Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said Monday that he plans to introduce a constitutional amendment barring the federal government or the courts form overturning state marriage laws.
Citing the Supreme Court's "tragic and indefensible" refusal to take up same-sex marriage cases - essentially legalizing same-sex marriage in another 11 states - Cruz announced the proposal in a statement. He said he has already introduced legislation in the Senate to "protect the authority of state legislatures to define marriage," because "marriage is a question for the states."
"And that is why, 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," the potential 2016 GOP presidential contender announced.
[...]
"Traditional marriage is an institution whose integrity and vitality are critical to the health of any society," Cruz said. "We should remain faithful to our moral heritage and never hesitate to defend it."
36 comments
Traditional marriage? What does that mean? Marriage between a soldier and his six year old POWs, as defined by the Bible? Dual spirits, as practiced by Native Americans before they were shown the, uhm, "love of Christ"? The good news is that the fundies are now trying to fight solely at the state level. They're retreating, folks.
Yeah, good luck with that. And Republicans wonder why people view them as backward.
Tell ya what, Teddy, we'll pass your amendment only after every state grants gay people the right to get married.
Why should marriage laws be any different from other laws? Should states also be free to rule in favor of stoning of unruly children?
Traditional marriage? Is that marrying off your daughters to the sons of land-owners? Giving your male slaves a living RealDoll? Having a hundred wives and six hundred concubines?
Your moral heritage? Does that include the settlers' behavior toward the Native Americans?
How the hell does refusing people from marrying the love of their life, whom they are already living together with, threaten the health of society? What is the huge immoral impact on your life, Teddy, that Ellen and Portia can marry each other legally? Do you have a lightning scar like Harry Potter's, but which splits open every time two women or two men say "I do" in front of a priest or judge?
The Supreme Court technically didn't strike down the bans but refused to hold them up. Granted, it is possible that they were willing to strike it down, but in this case they just didn't uphold the bans.
@Frank,
Bear in mind, just over a decade ago, the current situation for gay rights was unthinkable. In 2004, the Republicans won an election on bashing gays. Now? At a national level, the issue is a liability for them (and many are even coming around). When I was in high school, there were, what, a few states that allowed same sex marriage that I could count on one hand, and it lost in California. Trying to settle the issue on a national level then would have been downright suicidal for the gay rights movement. Now? Just the opposite. When I say the fundies are in retreat, that's what I mean. They have more or less given up on trying to ban gay marriage in the states where it already happens, and now they just want to hold the line.
That being said, I agree with you on abortion, but it's a separate issue. In fact, the reason Americans are more hostile to abortion rights than to gay rights is simple: empathy. In the arena of gay rights, we can challenge the fundies by appealing to empathy for those who are different. Contrary to what the Bryan Fischers of the world seem to think, it's not about sexual intercourse. It's about love. That's how gay rights are doing so well right now. On abortion, though, both sides can appeal to empathy. Either for the mother who is in a bad situation and must make the choice, or for an unborn baby. I am not saying that I agree with the prolife side, but they do make that appeal to empathy for the "baby", and that is how the pro lifers can win battles for the heart of the public, and why the homophobes cannot.
Oh Fuck You.
Edit: That was to Cruz.
Remaining faithful to "our moral heritage?"
Alright, I hope you're ready to reintroduce Jim Crow, feudalism, violent discrimination against anyone who doesn't share your race and religion, and treating women like property. The past was never a peaceful, law-abiding utopia like you like to portray it.
Ted, go back to Canada
Oh no you don't, we already got rid of him. Dump him on someone else.
And gay marriage opponents, just give up, you lost let it go.
"Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said Monday that he plans to introduce a constitutional amendment barring the federal government or the courts form overturning state marriage laws. "
So anti misegenation laws will again be in force in spite of Loving vs Virginia?
@skybison
"Oh no you don't, we already got rid of him."
What possessed y'all to send him to Texas? We have enough politicians making our state a laughingstock already!
Don't like living in a country where same sex marriage is legal?
There are still plenty of countries where it isn't. Move! Get the fuck out! And while you're at it, take all of your hateful bigoted friends with you. You won't be missed.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.