Ted Cruz (R-TX) Introduces Anti-gay Bill ‘Defending’ States’ Right to Regulate Marriage

With a ruling in the lawsuit challenging Texas’ ban on same-sex marriage “forthcoming at some time,” Senator Ted Cruz is making sure voters in the Lone Star State know his crystal-clear position on the whole issue. On Thursday, Cruz introduced a bill that defends states’ right to regulate marriage and “protects states from the federal government’s efforts to force any other definition upon them.”

From the Senator’s statement on the bill’s introduction:

Ted cruz“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,” said Sen. Cruz. “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.”

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 bill is similar to one introduced by Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX) in January.

Back in a July interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, Cruz warned of the dangerous consequences of gay right, saying they would lead to Christianity being defined as “hate speech” and would force pastors to perform same-sex nuptials.

[via The HuffPost]


  1. Gr8guyca says

    One question for Senator Cruz:

    Do you believe that individual states should be able to deny inter-racial marriages if they choose to; or do you believe that the Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia should be the law of the land and supersede individual state’s choices?

  2. JackFknTwist says

    Isn’t this clown a laughing stock all over the world since his ” green eggs and ham”
    three ring circus act ?

    Now he wants to be taken seriously ?

  3. anon says

    Great for political posturing, but DOA as far as the law is concerned. Even if this DOMA II were to pass congress and have the president sign it (the same president he accuses of trying to force gay marriage on all 50 states!) the federal courts would immediately strike it down. Cruz seems determined to run for president in 2016 even though he’s technically not eligible due to his Canadian birth.

  4. JackFknTwist says

    And another thing :

    Isn’t “States Rights’ just a cover for allowing red necks to discriminate and peddle their bigotry ?

    @ GR8GUYCA says it all above !

  5. ny2.0 says

    Ted Cruz’s face looks like a really good punching bag you’ll find at the local gym.

    This is just another asinine attempt by republicans to waste time and money.

  6. JonnyNYNY2FLFL says

    At this point, it seems nationwide marriage equality is inevitable.

    The fact that bigots like Ted Cruz are kicking & screaming (and possibly will have their heads explode) all the way, only makes the victory more sweet.

  7. tranquilo says

    Whenever Tea Party types try and claim they are just interested in ‘fiscal issues’, remember this. The Tea Party is just the same old right wing of the GOP, repackaged, and they are as interested in the conservative culture wars as they ever were.

  8. ToThePoint says

    The will of the majority should NEVER dictate the RIGHTS of everyone. That is what the “legislator” is trying to do. All my friends are righteous by MY definition so I shall force everyone under my dictatorship to follow MY righteous path. FYI, in the states where we have been given the RIGHT to marry, not a single straight couple has had to terminate their relationship and then engage in a gay marriage. They are able to maintain their straight relationships in the cases where they want. Only straight (or gay) married couples have ability to ruin the sanctity of their respective marriage by whatever means they have already been doing since the very first marriages were conducted.

  9. what a fool says

    “force gay marriage on all 50 states”:

    You mean straight people will be forced to get gay-married?

  10. Chrislam says

    I thought the TEA Party was fighting for LESS government. The government – State or Federal – should NOT be telling people who they can and cannot marry under that premise.

    Cruz is a fraud.

  11. mike/ says

    he keeps using the phrase “a majority of Americans” with whom he talks being against equality. with polls consistently now showing 60%+ in favor of equal marriage, has he supplied his numbers to prove his remarks?

    if he’s only counting christianists, sorry honey, they are in the minority both in the polls AND in numbers.

  12. robertL says

    If the truth be known – the federal government and state need to get out of the marriage business. Let the churches have their vows of marriage, also let them address their divorce problems. Now you have preserved their grand christian ideals. The federal government and the states would engage in only ivil unions for gay and straight. Now Cruz has been made impotent. I like the idea of Cruz being impotent – better yet all the christian churches that cherry pick their beliefs.

  13. Joe in Ct says

    God bless his pointy little head. Cruz lives in a fantasy land where his world view is reinforced by everyone he knows and he’s trying his hardest to make their collective delusion real.

