Ted Cruz: gay marriage issue should be decided at the state level

[eric82oslo]

It took nearly a century from when conservatives wanted to force slavery on the entire country and were willing to go to war over it to a point where they merely wanted "states' rights."

It's taken just two decades for conservatives to go from demanding no gay marriage anywhere in the country to once again merely wanting "states' rights."

Actually it's taken less than one decade. Remember the 2004 election? It was basically a referendum on gay rights - not on Bush (cause Bush would certainly have lost such a referendum) - and every single national Republican politician was a hardliner on the issue.

[eric82oslo]

Ugghhh.  Just drop the fight against marriage equality PLEASE.  It's like national Republicans have no problem with it, and understand that support for marriage equality is increasing, but they're too scared to just say it.  I thought Portman would've opened the floodgates but apparently not. 

The reason is simple: There's still a huge majority of Republican voters opposing gay marriage, just as there's an equally huge support for it among Democratic and independent voters. Republican politicians are not only old, white and male, and mostly from conservative states, they're also practical and thinking first and foremostly on personal gains and what would suit themselves the most. Thus, their only concern is being primaried from the right. And as things stand now, especially knowing that mostly older voters show up in primaries, while most independent and less conservative voters keep away, it'll be a huge loosing stance for Republican national politicians for a long time to come. The only exception is Republicans from (the most) Democratic states, although even they risk being primaried out.

[IceSpear]

Gay marriage is actually less partisan than a lot of issues. Most polls tend to show around 1/3 of Democrats opposing it and 1/3 of Republicans supporting it. It's more of a generational issue, young Republicans probably support it by a bigger margin than old Democrats.

[7,052,770]

Agree that "state's rights" is just a buzzword and not anyone's actual philosophy.  Case in point: gun control laws.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The only reason why Republicans and Bush talked about an anti-gay marriage amendment in 2004 was to rile the base. The party knew actually passing one was impossible, which is precisely the reason they talked about it (somewhat quietly). It stood no chance of being passed by the Senate, and no chance of being ratified by the necessary states.

[They not like us]

So brave.

[Badger]

Because now--let alone come 2016--it's the only stand a social conservative can take and not be considered too divorced from reality to be elected president. SoCons are fervent, not stupid.

[barfbag]

good for him

[milhouse24]

Conservatives see the writing on the wall for SSM and have moved to this new defensive posture. At this point they know that there is never going to be a blanket federal ban so the best they can hope for is that the Fed government doesn't force all the states to accept SSM.

The states rights position is the same one used by defenders of segregation as moves against that swept the country in a similar way 50 years ago.

Of course if you are a evangelical conservative in IA or NH you may want someone (cough-Santorum-cough) to pander to you and tell you they can make it all better and take the gay away.

I still think it will be difficult to enforce SSM at the federal level.  There are some federal laws that will be difficult enforcing.  Specifically, the legal immigration of SS spouses.  I think they just want to have it fought out at the state level, because it will be too complicated to regulate SSM at the federal level.

[milhouse24]

Agree that "state's rights" is just a buzzword and not anyone's actual philosophy.  Case in point: gun control laws.

Yeah, most conservatives are anti-Fed so any time a conservative uses the words "states rights" then it helps that candidates standing with those donors. 

[barfbag]

He takes a good stance. What's right for Texas may not be right for Rhode Island.

[Fritz]

He takes a good stance. What's right for Texas may not be right for Rhode Island.

It is right for every state to allow gay marriages, just as it was right for every state to allow inter-racial marriages.

[Marnetmar]

Civil rights should not be a states' rights issue, god dammit!

[barfbag]

He takes a good stance. What's right for Texas may not be right for Rhode Island.

It is right for every state to allow gay marriages, just as it was right for every state to allow inter-racial marriages.

I agree with you but probably not for the same reasons. While I support gay marriage, I also respect and understand people opposing it.

[Flake]

He takes a good stance. What's right for Texas may not be right for Rhode Island.

