Ted Cruz (R) introduces Anti-Gay marriage bill

[Chingylol]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_4780699.html

WASHINGTON -- It seems Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has taken up a new cause in Congress -- defending states' right to regulate marriage.

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." Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is the bill's only co-sponsor so far.

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."

“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.”

Cruz's bill comes after Rep. Randy Weber (R-Texas) introduced a bill in January called the "State Marriage Defense Act Of 2014," which would require federal agencies to look into a person's "legal residence" when determining marital status and how federal law would be applied.

In June the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, which had barred the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. 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.

Cruz warned of the dangers of gay marriage a month after the Supreme Court decision in a July 2013 interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network. "If you look at other nations that have gone down the road towards gay marriage, that’s the next step where it gets enforced," he said. "It gets enforced against Christian pastors who decline to perform gay marriages, who speak out and preach biblical truths on marriage."

While 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, it is a sign that gay marriage is still an issue among the conservative right. While Republican governors such as Chris Christie of New Jersey and Susana Martinez of New Mexico have decided not to fight gay marriage in their states despite being opposed to it, federal lawmakers have continued to introduce bills limiting its recognition.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

So much for a *fucking hero*.

[cherb]

I can't stand how people talk about "the dangers" of allowing basic human rights. Shit's ridiculous. If you don't like gay people, then ignore them and stop being such a fucking whiny bitch. Stop trying to enforce archaic and ignorant religious ideals on people who want no part of that idiocy.

[Vokal]

Is it just me or does Ted Cruz look like the most 'fabulous' guy in town.

It's just kind of ironic that someone introducing this type of bill would look so...you know, gay.

[Templar 331]

and the definition of marriage should be left to democratically elected legislatures, not dictated from Washington.

I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I got to this point. So it should be up to people that are elected into office, just not an office in Washington. Does that include him?

[araine]

yet another useless bill from the most useless person in Washington.

[Tyraena]

Lol @ "biblical truths". Gay marriage isn't a threat to the secular concept of marriage, which is a purely legal idea that binds two people into a relationship, allowing the sharing of many legal responsibilities and benefits. Anyone who thinks even uses the term "traditional marriage" or thinks there is anything to "defend" is well on their way to violation of the separation of church and state. Because without religion, and its influence on these terms and moral dictions, the legal/secular concept of marriage is just a sterile contract, with the burden of significance on the people entering *into* the relationship, not the paperwork legalizing it.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

yet another useless bill from the most useless person in Washington.

Useless implies doing nothing. He's actually just plain old detrimental.

[Espe]

Typical of the conservative agenda. They prey on those they feel are the weakest members of society: minorities, gays, women. It is what they are elected by their base to do, after all.

God, Guns, Gays and Gynecology - the Republican 4G Network.

[Nilinor]

What he wants to do (ban gay marriage) is wrong, but how he is trying to do it is correct. The states SHOULD dictate what happens in their state, even if you dont like it. I mean, whats the point of electing state governments if the Federal government does everything for them? How he is going about it, by directly targetting/mentioning gay marriage I believe is wrong, but the overall message (Stop giving power to the federal government to tell you what you can and cant do everywhere) should be listened to.

Not everyone thinks the way you do, so stop forcing everyone to do it.

[Wells]

What he wants to do (ban gay marriage) is wrong, but how he is trying to do it is correct. The states SHOULD dictate what happens in their state, even if you dont like it. I mean, whats the point of electing state governments if the Federal government does everything for them? How he is going about it, by directly targetting/mentioning gay marriage I believe is wrong, but the overall message (Stop giving power to the federal government to tell you what you can and cant do everywhere) should be listened to.

Not everyone thinks the way you do, so stop forcing everyone to do it.

Equal protection under the law isn't a state by state issue.

[Kraenen]

so much for the hero of freedom and less government.

[Icyflamez]

What he wants to do (ban gay marriage) is wrong, but how he is trying to do it is correct. The states SHOULD dictate what happens in their state, even if you dont like it. I mean, whats the point of electing state governments if the Federal government does everything for them? How he is going about it, by directly targetting/mentioning gay marriage I believe is wrong, but the overall message (Stop giving power to the federal government to tell you what you can and cant do everywhere) should be listened to.

Not everyone thinks the way you do, so stop forcing everyone to do it.

States have absolutely no right to violate the US Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.

[Reikk]

Honestly, the government shouldn't even be involved in granting marriage licenses. Church's should "marry" people while the state should provide civil unions to all couples. That way religions can still have their "marriage" and yet the rights and benefits of being a couple are not withheld from same-sex couples.

There are really only two arguments against gay marriage. The first is religious. While I respect all religions and support their freedom to practice how they may, religion alone is not a legitimate basis for law in a secular society. One's religious views should not be forced on the rest of the nation. Religious groups are always complaining about how government is attacking their faith, yet they are trying to use the government to force their beliefs on others. This religious argument is not valid.

The other argument that may be made is out of hate, fear, or "tradition". People don't like the homosexual lifestyle or fear that it is going to lead to a degradation of tradition in society. Essentially it is the religious argument....without religion.

I just don't understand how people are so hateful (especially when professing to be christians and "christ-like") towards others. Thank goodness a growing majority in the US is moving past this fear of gay marriage.

[mvaliz]

Can somebody please explain to me this mentality of "Every state should do their own thing that they want to on EVERY single political issue?"

I thought the idea was that we are the United States of America, not just the States of America. =/

[Espe]

Going to go ahead and edit this to show how this sounds to anyone with some basic human empathy and a knowledge of the history of the US:

Cruz warned of the dangers of mixed-race marriage a month after the Supreme Court decision in a July 2013 interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network. "If you look at other nations that have gone down the road towards mixed-race marriage, that’s the next step where it gets enforced," he said. "It gets enforced against Christian pastors who decline to perform mixed-race marriages, who speak out and preach biblical truths on marriage."

[Chasavaqe]

So this is basically not allowed because of the Bible.
If we're doing this, let's outlaw bacon AND make circumcision mandatory (a la Judaism)
Outlaw ALL meat (Hinduism)
Outlaw alcohol and force restaurants to be closed during Ramadan (Islam)
And so on and so forth. If we establish our laws based upon religious teachings and open the door to equally-restrictive religious laws, pretty soon nobody has freedom.
We're supposed to have a separation of church and state... Not a separation of church and state (except for the values taught by my religion some deem worthy enough to force onto the entire populace of a nation)... And this is coming from a Christian...
People sometimes... I tell ya.

[mvaliz]

so much for the hero of freedom and less government.

That's really kinda the weird thing. He's all for less Washington-based government... but seems to want to make every state some unique feudalistic island with its own set of rules on every subject. /shrug

[Deleted]

Now look, before you start to rant on me, please read the entire post.
I feel like we might aswell give the church the right to marry only heterosexuals.
HOWEVER
We should offer gay couples something similiar to a wedding, might aswell call it the same thing. Have cake, dance, say vows, just let the state fix the marrying part instead of the church. With this comes exactly the same benefits as marriage. and to get out of it you get a divorce.

If it's so important to the church, let the bratty children have it and they can go play in their own sandbox.
edit: i'm all for homosexual's marriages and rights, why should i care what goes on in someone elses bedroom?

[satimy]

Equal protection under the law isn't a state by state issue.

What equal protection aren't gay people receiving? Its not like non-gay people are allowed to marry people of the same sex. I like the idea of it being a states rights issues but I'm not sure how that would work either.....would Texas nullify a marriage of someone from California that moved to Texas? How would it even nullify it? By tax breaks?