A word to live by

A word to live by

July 17, 2022 0 By Ellen Novack

Cruz added:

“The way the Constitution set up for you to advance that position is convince your fellow citizens that if you succeeded in convincing your fellow citizens, then your state would change the laws to reflect those views. In Obergefell, the court said now we know better than you guys do, and now every state must, must sanction and permit gay marriage. I think that decision was clearly wrong when it was decided. It was the court overreaching.


Democrat and former Ohio state senator Nina Turner definitely won the award for best tweeted responses to the Texas Republican in tweeting: “I think I speak for everyone when I say f*** what Ted Cruz has to say about anything, especially gay marriage.”

Fighting the temptation to leave it at that, another constituency of social media users reminded the public of just how serious a threat Cruz and the like are to our democracy. Those activists and commenters urged Democrats to vote Republicans out of office.

Majid Padellan, a blogger and influencer who goes by “Brooklyn Dad” on social media, tweeted: “Roe was just the beginning. Time to pick a side, folks.”

Comedian Noel Casler tweeted: “What happens in life to make someone into a Ted Cruz, universally loathed even within his own party & family. Gay Marriage is one of the few bright spots in a pretty dreadful SCOTUS reign during my lifetime. Anyone attacking it is not only an enemy of progress but of love itself.”

The Supreme Court wrote in its original decision on same-sex marriage:

From their beginning to their most recent page, the annals of human history reveal the transcendent importance of marriage. The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations.The centrality of marriage to the human condition makes it unsurprising that the institution has existed for millennia and across civilizations. Since the dawn of history, marriage has transformed strangers into relatives, binding families and societies together. (…)

It is fair and necessary to say these references were based on the understanding that marriage is a union between two persons of the opposite sex. That history is the beginning of these cases. The respondents say it should be the end as well. To them, it would demean a timeless institution if the concept and lawful status of marriage were extended to two persons of the same sex. Marriage, in their view, is by its nature a gender-differentiated union of man and woman. This view long has been held—and continues to be held—in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world.The petitioners acknowledge this history but contend that these cases cannot end there. Were their intent to demean the revered idea and reality of marriage, the petitioners’ claims would be of a different order. But that is neither their purpose nor their submission. To the contrary, it is the enduring importance of marriage that underlies the petitioners’ contentions. This, they say, is their whole point. Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities. And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment.

The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the petitioners, which included “14 same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners are deceased.” Justices wrote:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the SixthCircuit is reversed.

It is so ordered.