Cruz To Protect States' Rights...err...Homophobia...

[ResistanceForever]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/1 ... =fb&src=sp

WASHINGTON -- It seems Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has taken up a new cause in Congress -- defending states' right to regulate marriage.

Amid a wave of court decisions striking down anti-gay marriage laws in states, the Texas Republican introduced a bill to the Senate Wednesday to amend U.S. law "with regard to the definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse' for Federal purposes and to ensure respect for State regulation of marriage." Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is the bill's only co-sponsor so far.

The bill's authors sent out a release about the bill Thursday afternoon, saying "it will ensure the federal government gives the same deference to the 33 states that define marriage as the union between one man and one woman as it does to the 17 states that have chosen to recognize same-sex unions."

“I support traditional marriage. Under President Obama, the federal government has tried to re-define marriage, and to undermine the constitutional authority of each state to define marriage consistent with the values of its citizens,” Cruz said in a statement. “The Obama Administration should not be trying to force gay marriage on all 50 states. We should respect the states, and the definition of marriage should be left to democratically elected legislatures, not dictated from Washington. This bill will safeguard the ability of states to preserve traditional marriage for its residents.”

Cruz's bill comes after Rep. Randy Weber (R-Texas) introduced a bill in January called the "State Marriage Defense Act Of 2014," which would require federal agencies to look into a person's "legal residence" when determining marital status and how federal law would be applied.

In June the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, which had barred the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. Since then, the federal government has allowed gay married couples to file jointly on federal tax returns regardless of state residence and has permitted the surviving spouse of gay married couples to collect Social Security benefits, along with an array of other benefits that were previously only available to heterosexual marriages.

Cruz warned of the dangers of gay marriage a month after the Supreme Court decision in a July 2013 interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network. "If you look at other nations that have gone down the road towards gay marriage, that’s the next step where it gets enforced," he said. "It gets enforced against Christian pastors who decline to perform gay marriages, who speak out and preach biblical truths on marriage."

While Cruz's bill has next to no chance of even coming up in the Democratic-controlled Senate, let alone being signed by President Barack Obama, it is a sign that gay marriage is still an issue among the conservative right. While Republican governors such as Chris Christie of New Jersey and Susana Martinez of New Mexico have decided not to fight gay marriage in their states despite being opposed to it, federal lawmakers have continued to introduce bills limiting its recognition.

This story has been updated to include a statement from Sen. Ted Cruz.

I dunno, how do these people not see that they're the new John C. Calhouns? Is it willful ignorance, or do people like Cruz know exactly how they sound but don't care because doing these things will help them get re-elected (or is it a little bit of both)?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I dunno, how do these people not see that they're the new John C. Calhouns? Is it willful ignorance, or do people like Cruz know exactly how they sound but don't care because doing these things will help them get re-elected (or is it a little bit of both)?

Someone like Ted Cruz is merely representing the people who elected him, i.e. white religious ultraconservatives who are terrified because it isn't 1950 (as depicted in 1950s TV) anymore. He also comes from a deeply conservative state (as defined by the voters who show up for elections because the people who paid for Cruz's Senate seat work very hard to ensure that any other voter is either too disgusted to show up, or discouraged from voting by way of being gerrymandered into irrelevance at the local level or faces substantive barriers to showing up to vote) where he won his seat by a 16% margin.

Ted Cruz is a bit of an anomaly, though. Usually it's House Republicans who like to play these sorts of ideological gains, since they come from extensively gerrymandered safe seats, and don't have to win an entire state like a Senator does.

[Flagg]

I dunno, how do these people not see that they're the new John C. Calhouns? Is it willful ignorance, or do people like Cruz know exactly how they sound but don't care because doing these things will help them get re-elected (or is it a little bit of both)?

Someone like Ted Cruz is merely representing the people who elected him, i.e. white religious ultraconservatives who are terrified because it isn't 1950 (as depicted in 1950s TV) anymore.TEXAS

Fixed.

Ted Cruz wants to be the President is all it is. He never will be.

[Simon_Jester]

Resistance, some of "these people" probably think John C. Calhoun had the right idea- or at least, if he was in the wrong he wasn't wrong-headed, 'just a bit old-fashioned' or some such.

If Ted Cruz isn't one of them, he sure has a lot of voters who are.

[Ahriman238]

So, bit of a tangent but I have a question. It seems to me I remember from civics class waay back when that the US Constitution has a 'Full Faith and Credit' clause, requiring each state government to assume that every other state government is basically competent and thus honor all convictions (barring claims of persecution in the other state) driver's licenses and marriages performed in other states. Hence the legal infeasibility of having one wife in Colorado and another in Utah. So aren't all these conservative states sort of required by law to respect same-sex marriages, as long as the ceremony and paperwork happen somewhere it is legal to do so?

