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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I am for the cotus and adherence to it. I don't believe that the federal government has the right to make laws for or against gay marriage. Those rights are for the states, and the people more than they are for the federal gov. I believe that freedom means you should have the right to love and marry whomever you want and that no laws against it should be made.on religious grounds, because freedom OF religion also includes freedom FROM religion.

I don't agree that states should outlaw gay marriage, and I don't think they will, but that is for the people of that state to decide, and if necessary, take to scotus on a 14A basis. I believe if the people of the state decide they want gay marriage to be legal, they should make sure their elected officials vote that way.

I just simply do not believe that the federal gov has the right to make laws about this, and I think scotus shouldn't make rulings on a general basis because of what you all did to roe. I'm sorry, the courts do not make law, that is not their job. Yes, they can protect people's rights, and I'm for that.

I just disagree with your assertion that the courts can make laws, and that the federal gov has the right to run roughshod over states rights.

I've asked this before, and I don't know if I ever got an answer, bit, what does stated rights mean to you? How do you view the relationship of the power of the state vs power of the federal gov?

I will be brief. I maintain that you are full of shit when you say : " I believe that freedom means you should have the right to love and marry whomever you want" It rings hollow because you insist that it must be left to the states while ignoring the fact thagt many states would not honor that right.

At the same time, you claim that you believe that gay marriage woould be protected by the 14th Amendment while insisting that the courts cannot "make law" rendering the SCOTUS toothless.

You continue to put states rights over human rights and are willing to overlook the violation of human rights. And I did answer your question about what states rights means to me.vIt means that states have primary authority in matters that are reserved to the states but they do not have absolute authority in any matter. They may not exercise that authority in a way that violates the rights of individuals under the constitution. I don't know how much more simply I can put it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So, he didn't say he would ban gay marriage,

Yes he did you damned fool. This piece of shit governor would never sign legislation repealing the ban. You're denying reality.

This kind of bullshit, along with your "states right" and the "court cant make law " mantras are proof that you are, at best indifferent to gay rights, and at worst hostile to it but don't have the spine to say so.

Instead , you try to lull others inro complacency and clain that the feds have nothing to say about what states do with marriage. I see right through you . You are a fraud and a liar

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Yes he did you damned fool. This piece of shit governor would never sign legislation repealing the ban. You're denying reality.

This kind of bullshit, along with your "states right" and the "court cant make law " mantras are proof that you are, at best indifferent to gay rights, and at worst hostile to it but don't have the spine to say so.

Instead , you try to lull others inro complacency and clain that the feds have nothing to say about what states do with marriage. I see right through you . You are a fraud and a liar

 

[ThisIsMe]

I will be brief. I maintain that you are full of shit when you say : " I believe that freedom means you should have the right to love and marry whomever you want" It rings hollow because you insist that it must be left to the states while ignoring the fact thagt many states would not honor that right.

At the same time, you claim that you believe that gay marriage woould be protected by the 14th Amendment while insisting that the courts cannot "make law" rendering the SCOTUS toothless.

You continue to put states rights over human rights and are willing to overlook the violation of human rights. And I did answer your question about what states rights means to me.vIt means that states have primary authority in matters that are reserved to the states but they do not have absolute authority in any matter. They may not exercise that authority in a way that violates the rights of individuals under the constitution. I don't know how much more simply I can put it.

insist that it must be left to the states while ignoring the fact thagt many states would not honor that right.

We will have to see, I don't think any state will reject gay marriage.

gay marriage woould be protected by the 14th Amendment

It will be

insisting that the courts cannot "make law" rendering the SCOTUS toothless.

They can't make laws, its why we have the separation of powers. Making laws is invested in the legislative body, interpreting the constitution and the law is the job of the scotus. It's why we say they don't "legislate from the bench".

You continue to put states rights over human rights and are willing to overlook the violation of human rights

No, I'm putting states rights over federal authority where the cotus doesn't give the federal gov jurisdiction. The people, ultimately, have the power, or should.

means that states have primary authority in matters that are reserved to the states

Exactly, which is everything not listed as a power of the federal gov. in the 18 enumerated powers.

but they do not have absolute authority in any matter

They do unless the cotus grants a superior authority to the federal gov.

They may not exercise that authority in a way that violates the rights of individuals under the constitution

Precisely! Thays where the cotus comes in. To make sure states are not violating someone's cotus rights.

If we give the the federal gov ultimate authority over the states in any matter that it wants, then what was the point of putting in the enumerated powers? And saying everything not in those powers is left to the stated, and the people? Why didn't they just say "the federal government has authority in all matters, but may delegate some authority to the states"? Would have been a lot easier.

They wrote it the way they did because they didn't want a central authoritarian government that has ultimately power.

You would argue that the courts had the power to force states into allowing something like abortion, but would argue against it if they said no state can ban someone from carrying a firearm, which is constitutional. If thag were to happen, you'd say "STATES RIGHTS!".

I do support the right to live and love as you see fit, but that doesn't mean we upend our system of government and ignore our cotus.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yes he did you damned fool. This piece of shit governor would never sign legislation repealing the ban. You're denying reality.

This kind of bullshit, along with your "states right" and the "court cant make law " mantras are proof that you are, at best indifferent to gay rights, and at worst hostile to it but don't have the spine to say so.

Instead , you try to lull others inro complacency and clain that the feds have nothing to say about what states do with marriage. I see right through you . You are a fraud and a liar

No....he....didnt.....he said he would go with the law at hand.

If the people want it, he will sign it, or he will be voted out. That's how it works.

