Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage

[HeyNorm]

Get the fuck out of here and stop poluting the thread with your trolling bullshit,. Excluding some people from marriage if there is a rational basis and compelling societal interst in doing so does not make one a bigot ( and no, I am not going to get into all of that)

Come back when you are ready to honestly explain why you have such animosity for gay people that you will punish them AND THEIR CHIDREN by excluding them fom marriage.

Excluding a class of people from marriage when there is NO RATIONAL BASIS OR COMPELLING SOCIETAL INTEREST does make someone a bigot.

The only class of people I exclude are minors, those too closely related and those incapable of giving consent.

You on the other hand find adult incestuous marriage acceptable.

 

[emilynghiem]

Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search

Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage

"Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.

www.newsweek.com

-------------------------------------
I just knew it would come up soon.

Striking down a ban as unconstitutional is consistent with judicial function.

States writing and making their own laws through their elected reps is legislative duty.

Judges do not write or make laws, but can rule on whether policies and laws violate Constitutional rights limits process or protections of govt.

 

[Redfish]

Fish, Equal protection under the law and due process are in the constitution. I documented the fact that the SCOTUS has, on numerous occaisions ruled that the states domain over marriage is not absolute. While marriageitself can besaid to bea state matter, that does not mean that it can beadministered ina way that violates individual rights.

You are the ones who should be afraid of putting those issues to a popular vote an, in fact abortion had been voted on in a number of syayes recently. It did no go well for concervatives.

The right to same sex marriage would also prevail in most states . But the fact is that issues of rights should not be left to the people or the states because there will always be cases where righhts are voted down and the rule of law ignored. This is a Constitutional Republic. It is not a Federation of states tat can do whatever the hell they want.

does equal protection language apply to mentally ill people who want to walk free on our streets? Does it apply to drug dealers who are poisoning the youth of america? Yes, those people should have access to a trial before being prosecuted but my analogy remains valid. Equal protection only applies as determined by the citizens to be in the overall best interests.

Personally I have no issue with gay unions, but I will never understand why you libs insist on calling them marriages. A marriage is the union of one man and one woman, nothing else. Some of your fellow libs on the west coast are ;pushing for multiple person "marriages" and person/dog marriages and person/sex doll marriages. Where does this shit end?

you claim that same sex marriage would prevail in most states, then why are you scared of letting the voters of each state make that decision?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So, you want to only exclude parents and their minor children from marriage. So in your view, it would be fine for dad to marry daughter if both are adults. And of course, grandpa could marry granddaughter as well. Right?

What a bizarre world you live in.

Look troll . The thread is about GAY MARRIAGE, I am not going to let you derail it by making it about incest inorder to avaid discussion about your bigotry and animosity towards gays

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes, the advocation of and adult daughter marrying their adult father, is by definition, perverted.

The topic is gay marriage and you admitted bigotry

 

[Bob Blaylock]

you [TheOppressiveFaggot] claim that same sex marriage would prevail in most states, then why are you scared of letting the voters of each state make that decision?

Because he knows it's a lie.

Even here, in relentlessly left wrong-wing California, the issue came up twice on the ballot, and both times, Californians solidly voted to reject the disgusting homosexual mockery of marriage; both times to shortly be overruled by corrupt faggot judges.

If the homosexual mockery of marriage can't pass an honest vote in California, then it seems unlikely that it could pass anywhere in this country.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The only class of people I exclude are minors, those too closely related and those incapable of giving consent.

You on the other hand find adult incestuous marriage acceptable.

You are full of shit.!!
I never took a position on adult incestual marriage and that is not the topic .

You clearly and unabashedly stated that you wish to exclude same sex couples- both gay and straight ( if there are any) -from marriage.

Then you lied about your reasons for being against it- the inability to have children one on one

Your lie was exposed when you were forced to admit that you would not apply that same standard to opposite sex couple who could not have children.

Since then you have been too much of a dishonest coward to say why you really want to punish gay people AND THERE CHILDREN by depriving gay people of the ability to marry.

That is where we are at. That is the only thing that there si to discuuse. Not incest, not your made up same ses straight couples, or any other troll topics that you tried to use inorder to divert attention away from your bigotry,

 

[HeyNorm]

The topic is gay marriage and you admitted bigotry

So you advocate that gay marriage requires a separate institution.

That’s what we’ve been saying from the start.

 

[HeyNorm]

You are full of shit.!!
I never took a position on adult incestual marriage and that is not the topic .

You clearly and unabashedly stated that you wish to exclude same sex couples- both gay and straight ( if there are any) -from marriage.

Then you lied about your reasons for being against it- the inability to have children one on one

Your lie was exposed when you were forced to admit that you would not apply that same standard to opposite sex couple who could not have children.

Since then you have been too much of a dishonest coward to say why you really want to punish gay people AND THERE CHILDREN by depriving gay people of the ability to marry.

That is where we are at. That is the only thing that there si to discuuse. Not incest, not your made up same ses straight couples, or any other troll topics that you tried to use inorder to divert attention away from your bigotry,

All I did was to quote your post that asserted that you would only exclude the right to marry to a parent and their children.

And your pissed off because I pointed out your absurdity?

 

[HeyNorm]

You are full of shit.!!
I never took a position on adult incestual marriage and that is not the topic .

You clearly and unabashedly stated that you wish to exclude same sex couples- both gay and straight ( if there are any) -from marriage.

Then you lied about your reasons for being against it- the inability to have children one on one

Your lie was exposed when you were forced to admit that you would not apply that same standard to opposite sex couple who could not have children.

Since then you have been too much of a dishonest coward to say why you really want to punish gay people AND THERE CHILDREN by depriving gay people of the ability to marry.

That is where we are at. That is the only thing that there si to discuuse. Not incest, not your made up same ses straight couples, or any other troll topics that you tried to use inorder to divert attention away from your bigotry,

Tell me PP, how do you know the number of straight same sex married couples when no one is reguired to disclose sexuality on a marriage license application?

 

[HeyNorm]

The topic is gay marriage and you admitted bigotry

Not too closely related is a part of the marriage requirement, and no, this isn’t about something you call gay marriage, it’s about same sex marriage.

Odd, sexuality is never mentioned in marriage law, only gays bring it up. Are you actually here in an effort to promote a separate institution for gays?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So you advocate that gay marriage requires a separate institution.

That’s what we’ve been saying from the start.

That is just plain stupid! Where do you get that shit from? YOU are the one who aid that gay marriage requires a separate legal structure or something like that. There is not way that you can really be so stupis as to think that I said that

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Tell me PP, how do you know the number of straight same sex married couples when no one is reguired to disclose sexuality on a marriage license application?

There you go again making up shit. I never said that I knew any such thing. I said that I doubt if very many -if any-exist. This is just another of you deflections to avoid a disgussion of your bigotry and lies

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Not too closely related is a part of the marriage requirement, and no, this isn’t about something you call gay marriage, it’s about same sex marriage.

It is not a factor in the issue of whether or not GAY MARRIAGE should be legal. The Obergefell ruling's intent was to allow gay people to marry their own gender. If a heterosexual wants to go along for the ride they are welcome to it.

When are you going to get around to explaining your bigotry and your real rason for opposing GAY MARRIAGE Stop being such a troll and a coward!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Odd, sexuality is never mentioned in marriage law, only gays bring it up. Are you actually here in an effort to promote a separate institution for gays?

I guess you really are that stupid. Marriage is marriage. YOU STATED that YOU want a separat institution. Stop trolling inorder to avaoid a disgussion of your bigotry and lies

Your latest troll tactic is not working. I will not let you forget that you admitted to a lie about why you oppse same sex marriage and now you are too much of a worm and a coward to tell the truth

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

does equal protection language apply to mentally ill people who want to walk free on our streets? Does it apply to drug dealers who are poisoning the youth of america? Yes, those people should have access to a trial before being prosecuted but my analogy remains valid. Equal protection only applies as determined by the citizens to be in the overall best interests.

Everyone is entittled to constituional protections That does not mean that danerous people and criminals should be allowed to roam free. Thet are however entittled to due process.

I don't kwhat the rest of this means:

".......my analogy remains valid. Equal protection only applies as determined by the citizens to be in the overall best interests."

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Personally I have no issue with gay unions, but I will never understand why you libs insist on calling them marriages. A marriage is the union of one man and one woman, nothing else. Some of your fellow libs on the west coast are ;pushing for multiple person "marriages" and person/dog marriages and person/sex doll marriages. Where does this shit end?

The real questionis "why NOT call it marriage?" What compellig societal or goverment interst is there in denying gay people the use of the word marriage. Your bleating that marriage is a man and a woman does not make it true and for some time now it has not been true,

On the other hand there are compelling reasons to call it Marriage:

• Anything short of simply extending the right of marriage to gays just panders to the religious right and other bigots, while not appeasing those opposed to same sex unions.
• Marriage has a special meaning to many people-religious and secular, gay and straight alike. It is universally understood to mean a certain thing. The fact that many do not understand what a civil union is was a big problem for gay couples before Obergefell and would be a problem for every one if we reverted to it now.
• The Federal Government does not reccognise Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships as qualiying for Federal benefits of which there are many

But no one loses if it is called marriage

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

you claim that same sex marriage would prevail in most states, then why are you scared of letting the voters of each state make that decision?

I explained why. "Most" is not "all" In addition Civil rights are to be determind the Constitution , not the will of tjhe people

 

[playtime]

ted cruz has no idea what a real marriage is.

look how he threw his 'traditional' spouse under the bus for a 3x married adulterous fornicator that banged a porn star a mere 4 months after his 5th spawn was birthed by his 3rd baby mama - putting them at risk with contracting some nasty STD.

 

[HeyNorm]

That is just plain stupid! Where do you get that shit from? YOU are the one who aid that gay marriage requires a separate legal structure or something like that. There is not way that you can really be so stupis as to think that I said that

Because you define it as something different…….

Over and over and over and over.