Ted Cruz Urges States To Ignore Supreme Court’s Ruling On Marriage

rand-paul-ted-cruzLike many other Republican presidential hopefuls, Senator Ted Cruz has made opposition to marriage equality a central theme of his campaign. After Friday’s 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court, conservatives are still trying to come to grips with the shocking reality that same-sex couples have the same rights as they do.


Even Bobby Jindal finally had to back down from his previously defiant stance against the Supreme Court and watch helplessly as marriage licenses were given to same-sex couples throughout the state of Louisiana.

Many of them are still in denial, angrily screaming about “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” in misspelled all caps rants on social media. Others are talking about fleeing the United States and moving to Canada or Mexico, hilariously ignorant of the fact that these countries have gun control laws, same-sex marriage, and universal healthcare. Then there’s Ted Cruz who thinks that the Supreme Court’s decision doesn’t apply to most of the United States, and that state officials can just ignore the ruling, thanks to his bizarre interpretation of how our government works. Here’s what Ted Cruz said to NPR’s Steve Inskeep yesterday on All Things Considered:

CRUZ: The Courts have the authority to decide cases and controversies between particular individuals. But there is no obligation on others in government to accept the Court as the final arbiter of every constitutional question. Indeed, every officer takes an oath to uphold the Constitution INSKEEP: Did I just understand you to suggest that state officials should feel no particular obligation to follow the Court ruling if they feel it’s illegitimate? CRUZ: They should feel no obligation to agree that the court ruling is right or is consistent with the Constitution. This ruling… INSKEEP: But does that mean they can ignore it? CRUZ: They cannot ignore a direct judicial order – the parties to a case cannot ignore a direct judicial order, but it does not mean that those who are not parties to the case are bound by a judicial order. And that’s what Justice Scalia was saying in his dissent, which is that the Court depends upon the remainder of government trusting that it is faithfully applying the law. And these judges and justices are disregarding their oaths. (Source)

Whether Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee and others like it or not, marriage equality is now the law of the land.


Rand Paul has even gone so far as to suggest privatizing marriage, which seems to be the answer to everything for most libertarians and many Republicans as well. Don’t like the school system? Privatize it. Don’t like the local police force? Why try to fix it when you can just get groups like Cop Block to trick a bunch of gullible liberals and get them to support privatizing police agencies, or just doing away with law enforcement altogether? Don’t like the fact that gay people can get married? Throw a fit and try to get rid of marriage altogether since you can’t dictate who can and cannot have the same rights as you.

That seems to be the way conservatives are approaching any issue now when they don’t get their way. Either find creative ways to pretend the law doesn’t apply to them like Ted Cruz is suggesting, or take the government out of it as Rand Paul thinks is the only solution. It is a petty, childish way of behaving instead of acting like adults, accepting the fact that same-sex marriage is the law of the land, and getting on with their lives. It’s bad enough when private citizens think and act this way, but when you have lawmakers like Ted Cruz telling state officials they don’t have to go along with the Supreme Court, it shouldn’t be a surprise to conservatives when the rest of us don’t take them seriously.



Comments

Facebook comments

  • amersham46

    And which part of his law education at Harvard taught him it was allowable to ignore rulings of the courts

  • GimmeSomeTruth

    Teddy seems to be abiding by the Constitution of the Confederate States. The preamble of the Confederate States indicates: “We, the People of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America”. Take notice that this Constitution clearly states “We, the People of the Confederate States”…also take notice that it says: the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”. Nothing in there say “We, the People of the United States of America:, nor does it say: “secure the blessings of liberty to ALL AMERICANS AND THEIR POSTERITY”. Our Constitution guarantee under the 14th Amendment equal application of the law. Equal application of the law for all, regarding sexual orientation, nationality, credo or race. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say discrimination is acceptable based on freedom of religion. The SCOTUS deemed marriage equality Constitutional and lawful. To disobey this ruling is simply disregarding the law of the United States of America. And that is unconstitutional and criminal behavior on the part of elected officials. None of these elected officials are above the law, whether they like a specific law or not, their job is to enforce it.

  • Creeayshun Sighuntist

    Seems like its time to revive Benghazi-mania since conservatives have been getting their feeling hurt for the past week and a half…

  • hermanprovi

    When a politician, states, that a LEGAL decision by SCOTUS should be “ignored, he or she is ANTI-AMERICAN!
    I have a desire to “ignore” Citizens United, Corporations are People, Money is free Speech, overturning of Civil Rights, etc, BUT I would be in danger of ‘disobeying the “Law of the Land”, and could be in JEOPARDY, and be accused of a “Crime against the State”!