Ted Cruz Introduces Bills to Stop Gay Marriage

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Many Roman Soldiers were not even Romans. They were conquered enemies forced into military service.

 

[Syriusly]

Ted Cruz Introduces Bills to Stop Gay Marriage
Bloomberg | 4/23/2015 | Heidi Prszbyla


Bloomberg Title and Link Only
Ted Cruz Introduces Bills to Stop Gay Marriage - Bloomberg Politics
Sub-Heading-- "The Texas senator wants to establish a constitutional amendment that protects states that define marriage as being between a man and a woman from legal action. "

---
Cruz Is going to fight the gays!

Your thread says he tries to stop gay marriage, where does he do that?

because the libs know that if the people of each state are given the right to vote, the gay mafia will lose.

LOL....I still chuckle everytime you write that.....you really believe it exists.....

 

[peach174]

Where did I say I was a historian?
Man you really read into things that are never said.

Reread your post. Perhaps I misread it but it seemed pretty clear to me

yes you misread it.
I am no different than many historians who agree with me and they have Ph.D.'s is what I said.
Let me put this way. The Historians with PHD's have the same point of view with the fall of Rome, that is was their corruption and decline of their morals and principals.
The corruption of their morals and principals led to their over extensions of their military conquests and the corruption of their Emperors.
You can disagree on the corruption and moral decline, but you don't need to insult historians who have PHD's that have written about it and said that this was part of their decline and fall.

I haven't insulted anyone. I am having a reasonable debate with you.
I am still waiting on some cited facts and not just OPINION.
I supplied the EXACT reason for the fall of the Roman Empire. Still waiting for someone to prove me wrong

I put it up from the English historian Edward Gibbon who wrote 6 volumes on The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
Gibbon wrote that the Roman Empire succumbed to barbarian invasions in large part due to the gradual loss of civic virtue among its citizens.

Civic virtue? That seems like quite the stretch to me. Service in the emperors army was not a choice. So how exactly does Bobby sucking Joes schlong cause the Roman front lines to collapse?

I would suggest you read the history books of Edward Gibbon and Catherine Edwards (The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome)

 

[Syriusly]

PEACH174 SAID:

"Where does the 14th amendment say same sex marriage is an equal right? It says deprive any person of life, liberty or property.
You are free to be gay in this country but it says nothing about marriage."

Wrong - “life, liberty or property” are found in the 5th Amendment, not the 14th.

The 14th Amendment applies the right to due process of the law to the states, both procedural and substantive; it also requires the states to allow all persons residing in the states access to the laws of each state, in this case same-sex couples access to marriage law, where to seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Interestingly, Cruz's 'amendment' is an acknowledgment of this fact, he understands that 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibits the states from denying same-sex couples access to marriage law; to render that jurisprudence void of the force of law, he seeks to 'amend' the Constitution to codify discrimination against gay Americans.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Says it right there and it does not apply to any marriages.

Here is what the Supreme Court will be considering(in part)
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[peach174]

what Cruz has proposed would let the people of each state decide-------------how awful, how radical, how constitutional.

What Cruz has done is appeal to his homophobic base- he knows there is no chance of such a Constitutional Amendment passing.

A recent poll showed that more Blacks and Hispanics oppose same sex marriage than Whites.

 

[Syriusly]

Ted Cruz Introduces Bills to Stop Gay Marriage
Bloomberg | 4/23/2015 | Heidi Prszbyla


Bloomberg Title and Link Only
Ted Cruz Introduces Bills to Stop Gay Marriage - Bloomberg Politics
Sub-Heading-- "The Texas senator wants to establish a constitutional amendment that protects states that define marriage as being between a man and a woman from legal action. "

---
Cruz Is going to fight the gays!

A Constitutional Amendment?

He just rose a notch or two in my estimation.

Finally, political leadership manifesting some courage, rather than pandering to the whores in the Gay Mafia PACs.

LOL- now he is just pandering to the whores of the Christian Mafia PACs

 

[Syriusly]

what Cruz has proposed would let the people of each state decide-------------how awful, how radical, how constitutional.

