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

[DukeU]

Oh by the way, gay people do procreate

Oh by the way, not as a gay couple.

 

[TNHarley]

I dont agree with him. The fed gov is involved in marriage. Which would make gay marriage a federal right.

 

[BS Filter]

I dont agree with him. The fed gov is involved in marriage. Which would make gay marriage a federal right.
It shouldn't be, and that's what needs to be fixed.

 

[TNHarley]

If they get the govt out of marriage, then fine. I mean, its a religious ceremony to begin with. Maybe it should be left up to the church.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Oh by the way, not as a gay couple.

So what? Many straight couples can't either. You did not answer my question. Should the government void marriages that do not produce a child in acertain amount of time?

Better than that should couples be required to undergo a physical exam to ensure that they are able to conceive as a couple, before being allowed to marry?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If they get the govt out of marriage, then fine. I mean, its a religious ceremony to begin with. Maybe it should be left up to the church.

Brilliant! So then, only people who belong to a chuch can marry?

 

[TNHarley]

Brilliant! So then, only people who belong to a chuch can marry?

Its a religious institution. They should be able to do what they want if the govt gets their ass out of it.

 

[Mashmont]

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.

Cruz is right. Once you open up marriage to any arbitrary arrangement you choose, you've usurped the fundamental definition of marriage. It's pure common sense. Obergefell lacked logic as so many leftwing decisions do.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Its a religious institution. They should be able to do what they want if the govt gets their ass out of it.

It is a legal/civil matter for many people.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Obergefell lacked logic

Really? Obviously you have not read the opinion

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Cruz is right. Once you open up marriage to any arbitrary arrangement you choose, you've usurped the fundamental definition of marriage.

Nothing arbitrary about it. It still involves two consenting adults. The only difference is that gender is no longer a factor

The arbitrary part was the states ban on same sex marriage for no rational or compelling reasons that theyu could articulate

 

[TNHarley]

It is a legal/civil matter for many people.

And if the govt gets out of it, it isnt.

 

[Redfish]

Because if California marries two men together ... Kentucky will be required to honor that marriage ...
Just like an Alabama slave owner can bring his slaves with him into Michigan ... and not have his property taken away ...

Here's a question ... if a Texas girl travels to California for her abortion, will she be arrested and have her tubes tied when she returns to Texas? ... isn't the baby an official resident of Texas and does Texas have final say as to what's in the best interest of the child? ...

ridiculous things to worry about. you libs are crazy

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Once you open up marriage to any arbitrary arrangement

Marriage has always been an arbitrary arrangement

 

[Redfish]

Once again, why are conservatives frightened of allowing the voters in each state decide these issues? Why can’t the people of California and New York be allowed to regulate firearms as they see fit? What exactly are you so afraid of?

the difference is that the 2nd amendment is part of the US constitution, abortion and gay marriage are not. its really quite simple.

 

[Redfish]

Where in the Constitution do states have the power to regulate marriage?

no where, that's why it should be a state by state issue.

 

[Redfish]

I dont agree with him. The fed gov is involved in marriage. Which would make gay marriage a federal right.

but it should not be involved, that's the point here.

 

[Redfish]

It is written law that speaks to marriage ... any protections given by these laws must be applied equally to all ... if Utah allows inter-racial marriage, must Kentucky recognize this union as marriage? ...

It would be helpful if you would actually read and study the laws ... the protections we're discussing actually come at the end of the marriage ... who gets what when the sheets split ... if you think this sounds like contract law, you'd be right ...

Same sex contracts doesn't sound so un-Bibley ...

the voters of each state should decide this, if you don't like a state's laws, don't to to that state, simple.

 

[Redfish]

Because you should not be able to vote on what rights others are allowed to have

but you want congress to do exactly that, but not the states, hypocrisy much?

 

[martybegan]

If they get the govt out of marriage, then fine. I mean, its a religious ceremony to begin with. Maybe it should be left up to the church.

All the feds care about marriage by the constitution is that is is accepted as any other contract is accepted from State to State. States set marriage requirements as they are the ones issuing the licenses.

Obergfell should have allowed States to issue or not issue SSM licenses as they saw fit, but forced them to recognize any out of State marriage as they had to in the past.

I had no issue when NY as a State made SSM legal via legislative action, my issue is with Obergfell, and the issue is the same as Thomas' and Cruz's issue, substantive due process.