This opinion piece from a student at UT-Tyler suggests that Senator Cruz is wrong to suggest that the issue of gay marriage should be left to the state legislatures instead allowing the court’s to interpret the Constitution.
According to Article III of the U.S. Constitution settling controversies over the law, such as gay marriage, by a view of the Constitution is directly within the Supreme Court’s authority.
Cruz wants these issues settled in the legislative chambers. The legislative chambers exist for the reason their name implies, to write legislation. It is not their purpose to interpret presently existing law or to concern themselves with legal disputes.
Secondly, the State has not always been involved in marriage. This is a recently formed argument that the states have a “principal interest” in marriage for regulating procreation. When in actuality, it’s none of the federal, state, or local government’s business to regulate relationships for procreation. Personally, I’d prefer to live in a republic where we keep the government out of our private lives… especially our sex lives.
Claiming to be a constitutionalist entails understanding the constitution in depth. Cruz is perfectly right in upholding the principle of the 10th Amendment, that authorities not within the federal government are reserved to the states. I would argue that a person’s relationships and sex life are not within the just authority of any government, but that’s not the point I will make here.
The constitution already tells us how we should address the issue of gay marriage.
The Fifth Amendment tells us that no person may be deprived of liberty without the due process of law, and the 14th Amendment tells us that no State may deprive a person of liberty without due process and ensures equal protection under the law.
You’ll notice in the text there are no caveats. You are guaranteed you will not be deprived of liberty and the State will treat you equally.
Naturally, you are at liberty to marry any consenting adult your heart desires based on equal protection and due process. There are literally thousands of benefits handed out to married couples that are not available to homosexuals, a blatant violation of equal protection. I would argue giving special treatment to married couples is a violation of equal protection, but I’m just a crazy libertarian that’s all about equality and stuff.