Ted Cruz to introduce constitutional amendment on gay marriage after Supreme Court ducks appeals

posted at 2:01 pm on October 7, 2014 by Allahpundit

“Putting the paddles on the chest of a divisive issue with absolutely no hope of the outcome he promises is a hallmark of Ted Cruz,” says GOP consultant Rick Wilson acidly, the memory of last year’s doomed “defund” effort firmly in mind. Okay, but the fine print on what Cruz wants to do is interesting. Typically when social conservatives start talking up amendments aimed at gay marriage, they’re thinking of a substantive change — namely, a new law of the land that says marriage involves one man and one woman and no other combination. Once that’s in the Constitution, even courts can’t mess with it. (I think!) As The Atlantic notes, though, Cruz’s proposed amendment isn’t substantive. It’s procedural.

“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.

Note well: Not an amendment that would add one-man-one-woman to the Constitution but an amendment simply to leave the matter in the hands of state legislatures. According to a new poll from YouGov, a majority or plurality of adults in 31 states now favor gay marriage (South Dakotans are split evenly at 43); if the Cruz amendment were adopted, you might still have legalized gay marriage in most U.S. states within, say, 10 years. If you’re going to go to the trouble of getting a bill through two-thirds of each chamber of Congress and three-fourths of the states, why would you settle for a procedural change like that instead of pushing for a substantive change to the law? Every other strong social con in the 2016 field, presumably starting with Huckabee, will be pushing for a substantive amendment to outlaw SSM. Why would Cruz settle for less?

Two reasons: One, his primary base is wider than Huck’s is, and two, Cruz’s amendment is (slightly) more viable than the substantive amendment social conservatives prefer. If Cruz elbows Rand Paul out of the way in Iowa and South Carolina, Rand’s libertarian base will have to decide whether to back someone else in the field or just tune out. Cruz might inherit some of them, but the further he drifts towards Huckabee-an social conservatism, the worse his chances get. And of course, if he wins the nomination and heads to the general, he’ll face a national electorate that’s much warmer to legalized gay marriage than Republican primary voters. This amendment is his attempt to satisfy everyone. For social cons, it’s a signal that he’s with them on the merits. For libertarians and centrists, it’s a signal that he’s a federalist at heart and won’t stand in the way of pro-SSM states going their own way. I’m curious to see what Huckabee and/or Santorum do with that in primary debates. Will they accuse Cruz of selling out social cons by not pushing for the Federal Marriage Amendment instead? Will Cruz tolerate that on the theory that an attack from the right on “values” issue may show centrists that he’s not as “extreme” as the media keeps telling them he is?

As I say, a “let the states decide” amendment is also more salable politically than a “one man, one woman” amendment. In theory it should appeal to the state legislatures whose support Cruz needs to get the amendment enacted; he could even roll this into a broader federalist campaign demanding more state power at the expense of the feds, as some righties who dream of a new constitutional convention advocate. In practice, of course, the amendment is going nowhere: Democratic legislators in Congress and at the state level aren’t going to jeopardize the judicial momentum towards legalized gay marriage, even if Cruz’s idea would put more power in their own hands. (Look how many liberals in Congress are happy to let Obama grab legislative power in the name of enacting a policy they like.) Lefties are highly results-oriented on this issue and right now they’re getting the result they want. They won’t mess with that, especially if it means endorsing an idea proposed by Ted Cruz. Imagine how much better Cruz’s proposal will sound on the stump, though, than the Federal Marriage Amendment does. If he gets up there and says “we need one-man-one-woman as the law of the land,” half the country instantly tunes him out. If he gets up there and says “why can’t the people decide this issue in a democracy?”, he’ll get a respectful hearing even from the undecideds who disagree with him. It’s all part of his populist brand. Ultimately, he’ll frame this as a battle against unelected elite judges pulling power out of voters’ hands more so than a battle against gays getting married.

Exit quotation from an unnamed Republican aide, finding good news in yesterday’s Supreme Court punt: “We don’t have to agree with the decision, but as long as we’re not against it we should be okay… The base, meanwhile, will focus its anger on the Court, and not on us.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

cat_owner on October 8, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Interesting is not really the word I’d use.