  14. Fester says

    No government is going to force a member of the clergy to marry anyone.

    And in case some people don’t know, marriage existed long before the Christian churches came along. Marriage is a contractual arrangement that is recognized by the state.

  15. says

    The bill is unconstitutional, so it’s just drama-queen Cruz’s latest bid for attention. He’s trying to force the federal government to base its recognition of marriage on Texas’s recognition of marriage. The federal government has every right to recognize the legal marriages of gay couples who happen to be stuck in TX; it points however, to the importance of having Obama’s DOJ in charge instead of, say, Romney’s.

    @RobertL: The federal government is already only involved in civil marriage, so it’s really the church that needs butt out of civil marriage since the benefits and protections part of marriage is none of their business.

  16. walter says

    the man is so damn egotistical and eventually will turn off everyone who supports him he has already screwed his party leadership for his own personal gain .

  17. says

    The secret to understanding this smoothie is to realize that he will say anything in a way that makes it sound both reasonable and beyond dispute. There is no “constitutional authority of each state to define marriage consistent with the values of its citizens” but he pretends there is. The President is wrong and the Supreme Court is wrong, but Cruz is right — just ask him. If I didn’t know better I would think he was raised by a closeminded bigot of a father. Oops, he was.

  18. says

    Cruz is not an idiot. He is a first wave direct result of Citizens United. A Dominionist ideologue with backing from the anti-government Koch Bros and GOProud loving Ayn Rand devotee Peter Thiel. And he’s not going away any time soon.

    Brian Brown using ‘states rights’ to argue against marriage equality doesn’t mean the same thing as when a Koch Bros sock puppet Senator from Texas says it. Used by Cruz it’s meant to neuter federal power. He’s the front man for the most dangerous threat to US stability we face.

    Much bigger stakes and arguments than marriage equality behind this move.

    Are we to stand as a strong Nation or a destabilized collective of states/regions? Which of those scenarios benefits the Koch Bros the most?

  19. oliver says

    I agree with DAVE.
    Cruz is a double-bagger. One bag over his head and one of mine, in case his falls off.

  20. Bernie says

    Mr. Cruz has already established himself to the farthest right anyone could be…..but more importantly if you listen, watch and examine his words and behaviors, he is quick to be a nay sayer and condemn President Obama, but he NEVER comes up with any type of alternative or reasonable alternative to solve the problems of the USA…..

  21. Lexis says

    Another time-wasting attempt to avoid the inevitable. Rulings are already chipping away at this notion and supporting the concept iterated by the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution. Plus, I’m sure Obama wouldn’t sign it, and I can’t believe it could get the necessary votes in the Senate to override a veto.

  22. JJ says

    I have a hard time believing that any politician who spent so much money and worked so hard to win a federal-level office would then go out of his way to relinquish power to the states. Of course, he might trump up a lot of political theater and fanfare in support of states’ rights when it will safely go nowhere–like, say, proposing a law that has no chance of passing a Democratically controlled Senate.

  23. says

    What a moron. States don’t have a right to regulate marriage. Laws governing who can marry have to apply uniformly to everyone. States don’t have a right to segregate people. Since the 14th amendment was passed, states no longer have a right to pass laws to discriminate against groups of people. States arguably have the right to discriminate against people with state tax law, because that power is granted to the states, but I’m not positive any law ignoring one marriage while accepting another will stand very long. There may be enough people who view any inequalities in tax law to force change when they claim there is ill-will in the law unfairly favoring one group over another.

  24. Simon says

    The only way it will work is to introduce a bill to disband the judicial branch of the government which stands in his way. One day this idiot will go too far that even his own party will censor him like McCarthy.

  25. Steve Talbert says

    It is amazing how similar he looks to Joseph McCarthy, as well as acts. Like the saying goes, history doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme. First as tragedy, then as farce.

  26. lg says

    Should he actually become President, the wave of immigration from USA to HIS home, native country will be most grateful …. Canada!