It is right for every state to allow gay marriages, just as it was right for every state to allow inter-racial marriages.

I agree with you but probably not for the same reasons. While I support gay marriage, I also respect and understand people opposing it.

Who opposes in which it is not out of religious beliefs that shouldn't even be part of the government?

[barfbag]

He takes a good stance. What's right for Texas may not be right for Rhode Island.

It is right for every state to allow gay marriages, just as it was right for every state to allow inter-racial marriages.

I agree with you but probably not for the same reasons. While I support gay marriage, I also respect and understand people opposing it.

Who opposes in which it is not out of religious beliefs that shouldn't even be part of the government?

What exactly are you asking me? Your question is if anyone who opposes gay marriage does so for non-religious reasons?

[Flake]

He takes a good stance. What's right for Texas may not be right for Rhode Island.

It is right for every state to allow gay marriages, just as it was right for every state to allow inter-racial marriages.

I agree with you but probably not for the same reasons. While I support gay marriage, I also respect and understand people opposing it.

Who opposes in which it is not out of religious beliefs that shouldn't even be part of the government?

What exactly are you asking me? Your question is if anyone who opposes gay marriage does so for non-religious reasons?

I have not heard a non-bible thumping theory yet.

[barfbag]

He takes a good stance. What's right for Texas may not be right for Rhode Island.

It is right for every state to allow gay marriages, just as it was right for every state to allow inter-racial marriages.

I agree with you but probably not for the same reasons. While I support gay marriage, I also respect and understand people opposing it.

Who opposes in which it is not out of religious beliefs that shouldn't even be part of the government?

What exactly are you asking me? Your question is if anyone who opposes gay marriage does so for non-religious reasons?

I have not heard a non-bible thumping theory yet.

I've heard "it grosses me out" and "I don't want to see that" as reasons why people oppose gay marriage. They're not good reasons, but they're reasons. Most people who oppose gay marriage do for religious reasons though. It reminds me of our freedom to choose our religion and how great America is. I still support gay marriage though.

[Mordecai]

And also the freedom for religious people to force their ideas onto other people and then complain about lack of family values or whatever when they are rejected. Usually the same people who scream about "big government" intruding into people's lives or Muslims taking over the government, but then turn around and shamelessly try to install their own religion into government so that everybody is forced to follow their rules.

[barfbag]

And also the freedom for religious people to force their ideas onto other people and then complain about lack of family values or whatever when they are rejected. Usually the same people who scream about "big government" intruding into people's lives or Muslims taking over the government, but then turn around and shamelessly try to install their own religion into government so that everybody is forced to follow their rules.

Remember the war on Christmas too? Don't mess with their Christmas decorations.

[Mordecai]

And also the freedom for religious people to force their ideas onto other people and then complain about lack of family values or whatever when they are rejected. Usually the same people who scream about "big government" intruding into people's lives or Muslims taking over the government, but then turn around and shamelessly try to install their own religion into government so that everybody is forced to follow their rules.

Remember the war on Christmas too? Don't mess with their Christmas decorations.

Ah yes, that too. Although the movement for genericizing holidays for everyone is pretty ridiculous. Christmas is already genericized and diluted. Both sides care too much about what other people think.

[milhouse24]

He takes a good stance. What's right for Texas may not be right for Rhode Island.

It is right for every state to allow gay marriages, just as it was right for every state to allow inter-racial marriages.

I agree with you but probably not for the same reasons. While I support gay marriage, I also respect and understand people opposing it.

Who opposes in which it is not out of religious beliefs that shouldn't even be part of the government?

What exactly are you asking me? Your question is if anyone who opposes gay marriage does so for non-religious reasons?

I have not heard a non-bible thumping theory yet.

