ELECTION 2016: A CHARGE TO CHRISTIAN VOTERS –Part 1

Throwing Marriage Under the Bus

wedding-rings

“…we need to have a lot more choice and a lot more freedom.” ~Senator Ted Cruz

The controversial and heated marriage issue has apparently taken a backseat during the Republican Presidential debates with social issues relegated only to discussion on the defunding of Planned Parenthood. This does not sit well with Christian voters who do care deeply about such a foundational issue as marriage in light of the unconstitutional Obergefell v. Hodges decision in June 2014, and many are now looking to their pastors, national Christian leaders, and even conservative talk show hosts to vet the candidates for them and determine who is the most pro marriage among the twelve remaining in the race who will actually fight to reverse the unconstitutional court decision and fight to restore traditional marriage as the law of the land. 

Freshman Senator Ted Cruz has lucked out as the recently coronated quasi-social issues champ despite the truly shocking statements he has made regarding states’ rights to define marriage. As a self-described strict constitutionalist, Cruz lives and breathes by the 10th Amendment on all issues not specifically stated in our Constitution. He has consistently maintained that his top priority is to defend the Constitution and along with that, preserving states’ rights via the 10th Amendment and he has vowed to challenge the unconstitutional Obergefell vHodges Supreme Court decision forcing all 50 states to legalize gay marriage. By throwing the marriage issue back to the states, Cruz is actually hailed as a defender of traditional marriage since the majority of states have voted to ban gay marriage and this would restore those laws. What many don’t realize is that this also protects states that actually do vote to legalize gay marriage; so we’d again have a state by state definition of marriage, pre-Obergefell v. Hodges, and we’re back to square one with rehashing the argument how unequal it is for some states to recognize gay marriage and others not. What a legal hot mess this is, and Cruz’s policy views instead of cleaning it up, spread this mess far and wide.

What we really need and what conservative Christians have long striven for is a federal marriage amendment defining marriage as only between one man and one woman, but marriage ”defender” Ted Cruz does not agree. This has endeared him to the Libertarian voters out there of a more socially liberal persuasion who believe and trust Cruz at his word that he will not pursue a federal definition of marriage, and it explains why he has successfully courted and wooed gay marriage supporters to donate to his campaign.

How does the evangelical community reconcile themselves to accept Cruz’s state by state marriage policy? Have they caved on the fight for traditional marriage or does Ted Cruz whisper in the ears of his prominent Christian endorsers something different that has led them to believe he actually will fight for a federal definition of marriage after taking office as president? So, is it more acceptable for Ted Cruz to mislead his Libertarian leaning supporters who expect his hands off approach to the marriage issue or the evangelical leaders who have put their stock and reputations as conservative and biblical stalwarts on the line by endorsing him? When even the National Organization for Marriage endorses a 10th Amendment apologist for gay or anything goes marriage, you have wonder what exactly is going on.

I have found no evidence to date that a President Ted Cruz would lead the fight for, much less talk about, the need for a national definition of marriage. I challenge anyone to produce evidence he has ever publicly gone on the offense in the culture war on the marriage issue as Rick Santorum has for the last 15 years. I’ve searched and can find nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

 Cruz, in fact, has said some of the doggonest  statements about a federal marriage amendment I dare say he’d ever repeat at the numerous churches he’s spoken at and religious liberty rallies he’s held across the country. Maybe Bob Vander Plaats, Dr. James Dobson, and Tony Perkins don’t keep up with Cruz’s numerous excursions on mainstream media and missed this candid discussion on how he would govern on the marriage issue if he were president. (Or maybe they do know and don’t believe him, have accepted the the battle for a marriage amendment is a lost cause, or they know it’s just (wink wink nudge nudge) what he has to say depending on whom he is talking to.

On October 5, 2014 Cruz was interviewed on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” and when the question came up about how a more Libertarian candidate, like himself, could square on social issues with conservative voters, he referenced the marriage debate as an example of how the 10th Amendment was the solution to prevent the federal government, or the courts, from dictating what marriage is and forcing it on all 50 states.

