Texas Republican Ted Cruz introduced
a bill to the Senate Wednesday February the 12, 2014 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." The
bill's authors sent out a release about the bill Thursday afternoon, saying
"it will ensure the federal government gives the same deference to the 33
states that define marriage as the union between one man and one woman as it
does to the 17 states that have chosen to recognize same-sex unions." In the middle of a flood of recent court
decisions striking down state gay-marriage bans, Senator Cruz and Senator Mike
Lee, have introduced a bill to protect states’ rights to define marriage the
way they want to. According to a press release from Cruz’s office, the bill
“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.” This article written by Huffington Post’s Associate Politics Editor Luke
Johnson clearly details the Ted Cruz’s stance on gay marriage. Senator Cruz and
Mike Lee are pushing back against a recent Supreme Court ruling that struck
down the heart of the Defense of Marriage Act and paved the way for the federal
government to provide benefits to same-sex couples who were married legally. Since then, the federal government has allowed gay married couples to
file jointly on federal tax returns regardless of state residence and has
permitted the surviving spouse of gay married couples to collect Social
Security benefits, along with an array of other benefits that were previously
only available to heterosexual marriages. In
this article Johnson gives the reader the impression that Cruz's bill has next
to no chance of even coming up in the Democratic-controlled Senate, let alone
being signed by President Barack Obama. The same sex marriage debate is a hot
topic in today’s politics and gets people very fired up. Conservative persons believe
that marriage is a bond between and man and a woman, and the U.S. government
should not recognize that union. Current supporters believe that gay couples
deserve the same rights that married couples have.
Friday, March 7, 2014
ReplyDeleteTed Cruz V. Gay Marriage
I chose to write a commentary on Joel Lopez's Ted Cruz V. Gay Marriage. I agree that is is a very hot topic but I myself do not know why. I think that marriage between partners should be about love, and not defining love by man and woman.
I know that some biblical views on homosexuality are not accepted, but isn't religious persecution what our ancestors were coming to America to avoid? If a person finds happiness in a same sex partner then who are we to decide their future. I do not think that the political views of Senator Ted Cruz is right. If the same sex couples are bring allowed to file joint tax returns and buy homes together, then the only difference is opinions. When we started this class I took an Internet quiz, it was an advocates for self government quiz. It had identified me as a Centrist. Although I some what agree with that this is an issue I am not riding the fence about. I think that love is love no matter your race, religion, or sexual preference.
Senator Ted Cruz is more worried about the state's rights, and missing the part of that this is another human being that has found love. This person is most likely not breaking any laws, more than likely is a productive member of society, so whats the difference. According to an article written by Murray Lipp a social activist the top ten reasons against gay marriages are: Nature, its just not natural, Procreation, Religion, Redefinition, Sanctity, raising children in a homosexual environment, religious people will be discriminated against, Civil unions are good enough, and finally States Rights have the right to oppose it. Well lets go through these. Nature, what is more natural than love? Procreation, last time I checked there are plenty of children that are waiting to be loved. If love comes from two mothers, or two fathers then what is so bad about that. Not every child raised by gay parents are going to be gay. Religion, well if you don't believe in gay marriage I suggest that you don't have one. Simple as that. Redefinition, yes that is a possibility but that already been happening on several levels, such as divorce, bi-racial marriages, it is allowing social evolution. Sanctity, gay marriage is not destroying the sanctity of marriage. Gay marriage is marriage. I'm sure there will be divorce, and other problems just as in a opposite sex marriage. Raising children in a homosexual environment is no different that a straight family. The only obstacle I see is the explanation of two mothers or two fathers. Civil unions are good enough, if that was true then why aren't religious couples just satisfied with civil unions? They have the right to get married, it is a discrimination to gay couples. Religion, like I say earlier in the blog, if you don't believe in it then don't have a gay marriage.
I hope that someday all States are able to recognize the Sanctity of marriage, homosexual or heterosexual. It is our rights as humans to be happy in the life we choose as long as we are not causing harm to others.
