I happened to catch the interview. Savannah Gutherie pressed him that his opposition to gay marriage was the same as the previous discriminatory laws preventing interracial marriage. I don’t think he responded all that well. He failed to point out that the opposition to gay marriage involved protecting the from day one historical male female institution of marriage itself, and that opposition to interracial marriage was about race, not about the male female institution of marriage.
He did not allow her to distract with the interacial question because it would be accepting a narrative that it had anything to do with same sex. It does not, and people know it.
He could have made her a fool for asking but was gracious enough not to waste the time.
He gets on these interviews and he talks to the people not the interviewer.
That is what he does so right in these situations.
Yeah. I thought his response to the effect that there was no religious backing of the prohibition against interracial marriages opened him up to the counter-argument (which has already popped up on leftist sites, if you google for the Cruz interview) that there were, in fact, religious arguments made against interracial marriages.
I think he did very well pointing out that more than 600,000 men died on the battlefields for causes one of which was the institution of slavery and that the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were all post-Civil War amendments to ensure that no one would be judged on race and ....THEREFORE comparison of race to homosexuality is not comparable because there are no laws or constitutional constructs that address homosexual so-called ‘marriage’.
Ted then schooled Savannah that the course taken by Americans to recognize blacks with all rights and liberties was the democratic process whereas homosexuals used the judiciary. Ted then went onto Justice Scalia’s dissent in which he exclaimed that 5 unelected unrepresentative lawyers from Yale and Harvard (no evangelicals) viewing America as one big flyover country saw fit to lord themselves over more than 300 million Americans in making law rather than adjudicating it.
Crux was as always brilliant.
I disagree.
Or at least I disagree about your comment regarding how Cruz should have answered the entrapment. Whereas what you said about the institution of marriage is correct, I think that this statement is something that we need to make to the culture ourselves, locally.
Cruz, on the other hand, has set himself up as the rule-of-law candidate. The law before this horrible ruling was that states were able to define marriage for themselves, and it was put into place in a Constitutional way. Until 5 oligarch tyrants decided to impose their will. And that is what he focused upon.
I believe that the government-recognized marriage debate is a matter of a policy debate, at least in the Constitutional framework, and the larger matter is the matter of judicial and executive tyranny. At least in the campaign.