Author Topic: Sens. Ted Cruz and Mike Lee Introduce State Marriage Defense Act  (Read 249 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 254,417
Sens. Ted Cruz and Mike Lee Introduce State Marriage Defense Act
« on: February 14, 2014, 09:43:51 AM »
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/13/Sens-Cruz-and-Lee-Introduce-State-Marriage-Defense-Act

 by William Bigelow 13 Feb 2014

On Thursday, U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced S. 2024, the State Marriage Defense Act, which allows states to set their own standards as to what defines marriage and protects the states from having the federal government encroach on that territory.

Thirty-three states define marriage as the union between one man and one woman.

Quote
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. 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 [their] residents.


Lee echoed:

Quote
How a state should define marriage should be left up to the citizens of each state. It is clear the Obama administration finds the principles of federalism inconvenient in its effort to force states to redefine the institution of marriage. The State Marriage Defense Act provides an important protection for states, respecting the right to choose for themselves how each will treat the institution of marriage under the law.


As Cruz’s website asserts:

Quote
In United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court improperly held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's reasoning requires the federal government to respect the primacy of the states in defining marriage. Unfortunately, since the Windsor decision, the Obama Administration’s agenda to force same-sex marriage has led both to the violation of these principles and to the rise of inconsistencies among several federal agencies that either look to the law of the state where an individual lives to determine eligibility for marital benefits or recognize marriages based solely on the law of the state where a marriage ceremony was held. The State Marriage Defense Act will correct this inconsistency and protect states from an out of control administration that is seeking to force same sex marriage upon states that define marriage as the union between one man and one woman.


United States v. Windsor was the case in which Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer married in Toronto in 2007, where same-sex marriages were legal. At the time the women moved to New York, the state recognized their marriage.

When Spyer died, the IRS denied Windsor a spousal estate tax exception because under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) the federal government did not recognize same-sex marriages for the purpose of federal benefits.

The Obama administration argued that the use of sexual orientation to determine which people could receive benefits was a suspect classification that deserved higher scrutiny, which means DOMA would be impermissible. Opponents argued that DOMA was a rational solution to the very real government objective of having a uniform definition of marriage.

Cruz stated:

Support the USO

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,534
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Sens. Ted Cruz and Mike Lee Introduce State Marriage Defense Act
« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2014, 11:12:42 AM »
Quote
On Thursday, U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced S. 2024, the State Marriage Defense Act, which allows states to set their own standards as to what defines marriage and protects the states from having the federal government encroach on that territory.

Perfect.

Here's yet another example of the Federal government (in this case the GOP) offering up a solution to a problem that was in fact created by the GOP's solution to a problem that didn't actually exist.

The now defunct Federal DoMA was an unconstitutional and unnecessary piece of garbage legislation that was destined to achieve the exact opposite of what it was sold to us as achieving, and history has proven that to be correct. That piece of garbage legislation effectively granted the Federal government the power to define marriage "for Federal purposes", a power that the Federal government lacks because the Constitution assigns it to the States via the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Defining marriage is not delegated to the United States (A.K.A. the Federal government) and not prohibited to the States, so it falls on the States to define what constitutes marriage, and that then becomes the working definition of a marriage for Federal purposes.

But that wasn't enough for the GOP congressional delegation, so they decided to engage the Federal government, and crafted legislation which in effect had the Federal government inviting the States to violate the Full faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution if the States shared the Congress' distaste for a sister State's sovereign and constitutional decision to define what constitutes a marriage within its own boundaries. That Clause is absolute (Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state), and while Congress may legislate the manner that those public acts will be "proved" and their interaction between States, they lack the Constitutional power to legislate a whole sale exemption to the Constitution.

In fact, the Federal DoMA was a glaring violation of the principles of Federalism and limited government that constitute the cornerstone of Conservative ideology, since it violates the concept of State sovereignty that the Constitution seeks to protect when it limits what the Federal government may do via a strict listing of its enumerated powers. The Constitution does not delegate to the United States the power to create a categorical exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, thereby inviting states to disregard the official acts of other states, but the GOP did exactly that, and called it "conservatism".

Now, here we are, talking up a solution to a problem that did not exist prior to the enactment of legislation to address an issue that as already resolved.

We don't need this legislation.

We just need to abide by the Constitution.
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Online jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,907
  • There's no one out there quite like me.
    • Fullervision
Re: Sens. Ted Cruz and Mike Lee Introduce State Marriage Defense Act
« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2014, 11:15:31 AM »
Quote
We don't need this legislation.

We just need to abide by the Constitution.
I wish that were the case, but with this government, it's not exactly a given that they will actually follow it (and the courts certainly have a hit-or-miss record about holding them to it).
"Just because people in positions of authority are stupid, it doesn’t mean you have to go along with it." —Arlo Guthrie

"In the excitement of great popular elections, deciding the policy of the country, and its vast patronage, frauds will be committed, if a chance is given for them." —Richard Henry Dana, Jr.

“No government program ever dies of its own accord.” ―unknown

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,534
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Sens. Ted Cruz and Mike Lee Introduce State Marriage Defense Act
« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2014, 11:18:02 AM »
I wish that were the case, but with this government, it's not exactly a given that they will actually follow it (and the courts certainly have a hit-or-miss record about holding them to it).

Then the solution is rather obvious, isn't it?

"When in the Course of human events..."
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf