With the Supreme Court cramming the civilization-wrecking horror of gay marriage down America’s throat until it tickled our epiglottis and coated our larynx with sweet, milky equality, we were expecting waves of hysterical overreactions from wingnuts everywhere. Sure, there were a few. Gay-panic vector Bryan Fischer worked himself into his usual froth at the idea of the Court legitimizing “sodomy-based marriage.” Genocide Ben Shapiro threw a hilarious temper tantrum in the satin-lined nooks of Dead Breitbart’s Mausoleum for Cocaine-Fueled Rage Monkeys, citing 2003’s Lawrence v. Texas decision as a related case that found “anal penetration was a hard-fought Constitutional right.” Organizations like the National Organization for Marriage (NOM … oh, nom nom nom) issued an incoherent denouncement threatening to behead – with votes – any Republican lawmakers who did not reaffirm the principle of traditional marriage, “a pillar of the party’s founding in 1856.” (Somewhere in the afterlife, John C. Fremont looked up and said, “What?”) But mostly, the reaction felt muted.
Then Sen. Ted Cruz stepped into the void. Good old Winnipeg Ted, we knew we could count on him to bring the crazy.
This is judicial activism at its worst. The Constitution entrusts state legislatures, elected by the People, to define marriage consistent with the values and mores of their citizens. Unelected judges should not be imposing their policy preferences to subvert the considered judgments of democratically elected legislatures.
How about federal judges appointed by presidents who were elected by the people? Do they count? Yr Wonkette just hates this bad-faith argument. This blithering hunk of Canadian bacon knows damn well that one function of our judiciary is to determine whether laws pass constitutional muster. And if he doesn’t know it, Harvard Law School should refund his tuition.
The Supreme Court is, de facto, applying an extremely broad interpretation to the 14th Amendment without saying a word. […]
It 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, but that is what the Supreme Court is implying today. 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.
Or maybe the Congress of 1868 used the chaos of Reconstruction-era America and the still-boiling fight over granting equal rights to former slaves as cover for its real agenda…setting the groundwork for that day way in the future when man could lie down with man, then get up in the morning and go to brunch before hitting the farmer’s market for some fresh ingredients to bake into a nice paella. Nineteenth-century lawmakers had such foresight.
Marriage is a question for the States. That is why I have introduced legislation, S. 2024, to protect the authority of state legislatures to define marriage. And that is why, when Congress returns to session, I will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws.
In other words, Cruz will try to amend the Constitution so that the judiciary will no longer be allowed to interpret the Constitution. We like to think even Antonin Scalia managed to force a smile to crack open that cast-iron frying pan he calls his face when he read about Cruz’s plan. Assuming that crabby barrel of spite is capable of even a fleeting moment of joy.
Of course old Ottawa Ted knows this will go nowhere, even if Republicans win the Senate in November. He’s conning the rubes and adding donations to his presidential campaign war chest. Have fun seeing your dreams of a theocracy dashed on the rocks of Ted’s bank account, rubes.