Cleombrotus on October 8, 2014 at 1:04 PM

As Christians we have nothing to fear.

cat_owner on October 8, 2014 at 1:14 PM

Setting aside this question, and frankly it will be long gone as an issue in the 2016 Presidential race, the real problem here is Cruz himself. Sometimes the message may be right but the messenger very wrong. Such is the case with Ted Cruz. He comes across, rightly or wrongly as an angry man when speaking. He does not exude the confidence and optimism necessary for people to listen. They are immediately turned off by his bombast. He cannot win a general election if people will not stop to listen to what he is saying because they don’t like him. The messenger must promote a better image and it’s not something that can be taught. Joni Ernst in Iowa is the real thing. People can sense it. Scott Walker in Wisconsin is the real thing. They might not even agree with him but they will listen. Those of you putting your hope in Cruz miss an opportunity to move the country forward. The reason Reagan was so successful was his sunny disposition. People just liked him. It is hard to “like” a Ted Cruz. He is a flawed candidate and it has nothing to do with his message.

jake22 on October 8, 2014 at 1:21 PM

What Cruz is proposing shouldn’t even be necessary, because of the always ignored 10th Amendment. But I’m for anything that defangs the already hopelessly out of control central government, and the courts that enable it. States rights all the way. Then if you disagree, at least you have reasonable recourse.

FishingwFredo on October 8, 2014 at 1:02 PM

There’s a rather well-written summation of this here:

http://www.suanews.com/constitution/gay-marriage-what-does-our-constitution-say.html

I agree with most of that, and with the idea of states rights/smaller federal govt. What I disagree with, is leaving something like SSM to each state, as it would conflict with “full faith and credit”. If, for example, my marriage took place in a state that legally recognizes SSM, and we move to a state that does not, we would basically have that marriage null and void.

My NY State drivers license must be recognized as valid in any other state…why not my marriage license? If a state that does not have legal SSM would be, under FF&C, required to recognize SSM performed in a state where it is legal, that’s fine as well.

JetBoy on October 8, 2014 at 1:28 PM

The reason Reagan was so successful was his sunny disposition. People just liked him. It is hard to “like” a Ted Cruz. He is a flawed candidate and it has nothing to do with his message.

jake22 on October 8, 2014 at 1:21 PM

That’s a good point. Disposition makes a big difference. And Reagan was liked by people who normally don’t like Rs.

He won states that haven’t been won by an R Presidential candidate since. Quite a few actually.

cat_owner on October 8, 2014 at 1:37 PM

Now you’ve nuanced your definition of “moral” yet again. You went from “moral” to “moral behavior” to “cultural acceptability”. All I’m asking is for you to explain what “moral” is to you. You seem to be having some difficulty in providing an answer to that.

JetBoy on October 8, 2014 at 12:31 PM

I’m sorry about being short with you earlier, since I see the problem. Poor writing strikes yet again. I just wanted your general impression and a one word answer of “more” or “less” would have worked. The subject is too complicated for anything more in this setting, besides it wasn’t even a point that was germane to this topic. It was about fiscal issues and the impact morality has upon them.

DFCtomm on October 8, 2014 at 1:37 PM

As Christians we have nothing to fear.
cat_owner on October 8, 2014 at 1:14 PM

It’s not for me that I’m concerned. Personally, I’m gearing up for suffering. It’s the young people that I’m concerned about. They have no idea what’s coming and no one’s preparing them.

Cleombrotus on October 8, 2014 at 2:12 PM

My NY State drivers license must be recognized as valid in any other state…why not my marriage license? If a state that does not have legal SSM would be, under FF&C, required to recognize SSM performed in a state where it is legal, that’s fine as well.

JetBoy on October 8, 2014 at 1:28 PM

Would it still be ‘null and void’ if that state, in lieu of SSM, recognized civil union’s or domestic partnerships which offered exactly the same rights, benefits, and responsibilities as a NY State (or that state’s) marriage license?

Athos on October 8, 2014 at 2:13 PM

Cleombrotus on October 8, 2014 at 11:35 AM

.
Hilarious.

Gal_Spunes on October 8, 2014 at 11:48 AM

.
If this blogsite wasn’t entertaining, people wouldn’t come here.
.

‘Your’ mob is trying to use government force to unConstitutionally constrain the freedom of gays to marry, yet you are convinced that those that defeat you are the wrongdoers.

Gal_Spunes on October 8, 2014 at 11:48 AM

.
Demanding/requiring government enforced (rule of law) recognition/acceptance of anyone’s homosexual relationship as a “marriage”, by all of society at large, is “un-Constitutional.”
Hey ! … You know what ? … That goes for HETEROsexual relationships, as well.
.

Nothing is being imposed on you. It’s all in your furtive imaginations.

Gal_Spunes on October 8, 2014 at 11:48 AM

.
Government enforced societal recognition/acceptance of SSM … EQUALS ( = ) … government enforced societal recognition/acceptance of homosexuality as a valid, legitimate, NORMAL, state of condition.

It all … constitutes an IMPOSITION … period.

listens2glenn on October 8, 2014 at 2:17 PM

They have no idea what’s coming and no one’s preparing them.

Cleombrotus on October 8, 2014 at 2:12 PM

That’s true. But we also live in a world that has become increasingly hostile to Christianity. That too was predicted in the Bible.

cat_owner on October 8, 2014 at 2:25 PM


Americans voted TWICE for Barack Obama
into the White House.
The DAMAGING ACTIONS by Obama
will be diffecult to REVERSE.

_____________________________________

Ted Cruz is morphing into Sarah Palin

Ted Cruz is not going to become
presidential material by SERIAL STUNTS.

_____________________________________

Sen. Ted Cruz is fast becoming
the king of useless fights and empty gestures.
First came his destructive government shutdown gambit.
Then came his half-baked idea
for fighting the Islamic State.
Then he set up a showy albeit
unnecessary confrontation with a Christian group,

……………………………………………………………………..

Ted Cruz’s worldview is shallow, opportunistic,
and ever shifting to where he perceives
the base of the party to be.

Ironically, at a time when the voters feel
the wheels are coming off the bus and
crying out for responsible leadership,
Cruz is providing no sign he could be
that anti-Obama.

……………………………………………………………………..

Maybe it was too much to expect that a freshman
senator with ZERO Legislative ACCOMPLISHMENTS
would be ready for a presidential run.

If Ted Cruz is trying to act presidential,
he is FAILING miserably.

……………………………………………………………………..

If Ted Cruz is trying to replace Sarah Palin
as the darling of the far right
who is ACCOUNTABLE to no one and
RESPONSIBLE for nothing,
he is doing a bang-up job.

It is, one suspects, the triumph of AMBITION and
ARROGANCE over reason and good judgment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/10/07/ted-cruz-is-morphing-into-sarah-palin/
_____________________________________

Obama ruined it for UNQUALIFIED candidates

The argument for WINGING IT into
the Oval Office is much harder to make.

www. washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/10/07/obama-ruined-it-for-unqualified-candidates/
_____________________________________

http://www.ZeroHEDGE.com

www. RealClearPOLITICS.com
www. RealClearMARKETS.com

http://www.YouTUBE.com/BoomBustRT

https: // www. YouTUBE.com/user/BoomBustRT/Videos
………………………………………………………

Global HAWK on October 8, 2014 at 2:31 PM

Athos on October 8, 2014 at 12:36 PM

Awww…you resort to calling people “fascist” when you don’t get your way.

Cute. And mindless.

You don’t have a Constitutional leg to stand on.

Gal_Spunes on October 8, 2014 at 2:37 PM

As Christians we have nothing to fear.

cat_owner on October 8, 2014 at 1:14 PM

.
Define “fear?” . . . IF … I knew for sure … that the ‘Rapture’ is going to happen within the next several months (weeks? … days ? …), then resisting this “government enforced” change would be meaningless.

My resistance is based upon the assumption that My grand kids and GREAT grand kids, etc … are going to grow up into mature adulthood, before the rapture, which then requires giving them as free of a society as my parents inherited, and my generation began to inherit … before we BLEW IT ALL TO HELL. (exception to this: … Jim Crow laws, and Jim Crow attitudes on the part of some melanin-deficient “crackers”)
That means stopping, and reversing the movement of our culture, into societal acceptance of Godless ABNORMALITY.

Yeah … I just took it upon myself to JUDGE homosexuality as being an abnormality … what of it ?

listens2glenn on October 8, 2014 at 2:39 PM

listens2glenn on October 8, 2014 at 2:17 PM

You clearly have no clue about the Constitutional principles involved in this issue.

