Thursday, March 28, AD 2024 12:45pm

Ted Cruz on the Courts Mandating Gay Marriage

 

 

At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address

 

 

God bless the Federal judiciary!  After having such a smashing success in “resolving” the abortion issue by legalizing it, they have “resolved” the gay marriage debate by mandating it.  Senator Ted Cruz (R.Tx.) is having none of it:

The Supreme Court’s decision to let rulings by lower court judges stand that redefine marriage is both tragic and indefensible. By refusing to rule if the States can define marriage, the Supreme Court is abdicating its duty to uphold the Constitution. The fact that the Supreme Court Justices, without providing any explanation whatsoever, have permitted lower courts to strike down so many state marriage laws is astonishing.

This is judicial activism at its worst. The Constitution entrusts state legislatures, elected by the People, to define marriage consistent with the values and mores of their citizens. Unelected judges should not be imposing their policy preferences to subvert the considered judgments of democratically elected legislatures.

The Supreme Court is, de facto, applying an extremely broad interpretation to the 14th Amendment without saying a word – an action that is likely to have far-reaching consequences. Because of the Court’s decision today, 11 States will likely now be forced to legalize same-sex marriage: Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Utah, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming. And this action paves the way for laws prohibiting same-sex marriage to be overturned in any state.

It is beyond dispute that when the 14th Amendment was adopted 146 years ago, as a necessary post-Civil War era reform, it was not imagined to also mandate same-sex marriage, but that is what the Supreme Court is implying today. The Court is making the preposterous assumption that the People of the United States somehow silently redefined marriage in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment.

Nothing in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the 14th Amendment or any other constitutional provision authorizes judges to redefine marriage for the Nation. It is for the elected representatives of the People to make the laws of marriage, acting on the basis of their own constitutional authority, and protecting it, if necessary, from usurpation by the courts.

Marriage is a question for the States. That is why I have introduced legislation, S. 2024, to protect the authority of state legislatures to define marriage. 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.

Traditional marriage is an institution whose integrity and vitality are critical to the health of any society. We should remain faithful to our moral heritage and never hesitate to defend it.

Our most precious civil right is our right to rule ourselves.  The Federal judiciary seems very unclear on the concept of “government of the people, by the people and for the people.”

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
9 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anzlyne
Anzlyne
Tuesday, October 7, AD 2014 7:24am

May the Lord bless Ted Cruz as a he speaks in defense of Right. We know how he will be (and has been) attacked so we pray that he and others (who know and will speak the truth) will not lose heart. Mary Mother of God pray for us.

Anzlyne
Anzlyne
Tuesday, October 7, AD 2014 7:51am

Our hope is that our Supreme Court would weigh and consider that correspondence of our laws with Right and Truth, as we have recognized and accepted corporately in our Constitution, so that our right and liberties might be maintained.
Instead the Supreme Court may be presiding over state suicide by disintegration.
Here is a thought from Orestes Brownson (The Americanrepublic) “ I ….still maintain that the sovereignty of the American Republic vests in the States, though in the States collectively, or united, not severally, and thus escape alike consolidation and disintegration.”

WK Aiken
WK Aiken
Tuesday, October 7, AD 2014 8:41am

OK, so I found and read Sen. Cruz’ bill (https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2024/text) which was mercifully short and as far as I can tell, right to the point. Of course, since I read law about as well as I read Sanskrit, there are possible nuances there which most likely evade me. So, I ask the panel assembled:
.
Is this bill simply stating that, if it becomes law, State legislatures will be the final arbiters in the matter, and that it is in those august chambers the battles will contend, placing the issue beyond the scope of Federal courts at any level?
.
If so, then hurrah for Sen. Cruz.
.
Of course, any time that any government body claims that they have the right to define marriage, Mark 10:6-9 come to mind. Huh.

Mary De Voe
Tuesday, October 7, AD 2014 12:06pm

“Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose of earth shall be loosed in heaven”
.
Has the Supreme Court imparted procreative powers on same sex couples?
.
“government of the people, by the people and for the people.” Same sex “marriage” needs to be put on the ballot.
.
The Supreme Court is allowing sodomists to redefine our civilization, to redefine our marriage. After the Court defined Dred Scott as three-quarters of a person and the sovereign person in the womb, who constitutes our sovereign nation from the very first moment of his existence, as non-existent, people are lucky to be born before the Court says that you and I are non-existent, non-persons.
.
God, in heaven, the Father of us all, will be dictated to by a Court who believes that it is a Church established by Christ. If the Court believes itself to be a church, then, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.” ought to decide for themselves the matter of same-sex wives.
.
And there above the Court are the Ten Commandments for all to see and know: “God save this Court.”
.
Ted Cruz refused to give the murderers in the room countenance.

Art Deco
Tuesday, October 7, AD 2014 3:44pm

Our most precious civil right is our right to rule ourselves. The Federal judiciary seems very unclear on the concept of “government of the people, by the people and for the people.”

The judiciary have fewer excuses. The problem is all over the haut bourgeois, really. I’ve got academics in my family whose understanding of ‘democratic choice’ is that they get what they want.

c matt
c matt
Tuesday, October 7, AD 2014 4:42pm

Anywho, my guess is that Roberts sided with the liberal justices to deny writ on the cases. Whether he did so because he agrees with the lower court decisions, or because he does not think a majority would reverse them (given Kenedy’s disgraceful record), who knows. At least this leaves a slim reed for a future SCOTUS to support real marriage.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top