Senator Ted Cruz, along with 11 other GOPers, re-introduced the State Marriage Defense Act yesterday. According to Cruz:
Even though the Supreme Court made clear in United States v. Windsor
that the federal government should defer to state ‘choices about who may
be married,’ the Obama Administration has disregarded state marriage
laws enacted by democratically-elected legislatures to uphold
What is it with Republicans and selective observation? This is what Justice Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion in United States v. Windsor:
In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to
discuss the extent of the state power and authority over marriage as a
matter of history and tradition. State laws defining and regulating
marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons,
see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia,
388 U. S. 1
(1967); but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations”
is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive
province of the States.” Sosna v. Iowa,
419 U. S. 393, 404 (1975).
Does the “respect the constitutional rights of persons” part need a libretto? What is it that conservatives seem to find so elusive about that single phrase? Do their brains automatically draw a
strike-out through the parts that they don’t like? As for the President. Exactly what has he done that is not consistent with Windsor?
This is just part of the crazy-Cruz-asylum tour that seems to play well with the Tea Party set who are still questioning Obama’s birth certificate while avoiding FEMA concentration camps. Cruz knows perfectly well that this bill is going nowhere and that even if passed (and miraculously signed by Obama) it would not resolve the Equal Protection issue that the Court will take up in April.
Ted is just burnishing his anti-gay credentials. Sadly, by doing so, he picks up support while losing none.