You ‘conservatives’ are much like ‘liberals’ every time you get snubbed…you all squawk in unison.

A pox on both your houses.

Gal_Spunes on October 8, 2014 at 2:43 PM

listens2glenn on October 8, 2014 at 2:17 PM

.
You clearly have no clue about the Constitutional principles involved in this issue.

You ‘conservatives’ are much like ‘liberals’ every time you get snubbed…you all squawk in unison.

A pox on both your houses.

Gal_Spunes on October 8, 2014 at 2:43 PM

.
Me : … Ohhh NO … You … clearly have no clue about the Constitutional principles involved in this issue.

You : … Nope, it’s you.

Me : … it’s YOU.

You : … it’s you.

Me : … it’s YOU.

You : … it’s you.

Me : … it’s YOU.

You : … it’s you.

(repeat until the end of time)

If you can’t detail your grounds/basis for making that “blanket statement”, then you’ve got nothing … no argument, no “game”, . . . . . nothing.

I am quite certain I have provided sufficient, detailed grounds/basis in all of my posted comments, for you to reply to and refute, or rebut.
That last comment of yours didn’t do it.

listens2glenn on October 8, 2014 at 2:58 PM

Gal_Spunes on October 8, 2014 at 2:37 PM

I accurately call nitwits who call on the government to use any and all means to force their way onto the people just what they are – fascists and enablers of fascism.

You’re also the clueless troll who can’t offer a cogent argument as to why a word has to be redefined, or what great harm is done if the word isn’t redefined… while alternating between saying words have meanings that can’t be changed and saying words and meanings have to ‘evolve’ over time before finally admitting that you just hate all those who don’t agree with you and that we ‘have to be stopped’ via the government’s diktat.

I’m sure you’ve already created my reservation on the cattle car to take me to the re-education camp…. but since you insist on suffering from delusions of adequacy, I’m not all that worried.

Athos on October 8, 2014 at 2:58 PM

Notice what I put in bold. This is exactly like the Christian florist who had two gay customers for years. No personal discrimination against them whatsoever. Because she is a Christian she told one she couldn’t do their “wedding”. So she was sued.

Commission says Christian business owners should leave religion at home

On Tuesday, a Lexington Human Rights Commission hearing examiner issued a recommended ruling that the owner of a T-shirt company violated a local ordinance against sexual-orientation discrimination….

The examiner concluded that Blaine Adamson of Hands On Originals broke the law in 2012 by declining to print shirts promoting the Lexington Pride Festival. The Gay and Lesbian Services Organization subsequently filed a complaint.

Alliance Defending Freedom, a law firm that specializes in religious liberty cases, represented Adamson, a devout Christian.

“No one should be forced by the government or by another citizen to endorse or promote ideas with which they disagree,” said ADF attorney Jim Campbell. “Blaine declined to the request to print the shirts not because of any characteristic of the people who asked for them, but because of the message that the shirts would communicate.”

ADF also pointed out that Hands On Originals has a history of doing business with the LGBT community as well has hiring LGBT workers.

But Sexton told me the law is the law. And in Lexington it’s against the law to discriminate against the LGBT community – regardless of religious beliefs….

It seems to me if a Christian business owner does not want to do business with an LGBT organization – that should be their right. And should an LGBT business choose not to do business with a church that should be their right, as well.

There’s no denying there’s a conflict. Even Sexton admits to that.

“Our local law has exemptions for religious organizations,” he said. “However, religious organizations are narrowly defined. You actually have to be some sort of religious institution to get the exemption.”

Meanwhile, a growing number of hardworking Christian business owners are caught in the crosshairs of the culture war.

“There does tend to be a trend toward that,” attorney Campbell told me. “Business owners are being targeted for simply trying to operate their business consistent with their beliefs.”

This also reminds me of ObamaCare and HobbyLobby. Leftists want to marginalize Christians and prosecute them so that they cannot live out their beliefs.

Christianity cannot be confined to four walls. The church is not a corporation nor a building. The church is Christians. The local church is the group that meets locally. Every pastor I’ve ever had has emphasized this.

INC on October 8, 2014 at 3:01 PM

Athos on October 8, 2014 at 2:58 PM

Yes, and there are multiple examples. I’ve yet to read of any Christian refusing to serve a person. The refusals have been because of an event.

INC on October 8, 2014 at 3:04 PM

listens2glenn on October 8, 2014 at 2:58 PM
Athos on October 8, 2014 at 2:58 PM

I don’t owe you the time of day. You can huff & puff and demand I waste my time providing you with ‘cogent’ this and ‘refutations’ of that…I’m not playing your game. You don’t interest me enough.

I have broadly outline the Constitutional principles underlying the defeat that your mob will continue to suffer. That’s all you’re getting.

Keep squawking. Keep watching the headlines.

You have already lost.

Gal_Spunes on October 8, 2014 at 3:12 PM

Gal_Spunes on October 8, 2014 at 3:12 PM

You haven’t outlined anything – you just push opinions as fact combined with nonsensical circular comments while demanding the government use force to ensure everyone thinks as you do.

You don’t even have a basic sense of courtesy, just arrogance, contempt, and hate.

If anyone is or has lost, it’s you.

Athos on October 8, 2014 at 3:24 PM

Gal_Spunes on October 8, 2014 at 3:12 PM

.
.
. . . . . L . . O . . S . . E . . R . . !

listens2glenn on October 8, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Apparently Cruz has come to realize that the GOP has recovered somewhat from his last silly ass stunt and so he has decided to get out there in front of the cameras, con the rubes out of some money and do what he can to drive the GOP numbers down again.

Needless to say he will have the support of the talking heads who would also like to damage the GOP and get some Democrats elected. So expect Mark Levin, Erik Erikson and their ilk to grovel at Cruz’s feet and swear on a stack of bibles that if only all the GOP were as big and strong and ballsy as Saint Cruz we could get rid of this horrid gay marriage thing. And when it blows up in their faces they will do what they always do: blame the establishment toady Rinos. Same old Same old.

Terrye on October 8, 2014 at 4:01 PM

JohnAGJ on October 8, 2014 at 10:24 AM

Thanks for your thoughtful response. You make many good points and defend your position well.

Burke on October 8, 2014 at 4:19 PM

I heard earlier today that 60% of Republicans under the age of 30 support gay marriage. It is insane to push something like this when it can not win and most people are not going to support it anyway. It is like the whole stupid shutdown debacle all over again with Cruz up there making the party look stupid while he advances his own career.

Terrye on October 8, 2014 at 4:21 PM

Yeah. And also do it because you’re pro-life. Nothing demonstrably proves that you’re pro-life more than killing people who disagree with you.

jim56 on October 7, 2014 at 4:32 PM

I just posted a very non-pro-abortion screed in another thread. In that thread I challenged HA readers with the following:

You might think that this post has been written by a rabid anti-abortion crusader zealot who just can’t stand to have other people make their own choices or offend his God. At this point I would invite you to search Hot Air for what I have said on abortion. However, knowing how some people over-value their ability at argument, I have to lay out some criteria. If you find me “talking smack” about abortion and you think you have me, then you probably don’t understand the full limit of the what “pro-choice” allows. You normally find people who say “I’m against it, but that’s not my choice,” in explaining their stance. So if you find me saying bad things about abortion, all you have is the “against it” part. So, that should make it clear that what you need is a “there ought to be a law” statement. Of course, even a search can be deceptive because I stay out of most abortion threads. So you’re only likely to find me speaking about abortion where it’s incidental to the topic.

Axeman on October 8, 2014 at 7:29 PM

Do the search and then realize that you’ve got nothing. OR when you “find” something, I’ll have to explain to you how to read it. Pay attention to the “talking smack” part, so you embarrass yourself a little less.

Axeman on October 8, 2014 at 10:09 PM

Yeah. And also do it because you’re pro-life. Nothing demonstrably proves that you’re pro-life more than killing people who disagree with you.

jim56 on October 7, 2014 at 4:32 PM

In other words, jim56, whatever type of conservative or liberal you define yourself, you way overplayed your Psychic Liberal card to call me tantamount to a murdering zealot.

And because you felt insulted that I implied that I could be tempted to be more violent and revolutionary as an atheist (and I have lacked faith in God) than as a long-suffering Christian who is instructed to “have joy”.

But you shouldn’t have to feel guilty about that kind of extreme and laughable psychic-ism, because extremism for the evolving popular consensus is no vice, right?

Axeman on October 8, 2014 at 11:23 PM