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

[rightwinger]

The government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage, of any kind.

Who enforces the contract?

 

[Zincwarrior]

Who enforced the contract?

Private action usually, seeking enforcement, damages, void, etc. . I may be misinterpreting your statement.

 

[DukeU]

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?

So what?

Many couples choose not to have children also. But that don't take away from the fact that children can ONLY be produced by a man and woman, by design.

 

[DukeU]

False. Everyone is entitled to have laws applied to them equally. There is zero justification to provide a marriage license to one guy who wants to marry the love of his life because she's a woman; but then deny another guy a marriage license because the love of his life is a man.

What if the love of his life is a cat, should we allow them to marry also?

 

[rightwinger]

What if the love of his life is a cat, should we allow them to marry also?

That would be against the law

Homosexual Relationships are legal in every state

 

[DukeU]

That would be against the law

Homosexual Relationships are legal in every state

And you're good with that? Why?

You can't love your cat?

 

[DGS49]

Getting back to the point, Oberkfell was wrongly decided because it was based on a non-existent "Constitutional right," the right of privacy. Cruz' point is that the decision should be overturned on that basis.

But even if the Court were to do such a thing, it would have NO EFFECT on existing marriages regardless of where or when they were performed. Further, regardless of the marriage law in any state, that state would have to recognize marriages legally performed in any other state. So imagine that Utah passes a law that absolutely prohibits gay marriages. A Utah couple could then drive to California, meet California's requirements for marriage, marry there (in CA), and Utah would be required to recognize that marriage, including handling divorces, inheritance, child support, and so on.

So if Cruz' point of view prevails in a future case, the worst that would happen to any gay couple is that they might have to travel to another state to get married.

Getting back to the phony right of privacy, under Oberkfell, no state could outlaw incest or polygamy (polygyny), or even bestiality, because those institutions would also be protected under the right of privacy. All it would take would be for such a law to come under scrutiny because of an actual case for the precedent to be confirmed.

For example, if the State of Utah prosecuted one of its old-fashioned Mormons for polygamy and the convicted defendant decided to appeal the conviction up to the Supreme Court, HE WOULD WIN, under Oberkfell. Same for incest. Same for bestiality. The right of privacy would prevail and those laws would be overturned.

Rick Santorum was RIGHT! Deal with it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So what?

Many couples choose not to have children also. But that don't take away from the fact that children can ONLY be produced by a man and woman, by design.

What exactly is your point ? If you're trying to argue that gays should not be allowed to marry because only a man and a woman can produce a child, you are doing a piss poor job of it, on many levels

 

[DukeU]

What exactly is your point ? If you're trying to argue that gays should not be allowed to marry because only a man and a woman can produce a child, you are doing a piss poor job of it, on many levels

And if you're trying to argue that butt sex is normal, you are too.

 

[Stann]

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.

He's a total idiot, there is no good reason to oppose two loving people for marrying each other who just happened to be gay.

 

[Stann]

the quoran is even more specific on this, so is the torah. Jews, Christians, and muslims, and most pagans, all agree that homosexuality is a perversion. you, as usual, are confusing issues here. secular means NO religion of any stripe. its not secular or Christian, its secular or a religion chosen by the citizens (or mandated on them).

And I say the judgmental religions based this hatred and prejudice on Jewish tribal laws ( admonitions ) which were designed to increase the growth of the tribe and their strength so they could fight off their enemies. Masturbation, abortion and adultery we're also forbidden. Sex outside of marriage, and sex without the purpose of procreation was also not allowed. Imagine what a beautiful world this would be if all those admonitions were enforced.

 

[Stann]

And I say the judgmental religions based this hatred and prejudice on Jewish tribal laws ( admonitions ) which were designed to increase the growth of the tribe and their strength so they could fight off their enemies. Masturbation, abortion and adultery we're also forbidden. Sex outside of marriage, and sex without the purpose of procreation was also not allowed. Imagine what a beautiful world this would be if all those admonitions were enforced.

Right, it would be a living hell.

 

[Faun]

What if the love of his life is a cat, should we allow them to marry also?

I specified a consenting adults to avoid such a ridiculous post.

 

[Faun]

And if you're trying to argue that butt sex is normal, you are too.

I take it you believe blow jobs are also not "normal?"

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And if you're trying to argue that butt sex is normal, you are too.

