Traditional Marriage vs Ted Cruz
Senator Ted Cruz has garnered popularity with Anti-Federalist positions at a time when government is at its most unpopular. He has combined this “outsider” campaign with a full court press for evangelical support, especially in early states like Iowa and South Carolina. He has had notable success, including the endorsement of The Family Leader, a prominent religious conservative organization in Iowa.
It is a perilous balancing act, however, when advocating for the dominance of the 10th amendment while attempting to curry favor with a voting bloc that considers the Right to Life and Marriage as God’s Laws, above those of man.
The problem lies primarily with Cruz’s position that the right to define Marriage lies with the States. This position allows for the possibility of a state or multiple states defining marriage to be anything including, but not limited to, homosexual marriage, polygamy or bestial marriage. How can a God-fearing Christian advocate for such a position?
The answer, if one is being honest with themselves, is that they can’t. The argument being made is that it is a constitutionally correct position. There are two problems with the argument:
- God’s Law (Natural Law) is considered inherent and superior to, or the basis of, man’s law
- The US Constitution, as currently interpreted, offers no such haven.
The first problem itself shatters the very premise of the argument promoted by Senator Cruz and his followers. If you are a devout Christian, The idea that any man-made document can somehow supercede the Natural Law established by the Creator is preposterous. Marriage, as defined by scripture, is the union of one man and one woman. There is no exception.
The second is a problem that a Christian Senator, especially one who has been a US Attorney, should be well familiar with. In 1987, in South Dakota vs Dole, the Supreme Court ruled that the General Welfare clause in the US Constitution allowed for the government to withhold funds from states that did not conform to federal policy. This allows the federal government the ability to dictate policy that is deemed necessary for the General Welfare of the country, and any state that refuses to comply with the policy is free to do so with the understanding that the Federal government is free to cut off any funding they receive.
In other words, either Senator Cruz is woefully unfamiliar with the very judicial tenet ObamaCare was upheld upon, or he isn’t all that interested in establishing Traditional Marriage as the law of the land.
Evangelicals, Catholics and other Christians have to decide where they stand on the sanctity of Marriage. If defining Marriage per scripture is not high on your list of prerequisites for choosing a President, Senator Cruz might still be the right choice for you.
However, for those adamant that Marriage continue to be defined as scripture requires, they will need to look elsewhere. There are no shortage of candidates promoting a federal solution to defining Marriage. The past two Iowa Caucus winners, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee, as well as Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz’s fellow Senator, are among those that have proposed methods to protect Marriage at the National level.
There are approximately three and a half weeks left before Iowa kicks off the 2016 election season with the First-in-the-Nation caucuses. It’s time for Christians to ask themselves where they stand on Marriage.
