MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Ted Cruz Determined to Help Keep Gay Marriage Issues Front and Center

It’s not just the press stirring the pot as senator files legislation.

Ted Cruz stands next to a gay person, which for some reason has gay people angry, not religious conservatives.FacebookSen. Ted Cruz, Republican candidate for president and so far the most vocal among the big names in opposition to same-sex marriage recognition, attended a reception at the Manhattan apartment of a couple of gay hoteliers. And he said he would still love his daughters if any of them turned out gay. Is this a softening or moderating of his position against gay marriage?

No, of course it's not. It's just another over-analysis of everything candidates are saying in order to try to shape some sort of narrative. Cruz's personal opposition to same-sex marriage has not resulted in a policy recommendation for a complete ban. Like Sens. Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, he wants to leave control to the states.

As I've noted previously, unlike Paul, he's also willing to court publicity for his position with legislation that has no chance of going anywhere while Barack Obama is still president, even with a Republican Congress. Yesterday he moved forward with introducing a bill and a resolution relating to gay marriage recognition. S.1080 would "limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts to consider cases involving same-sex marriage." And S.J. Res.12 would propose a constitutional amendment giving states the authority to determine whether to recognize same-sex marriage. The text of the two bills were not yet available on Congress' website.   

These are things that Cruz has already said he was going to do. It's silly to think that Cruz saying he wouldn't cast out his daughters for being gay or just being generally polite to gay people (this reception he went to was actually primarily about foreign policy and Israel, according to The New York Times) indicates some sort of change. But nevertheless, every statement from a candidate's mouth (the candidates being treated seriously, anyway) is going to be pawed over like a blind item from a gossip columnist for meaning.

Oh, and even though this reception was specifically not a fund-raiser for Cruz, according to the Times, some folks in the gay community are calling for a boycott of the hoteliers just for talking to the senator. What next: boycotting television networks for interviewing him? For televising the debates? If I had the opportunity to sit down with Cruz privately and press him on gay marriage to try to change his mind, I would grab it, too.

The Supreme Court will be hearing a pack of cases on state-level marriage recognition bans next week. Their ruling is expected in June.

Photo Credit: Facebook

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    There's a lot of potential for that alt-text.

  • From the Tundra||

    And yet Scott plays it, ahem, completely straight.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    What you did there, we all see it.

  • toliyadikoncama||

    I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h… Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link... Try it, you won't regret it!......
    www.work-cash.com

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    And S.J. Res.12 would propose a constitutional amendment-

    Stop right there.

  • Doctor Whom||

    If I had the opportunity to sit down with Cruz privately and press him on gay marriage to try to change his mind, I would grab it, too.

    And risk failing the purity test and becoming ritually unclean? The P.C. outrage machine has rendered its judgment.

  • grrizzly||

    Oh, and even though this reception was specifically not a fund-raiser for Cruz, according to the Times, some folks in the gay community are calling for a boycott of the hoteliers just for talking to the senator.

    Didn't we spend a week or so without a new cause for a boycott? It's overdue.

  • John||

    Oh, and even though this reception was specifically not a fund-raiser for Cruz, according to the Times, some folks in the gay community are calling for a boycott of the hoteliers just for talking to the senator. What next: boycotting television networks for interviewing him? For televising the debates?

    Yes. The goal here is to make anything less than absolute affirmation of gays and gay marriage effectively illegal. And I would give them a decent chance of succeeding in that goal.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I do wish the GOP would, just this once, focus on the really serious problems we're facing right now, which is, in order, reining in the out-of-control government, freeing our economy and ourselves, and fixing our totally fucked-up foreign policy. Note that I didn't mention increasing military spending, immigration, gay marriage, abortion, evolution, free contraception or whatever other lesser issues the GOP likes to get dragged into fights over.

    Slash and burn the scope, influence, and spending of government. Deregulate across the board, especially getting the government out of the marketplace (including education and research). Restore civil liberties. Stop fucking around overseas, unless we have a compelling strategic reason for doing so, and kill people and blow up shit as a last, not a first resort. How about talking about that, Senator Cruz?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "whatever other lesser issues the GOP likes to get dragged into fights over"

    You mean, issues which progs introduce into the political arena, seeking to lawlessly impose their political preferences?

    "Restore civil liberties."

    Well, that would include the right to life and religious freedom, wouldn't it?

    Of course, you can say (though you didn't) we shouldn't worry about civil liberties when the economy is collapsing into statist hell, but by that reasoning, not only should we ignore religious freedom and abortion, but also drone strikes, gun rights, pot, and other "cultural distractions."

  • John||

    The problem is that the left is so sinister and turns everything into a direct attack on people's freedoms. In a sane world, you are right. Who gives a fuck about gay marriage? Gays are 1.5% of the population and most of them don't want to get married anyway. The problem is that the left has turned it into a weapon for effectively banning Christianity. They are not going to stop with bakeries. They are going to go after churches that won't perform gay marriages and any employer who tolerates an employee saying anything but great things about gays and gay marriage. There is no compromising with them. There is no, gays can get married but other people are allowed not to like it and say so. The left is completely evil and relentless.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    And by a happy coincidence, on pretty much all liberty issues, they're on the wrong side, allowing the possibility of an anti-prog coalition made up of budget hawks, deregulators, religious-freedom supporters, prolifers, and even drug reformers (since the left is pushing a medicalization model of drug policy which endangers liberty just as much as Woody Wilson's Harrison Act or FDR's Marihuana Tax Act).