[Pelranius]

So, bit of a tangent but I have a question. It seems to me I remember from civics class waay back when that the US Constitution has a 'Full Faith and Credit' clause, requiring each state government to assume that every other state government is basically competent and thus honor all convictions (barring claims of persecution in the other state) driver's licenses and marriages performed in other states. Hence the legal infeasibility of having one wife in Colorado and another in Utah. So aren't all these conservative states sort of required by law to respect same-sex marriages, as long as the ceremony and paperwork happen somewhere it is legal to do so?

To cut a long story short, yes, but the homophobes are going to litigate the hell out of it regardless.

[ResistanceForever]

So, bit of a tangent but I have a question. It seems to me I remember from civics class waay back when that the US Constitution has a 'Full Faith and Credit' clause, requiring each state government to assume that every other state government is basically competent and thus honor all convictions (barring claims of persecution in the other state) driver's licenses and marriages performed in other states. Hence the legal infeasibility of having one wife in Colorado and another in Utah. So aren't all these conservative states sort of required by law to respect same-sex marriages, as long as the ceremony and paperwork happen somewhere it is legal to do so?

I looked up the "Full Faith and Credit clause" and wound up (after some digging) with this:

Pacific Employers Insurance v. Industrial Accident

I'm not a Constitutional scholar by far, but from what I can understand, this ruling may allow states to do just that: ignore marriages legal in other sates if it is illegal in the contesting state.

[FaxModem1]

I dunno, how do these people not see that they're the new John C. Calhouns? Is it willful ignorance, or do people like Cruz know exactly how they sound but don't care because doing these things will help them get re-elected (or is it a little bit of both)?

Someone like Ted Cruz is merely representing the people who elected him, i.e. white religious ultraconservatives who are terrified because it isn't 1950 (as depicted in 1950s TV) anymore.TEXAS

Fixed.

We're working on that. Everyone blue is rallying around Wendy Davis this November.

[Flagg]

We're working on that. Everyone blue is rallying around Wendy Davis this November.

I want to believe she has a chance, but the term "abortion Barbie" is too damned clever not to stick and barring a major shift in the midterms Texas isn't purple yet. If it were 2018, now...

[Simon_Jester]

To cut a long story short, yes, but the homophobes are going to litigate the hell out of it regardless.

Of course, the flip side of that is if Wyoming has to accept a marriage license from Massachusetts, Massachusetts probably has to accept a concealed carry permit from Wyoming.

This is often not considered, but seems predictable to me. I don't have much of a problem with it, though.

[TheFeniX]

To cut a long story short, yes, but the homophobes are going to litigate the hell out of it regardless.

Of course, the flip side of that is if Wyoming has to accept a marriage license from Massachusetts, Massachusetts probably has to accept a concealed carry permit from Wyoming.

This is often not considered, but seems predictable to me. I don't have much of a problem with it, though.

Would be nice, but highly unlikely since the federal government doesn't recognize carry laws, such that stepping onto federal property (like a post office) with a concealed handgun, even if carried legally in your state, is against the law. It's currently handled through reciprocity that states work out with each other. If you're traveling across state lines with a firearm, you'd better look into it or you can easily end up in jail.

Marriage is a different bag of cats because it's recognized at the state and federal level and has tax consequences. If they had wanted to keep God in marriages, they shouldn't have let the government get involved nor made it so stupidly easy to get married (read: Las Vegas).

I do agree with them on one point: assholes shouldn't be forced to marry a couple if they don't want to (but I don't see anyone really pushing that angle). Bigots should be allowed to big bigots. However, government employees able to wed couples (like a Justice of the Peace) should not be allowed to refuse performing a marriage.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Cruz warned of the dangers of gay marriage a month after the Supreme Court decision in a July 2013 interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network. "If you look at other nations that have gone down the road towards gay marriage, that’s the next step where it gets enforced," he said. "It gets enforced against Christian pastors who decline to perform gay marriages, who speak out and preach biblical truths on marriage."

Classic stupid ignorance. I'll bet you money that the "countries" he's talking about have officially recognized churches and pay for them out of state funds, which makes these priests public employees and holds them accountable to their country's laws. In short, they are told to shut up and do the job they're paid for.