What Cruz has done is appeal to his homophobic base- he knows there is no chance of such a Constitutional Amendment passing.

A recent poll showed that more Blacks and Hispanics oppose same sex marriage than Whites.

What Cruz has done is appeal to his homophobic base- he knows there is no chance of such a Constitutional Amendment passing

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Reread your post. Perhaps I misread it but it seemed pretty clear to me

yes you misread it.
I am no different than many historians who agree with me and they have Ph.D.'s is what I said.
Let me put this way. The Historians with PHD's have the same point of view with the fall of Rome, that is was their corruption and decline of their morals and principals.
The corruption of their morals and principals led to their over extensions of their military conquests and the corruption of their Emperors.
You can disagree on the corruption and moral decline, but you don't need to insult historians who have PHD's that have written about it and said that this was part of their decline and fall.

I haven't insulted anyone. I am having a reasonable debate with you.
I am still waiting on some cited facts and not just OPINION.
I supplied the EXACT reason for the fall of the Roman Empire. Still waiting for someone to prove me wrong

I put it up from the English historian Edward Gibbon who wrote 6 volumes on The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
Gibbon wrote that the Roman Empire succumbed to barbarian invasions in large part due to the gradual loss of civic virtue among its citizens.

Civic virtue? That seems like quite the stretch to me. Service in the emperors army was not a choice. So how exactly does Bobby sucking Joes schlong cause the Roman front lines to collapse?

I would suggest you read the history books of Edward Gibbon and Catherine Edwards (The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome)

There is your problem right there and you don't even see it.

The authors are attempting to apply their own moral standards to a historical event. A good historian would examine the facts and draw a conclusion that is not tainted with personal perception but rather relies on the supporting facts.
Every single culture in human history has homosexuality in it. Every one of them. If you twist enough bullshit into it I suppose you could then say that the USSR collapsed because of homosexuality? Or how about all the British conquered areas that are no longer under British rule? How but the native Americans? Or the Mexicans in Texas or Arizona?

 

[Syriusly]

And the 14th protects same sex marriage as an equal right.

Bullshit.

Golly, another thoughtful and cogent opinion from the anti gay crowd. I'm shocked they haven't won more court cases.

Where does the 14th amendment say same sex marriage is an equal right?
It says deprive any person of life, liberty or property.
You are free to be gay in this country but it says nothing about marriage.

You are obsessing about an institution that has over a 60% failure rate. That abysmal longevity stat has little if nothing to do with homosexuals. It would serve you that think it is the "foundation" of our society to work a little harder on the actual causes of it's horrible record of success.

many believe that sanctioning gay marriage would harm society, you don't believe it would. There is a difference of opinion-----------so lets put it to a vote in every state and let the will of the people prevail.

Many people believed that sanctioning mixed race marriage would harm society. There wasn't much of a difference of opinion- by large majorities, Americans opposed mixed race marriages.

So the Lovings went to court, and the Supreme Court found that such bans are unconstitutional.

Gay couples are doing the very same thing.

The votes of the people are not always constitutional- look at gun bans that have been overturned by the courts. And the courts are the proper way to address unconsitutional laws.

 

[Syriusly]

How would it harm society? I see a lot of people who's sensibilities it would harm but 0 evidence for societal harm

Immoral and Sexual deviancy has brought down many society's all though out history.

Which ones? I keep hearing people make those claims yet when we look at the 'fall' of societies- I can't think of any that did.

The Ottoman Empire? Nope- that was losing World War 1 and rise of secular forces.
The Aztec Empire? Nope- that was caused by the Spanish and the collusion of the Aztec's conquered neighbors.
The Incan Empire? Nope- see above.

The reality is that the United States is the most powerful country in the world- and we have what ancient Jews would consider an immoral society.

The societies that are the least tolerant of 'immoral and sexual deviancy'? Well that would be the repressed of Muslim societies- Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Which do you choose as the most 'moral path'? The United States or Saudi Arabia?

We are tolerant and have always been tolerant. We have never killed gays in this country like the Muslim societies.
.