    A fear of ritual pollution on the part of libertarians and SoCons regarding an alliance with each other allows these factions to be divided in the face of a lefty onslaught.

    Hang together or hang separately.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'm talking about prioritizing issues right now--this election. If the economy completely implodes, a lot of very bad things are going to happen, and we'll miss the luxury of debating whether we should teach kids creation or evolution.

  • John||

    Sure. But when the left finally takes away any right to dissent or free expression, we are going to miss being able to debate about anything.

  • Pro Libertate||

    How are they going to do that with a very likely completely Republican government?

  • John||

    Give them four more years of holding the Presidency, and they will tip the supreme court, overrule Citizens' United and then all bets will be off. We are a single vote on the court from seeing the 1st and 2nd Amendments being effectively read out of the Constitution.

    The old Clinton era system of a Republican Congress riding herd over a Democratic President doesn't work anymore. The media refuses to hold a Democratic Administration to any standard of behavior. The Democrats know they are uncompetitive in large sections of the country and will likely never hold the Congress again for a long time. They don't care, however since they think they will always hold the White House. We are seeing the creation of an elected dictatorship. The only way to stop it is to kick the Democrats completely out of power and out of the White House. That way the media and the Democrats will suddenly find it in their interests to restore minority rights in Congress and restrain the Presidency.

  • R C Dean||

    We are a single vote on the court from seeing the 1st and 2nd Amendments being effectively read out of the Constitution.

    Sadly, there's something to this.

    And I give Repubs only a very marginal edge over Dems in avoiding a nominee who would be that vote. Very marginal.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Is Cruz not talking about those things?

    If I am reading this correctly the event had very little to do with homosexual issues, it was other people being obsessed with those things. A candidate has very little control over what other people focus on, especially those parts of the media which are hostile.

  • Pro Libertate||

    He is, but I think he should focus on them more.

  • grrizzly||

    The gay hoteliers explain themselves, but the gay progs are not amused.

    Wrote Reisner:

    "For my entire adult life, I have been an ardent supporter and activist for gay rights and LGBT organizations worldwide. I was given the opportunity to have a candid conversation with Senator Ted Cruz on where he stood on issues including the state of Israel and national security, which are the only places where we share common ground. It was just three months ago that I hosted a "Ready for Hillary" event for a record turnout of 900 people at The OUT Hotel. Senator Ted Cruz and I disagree strongly on the issue of gay marriage, but having an open dialogue with those who have differing political opinions is a part of what this country was founded on. My tireless support of the gay community and its causes worldwide has not changed and will not change."

    http://www.towleroad.com/2015/.....tment.html

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    The OUT hotel?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Hmmm...I wonder what they're trying to say?

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Let it all hang OUT at the pool?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    After midnight?

  • Jerry on the sea||

    Does it have an Outback Steakhouse?

  • R C Dean||

    I believe it has a Backdoor Bar and Grill.

  • R C Dean||

    having an open dialogue with those who have differing political opinions

    That's so cute. Its like this guy just woke up from a fifty year nap or something.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    If I had the opportunity to sit down with Cruz privately and press him on gay marriage to try to change his mind, I would grab it, too.

    So what you're saying, Scott, is that you think you can "turn" Cruz.

    For what it's worth, I think you could. You're not called Scott "Love Shack" Shackford for nothing.

  • John||

    Cruz just hasn't met the right power bottom. Scott just might be that. You never know.

  • Almanian!||

    Sounds like Cruz is having a gay old time. What is he, Fred Flintstone now?

    Which reminds me: that Barney Rubble - what an actor!

  • jdog777||

    The useful idiots elect presidents based on their views on social issues.

  • Longtail||

    I don't get a sense from this article whether the author wants anti gay legislation or if he thinks it would be a limitation of freedom.

  • BambiB||

    Queer marriage isn't marriage. It may be buddy-buggering or something else but warping the definition of "marriage" to suit queers is just wrong.

    So is giving married couples any sort of government preference - which is pretty much how we got into this mess.

  • EndTheGOP||

    Looks like Cruz will be the first GOP candidate to bite the dust… after Huckabee and Santorum.

    Any GOP candidate who attempts to continue the Wars on Women, Gays and Drugs will fall by the wayside. And good riddance.

  • nosaer||

    What is there to change about Ted Cruz's opinion of gay marriage? I say that his desire to leave it up to the individual states is the best thing he can do as a Federal politician with the exception of getting the national government out of the marriage business completely i.e., no subsidies for married couples or unmarried trios etc.
    When you say you want to change his mind about it I assume that you mean you want him to take Federal action to force non-consenting states and or individuals to accept and recognize a marriage that they disagree with. That is absolutely not a libertarian direction. Unless, of course, you were speaking of Ted accepting your own proposal which I doubt is the case. Perhaps you were writing hypothetically as one of the hoteliers. Regardless, some clarification would be nice. Thanks

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online