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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Actually that was another issue we whitch should have been left up to each state.

Then can I assume that you also think that interracial marriage should have been left to the states?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Then can I assume that you also think that interracial marriage should have been left to the states?

Along with segregated schools.

The neo-fascist authoritarian right won’t just stop with Roe.

 

[toobfreak]

I just knew it would come up soon.

What's that, the fact that gays don't need to get married because they already had civil unions available to them which does all the same things? Same other than sticking a finger in the eye of half the nation who knows that real marriage is a union between a man and woman for the sake of raising a family under God.

 

[toobfreak]

The neo-fascist authoritarian right won’t just stop with Roe.

Good then, since you know that, you should stop complaining.

Yeah, we really did a number of Roe, huh---- that must be why Kansas just approved keeping abortion the same!

 

[Couchpotato]

What's that, the fact that gays don't need to get married because they already had civil unions available to them which does all the same things? Same other than sticking a finger in the eye of half the nation who knows that real marriage is a union between a man and woman for the sake of raising a family under God.

A "real marriage" is whatever that individual state defines it as (until the Federal Gov got involved anyway). At least as it pertains to the law. There's no doubt I dont think that the "state" incentivized marriage because it was beneficial to grow the population, and stable marriages are the best place for a child to grow up. Whether that's still a good reason for states to incentivize marriage is something we should probably examine. Whether or not a state's marriage laws conform to what God sanctifies as a marriage is irrelevant. If you want you get married in the eyes of God you dont go to the Government.

 

[toobfreak]

A "real marriage" is whatever that individual state defines it as (until the Federal Gov got involved anyway).

No thanks. Don't need the government "telling me" or "defining" anything when marriage was already defined and set forth as a meaningful, divine act by God.

All man and government have accomplished is changed it into a meaningless perversion.

 

[Penelope]

What's that, the fact that gays don't need to get married because they already had civil unions available to them which does all the same things? Same other than sticking a finger in the eye of half the nation who knows that real marriage is a union between a man and woman for the sake of raising a family under God.

Are you going to check bedrooms?

 

[Couchpotato]

No thanks. Don't need the government "telling me" or "defining" anything when marriage was already defined and set forth as a meaningful, divine act by God.

All man and government have accomplished is changed it into a meaningless perversion.

Then why are you going to the government for a marriage license?

 

[POM]

... separate schools for white children and black children ...

In 1977 Joe Biden said that forced busing to desegregate schools would cause his children to “grow up in a racial jungle.”

 

[AsherN]

No thanks. Don't need the government "telling me" or "defining" anything when marriage was already defined and set forth as a meaningful, divine act by God.

All man and government have accomplished is changed it into a meaningless perversion.

Exactly how has legalizing same sex marriage turned your own marriage into a meaningless perversion?

 

[Couchpotato]

Exactly how has legalizing same sex marriage turned your own marriage into a meaningless perversion?

If you are using the biblical definition of marriage then he's essentially correct. The problem with his argument is that God doesn't need the Government to define what marriage is; however, the Government certainly needs to define it in the law. Which it has done. The question is whether the Federal or State Government should be doing the defining.

 

[AsherN]

If you are using the biblical definition of marriage then he's essentially correct. The problem with his argument is that God doesn't need the Government to define what marriage is; however, the Government certainly needs to define it in the law. Which it has done. The question is whether the Federal or State Government should be doing the defining.

Both State and Federal confer rights and benefits to married couples. Therefore, both have a say.

 

[Couchpotato]

Both State and Federal confer rights and benefits to married couples. Therefore, both have a say.

1 Governments don’t confer rights. They can only protect and take away rights you already have. The fed only confers benefits through taxes. They do that to all kinds of things they don’t define.

2. They really dont. We can’t have states define it one way and the fed another.

 

[rightwinger]

1 Governments don’t confer rights. They can only protect and take away rights you already have. The fed only confers benefits through taxes. They do that to all kinds of things they don’t define.

2. They really dont. We can’t have states define it one way and the fed another.

Yes they do confer rights and make sure they are applied equitably

 

[toobfreak]

Exactly how has legalizing same sex marriage turned your own marriage into a meaningless perversion?

You read that wrong.

 

[AsherN]

1 Governments don’t confer rights. They can only protect and take away rights you already have. The fed only confers benefits through taxes. They do that to all kinds of things they don’t define.

2. They really dont. We can’t have states define it one way and the fed another.

So what do you call the right of a spouse to make medical decision on behalf of the other spouse, if not a right granted by the state? Which is, BTW, one of the fundamental thing denied to same sex partner.

 

[Couchpotato]

Yes they do confer rights and make sure they are applied equitably

No they don’t. If the Government didn’t exost what rights would you not have that you have now?

 

[Couchpotato]

So what do you call the right of a spouse to make medical decision on behalf of the other spouse, if not a right granted by the state? Which is, BTW, one of the fundamental thing denied to same sex partner.

If the Government didn’t exist why wouldn’t you have that right? The only thing keeping SS partners from having that right was GOVERNMENT

 

[AsherN]

If the Government didn’t exist why wouldn’t you have that right? The only thing keeping SS partners from having that right was GOVERNMENT

Nope. The gov gives that right to supersede other family members.

 

[Couchpotato]

Nope. The gov gives that right to supersede other family members.

Can you answer the question? Why would you not have those rights if the Government doesnt exist?

Why would you want the Government to be the source of your rights anyway? If they are the grantor of your rights they have every right to deny you any right they see fit. If there is some man made entity or institution that's granting you your "rights" you have no rights just privileges that they can grant or take away for whatever reason they can come up with. If your rights are innate and Government's role is to but protect those rights YOU have actual real rights.