(1) Lipp, Murray. "The Top 10 Arguments Against Gay Marriage: All Receive Failing Grades!." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 28 May 2013. Web. 6 Mar. 2014. .
In his Valentine’s Day blog post, Joel Lopez gives an overview of a Bill filed in the U.S. Senate by Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah, both Republicans whom I admire in many ways (e.g., their solo stand to block Obamacare funding); but not in this bit of legislative folly. Joel also wrote a thoughtful commentary to my recent post on marriage equality, in which he finds my post “…hits the nail on the head when it comes to what most liberal Americans think when it comes to marriage equality.” While I don’t think it will surprise Joel that I disagree with the Cruz-Lee legislation, he and others might be surprised that it’s because I believe my views on marriage equality to be fundamentally conservative, not liberal.
ReplyDeleteThe Cruz-Lee Bill seeks to expand States’ rights. But, it does so by weakening and infringing on individual, fundamental Privacy, Liberty and Due Process protections in the U.S. Constitution. In Loving v Virginia (1967), the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear the right to marry is a decision an individual is free to make without governmental interference, other than establishing minimum ages. So, while the States have constitutionally- protected rights and expressly reserved powers to them – like the authority to establish age of consent, & minimum ages for marriage, that authority has limits. For me, many of those limits stop at the water’s edge of individual constitutionally-protected rights; like the right to marry.
To illustrate, consider a different circumstance protected by the same provisions of the Constitution noticed in Joel’s first blog post that he and his wife homeschool their first grader. In the early 1980s in Texas, then-Attorney General Jim Mattox, a Democrat, publicly stated he did not believe parents were qualified to raise their children, much less teach them at home. General Mattox then went on a crusade to crush parents’ rights to homeschool their children. What resulted was a years-long battle to protect the individual rights of parents to direct their children’s education and upbringing from the overreaching intrusion of the State, culminating in a Texas Supreme Court decision (http://www.thsc.org/2010/07/the-history-of-home-education-in-texas/) in favor of parental rights and family privacy.
The battle over marriage equality is simply a rose by another name; a distinction without a difference in the context of constitutionally-protected Privacy, Liberty and Due Process interests of the individual. Constitutional rights are not issued in Small, Medium or Large like a T-Shirt or a fountain drink. It’s either a right, or it isn’t. In matters of marriage and family, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the Liberty interest in family privacy “has its source, and its contours are ordinarily to be sought, not in state law, but in intrinsic human rights…” (as stated in Smith v Organization of Foster Families, a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court case) (Emphasis Added)....(cont.)
It’s important I reiterate my position on marriage equality is neither liberal, nor rooted in any liberal ideology. My position is that marriage equality has always been protected; right there in the U.S. Constitution, just waiting to be recognized, expressed and exercised to the benefit of anyone being discriminated against. I don’t have to agree with everyone’s choice of spouse to respect their individual right to choose that spouse, much like I don’t have to agree with a parent homeschooling their child to respect their protected right to do so. Ultimately, it’s my conservative recognition that in order to expand States’ rights regarding marriage would necessarily infringe on the rights of individuals that guides my position. That’s the very definition of an unconstitutional law. Sens. Cruz and Lee both have deep, broad experience in the practice of constitutional and appellate law. Their proposal is a naked, shameful political stunt to throw red meat at what is a clear legal issue, regardless of any majority (read here, “mob” effort to suppress individual rights. And, that’s why the Cruz-Lee Bill should go no further than the bad idea pile.
ReplyDeleteReigning in abusive, expansive, intrusive, overreaching government is always an act of conservatism; a clinging to and defense of the founding principles of individual rights, free from government infringement. Edmund Burke famously said, “Those who do not know history are destined to repeat it.” I believe it’s imperative that every citizen be willing to stand up and protect the fundamental rights of any citizen. The infringement of one right only ever leads to the infringement of another. Thus, the infringement of my neighbor’s rights today will inevitably and eventually lead to the infringement of my rights tomorrow; and vice versa. That’s why I support marriage equality; and why I oppose the Cruz-Lee Bill.