Cruz went even further, comparing a federal policy on marriage to Obamacare as a big government, one-size fits all solution forced on all 50 states and that it’s good that people can decide for themselves, that it’s good we have choices.

Watch the clip from the interview:

 

Here is a transcript of the marriage question portion of the Squawk Box interview with the aforementioned quotes highlighted in bold:

Becky Quick: “Senator, you yourself talked about introducing anti-gay marriage legislation, trying to protect the rights of the states you said, but at the same time you’ve also said that what the Supreme Court did by not ruling on the states that have allowed gay marriage that that was tragic and indefensible.”

Cruz: “You, you, you are exactly right. Look, look I believe in the Constitution. I think we need to follow the Constitution .What the Supreme Court did, effectively striking down the laws of 30 states was wrong, and it was judicial activism.” 

Becky Quick: “But if a state chooses to allow people of the same sex to marry shouldn’t they be allowed to do that?”

Cruz: “Yes. No, no, no, I agree and perhaps you, you are not understanding my position. Marriage is a question for the states. We have the federalist system. It is marriage has been a question for the states since the beginning of this country.”

……continued

Andrew Ross Sorkin: “What’s your position if you were running a specific state though?  That’s the issue.”

Cruz: “Actually Andrew, with all respect that is not the issue. The issue is constitutionally should the federal government or the federal courts impose their policy views in the place of the policy views of citizens of states.  Look we’ve got 50 states. If the citizens of New York decide they want gay marriage, they have the Constitutional authority to make that decision and if the citizens of Texas or South Carolina or Florida decide they want to maintain traditional marriage between one man and one woman they have that Constitutional authority.  You know Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis referred to ‘laboratories of democracy.’ You’ve got 50 states where we can have in each state the laws reflect the values and mores of the citizens of those states.”

Joe Kernen: “The GOP needs to figure out how to balance the social issues and the Libertarian issues because Libertarians you would think they want small government, they want government out of people’s lives and yet the social conservatives seem like that’s the one area where they let government come into everyone’s lives.”

Cruz: “Look  now, it is simply that government should reflect the values and mores of citizens. Listen, I support marriage between one man and one woman and I support the Constitution letting each state decide its marriage laws consistent with the values of its citizens. You know, one of the problems of the big government Left is they want everything to be a one-size fits all solution from Washington.  Take Obamacare. Listen, a state has constitutional authority if it wants to adopt socialized healthcare, a state can vote to do that. And if people decide I want to live in a state with socialized healthcare, I can move there. Now maybe they might not be able to find jobs because of the impact on small businesses and job creation,  but one of the big problems of the Obama agenda is every solution comes from Washington and is forced on all 50 states regardless of whether the citizens want it and it doesn’t let people vote with their feet, it doesn’t let people have any choice, and I think we need to have a lot more choice and a lot more freedom.”

You heard it. Ted Cruz made it abundantly clear what he truly thinks of the federal government having anything to do with marriage policy, and that includes a possible federal definition of marriage. Comparing it to Obamacare??  That a federal definition of marriage being “forced” on us as law is bad and we need to have choices? This would indeed even include a federal definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman, a covenant relationship clearly revealed in nature, since the beginning of time, as only between one man and one woman.

Equally shocking is Cruz’s reference to progressive Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis who was appointed to the court by President Woodrow Wilson. The fact that a self described conservative like Ted Cruz upholds Brandeis as his model for interpreting the Constitution should trouble all conservatives because it was Brandeis who penned and popularized the non-existent “right to privacy” argument with regards to our Constitution, thus severing Natural Law from the basis for all law at any governmental level. Brandeis is hailed as a leader of the Progressive Era for championing and implementing radical social change via his tenure on the court. How does Cruz’s admiration for Brandeis’ style of interpreting Constitutional law square with the strong and outspoken social conservative leaders who have not only endorsed Cruz but have been aggressively campaigning for him? Imagine what kind of justices a President Ted Cruz would appoint to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court. If Brandeis is his ideal, you can kiss the issue of marriage good bye for the forseeable future.

GO TO PART 2