Ted Cruz: American people want to protect traditional marriage

July 06, 2015

WRITER

Progressives claim that the American people fully support gay marriage, but is there something else at play? Presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz believes the evidence shows that people vote at the ballot box to preserve marriage as a union between a man and a woman. During an interview with Glenn, Sen. Cruz explained why he believes marriage is a question left to the states, not the federal government.

Below is a transcript of this segment:

Glenn: Sure. Let’s start here because you have an interesting view of the Supreme Court. I’m so tempted to ask you if you think John Roberts has ever been blackmailed by somebody in the NSA because I don’t understand his rulings lately, but I won’t go down that road. What I would like to know is as a guy who has argued in front of the Supreme Court, has worked in the Supreme Court, we are off the Constitution, making it up as they go along now, right?

Sen. Cruz: That is absolutely right.

Glenn: The ruling on ObamaCare, I can’t even fathom. They used to say—correct me if I’m wrong, not an attorney—didn’t they used to say you got that wrong, send it back, do it right, and then bring it to us, right?

Sen. Cruz: That is exactly right. When the rulings came out last week, I commented publicly that these are some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history.

Glenn: I agree.

Sen. Cruz: The entire liberal media went apoplectic with that comment. They said darkest, what about 9/11? What about Pearl Harbor?

Glenn: This is the end of the Constitution.

Sen. Cruz: Within 24 hours, on Thursday, six justices ignored federal law, rewrote ObamaCare, literally took out an eraser, erased key portions of the bill in order to force that failed law on millions of Americans, and then on Friday, five justices ignored the Constitution and declared the authority to rewrite marriage, to strike down the marriage laws in all 50 states.

Glenn: So help me out on this because I think there’s a lot of people, especially the millennials, that they’re like cool with look, it’s about love, it’s about love. I’ve tried to explain my daughter, and she gets it now that she’s been watching, but she came to me, and she’s like dad, it’s about love. I said if it was about love, I’d be totally cool, I’d be totally cool. God tells me no, but that’s not my job to judge them. I can’t change their behavior, so I’d be totally cool. It’s about changing and dismantling almost everything in our society. She now sees what is happening along the way. Explain to people that might be thinking who are you, Ted Cruz, to judge me?

Sen. Cruz: Well look, you are right, this is hand-in-hand with a concerted assault on religious liberty and a concerted assault on the Judeo-Christian values this country was built on.

Glenn: I’ve heard them, they tell you it’s absolutely not.

Sen. Cruz: Well, they will say that, but the facts speak otherwise. Let’s begin with one of the premises that they repeat over and over again. They say the American people want this, and they point to poll after poll that show percentages of Americans who want this. They point to millennials, and say millennials want this. You know, it’s very easy to design a poll to get the result you want, and there are a lot of advocates here. We are seeing a propaganda effort from the mainstream media and from Hollywood.

I can give you two facts that are counter to the notion that the American people want this. Number one, 40 states, 4-0, have passed either laws or constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage. When it goes to the ballot box, the people vote very differently from what the Hollywood advocates claim the American people want. A few years ago, the state of California, not a conservative state, bright blue, liberal California voted on marriage, and a majority of Californians voted for protecting traditional marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

You know who voted overwhelmingly for that? Hispanics and African-Americans, so this notion that gets repeated every day on the mainstream media is baloney. This is they’re attempting—if it were true that the American people wanted this, there would be no need for a court case because they could win at the ballot box. They’re doing this because they haven’t been winning at the ballot box.

Glenn: It’s not about that. Your opposition to this is not about gay marriage. One of your big funders as a senator, if you don’t mind me saying, is Peter Thiel. He’s a libertarian, gay guy.

Sen. Cruz: Yes.

Glenn: You’re friends. You went to college together.

Sen. Cruz: My touchstone has always been the Constitution. Under the Constitution, marriage has been a question for the states.

Glenn: Is marriage a human right itself? Traditional marriage, is that in the Constitution? Is that a protected right?

Sen. Cruz: The human rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but when it comes to how marriage is designed—you know, when I talk with proponents of gay marriage, I say listen, you and I can disagree perhaps as a policy matter whether gay marriage is a good idea. I say to folks who advocate gay marriage, we can disagree on that, and reasonable minds can differ. I strongly support traditional marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but we can have a reasonable debate about that. Under the Constitution, there is an avenue to seek to change the marriage laws in your state, which is to convince your fellow citizens we should change the laws. Now, you’ve got to win the argument.

Glenn: But you know that that would break down across state lines. I move, and then I’m not going to recognize, etc., etc.

Sen. Cruz: But Glenn, it hasn’t. We’ve had right now unelected judges have torn down the marriage laws in some states, so right now today the law is that there are gay marriages in some states. In other states, like the state of Texas, there are not. It has worked perfectly fine. I’ll tell an interesting story. So, a little over a year ago, I was on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, utterly surreal, by the way, to be on The Tonight Show. You’re like what on earth am I doing here?

First question Jay asked, it’s Hollywood, he says okay, you’re a Republican. Gay marriage, why do you hate gay people? My response, I said listen, Jay, I believe in traditional marriage, but I’m a constitutionalist. The Constitution leaves this as questions for the states. If the people of California decide to adopt one definition of marriage, they have the prerogative to debate that and do that, but if the people of other states, like my home state of Texas, decide to protect traditional marriage under the Constitution, that’s their prerogative. You know the interesting thing, Glenn, the studio audience in Burbank, California, burst into applause. Jay did a double take. Wait, you’re a conservative Republican. You’re not supposed to get applause from a California audience.

Glenn: So, here’s the thing, my solution to this has been it’s not a federal thing at all because of the Tenth Amendment. It’s not. You say give it to the states. But why is it even in the states? Why do we even have to have that? Isn’t it a contract between me, my spouse, and who’s marrying me? Why not just end it entirely? Because it seems to me what they’ve done is now made this a civil right, constitutional civil right, which now puts all of our churches and all of our schools and everybody else in line for massive litigation.

Sen. Cruz: Well listen, the problem with that is that the government and the courts have always played a role. Whenever you have marriages, you’re going to have divorces. When you have divorces, you’re going to have to dispose of property. Even more importantly, you have children, you’ve got parental visitation, you’ve got custody. Those are questions that under our legal system are going to have to be decided, and the government can’t totally wash its hands of that. If you look at the origins of marriage, marriage long preceded the United States of America. It wasn’t the Constitution that invented marriage or the Declaration or the Supreme Court. For millennia, marriage has been the union of one man and one woman.

Glenn: Church.

Sen. Cruz: It was ordained by God. It was designed, I believe, to reflect the relationship of Christ and the church, and it was designed for the raising of children. So, there is an inherent role when it comes to kids and if a marriage breaks up what to do with the kids that the state can’t wash its hands of. I will say this, the next major battlefield will be religious liberty, and it’s already Christians are being persecuted. People of faith are being persecuted for following biblical teachings.

Glenn: So then let me go there because I think there is a massive wake-up coming. Let me ask you this as a question. If the Christians and people of faith, the Jews, everybody who practices real religion, are we done if they don’t wake up and stand up now?

Sen. Cruz: If people of faith do not stand up in this next election, I fear the greatest nation in the history of the world will be lost.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep