CONSERVATIVE? YES. PRO-LIBERTY? NO.
|| By FITSNEWS || We genuinely like Ted Cruz. He’s a nice guy. A smart guy. A personable guy. And as we’ve written, we believe he has a path to victory in early-voting South Carolina.
But in his rush to be a “conservative” – specifically a social conservative – Cruz is neglecting the pro-liberty part of his shtick. And in so doing, many of the persuasive arguments he’s making on big issues like U.S. president Barack Obama‘s disastrous socialized medicine law are going to fall increasingly on deaf ears.
For example, as he reiterated in a recent column for National Review Online, Cruz is pushing for a constitutional amendment “to preserve the authority of elected state legislatures to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and also legislation stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction over legal assaults on marriage.”
Whoa, whoa, whoa …
So let’s get this straight. Cruz rejects the federal government’s attempt to define marriage (in fact he says it “undermines the definition of marriage”) but says state government can define it?
Huh?
By that logic, shouldn’t county governments be able to override the will of the state? Or shouldn’t municipal governments be able to override the will of the county?
Ridiculous …
We’ve said it until we’re blue in the face: No government should have jurisdiction over marriage – gay, straight or plural. If two consenting adults find a church to marry them, more power to them. And if a church refuses to perform services that go against its religious beliefs, then such refusal is – and must always be – that church’s right.
That is the only true pro-liberty position in this debate …
Cruz likes to portray himself as the “Tea Party” candidate. And the rallying cry of the Tea Party is “liberty.” But his conflicted marriage position is decidedly anti-liberty – to say nothing of debilitating electorally (assuming he makes it out of the “Republican” primary).
34 comments
He does not ring my bell. He is smart and likable, but that makes him like millions of other people in this country that I would not vote for and support.
And the Republican primary is so crowded, I do not expect him to last long.
He is so likeable that hardly anyone cares to sit with him during Senate lunches……..Remember dudes like that during high school lunch break???
Cruz needs to go back to pondering how many angels can sit on the edge of the paper the Constitution is printed on.
That’s about all he is good for
A real smart man with no common sense and lacking in interpersonal social skills.
Disagree with Cruz if you want, but learn what the word “Hypocritical” means. There is nothing hypocritical about believing an issue belongs with the states legislatures as opposed to the SCOTUS
Yeah, I am sorta in the camp that the marriage issue could be seen as murky to some. State versus Federal, Civil versus Religious, Straight versus Gay, Men versus Women, etc., but that boat is not leaving the dock.
I’d rather clarify that people born in Canada can’t be President of the US. Especially one that held two citizenships until he decided to run for Pres.
If Cruz won the US Presidency, he could then run for Prime Minister of Canada thus uniting the countries under one crown like England and Scotland. ;-)
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Tac12aWV13o/VZDnIY7c0VI/AAAAAAAAGUo/aDZ8ALZi92w/s320/11027981_10206066275749950_1002886151372998698_n.jpg
“There is nothing hypocritical about believing an issue belongs with the states legislatures as opposed to the SCOTUS”
So you disagree with Loving v. Virginia as well? Same arguments for the defense of the bans, democracy, states rights, even religion. Struck down citing the same 14th Amendment, unanimously so. Should SCOTUS have left it up to the states to not pass racist laws banning interracial marriage?
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay, and red, and
he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference
with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The
fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the
races to mix.”
And, that’s quote from Loving trial judge Leon Bazile, I see.
The trial judge whose decision was overturned.
And, did you quote it to show just how ignorant he was?
part-time working I looked at the draft which said $9958@mk2
…..
http://www.FinanceworkworldJobs/tap/tab….
Who still cares about this?
just a couple hours ago, Cruz was A-ok for letting states decide which whack-job group banners should fly on capitol grounds. does Fits read his own columns?
Who? The guy who refers to himself in the third person?
yeah, but haven’t you noticed there’s ‘written by fitsnews’ – who may be some guy named Karl sometimes – and, then there’s the Will Folks byline?
So, we really don’t know who’s actually confused unless it has the Will Folks byline.
You say that leaving marriage to churches is the only pro-liberty position. I’m an atheist. By your logic, I don’t have the right to get married. That is the opposite of liberty.
Churches also can’t enforce laws protecting married couples. That’s kind of why government recognizes marriages.
Apparently, Libertarians have twisted themselves into pretzels over the concept of marriage…the development of which, they appear to know nothing about.
How dose an atheist square with holy matrimony ? Legal union by a magistrate maybe.
