Monday, October 6, 2014

Senator Ted Cruz on the SCOTUS Refusal to Review State Laws Prohibiting Same Sex Marriages...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, today issued the following statement regarding the Supreme Court’s decision to reject requests from five States to review state laws that prohibit same-sex marriage.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to let rulings by lower court judges stand that redefine marriage is both tragic and indefensible,” said Sen. Cruz. “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.

I am by no means a supporter of Senator Ted Cruz, R-TX and find most of his utterings to be somewhat like, well, Sam I am and green eggs and ham. But I find the reading of Senator Cruz's denunciation of the Supreme Courts decision to allow lower courts to define marriage to have legal merit. Broad interpretations are often as Cruz points out judicial activism as work. SCOTUS took the low road in not reviewing the request of 5 states to review their laws prohibiting same sex marriages in their states.

Having said the above, ethically and morally the lower courts made the right decision. I would like to believe the SCOTUS, had they chosen to hear the cases would have ruled the same. Human rights and basic tenet of the pursuit of happiness certainly should trump ignorance and the bigotry that is quite often born out of ignorance.

Continue reading BELOW THE FOLD.

Via: Memeorandum


  1. RN: "Human rights and basic tenet of the pursuit of happiness certainly should trump ignorance and the bigotry that is quite often born out of ignorance."

    Well, yes. It's as simple as equality under the law. I don't see how any court can get around that. Bravo!

  2. I wouldn't call it activism. SCOTUS has deferred to the lower courts in the past.

    The last I remember is Kelo vs. City of New London which conservatives were up in arms over and incorrectly believed to be a SCOTUS ruling in favor of eminent domain rather than a decision not to review the lower court. It's not an unusual occurrence in American jurisprudence.

    If Teddy could stop hatin' on the homos long enough he'd realize that. Especially being a lawyer.
    The rest is boiler plate opinion. The usual contention that marriage like any other institution hasn't changed radically through history.
    Overly broad? Why not give precedent Teddy or some supporting evidence?

    Nothing in the 14th stops the judiciary from applying equal protection to the institution of marriage, Teddy. Times change.

    Just more whining and a self serving application of the term "activist judge", i.e. they didn't rule as I wanted.

  3. Again, "the Consttution is a living, breathing, and changing document" argument. Just as the founders, in their (compared to today's standards) infinite wisdom intended.

    Eh Ducky?

    1. No, I think Marbury v. Madison settled quite a bit.

    2. Absolutely, Marbury v. Madison changed the Constitution, although for the worse, as Thomas Jefferson noted. That said, applying equal protection to the institution of marriage via the 14th would be a good "change".

  4. Seems we find ourselves in agreement yet again Shaw. On principle and right.

  5. RN, if they were not going to dissent from the lower court, why take it up? Isn't their reticence de facto approval?

    Clearly Cruz is upset because they came to different outcome then the one he preferred.

  6. Good point Dave. You are correct course, it is de facto approval. I guess I lust would have preferred if the SCOTUS would have came out full bore straight on and did what I consider the right thing. I suppose it's about principle. Lust me I guess.

    Cruz is Cruz, and he will always be Cruz.

  7. The republicans want to fight a losing battle and they will expend all resources to prove this is a loosing battle.
    I didn't know there were so many legal minds on this blog, they must take after the their constitutional scholar leader.

  8. Well, sure as hell better than taking after the Porn leader at one conservative blog that shall remain unnamed.

  9. And I am NOT implying you do skud, guess I made a poor attempt at levity.

  10. Ted Cruz's views on gay-marriage? I'd rather hear Porky Pig's views on expressive language disorders and Clutch Cargo's on primitive animation....At least there's some irony there (though, yes, it's entirely possible that this Cruz fellow himself is secretly gay).

  11. Could be Will, could be, but "Only the Cruz Knows."


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.