Cruz introduces bill that would leave marriage to the states

[Mr. Morden]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/ted-cruz-gay-marriage-115095.html?hp=l3_4

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

1. Bringing this up is pointless, as it looks like any reluctance the supreme court had toward nationwide SSM is gone, seeing as even Alito won't vote to approve stay requests anymore.

2. This isn't going to pass the senate. I can see Manchin supporting it, and Donnelly/Heitkamp might as a means to help their 2018 reelection efforts, but Kirk and Collins will vote against it. That leaves it 5 votes short of the needed 60 to break a filibuster, and 12 short of the needed 67 to break an Obama Veto.

[Likely Voter]

I doubt it will ever make it to the floor of either chamber.

But it may force other candidates to weigh in on if they support it or not, and I suspect Bush, Christie and some others would rather not say.

[SteveRogers]

Even if somehow passed, it would still immediately be rendered moot by the coming Supreme Court decision.

[MATTROSE94]

1. Bringing this up is pointless, as it looks like any reluctance the supreme court had toward nationwide SSM is gone, seeing as even Alito won't vote to approve stay requests anymore.

2. This isn't going to pass the senate. I can see Manchin supporting it, and Donnelly/Heitkamp might as a means to help their 2018 reelection efforts, but Kirk and Collins will vote against it. That leaves it 5 votes short of the needed 60 to break a filibuster, and 12 short of the needed 67 to break an Obama Veto.

I think that Rob Portman would also vote against it (given the fact that he does favor gay marriage) and Claire McCaskill and Jon Tester might reluctantly support it in order to help their 2018 re-election bid as well.

Anyway, there is no way that the amendment would pass through this Congress or the next one, though it might pass after the 2018 midterm elections if the Republicans pick up enough Senate seats that year.

[retromike22]

Is he running for President in 2004?

[Consciously Unconscious]

I don't really too much about how these laws work.  With what Cruz is proposing, in theory, would a state be able to ban interracial marriage?  Maybe that's what they view "traditional" marriage as. 

[pbrower2a]

There's a good reason for the highest court of the United States being called "supreme". There is no appeal beyond it -- not to the United Nations, and not even to Almighty God.

Human rights trump states' rights in America.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

There's a good reason for the highest court of the United States being called "supreme". There is no appeal beyond it -- not to the United Nations, and not even to Almighty God.

Human rights trump states' rights in America.

Well, Cruz is obviously hoping for an anti-gay SCOTUS ruling. Then, this would effectively block a nationwide bill or referendum on SSM. If the SCOTUS doesn't do what Cruz wants, then he could rebrand this as a constitutional amendment if he can get 290 representatives and 66 other senators to jump on board - but getting that kind of support for this would literally require divine action.

[pbrower2a]

There's a good reason for the highest court of the United States being called "supreme". There is no appeal beyond it -- not to the United Nations, and not even to Almighty God.

Human rights trump states' rights in America.

Well, Cruz is obviously hoping for an anti-gay SCOTUS ruling. Then, this would effectively block a nationwide bill or referendum on SSM. If the SCOTUS doesn't do what Cruz wants, then he could rebrand this as a constitutional amendment if he can get 290 representatives and 66 other senators to jump on board - but getting that kind of support for this would literally require divine action.

...and of course, not until at least 2019, which assumes that the Republican Party will have a Constitutional majority in both Houses of Congress and 3/4 of all state legislatures. Such requires that the Republicans expand their current majorities in both Houses of Congress, and gain more power in more State legislatures. Above all, people have to care.

Extremists become more strident, ruthless, and despotic as the demographics of their political support fade away.   

[SteveRogers]

I don't really too much about how these laws work.  With what Cruz is proposing, in theory, would a state be able to ban interracial marriage?  Maybe that's what they view "traditional" marriage as. 

No, because there's already a Supreme Court ruling establishing that a state cannot ban interracial marriage. A Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage would have the same effect.

I imagine Cruz's bill (1) assumes the Supreme Court will come out the way he wants, and (2) has more to do with forcing the federal government to use a person's state of residence  as the reference point for determining their marital status for purposes of federal law, as opposed to using the state where their marriage ceremony was performed.

Eric Holder had announced a while back that the justice department would start considering same-sex couples who are legally married in any state to be married for purposes of things like spousal privilege in federal court cases, etc. even if the couple currently resides in a state where same-sex marriage is illegal. Cruz's bill would presumably put a stop to that.

On the other hand, the IRS as far as I know still uses the state of residence's marriage law for the purposes of determining a couple is married for the purpose of filing taxes. Cruz's bill would seek to preempt any attempted change to that policy.

[Rockefeller GOP]

1. Bringing this up is pointless, as it looks like any reluctance the supreme court had toward nationwide SSM is gone, seeing as even Alito won't vote to approve stay requests anymore.

2. This isn't going to pass the senate. I can see Manchin supporting it, and Donnelly/Heitkamp might as a means to help their 2018 reelection efforts, but Kirk and Collins will vote against it. That leaves it 5 votes short of the needed 60 to break a filibuster, and 12 short of the needed 67 to break an Obama Veto.

I think that Rob Portman would also vote against it (given the fact that he does favor gay marriage) and Claire McCaskill and Jon Tester might reluctantly support it in order to help their 2018 re-election bid as well.

Anyway, there is no way that the amendment would pass through this Congress or the next one, though it might pass after the 2018 midterm elections if the Republicans pick up enough Senate seats that year.

Murkowski would vote Nay too, IMO.