Some worry that an audit would reveal which banks are shaky and lead to a panic.
The audit doesn’t occur until a year after the bill passes. When the 2011 audit occurred, no bank-runs ensued.
It is alarming that the Federal Reserve, which was granted Monopoly money-making power, is now specifically trying to stop my legislation. The Fed, with unlimited ability to print money, now prints that money to lobby against Congressional oversight. It is a disgrace and every citizen in the land should rise up and say: We the people are in charge and we demand an audit!
Peter Bernholz writes that public deficits have frequently been the reason for hyperinflations. The fight is twofold.
Audit the Fed is about transparency, but the fight is also about restoring fiscal sanity to our nation’s checkbook.
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.