No, I'm not hostile to gay marriage, at best, yes, I am indifferent toward it, but that makes no difference. If I were hostile toward it, I'd say that it should be outright banned. I'm not. You just can't fathom that someone can support gay rights, while also supporting the words of the cotus, and states rights.

I'm not trying to lull anyone into anything. And yes, the Feds have no business in the bedroom. Really the state doesn't either, which is why I oppose if any state would try to ban gay marriage.

Those are not functions of a government, but they are the function of the scotus if a state would try to violate their rights.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

We will have to see, I don't think any state will reject gay marriage.

More accuratly you just don't think....or you're lying

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It will be

Marriage will be protected by the 14th Amendment ? How EXACTLY?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

They can't make laws, its why we have the separation of powers. Making laws is invested in the legislative body, interpreting the constitution and the law is the job of the scotus. It's why we say they don't "legislate from the bench".

I tried to school you on the widely recognized principle of case law as it pertains to constitutional law but you blathering about how the court can't make law.

You seem to agree that the court is able to interpret laws and determine the constitutionality of laws but you can't explain what happens next. If they can't "make law"-what EXACTLY can they do when there is a conflict between the action of a state legislature and the constitution.

To be more specific, did the SCOTUS "make law" when they ruled that the state laws that banned same sex marriage were unconstitutional?. If so, how then, should the right to marry have been protected under the 14th amendment?. Save the bullshit. Be specific

 

[Devils_Advocate]

Only a matter of time before the TRUMP court strikes down same sex marriage

The only question is will they just overrule it or start by allowing business to deny service for “religious reasons”

I say let’em and I will open gay friendly businesses!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No, I'm putting states rights over federal authority where the cotus doesn't give the federal gov jurisdiction. The people, ultimately, have the power, or should.

You have a narrow, textualist junderstanding of states rights, and the tenth amendment that is shared by few. If you interpretation of states rights were to prevail, states could do any damned thing that they wanted , no matter how offensive to the constitution it might be, on matters reserved to the states such as marriage. Yet you claim that gay marriage to is protected by the 14th Amendment. Is it possable to you do not even inderstand how contradictory that is?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Exactly, which is everything not listed as a power of the federal gov. in the 18 enumerated powers.

See post 1490

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

They do unless the cotus grants a superior authority to the federal gov.

Actually the 14th Amendment does just that.

 

[rightwinger]

I say let’em and I will open gay friendly businesses!

And in some communities, let’s call them “red”, your business would be boycotted, your suppliers would dry up

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Precisely! Thays where the cotus comes in. To make sure states are not violating someone's cotus rights.

You continue to be contradictory. You can't seem to decide whether states rights are absolute or not, and if now you still can't explain how people can actually be protected from a state that violates their rights

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If we give the the federal gov ultimate authority over the states in any matter that it wants, then what was the point of putting in the enumerated powers? And saying everything not in those powers is left to the stated, and the people? Why didn't they just say "the federal government has authority in all matters, but may delegate some authority to the states"? Would have been a lot easier.

They wrote it the way they did because they didn't want a central authoritarian government that has ultimately power.

The constutution is not perfect but no one is saying that we should give the the federal gov ultimate authority over the states in any matter that it wants. That is a lot different that simply enforcing constitutional rights of the people. Now you are just throwing dung at the wall hoping that something sticks

You said :"Why didn't they just say "the federal government has authority in all matters, but may delegate some authority to the states"? Would have been a lot easier?" Really? Without saying what those matters to be delegated would be. Sound like a recipe for chaos.

Keep in mind that the Constitution was written in a much different time and was drafted on the heals of the Articles of Confederation which did give the states much more autonomy which contributed to the reality of slave vs. free states and thus the Civil War. And before the 14th , the states retained much of that autonomy. The fact is, now they must abide by the constitution in all matters whether reserved to the states or not. You cannot seem to reconcile that fact with your belief in absolute states rights, and do not even seem to understand the contradiction

 

[Bob Blaylock]

To be more specific, did the SCOTUS "make law" when they ruled that the state laws that banned same sex marriage were unconstitutional?

They flat-out lied, in order to create public policy, based on a willful distortion of the Constitution, and in so doing, usurped a power that, if it does exist, belongs to the legislative branch, and not to the courts.

There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that even hints at any “right” for a disgusting homosexual mockery of marriage to be recognized and treated as comparable to a genuine marriage. There is not so much as a single word in the Constitution—in the main text or in any subsequent amendment—that was written by anyone who would have accepted this absurd premise. It's safe to say that if anyone who wrote anything that made it into the Constitution had thought that what he wrote might be twisted to support the homosexual mockery of marriage, he would have been more careful to write it in such a way as to guarantee that it would not be twisted in any such manner.

As has happened on other occasions, the court ruled based on a claim that the Constitution said something that it very clearly did not.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

See post 1490

See post 125.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

They wrote it the way they did because they didn't want a central authoritarian government that has ultimately power.

That is not what we have and the only ones who want it are Trumps and his minions

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You would argue that the courts had the power to force states into allowing something like abortion, but would argue against it if they said no state can ban someone from carrying a firearm, which is constitutional. If thag were to happen, you'd say "STATES RIGHTS!".

No, on abortion, I argue that women have a right to privacy and autonomy over their bodies and that there are limits on the states ability to come between get and her doctor.

Guns are a murkey area thanks to tje vagueness of the 2nd Amendment but again, the right to carry or even to own a gun is not absolute and must be ballanced against public safety. Why the fuck do you think that I would srgue states rights?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No....he....didnt.....he said he would go with the law at hand.

If the people want it, he will sign it, or he will be voted out. That's how it works.