Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz had a simple question to a reporter who asked whether he had a "personal animus against gay Americans."
"Let me ask a question: Is there something about the left -- and I am going to put the media in this category -- that's obsessed with sex? Why is that the only question you want to ask concerns homosexuals? OK, you can ask those questions over and over and over again. I recognize that you're reading questions from MSNBC," Cruz said as he continued.
"You're wincing. You don't want to talk about foreign policy. I recognize you want to ask another question about gay rights. Well, you know, ISIS is executing homosexuals. You want to talk about gay rights?
"This week was a very bad time for gay rights because the expansion of ISIS, the expansion of radical, theocratic, Islamic zealots that crucify Christians, that behead children, and that murder homosexuals. That ought to be concerning you far more than asking six questions all on the same topic."
Cruz continued, "Do you have a personal animosity against Christians, sir? Your line of questioning is highly curious. You seem fixated on a particular subject. Look, I’m a Christian. Scripture commands us to love everybody, and what I have been talking about, with respect to same-sex marriage, is the Constitution, which is what we should all be focused on."
In a short video released today, possible Democratic presidential candidate Martin O'Malley slammed Hillary Clinton for flip-flopping on same sex marriage. "History celebrates profiles in courage, not profiles in convenience," O'Malley says, taking aim at Clinton.
In case you haven’t noticed, the Constitution is being amended—though not according to the process our supreme law actually provides for. Which is, first, that two-thirds of both houses propose the amendment and, second, that the amendment then be ratified by the legislatures of three-quarters of the states. None of that has happened with the amendment we speak of: Neither house has even considered it, much less voted overwhelmingly to send it to the states for ratification.
Let us now praise famous men, or at least one good federal judge, as some recent work of his demonstrates. Jeffrey Sutton is this judge, and he sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which includes the states of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Earlier this month he announced an opinion for his court in DeBoer v.
The American Military Partner Association (AMPA) held its first National Gala Dinner in Washington Sunday, and the Department of Defense used the opportunity to tout the rapid advances the military is making in erasing gender distinctions in policies regarding military spouses and partners.
Whenever the topic is broached, proponents of same-sex marriage assert that people who have reservations about redefining the primary building block of civilization are simply on the “wrong side of history.” Now, no one would deny that the political crusade for same-sex marriage is on the march. But it must not actually be historically inevitable. If it were, its advocates could relax and enjoy watching the grand chronological process unfold, like waves eating away at a barrier island. That’s hardly what we’re seeing.
Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on California’s Proposition 8, which defines marriage as being between couples of the opposite sex. Today they’re hearing them on the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman at the federal level. Like Roe v. Wade, the high court’s decision on these cases is likely to fuel the culture war for a generation or two, at least. Unlike with Roe, the Court seems to understand that it’s been handed an issue of enormous consequence.
Last week, at the beach with my family, I deliberately ignored all newspapers. Not for the reason most people do—because print is dead. But because whenever I’m surrounded by salt -water, steamed crabs, and even mediocre fishing, I tend to hold that true happiness is having no idea what chronically bothered people are talking about.
In Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel has told Chick-fil-A that the fast-food company is not welcome in his town because "Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values." In other words, because Chick-fil-A ownership believes in traditional marriage, it shouldn't bother opening up shop in Chicago.
Last Friday, Gallup released a poll showing the country almost evenly divided on Obama's gay marriage endorsement, but 26% of Americans said Obama's move made them more likely to vote against him while 13% said it made them more likely to vote for him. By a 12-point margin, independents said they were more likely to vote against Obama because of his endorsement of gay marriage.
When President Obama came out last week in favor of redefining marriage, he couched his opinion in the context of federalism, saying, “I think it is a mistake to — try to make what has traditionally been a state issue into a national issue.” During that same interview, however, he declared that a bipartisan law designed to protect states from judges who redefine marriage in other states, is “unconstitutional.” It’s very hard to square these two statements.
Now that President Obama has announced that, having been for gay marriage (in 1996) before he was against it (in 2004 and 2008), he’s now for it again (in 2012), the Wall Street Journal editorial board comes perilously close to suggesting that Mitt Romney should change his position on the issue.