It’s this sort of ignorance, bigotry, and hate that the Constitution defends against, and why conservatives want to see Obergefell reversed – so conservatives can discriminate against and disadvantage gay and transgender Americans.

 

[Stann]

And if you're trying to argue that butt sex is normal, you are too.

Why are you into that ? You mean sex is the reason you got married, if not married the reason you think people get married ? I pity you.

 

[Stann]

Getting back to the point, Oberkfell was wrongly decided because it was based on a non-existent "Constitutional right," the right of privacy. Cruz' point is that the decision should be overturned on that basis.

But even if the Court were to do such a thing, it would have NO EFFECT on existing marriages regardless of where or when they were performed. Further, regardless of the marriage law in any state, that state would have to recognize marriages legally performed in any other state. So imagine that Utah passes a law that absolutely prohibits gay marriages. A Utah couple could then drive to California, meet California's requirements for marriage, marry there (in CA), and Utah would be required to recognize that marriage, including handling divorces, inheritance, child support, and so on.

So if Cruz' point of view prevails in a future case, the worst that would happen to any gay couple is that they might have to travel to another state to get married.

Getting back to the phony right of privacy, under Oberkfell, no state could outlaw incest or polygamy (polygyny), or even bestiality, because those institutions would also be protected under the right of privacy. All it would take would be for such a law to come under scrutiny because of an actual case for the precedent to be confirmed.

For example, if the State of Utah prosecuted one of its old-fashioned Mormons for polygamy and the convicted defendant decided to appeal the conviction up to the Supreme Court, HE WOULD WIN, under Oberkfell. Same for incest. Same for bestiality. The right of privacy would prevail and those laws would be overturned.

Rick Santorum was RIGHT! Deal with it.

This would be worse than segregation ever was. The federal government would block any attempt by the states to disrespect and disenfranchise it's gay people. Wrong is simply wrong.

 

[SweetSue92]

Getting back to the point, Oberkfell was wrongly decided because it was based on a non-existent "Constitutional right," the right of privacy. Cruz' point is that the decision should be overturned on that basis.

But even if the Court were to do such a thing, it would have NO EFFECT on existing marriages regardless of where or when they were performed. Further, regardless of the marriage law in any state, that state would have to recognize marriages legally performed in any other state. So imagine that Utah passes a law that absolutely prohibits gay marriages. A Utah couple could then drive to California, meet California's requirements for marriage, marry there (in CA), and Utah would be required to recognize that marriage, including handling divorces, inheritance, child support, and so on.

So if Cruz' point of view prevails in a future case, the worst that would happen to any gay couple is that they might have to travel to another state to get married.

Getting back to the phony right of privacy, under Oberkfell, no state could outlaw incest or polygamy (polygyny), or even bestiality, because those institutions would also be protected under the right of privacy. All it would take would be for such a law to come under scrutiny because of an actual case for the precedent to be confirmed.

For example, if the State of Utah prosecuted one of its old-fashioned Mormons for polygamy and the convicted defendant decided to appeal the conviction up to the Supreme Court, HE WOULD WIN, under Oberkfell. Same for incest. Same for bestiality. The right of privacy would prevail and those laws would be overturned.

Rick Santorum was RIGHT! Deal with it.

I'm very surprised no one has done this yet to be honest. And yes, Constitutionally, "gay marriage" by Judicial fiat was another Roe v Wade. But less likely to fall like Roe IMO because in Roe you have the issue of life AND you now have gay marriages coast to coast and what happens to them if the issue goes back to the states?

 

[Stann]

I'm very surprised no one has done this yet to be honest. And yes, Constitutionally, "gay marriage" by Judicial fiat was another Roe v Wade. But less likely to fall like Roe IMO because in Roe you have the issue of life AND you now have gay marriages coast to coast and what happens to them if the issue goes back to the states?

If the case was dismissed I'm sure the supreme Court would come up with another reason it should remain the law. Simple discrimination would do it. Hatred has no place in our laws.

 

[SweetSue92]

If the case was dismissed I'm sure the supreme Court would come up with another reason it should remain the law. Simple discrimination would do it. Hatred has no place in our laws.

Try to wrap your head around this:

Endorsing a counterproductive lifestyle, such as homosexual marriage, does not mean a person "hates" homosexuals.

People can disagree without hatred.