And that's granting him that these scare stories about persecution are actually real.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Who honestly, truly believes this guy gives a flying fuck about state rights? Either he's pandering to his bigoted base or he himself is also a bigoted fuckwad. I'm leaning toward bigot pandering to bigots, personally. If he gave a damn about state rights he'd also fight the things that give conservatives a stiffy but violate "state rights." Yet he only fights for conservative causes.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Who honestly, truly believes this guy gives a flying fuck about state rights? Either he's pandering to his bigoted base or he himself is also a bigoted fuckwad. I'm leaning toward bigot pandering to bigots, personally. If he gave a damn about state rights he'd also fight the things that give conservatives a stiffy but violate "state rights." Yet he only fights for conservative causes.

I too think he's a bigot himself while also pandering to the bigot demographic largely because a number of Republicans who are not as homophobic have been shying away from LGBT-related issues over the past recent election cycles. This is likely due to both changing demographics of the country as well as opinion changes that are clearly trending one-way (greater acceptance) and the Republican party as a whole realizes this. If Cruz was a House representative with a gerrymandered district full of homophobes, then I can see how he is merely enforcing his political career in that sphere. But he's one of two senators for the whole of Texas (not immune to demographic and public opinion trends). Oh well; he's just digging his own place in historical infamy.

[Rogue 9]

I dunno, how do these people not see that they're the new John C. Calhouns? Is it willful ignorance, or do people like Cruz know exactly how they sound but don't care because doing these things will help them get re-elected (or is it a little bit of both)?

He's not the new John C. Calhoun. Calhoun's game was entirely different, bemoaning the crises he himself played a major role in creating and suggesting that they might be defused if this or that thing (that happened to be the thing he wanted politically at the time) was done by the government, and suggesting that not defusing the crisis by doing this thing might, heaven forfend, threaten the continuation of the federal union. In short, he was a consummate master of political blackmail. Cruz isn't blackmailing anyone (at least not in the open on the Senate floor); he's just being a regressive idiot. He doesn't have nearly the political mastery of Calhoun.

[Simon_Jester]

Would be nice, but highly unlikely since the federal government doesn't recognize carry laws, such that stepping onto federal property (like a post office) with a concealed handgun, even if carried legally in your state, is against the law. It's currently handled through reciprocity that states work out with each other. If you're traveling across state lines with a firearm, you'd better look into it or you can easily end up in jail.

"Full Faith and Credit" would seem to bind states to recognize documents from other states, not to bind the federal government. Thus, the issue is not whether the Feds are required to recognize your concealed carry permit just because your state issued it. It's whether or not my state is.

And if Wyoming is required by law to recognize New York's marriage licenses, including ones that are illegal in Wyoming because there is no gay marriage in Wyoming... to me, that suggests that New York might well have to recognize Wyoming's concealed carry permits, including ones that would never have gotten issued in New York because it's a "may-issue" state.

There's at least a credible precedent for a court challenge there, in my opinion. Especially since it causes demonstrable inconvenience if not harm that people who have a permit to carry a firearm in state A, and whose permit is recognized in state C, may be unable to legally pass through state B with their firearm in tow, purely for the sake of moving from A to C by way of B. Full faith and credit should at least extend to people who are demonstrably passing through.

Marriage is a different bag of cats because it's recognized at the state and federal level and has tax consequences. If they had wanted to keep God in marriages, they shouldn't have let the government get involved nor made it so stupidly easy to get married (read: Las Vegas).

Gun permits are regulated at only the state level, but they are regulated at the state level. If a Supreme Court ruling emerges that (in essence) requires State A to recognize permits and licenses granted in State B, including those which would normally be illegal or invalid in State A... that should have constitutional implications on issues other than gay marriage. At least, I think it should.

I support the argument that full faith and credit requires state governments to recognize gay marriage licenses, mind you- I just feel I should be intellectually consistent about extending that to other state licensing.

[General Zod]

Gun permits are regulated at only the state level, but they are regulated at the state level. If a Supreme Court ruling emerges that (in essence) requires State A to recognize permits and licenses granted in State B, including those which would normally be illegal or invalid in State A... that should have constitutional implications on issues other than gay marriage. At least, I think it should.

It seems to me like that sort of legal system would get very sloppy very quickly and bog down the courts in red tape. How would you even begin to keep track of the changes?

[Simon_Jester]

...What changes?

It's quite simple, we already do it with things like driver's licenses and (heterosexual) marriage licenses. Basically, if I take my Maryland driver's license and go to a neighboring state, no one questions my right to driver there. I might need to get an in-state license if I'm settling down to live there, but my license receives "full faith and credit" for the time being.

Now, that may not happen because the Supreme Court demands it- I suspect it's just a practical thing the states do to make interstate commerce and travel easier and more practical. But it's not like this is some kind of super-complicated legal burden.

Likewise, it's pretty simple to say "OK, if Bob gets a permit to carry a handgun HERE, that means he can carry a handgun THERE, at least for X days while he travels from Point A to Point B or is on vacation here."

