Ted Cruz Proposes Gay-Free America
Texas Republican Ted Cruz was among the many conservatives figures infuriated by Mondayâs Supreme Court decision not to hear appeals on the issue of same-sex marriage. Yesterday, in a historic move, the United States Supreme Court declined all cases already heard from lower district courts on the issue, saying it was âpretty obvious.â The decision not to hear the appeals made gay marriage, in effect, legal in those states. That put the total number of states where gay marriage is legal to 30. In addition, today the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also struck down an appeal from Idaho and Nevada, raising that number to 35 barring an appeal of that decision. Ted Cruz vowed to fight this indecision, calling yesterdayâs ruling âtragic and indefensible.â âBy refusing to rule if the States can define marriage, the Supreme Court is abdicating its duty to uphold the Constitution. The fact that the Supreme Court Justices, without providing any explanation, have permitted lower courts to strike down so many state marriage laws is astonishing,â he said. âItâs just absurd to let this country become a gay haven. The Supreme Court owes us the dignity of an answer. Maybe the United States is better off as two separate countries. One where gays can marry each other, or dogs for that matter, and another where we have a country under God with a court system not infiltrated by the queer agenda.â While Cruzâ âdogâ comment has come under fire from LGBT activists and Democrats, his frustration over yesterdayâs decision was shared by many in the Republican Party. Gordon Klingenschmitt, whoâs running for office in Colorado, said that âsodomy is still banned by God in all 50 states, and that God will punish the fags even if America has turned to the devil.â Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal said gays should have âNo rights to marry or otherwise gather publicly,â and said that granting rights to gay couples amounts to âJeopardizing the intelligent design intended by God.â The American Family Associationâs Sandy Rios said that âWeâre going to see riots in the street, weâre going to see starvation. Marriage is our institution! Without it, we have no society. We must exclude some from that right or we will have no society. The gays will try and convert everyone until thereâs no one left!â Cruz argued that the 14th Amendment is not sufficient ground for Federal Courts to uphold marriage equality. âIt is beyond dispute that when the 14th Amendment was adopted 146 years ago, as a necessary post-Civil War era reform, it was not imagined to also mandate same-sex marriage. The Court is making the preposterous assumption that the People of the United States somehow silently redefined marriage in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment,â he said. Legal experts laughed at this assertion, saying Cruz was âout of the legal ballpark,â in his statement, according to Harvard Law professor Charles Delay. âThe 14th Amendment worked for Loving v. Virginia, it works for various other case unrelated to the 1800âs, itâs a pretty simple application applied by the court. The idea that weâll âlose our societyâ because of this one decision is utterly preposterous and doesnât really make any sense.â Loving v. Virginia was the 1967 Supreme Court case that made marriage discrimination illegal on a racial basis. But Cruz was adamant. âWe need two Americas, I think. Iâm going to propose an anti-gay amendment, one that protects marriage and that prevents this insult to God. But it might not be enough. If today weâre legalizing two men getting married, where will we be in 20 years? I see a lawless, quality-less country developing. We might be at a point where we, as a people, have to take back the United States another way.â Still, the fear felt by some on the conservative side wasnât felt by all. âCruz and others complaining about no further review from the Court is like fans wanting a review on an obvious touchdown in football,â Delay continued. âItâs just not necessary. This is now just too obvious to waste peopleâs time with. Get married, donât. Why are we still talking about this?â