For my husband and I, our marriage is a commitment to form a family unit and take care of each other for the rest of our lives. It also confers legal benefits, such as right of survivorship, insurance coverage, etc. Fortunately, those benefits are not left up to the whims of a church.
I don’t think that is what he is saying based on other articles I have read, that he has written on the topic. Maybe he is, but my take is that churches shouldn’t be forced to marry outside their beliefs and government doesn’t have the right to say who can or cannot get married. That leaves a court house, a notary or a ships captain who can issue a marriage license.
Cruz is a hard line Republican. I proudly put myself in that group as well. That being said we are 10 to 15% of the GOP. To realistically have a chance to win in 16 we have to get more to the center. A Mike Huckabee, Scott Walker type has a mush wider appeal. Able to mobilize the “Reagan Dims” as well as the Christian types into a winning number. What we should not do however is give up any of our core beliefs and principles to get a vote. That approach is what got us McCain and Romney. Didn’t that turn out great ?
You just contradicted yourself. The way we got ” Reagan Dims” was NOT to move toward the center. We need a hard line Repub, like Reagan to win in 16.
He raised taxes Six Times..
Some “conservative.”
Reagan was true to his beliefs but also was acceptable to the vast majority of voters across the board. Cruz and our type Republicans are to rigid in our beliefs. Remember the 80% Republican comment ? I would love to see my country as conservative as I am but it ain’t gonna happen.
That old fool got approxmimately 300 marines,sailors and soldiers killed in Beiruit, pledged revenge and promptly sailed away.
That old fart was nothing but a phoney who happened to catch the sine wave at the perfect time.
The last thing we need is another phoney like Regan……….
A Mike Huckabee, Scott Walker type has a mush wider appeal.
——-
well said!
I personally supported McCain (financially and by holding up campaign sign on Reidville Road here in Spartanburg and almost got arrested for that) during his first run during the 2000 SC primary against Bust II.
I believe that if McCain had been elected 9/11 would not have occurred or if it did the outcome of the mess where I served 3 fucking tours would not be what it is today.
I would have voted for McCain in 2008 except for him choosing batshit crazy Palin as his choice for VP (she’s a decent MILF but that is about the only complement I can give her)
I’m a proud independent who happens to be a moderate who is good with firearms – you got a problem with moderates like myself???
The last thing this country needs is more smug self-righteous conservatives like Cruz who think they have the answer to everything.
I was considering voting for Cruz (only because he is proposing a flat tax) but when I found out Lee Bright is on his SC primary team I ain’t going to vote for him.
Looks like I’ll be voting for either Rand Paul or Christie now.
lol. Whenever someone proposes a flat tax, you know they’ll lose.
Hey, Cruz is a Dominionist. He wants a theocratic government run by a preacherly class…with him and his crazy daddy at the top.
You may think he’s a Libertarian, but he’s a Christian Libertarian ( what an oxymoron; how professional ‘Christians’ like Mark Sanford and Paul Ryan justify spouting the ideology of the atheist Ayn Rand is amazing) heavy, heavy on the Christian part….the crazy side of Christian part.
Why would Cruz be against a theocratic government sanctioning marriage?
BTW, since I haven’t mentioned it in a while… the preeminent Christian Libertarian religio-political-military-business cabal for the past 75 years is The Fellowship/The Family/C Street/National Prayer Breakfast/ etc./etc. and, we all remember our guy Mark Sanford and his C Street connections.
@Fits – Ted Cruz is talking about “states rights” here. As much as I admire your idealistic views of marriage being strictly a religious entity, reality dictates that marriage is and always will be a government entity. That being said, the less national control there is of marriage, the better. The more control at the state or local levels, the better.
“By that logic, shouldn’t county governments be able to override the will of the state? Or shouldn’t municipal governments be able to override the will of the county?”
The concept of federalism doesn’t involve county or city governments. The states themselves created the Constitution. Counties, cities, and yes, even the federal government, were created by the states. States have certain rights in the constitution. Counties and cities do not.
There’s literally an entire body of law devoted to the interplay between the powers the Constitution gives to the states and the power the constitution gives to the Federal government.
Of course states can define certain things that the federal government cannot. They do it all the time.
Granted, I don’t necessarily agree with Cruz’s strategy on gay marriage and state resistance, but to act like this logically means county and municipal governments can override state governments is just moronic and completely ignores 200 years of debate on the subject.
Like all R’s, Cruz trips over his penis. Gays, abortion, birth control, all losing issues for Rs — let’s hope the voters don’t really care about these issues. It’s the economy stupid.