[General Zod]

...What changes?

It's quite simple, we already do it with things like driver's licenses and (heterosexual) marriage licenses. Basically, if I take my Maryland driver's license and go to a neighboring state, no one questions my right to driver there. I might need to get an in-state license if I'm settling down to live there, but my license receives "full faith and credit" for the time being.

Now, that may not happen because the Supreme Court demands it- I suspect it's just a practical thing the states do to make interstate commerce and travel easier and more practical. But it's not like this is some kind of super-complicated legal burden.

Likewise, it's pretty simple to say "OK, if Bob gets a permit to carry a handgun HERE, that means he can carry a handgun THERE, at least for X days while he travels from Point A to Point B or is on vacation here."

So a lawyer from California would be totally okay to practice law in Florida without being admitted to the Bar in Florida first? Admittedly this is the simplest example I can think of, but I'm sure there's lots of things that this would complicate.

[TimothyC]

So a lawyer from California would be totally okay to practice law in Florida without being admitted to the Bar in Florida first? Admittedly this is the simplest example I can think of, but I'm sure there's lots of things that this would complicate.

It is my understanding that technically the Bar is a membership that grants the license to practice, similar to the groups for Engineers and Nurses. This is distinct from marriage licenses, gun licenses, & driver's licenses.

[Beowulf]

So a lawyer from California would be totally okay to practice law in Florida without being admitted to the Bar in Florida first? Admittedly this is the simplest example I can think of, but I'm sure there's lots of things that this would complicate.

It is not only possible but common for that to happen. It does depend on another lawyer submitting a motion ("pro hac vice") to the court for the out of state lawyer to represent the litigant.

[General Zod]

So a lawyer from California would be totally okay to practice law in Florida without being admitted to the Bar in Florida first? Admittedly this is the simplest example I can think of, but I'm sure there's lots of things that this would complicate.

It is not only possible but common for that to happen. It does depend on another lawyer submitting a motion ("pro hac vice") to the court for the out of state lawyer to represent the litigant.

That's not the same thing as automatic recognition, though. If I have a license to drive in California I don't have to ask permission from Maryland to drive there.

[Esquire]

That's because legal licenses aren't the same thing as driving licenses; they're certificates of familiarity with the issuing state's laws as well as general legal competence. Different states have different legal codes, so legal licenses don't always transfer across state lines. That said, some State Bar Associations have agreements with others about streamlining certification processes, particularly between states with similar laws.

The most obvious correspondence I can think of is with nursing licenses, which I think work the same way.

[Simon_Jester]

My fundamental point here is that a concealed carry permit is more like a driver's license (and marriage licenses) and less like a legal license (or, say, a liquor license). While there are differences in different states' laws regarding concealed carry, it seems reasonable that a person who can legally be trusted to carry a pistol in one state should be similarly trustworthy in another.

A state which doesn't have a concealed carry licensing practice at all and bans concealed carry altogether might be able to make a case. But I don't think may-issue State A could justifiably argue that State B's shall-issue permits are illegitimate when they cross the state line. Not if they're going to turn around and expect State B to honor all their marriage certificates, including the ones that would never have been issued under State B law.

Basically, rigorous application of "full faith and credit" would require all states to accept each other's licensing and permits, except on issues that touch directly on the state's responsibility to regulate things like land use and business practices within its own borders.

My state's deer population is my state government's responsibility, so only they have a basis for handing you a hunting license to shoot those deer. Part of the reason for having the licenses in the first place is, after all, to exert some kind of control in how many deer are killed each year.

My state's regulation of the liquor industry is its own responsibility within its borders- and since only it has the jurisdiction to enforce liquor laws within its own borders, it has to have the right to issue (or deny) liquor licenses on its own territory.

But my state's regulation of driving is NOT dependant on its having sole control over who has a driver's license in Maryland. It's not hard to enforce traffic laws against people who have a driver's license from out of state. Nor is it hard for the state to treat people as 'married' when their marriage was originally registered in the state of Texas. So the state has no legitimate grounds for refusing to recognize marriage licenses or driver's licenses granted outside its borders.

[TimothyC]

A state which doesn't have a concealed carry licensing practice at all and bans concealed carry altogether might be able to make a case.

With the movement of Illinois from a no-issue to a shall-issue state in 2013, every state in the Union has some form of legal concealed carry. Now, several states (Rhode Island, Maryland, Hawai'i, & New Jersey) and some parts of other states are no-issue in practice, but the recent 9th Circuit Court ruling (that outlines that the legal framework must allow citizens with clean records to get permits) is a major stab at that situation.