A Quote by Ted Cruz

The State Marriage Defense Act helps safeguard the ability of states to preserve traditional marriage for their citizens. — © Ted Cruz
The State Marriage Defense Act helps safeguard the ability of states to preserve traditional marriage for their citizens.
If the court strikes down the Defense of Marriage Act, is that a 'liberal' result enabling gay couples married in states where gay marriage is legal to enjoy the same economic advantages that federal laws now grant to straight couples? Or is it a 'conservative' ruling, limiting the federal government's ability to override state power?
If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress's constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a 'same sex' marriage license issued in another state.
I believe in traditional marriage and I believe in the Defense of Marriage Act.
I think it's important for people to understand that this started with President Bill Clinton. He, as president, thought it was such a big priority, he passed the defense of marriage - defense of traditional non-gay marriage - that we have it as a federal law.
I can't marry my way into citizenship like straight people can. I can get married in the state of New York where I live, but because of the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal government, which hands out visas, won't recognize my marriage.
The United States Constitution does not one time even mention marriage. It neither requires Congress or the states to adopt same-sex marriage laws nor does it forbid them from maintaining traditional marriage laws.
There was a very strong bipartisan coalition in Congress under President Bill Clinton that passed the Defense of Marriage Act. And you've had a majority of the states in this country that have strongly stated that marriage ought to be remain the union between one man and one woman.
We are wide open and vulnerable and in all likelihood an activist judge will strike down our Defense of Marriage Act, our state law against gay marriage, this year. And in all likelihood, we will have gay marriage in 2004 in Minnesota , if we don't get this amendment on the ballot for November.
Supporting the definition of marriage as one man and one woman is not anti-gay: it is pro-traditional marriage. And if support for traditional marriage is bigotry, then Barack Obama was a bigot until just before the 2012 election.
I was one of the first senators to support marriage equality, and led the effort to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.
The Clintons opposed gay marriage. They did don't ask, don't tell. They did the Defense of Marriage Act.
By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition.
While 45 of the 50 States have either a State constitutional amendment or a statute that preserves the current definition of marriage, left-wing activist judges and officials at the local levels have struck down State laws protecting marriage.
We need uniform protection of traditional marriage. You can't have different definitions on something as fundamental as marriage. The Marriage Protection Amendment is the only solution to this problem.
You're saying, no, state said two kinds of marriage; the full marriage, and then this sort of skim-milk marriage.
The so-called Defense of Marriage Act is a valueless tradition that, like laws against interracial marriage that were finally overturned by the Supreme Court in 1967, undermines the spirit of love and commitment that couples share and sends the wrong message to society.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!