Wow- so as long as we 'don't kill gays like the Muslim societies' that is 'tolerant' to you?

Not very long ago it was illegal in much of this country for gay men to have sex. States passed laws to prevent homosexuals from employment as teachers in public schools. The State Department fired employees for being gay. The military fired decorated veterans for being gay.

Police routinely arrested homosexuals for daring to be at a nightclub- with other homosexuals. In New York police would arrest them, hold them over night, but make sure that their names were in the newspapers and notify their employers so that they would get fired.

That is what you consider as 'always been tolerant'?

The United States is now a much more tolerant country- and that is a good thing- we are moving further away from the repressive Muslim societies that outlaw homosexuality- as it used to be outlawed here.

And that is a good thing.

If the fags are soliciting sex in public they belong in jail right next to prostitutes

Interesting- of course that doesn't have anything to do with my post.

The instances I mentioned were not for soliciting in public- police in New York and San Francisco routinely raided gay bars just to roust gays. They would arrest any guy wearing a dress and any woman dressed like a man- and make up charges for pretty much anyone they wanted to harrass.

 

[peach174]

yes you misread it.
I am no different than many historians who agree with me and they have Ph.D.'s is what I said.
Let me put this way. The Historians with PHD's have the same point of view with the fall of Rome, that is was their corruption and decline of their morals and principals.
The corruption of their morals and principals led to their over extensions of their military conquests and the corruption of their Emperors.
You can disagree on the corruption and moral decline, but you don't need to insult historians who have PHD's that have written about it and said that this was part of their decline and fall.

I haven't insulted anyone. I am having a reasonable debate with you.
I am still waiting on some cited facts and not just OPINION.
I supplied the EXACT reason for the fall of the Roman Empire. Still waiting for someone to prove me wrong

I put it up from the English historian Edward Gibbon who wrote 6 volumes on The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
Gibbon wrote that the Roman Empire succumbed to barbarian invasions in large part due to the gradual loss of civic virtue among its citizens.

Civic virtue? That seems like quite the stretch to me. Service in the emperors army was not a choice. So how exactly does Bobby sucking Joes schlong cause the Roman front lines to collapse?

I would suggest you read the history books of Edward Gibbon and Catherine Edwards (The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome)

There is your problem right there and you don't even see it.

The authors are attempting to apply their own moral standards to a historical event. A good historian would examine the facts and draw a conclusion that is not tainted with personal perception but rather relies on the supporting facts.
Every single culture in human history has homosexuality in it. Every one of them. If you twist enough bullshit into it I suppose you could then say that the USSR collapsed because of homosexuality? Or how about all the British conquered areas that are no longer under British rule? How but the native Americans? Or the Mexicans in Texas or Arizona?

They did by using facts, not their moral standards.
Morals and principals is not just about Homosexuality.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are obsessing about an institution that has over a 60% failure rate. That abysmal longevity stat has little if nothing to do with homosexuals. It would serve you that think it is the "foundation" of our society to work a little harder on the actual causes of it's horrible record of success.

many believe that sanctioning gay marriage would harm society, you don't believe it would. There is a difference of opinion-----------so lets put it to a vote in every state and let the will of the people prevail.

I will accept the will of the people, will you?

How would it harm society? I see a lot of people who's sensibilities it would harm but 0 evidence for societal harm

in the opinion of many human beings, homosexuality is not a normal human condition, treating a sickness as normal would harm society.

you may think otherwise and thats ok, but the majority opinion should prevail, unless we live in a dictatorship.

I don't believe it is normal. I just don't believe it matters.

so you have no issue with the govt calling abnormality normal? How about abnormal pedifilia? polygamy? where does it start and end?

Blue eyes are abnormal. Only about 8% of humans have them.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

PEACH174 SAID:

"Where does the 14th amendment say same sex marriage is an equal right? It says deprive any person of life, liberty or property.
You are free to be gay in this country but it says nothing about marriage."

Wrong - “life, liberty or property” are found in the 5th Amendment, not the 14th.