I would say that one non-religious reasoning for opposing SSM is that it is simply not the government's business to get involved in the financial lives of SS couples.  If we say that marriage laws and benefits are created with the intention to protect women and married mothers, and in effect protect biological children, then SSM falls outside the scope of marriage laws.  If we are dealing with platonic SS couples without biological children, then the government doesn't really need to get involved enforcing any marriage contracts or doling out benefits to SS couples who might not need these financial benefits.  If we say marriage laws and benefits are meant to protect biological children and their mothers, then any financial benefits given to SS couples would leave less money available for the government.  For instance, if a SS couple inherits money from her dead spouse and doesn't want the government to tax that inheritance, they can do so under marriage laws, and the government will lose out on thousands of dollars of tax revenue.  Even, if the intended inheritance laws were meant to be given to widowed women to take care of biological children, it would be inaccurate for SS spouses to keep that un-taxed inheritance money if there are not biological children to care for.  The government is not a charity, it is an organization that taxes to provide services to families and the community. 

[Likely Voter]

I would say that one non-religious reasoning for opposing SSM is that it is simply not the government's business to get involved in the financial lives of SS couples.  If we say that marriage laws and benefits are created with the intention to protect women and married mothers, and in effect protect biological children, then SSM falls outside the scope of marriage laws.

Wow, talk about redefining marriage! How do you think it would go if Ted Cruz or some other 2016 Republican says that SSM should be banned because marriage is only for the purpose of making babies.

Of course this specious argument is just some kind of bizarre legal grasping of straws now that the "gays are icky" and "but the bible says..." arguments are out of favor. However it of course ignores quite of few things:
1. Homosexual couples actually can have biological children (via surrogates and artificial insemination)
2. Opposite sex couples that cannot (or chose not to) have children are not excluded from marriage
3. No state or federal laws distinguishes between biological children and adopted children in terms of taxes, benefits, etc.

I expect that if he or anyone else made this argument he will get laughed at (just like the lawyer defending CA Prop 8 got literally laughed at when he brought up the procreation issue during oral arguments at the Supreme Court)

[DS0816]

Does Texas U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz also believe his eligibility for the presidency of the United States "should be decided at the state level?"

[milhouse24]

I would say that one non-religious reasoning for opposing SSM is that it is simply not the government's business to get involved in the financial lives of SS couples.  If we say that marriage laws and benefits are created with the intention to protect women and married mothers, and in effect protect biological children, then SSM falls outside the scope of marriage laws.

Wow, talk about redefining marriage! How do you think it would go if Ted Cruz or some other 2016 Republican says that SSM should be banned because marriage is only for the purpose of making babies.

Of course this specious argument is just some kind of bizarre legal grasping of straws now that the "gays are icky" and "but the bible says..." arguments are out of favor. However it of course ignores quite of few things:
1. Homosexual couples actually can have biological children (via surrogates and artificial insemination)
2. Opposite sex couples that cannot (or chose not to) have children are not excluded from marriage
3. No state or federal laws distinguishes between biological children and adopted children in terms of taxes, benefits, etc.

I expect that if he or anyone else made this argument he will get laughed at (just like the lawyer defending CA Prop 8 got literally laughed at when he brought up the procreation issue during oral arguments at the Supreme Court)

No, I'm specifically saying that the "government benefits are tied to procreation" - we can keep legal marriage for anyone and everyone, but the benefits would be moot and could be eliminated if there is no longer any societal need for these "marriage benefits."  Laws change all the time, benefits get cut or decreased all the time.  Inheritance laws can change, taxes on inheritance can increase on spouses.  We can keep SSM but just eliminate any financial benefits from the marriage laws for straight and SS couples if the government decides that they cannot afford to give out those tax breaks and other marriage benefits.  We can increase subsidizes for unwed mothers or other things to protect biological children. 

I would say one difference between adopted and biological children, is that in many cases the biological parents are financially responsible according to the courts for their children.  I think there is a case in Kansas where a lesbian woman tried to get welfare, when the biological sperm donor father refused to pay any child support.  I don't think its fair that the Tax payers need to pay for a child, when there is a capable and working biological father to care for the child. 
Do we really want the government to subsidize everyone?  If there are budget deficits, lawmakers start cutting things that are no longer essential.