Ted Cruz had pretty pathetic results in last night’s NY Primary, proving that New York hates him just as much as anywhere else. After all, he came in third behind Ohio Governor John Kasich, and Kasich’s like the king of sad and pathetic. But things may get even worse for the creepy-faced lizard (Ted Cruz) if you closely followed what he recently said regarding marriage and states rights.
On Good Morning America, a married gay Republican addressed Ted Cruz and, referring to so-called religious freedom laws, he asked, “What would you as president do to protect me and my husband from that institutionalized discrimination?” Naturally, Cruz equivocated for some time. However, George Stephanopoulos asked him about his support for a constitutional amendment allowing states to ban same-sex marriage.
What would that mean for couples like Todd and his husband who already are married?
But if you paid close attention to Cruz’s response, you might discover he feels states have a right to ban interracial marriage too, which he would support.
I am a constitutionalist and under the Constitution, marriage is a question for the states. That has been the case from the very beginning of this country — that it’s been up to the states. And so if someone wants to change the marriage laws, I don’t think it should be five unelected lawyers down in Washington dictating that. And even if you happen to agree with that particular decision, why would you want to hand over every important public policy issue to five unelected lawyers who aren’t accountable to you, who don’t work for you — instead if you want to change the marriage laws, convince your fellow citizens to change the laws. And by the way, it may end up that — we’ve got 50 states — that the laws in one state may be different than another state and we would expect that. We would expect the people of New York to adopt different laws than perhaps the people of Texas or California and that’s the great thing about a big, diverse country is that we can have different laws that respect different values.
By his own words, embracing such states rights could extend to supporting a ban on interracial marriages. If Cruz truly believes that “marriage is a question for the states,” than he must believe a state should have the right to ban marriage to couples of the same race. Moreover, almost negating the precedent set in the 1967 case of Loving Vs. Virgina–a case involving an interracial couple’s marriage negated by the state of Virginia. The Supreme Court unanimously declared miscegenation laws unconstitutional in the Loving decision.
But if you’re a constitutional “embracer” like Ted Cruz pretends to be, then loving and committed interracial couples will never be allowed to wed.
Featured image via Gage Skidmore/Flickr