The 14th Amendment applies the right to due process of the law to the states, both procedural and substantive; it also requires the states to allow all persons residing in the states access to the laws of each state, in this case same-sex couples access to marriage law, where to seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Interestingly, Cruz's 'amendment' is an acknowledgment of this fact, he understands that 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibits the states from denying same-sex couples access to marriage law; to render that jurisprudence void of the force of law, he seeks to 'amend' the Constitution to codify discrimination against gay Americans.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Says it right there and it does not apply to any marriages.

You and others on the right still don't understand, or refuse to understand.

The issue has nothing to do with property rights, procedural due process, or criminal prosecutions; the issue concerns the states enacting measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage laws they're eligible to participate in, where such measures violate the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by Articles III and VI, and the doctrine of judicial review as originally intended by the Framers.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

As a fact of Constitutional law there is a fundamental right to marry, there is a fundamental right of every person in the United States to be afforded equal protection of (equal access to) the laws of each of the states, including same-sex couples access to marriage law.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I haven't insulted anyone. I am having a reasonable debate with you.
I am still waiting on some cited facts and not just OPINION.
I supplied the EXACT reason for the fall of the Roman Empire. Still waiting for someone to prove me wrong

I put it up from the English historian Edward Gibbon who wrote 6 volumes on The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
Gibbon wrote that the Roman Empire succumbed to barbarian invasions in large part due to the gradual loss of civic virtue among its citizens.

Civic virtue? That seems like quite the stretch to me. Service in the emperors army was not a choice. So how exactly does Bobby sucking Joes schlong cause the Roman front lines to collapse?

I would suggest you read the history books of Edward Gibbon and Catherine Edwards (The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome)

There is your problem right there and you don't even see it.

The authors are attempting to apply their own moral standards to a historical event. A good historian would examine the facts and draw a conclusion that is not tainted with personal perception but rather relies on the supporting facts.
Every single culture in human history has homosexuality in it. Every one of them. If you twist enough bullshit into it I suppose you could then say that the USSR collapsed because of homosexuality? Or how about all the British conquered areas that are no longer under British rule? How but the native Americans? Or the Mexicans in Texas or Arizona?

They did by using facts, not their moral standards.
Morals and principals is not just about Homosexuality.

Except they did. And since your moral compass is in line with theirs you accept it as fact when it is not. It is opinion.

I gave you the EXACT reason for the collapse of the Roman Empire several pages back & you continue to dismiss it.

 

[Syriusly]

yes you misread it.
I am no different than many historians who agree with me and they have Ph.D.'s is what I said.
Let me put this way. The Historians with PHD's have the same point of view with the fall of Rome, that is was their corruption and decline of their morals and principals.
The corruption of their morals and principals led to their over extensions of their military conquests and the corruption of their Emperors.
You can disagree on the corruption and moral decline, but you don't need to insult historians who have PHD's that have written about it and said that this was part of their decline and fall.

I haven't insulted anyone. I am having a reasonable debate with you.
I am still waiting on some cited facts and not just OPINION.
I supplied the EXACT reason for the fall of the Roman Empire. Still waiting for someone to prove me wrong

I put it up from the English historian Edward Gibbon who wrote 6 volumes on The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
Gibbon wrote that the Roman Empire succumbed to barbarian invasions in large part due to the gradual loss of civic virtue among its citizens.

Civic virtue? That seems like quite the stretch to me. Service in the emperors army was not a choice. So how exactly does Bobby sucking Joes schlong cause the Roman front lines to collapse?

I would suggest you read the history books of Edward Gibbon and Catherine Edwards (The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome)

There is your problem right there and you don't even see it.

The authors are attempting to apply their own moral standards to a historical event. A good historian would examine the facts and draw a conclusion that is not tainted with personal perception but rather relies on the supporting facts.
Every single culture in human history has homosexuality in it. Every one of them. If you twist enough bullshit into it I suppose you could then say that the USSR collapsed because of homosexuality? Or how about all the British conquered areas that are no longer under British rule? How but the native Americans? Or the Mexicans in Texas or Arizona?

Edward Gibbons wrote his monumental work over 200 years ago. He was a product of his time and place- and frankly had much less information available than is available to modern historians.

