Shocker: Ted Cruz Gets It Completely Wrong On Marriage

Ted Cruz

Senator Ted Cruz has introduced an unconstitutional anti-gay marriage amendment and his rationale for doing so couldn’t be more ass-backwards.

Amid a wave of court decisions striking down anti-gay marriage laws in states, the Texas Republican introduced a bill to the Senate Wednesday to amend U.S. law “with regard to the definition of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’ for Federal purposes and to ensure respect for State regulation of marriage.” [...]

“I support traditional marriage. Under President Obama, the federal government has tried to re-define marriage, and to undermine the constitutional authority of each state to define marriage consistent with the values of its citizens,” Cruz said in a statement. “The Obama Administration should not be trying to force gay marriage on all 50 states. We should respect the states, and the definition of marriage should be left to democratically elected legislatures, not dictated from Washington. This bill will safeguard the ability of states to preserve traditional marriage for its residents.”

On the contrary, while the federal government previously defined marriage as being between a man and a woman under the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal government no longer does so.

As it stands, the federal government does not “re-define marriage” because the government doesn’t define it at all. What Ted Cruz is proposing is a federal definition of marriage, and what he’s proposing has been found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

If a state court finds that their state’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, their decision stands because the federal government, and thus federal law, no longer defines marriage.

Ted Cruz wants to preempt state law with federal law because states are finding that their laws are unjust. To rectify this, he wants to bring back DOMA by altering the language but not altering the meaning of it.

Consider this conclusive proof that “States’ Rights” only applies when the state is thumbing its nose at the federal government.

It Ted Cruz wants to blame someone for the recent spate of state supreme courts finding that their bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional, he should point his finger not at the Obama administration, but at the United States Supreme Court.

Of course the last time Ted Cruz stood in front of the Supreme Court he lost.

CruzPainting

This entry was posted in LGBT and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Lady Willpower

    “What Ted Cruz is proposing is a federal definition of marriage, and what he’s proposing has been found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.”

    Yes, Ted, tell me more about how you carry a copy of the Constitution around in your breast pocket….

    • D_C_Wilson

      Carrying around a copy of the Constitution is a real fetish among wingnuts, especially when they can appear in front of a camera to whip it out. Reading and understanding it, however, not so much.

      • mrbrink

        That’s because whipping out a copy of Mein Kampf is still considered politically incorrect.

      • nathkatun7

        Very well said, D_C_Wilson.

      • Jone_of_Snark

        Listening to Cruz, I’m reminded of that old bit from “A Fish Called Wanda”

        “Apes don’t read Nietzsche.”
        “Yes they do, Otto. They just don’t understand it.”

  • GrafZeppelin127

    Every single thing he said is wrong.

    • mrbrink

      Twisted logic as performance art.

      Ted Cruz will use the power of the federal government to overrule the states that uphold same sex marriage, but in no way does this “undermine the constitutional authority of each state to define marriage.” Take that, cognitive dissonance!

      If you’re going to sit in the front row at a Ted Cruz show, I recommend wearing a plastic poncho.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    As it stands, the federal government does not “re-define marriage” because the government doesn’t define it at all.

    This is the point I keep trying to hammer into the thick heads of everyone shrieking about how we can’t have equality because we cannot under any circumstances Change The Meaning Of Words™.

    The word “marriage” need not be defined at all in order to include same-sex couples. New York is a great example; all it did was add § 10-a to the Domestic Relations Law, which says “A marriage that is otherwise valid shall be valid regardless of whether the parties to the marriage are of the same or different sex.”

    To the extent New York “defines” “marriage,” it defines it in § 10 as “a civil contract, to which the consent of parties capable in law of making a contract is essential.” That’s it.

    The only people trying to “define” or “re-define” marriage are those who are against equality.

    • Zen Diesel

      Just another example of the so called party for smaller government trying to install the values of it’s moon batshit culture god warrior base on the entire nation.

  • zirgar

    It’s funny that in that picture of Cruz standing in front of the court, the drape of the curtains in the background makes it look like he’s wearing a Klan hood.

    • muselet

      It looks more like a dunce cap to me. Either way, it’s appropriate.

      –alopecia

      • D_C_Wilson

        Dunce cap, definitely.

      • mrbrink

        I’m going with Klan hood. They’re not afraid to hide their faces anymore.

        We can debate this all night. : )

    • D_C_Wilson

      Pretty much any thing that needs to be said about Ted Cruz is summed up in fact that he commissioned someone to not only paint him standing before the Supreme Court, but to include several artists also painting him in the portrait. I’m surprised he didn’t tell the painter to put his face on all nine Supreme Court justices, too.

  • D_C_Wilson

    In total seriousness, is there anyone in politics who is more full of shit than Ted Cruz? Even Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin aren’t as big a bullshit artist as he is.

  • muselet

    Chris Hayes: Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base are the marks.

    –alopecia

  • Badgerite

    The recent Virginia ruling which struck down that states ban on same sex marriage did so not only on the basis of denial of equal protection of the law but also on the basis of denial of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Basically, he wants to amend the constitution so as to provide an exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution so that any given state can choose to not honor a marriage performed in another state.
    People have been known to marry people from other differing states. How does that work, if in a divorce proceeding or a estate contest or a child custody case or end or life issues, one of the states in question does not recognize that there was even a marriage. Legal difficulties abound.
    Holy bad idea, Batman.