And after reading the introduction of "Catherine Edwards" I am fairly certain that peach never read it- or doesn't understand it. From the introduction there is nothing there to support what peach suggests.

Actually thinking about this some more- looking at history- Rome fell around 150 years after adopting Christianity as its religion. We could just as easily blame the fall of Rome on Christianity- as 'morals' or anything else.

 

[Kondor3]

We are tolerant and have always been tolerant. We have never killed gays in this country like the Muslim societies

Until all gays everywhere can buy any cake they want at any bakery across this great land, we are no better...

We are no better?

Would a few photos of Gays, hanging by their necks from ropes attached to mechanical cranes, in Iran, be of any use to you, in distinguishing between the two?

I'd click the needle on your sarcasm detector, I think it's stuck

On reflection, I think you're right.

A swift kick did the trick.

Thanks.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

REDFISH SAID:

“many believe that sanctioning gay marriage would harm society, you don't believe it would. There is a difference of opinion-----------so lets put it to a vote in every state and let the will of the people prevail.

I will accept the will of the people, will you?”

People believe all sorts of nonsense, ignorance, and idiocy – one of the many reasons why we are a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy.

In our Constitutional Republic citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly – laws seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law are evidence of that.

Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, and residents of the states subordinate to that, where citizens' civil rights are immune from attack by the state – indeed, one does not forfeit his civil rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor are one's civil rights subject to 'majority rule.'

Consequently, whether or not a citizen will be 'afforded' his civil rights cannot be 'put up to a vote,' the notion is ignorant and ridiculous, as our rights are inalienable, they manifest because of our being human, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

 

[Kondor3]

Ted Cruz Introduces Bills to Stop Gay Marriage
Bloomberg | 4/23/2015 | Heidi Prszbyla


Bloomberg Title and Link Only
Ted Cruz Introduces Bills to Stop Gay Marriage - Bloomberg Politics
Sub-Heading-- "The Texas senator wants to establish a constitutional amendment that protects states that define marriage as being between a man and a woman from legal action. "

---
Cruz Is going to fight the gays!

A Constitutional Amendment?

He just rose a notch or two in my estimation.

Finally, political leadership manifesting some courage, rather than pandering to the whores in the Gay Mafia PACs.

LOL- now he is just pandering to the whores of the Christian Mafia PACs

I'll take the Christian Mafia over the organized Fudge-Packers Union (Gay Mafia) any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

 

[Kondor3]

REDFISH SAID:

“many believe that sanctioning gay marriage would harm society, you don't believe it would. There is a difference of opinion-----------so lets put it to a vote in every state and let the will of the people prevail.

I will accept the will of the people, will you?”

People believe all sorts of nonsense, ignorance, and idiocy – one of the many reasons why we are a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy.

In our Constitutional Republic citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly – laws seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law are evidence of that.

Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, and residents of the states subordinate to that, where citizens' civil rights are immune from attack by the state – indeed, one does not forfeit his civil rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor are one's civil rights subject to 'majority rule.'

Consequently, whether or not a citizen will be 'afforded' his civil rights cannot be 'put up to a vote,' the notion is ignorant and ridiculous, as our rights are inalienable, they manifest because of our being human, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

But one can forfeit one's rights when one engages in prohibited behaviors.

Now, all we have to do is serve-up that Constitutional Amendment, defining marriage as between members of different genders, and this all goes away, in a legal sense.

That, or amend the Constitution to proscribe homosexuality - which might be a better and more sustainable outcome.

Once it's embedded in the Constitution, those greasy little wankers can't touch it.

Not even the Supreme Court can declare a part of the Constitution to be un-Constitutional, so long as it overrides anything done previously on the subject.

Un-touchable... long-overdue... and likely to be cheered, soundly, by most Americans, once relieved of the burden of Political Correctness on the subject.

 

[Stephanie]

Have you ever seen so many people FLIPPING out over someone just PRESENTING a bill?

good ole Bloomingidiot...his job of lying and rattling people gages did it's job

how sad.