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

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I was simply contesting your claim that the folks who wrote and passed the 14th Amendment had NO INTENTION of legalizing or permitting Homosexual Marriage.

Even though , apparently you do and think the recent Far Left Supreme Court decision was correct.

I posted in #1554 the text of the 14th Amendment. What part did you not understand?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I was simply contesting your claim that the folks who wrote and passed the 14th Amendment had NO INTENTION of legalizing or permitting Homosexual Marriage.

Even though , apparently you do and think the recent Far Left Supreme Court decision was correct.

Holy franken fuck! What indication is that they they were thinking about same sex marriage. And yes I think that the decision was correct. Ther is no conflict or inconsitancy there Read the 14th and read the Obergefell decision and maybe, just maybe you will be able to understand why, Then again I kind of doubt it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I posted in #1554 the text of the 14th Amendment. What part did you not understand?

Read the Obergefell decision and tell us what part of that ,you don't understand

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If Gay Marriage was "unthinkable" when the 14th Amendment was written and adopted, why do you think the writers of the amendment wanted to mandate the institution?

I do not think that they wanted to mandate it. Where are you getting that crap from.? They mandated due process and equal protection under the law which has many applications.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Nothing in that text even hints at supporting any “right” to have a disgusting homosexual mockery of a marriage treated as equivalent to a genuine marriage.

You're making up shit that isn't there.

And I'll say it again—not one word that appears in this Amendment, nor anywhere else in the Constitution was written by anyone who would have even thought of supporting such a sick mockery. If any author of any text in the Constitution thought that his words might be twisted and corrupted to that end, then he surely would have written them more carefully, to prevent that.

 

[2aguy]

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

The democrats are already doing that

 

[ReinyDays]

The democrats are already doing that

Where? ... DemoNazis at Harvard want enforced integration on their campus ... yeah, I know, but they can't learn from their own mistakes, nothing I can do about it ...

 

[Polishprince]

Holy franken fuck! What indication is that they they were thinking about same sex marriage. And yes I think that the decision was correct. Ther is no conflict or inconsitancy there Read the 14th and read the Obergefell decision and maybe, just maybe you will be able to understand why, Then again I kind of doubt it.

My point is, and remains , that if the writers of the 14th Amendment thought for a millisecond that the amendment would someday be used to mandate Gay Marriage- they would have written a clause to make sure it couldn't be misinterpreted in that way.

The people of the 19th Century, on both sides of the political aisle in America, agreed with the ideas of Heterosexuality and Normalcy.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

My point is, and remains , that if the writers of the 14th Amendment thought for a millisecond that the amendment would someday be used to mandate Gay Marriage- they would have written a clause to make sure it couldn't be misinterpreted in that way.

The people of the 19th Century, on both sides of the political aisle in America, agreed with the ideas of Heterosexuality and Normalcy.

Holy shit Princess!! You can't even keep your own bullshit straight!
First you said: "I was simply contesting your claim that the folks who wrote and passed the 14th Amendment had NO INTENTION of legalizing or permitting Homosexual Marriage".

Then you wrote: " If Gay Marriage was "unthinkable" when the 14th Amendment was written and adopted, why do you think the writers of the amendment wanted to mandate the institution?"

BUT NOW you say: ".......... if the writers of the 14th Amendment thought for a millisecond that the amendment would someday be used to mandate Gay Marriage- they would have written a clause to make sure it couldn't be misinterpreted in that way."

Do you even know what you "think"? Do you actually think at all?

In any case you just need to get over you obsession with homosexuality. You wouldn't want others to think that there is something "funny" about you,

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

My point is, and remains , that if the writers of the 14th Amendment thought for a millisecond that the amendment would someday be used to mandate Gay Marriage- they would have written a clause to make sure it couldn't be misinterpreted in that way.

The people of the 19th Century, on both sides of the political aisle in America, agreed with the ideas of Heterosexuality and Normalcy.

You have no point. The Equal Protection clause is very broad for a reason. They could have included a clause not allowing anchor babies, but they didn't!

 

[Penelope]

My point is, and remains , that if the writers of the 14th Amendment thought for a millisecond that the amendment would someday be used to mandate Gay Marriage- they would have written a clause to make sure it couldn't be misinterpreted in that way.

The people of the 19th Century, on both sides of the political aisle in America, agreed with the ideas of Heterosexuality and Normalcy.

Gay marriage is ok in my book, freedom, don't you believe in freedom?? I'm not going around to people's home describing what I see in bedrooms, are you?
Why don't you worry about rape and incest??

It's women don't have the freedom nowadays. Don't you think so?

 

[SweetSue92]

Gay marriage is ok in my book, freedom, don't you believe in freedom?? I'm not going around to people's home describing what I see in bedrooms, are you?
Why don't you worry about rape and incest??

It's women don't have the freedom nowadays. Don't you think so?

Penny you're the most bootlicking authoritarian here. You HATE freedom.

See: my signature

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Penny you're the most bootlicking authoritarian here. You HATE freedom.

See: my signature

What is this "authoritarian" bullshit? Do you even understand the word? How is the person who believes that everyon should have the rigth to live and love as they wish authoritarian.?

 

[surada]

Well, they're going full federalist. Leave everything possible to the states.

Okay. I understand the reasoning, but we're going to see big, big differences going from state to state. The country will no longer be purple, it will be dark red OR dark blue.

E Pluribus Unum is dead. I think that's what they want. It beats trying to secede.

Is same sex marriage an issue?

 

[surada]

Nothing in that text even hints at supporting any “right” to have a disgusting homosexual mockery of a marriage treated as equivalent to a genuine marriage.

You're making up shit that isn't there.

And I'll say it again—not one word that appears in this Amendment, nor anywhere else in the Constitution was written by anyone who would have even thought of supporting such a sick mockery. If any author of any text in the Constitution thought that his words might be twisted and corrupted to that end, then he surely would have written them more carefully, to prevent that.

You're an autocrat. Why don't you mind your own business? How does same sex marriage affect you?

 

[Mac1958]

Is same sex marriage an issue?

Yeah, I'd think so.

 

[ThisIsMe]

There is no wording in the Fourteenth Amendment, nor anywhere else in the Constitution, that even hints at any such thing.

Sure, it doesn't say anything about gay marriage itself but it dies talk about equal protection. You can't say it's OK for some but then say it's not for others

 

[ThisIsMe]

Ah there you are you little rascal! Welcome back. The fact is that it is a complicated question. However, as usual, you take it upon yourself to conjur up a pat and simplistic answer with bothering to do any research or to learn anything about the issue. That is called an appeal to authority logical fallacy-( I said it so it is right) as well as an appeal to ignorance fallacy (just trust me) Read and learn:

Do Judges Make Law or Merely Interpret Laws? - Judge

Free Essay on Do Judges Make Law or Merely Interpret Laws? at lawaspect.com. Free law essay examples to help law students. 100% Unique Essays

lawaspect.com

Ah there you are you little rascal! Welcome back.

Yeah, had surgery on Thursday so this week I haven't been paying attention to usmb.

Your link is referencing the legislative and judicial system in England, not America, so, I don't know if that would, in any way, apply.

But, in your article, it does say that primary law would always Trump secondary law (common law). I would consider laws our legislative bodies make as primary law and court precedent as secondary law. Precedent is not always a good thing, as we have seen with roe, they set the precedent when roe was first decided, but it was the wrong precedent. The courts don't have the power to create law, so they sent it back to the States, where it belongs.

In the case of gay marriage, the courts could only make sure that thr states are adhering to the equal protection clause of the 14A, the courts cannot create any binding statute or legal directive, by its own power (law), that a state must follow.

Again, only the legislative branch cab make laws, the judicial branch makes sure those laws comply with the cotus.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Common! Seriously. Let me start by saying two things. Blaylock is my ultra nemesis and I never agree with him but I sort of do here. Secondly, as much as I support same sex marriage and believe that that right flows from the provisions of the 14th, to say that “the 14A gives people the right to marry whom they want is balderdash pure and simple. Same sex marriage was not on anyone radar back then. It was unthinkable.

Oh and by the way, the 14th was passed long after the founders drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. So it has nothing to do with what the framers intended. It's interesting how you, a defender of the literal word of the constitution, and the enumerated rights, can come up with this sort of nonsense.

You are so out to lunch

Then you say that “there is no indication they intended to have influence on marriage” which is true, but it is also it is also a direct contradiction to the first part of that paragraph..Your credibility is totally in the crapper bud.

Secondly, as much as I support same sex marriage and believe that that right flows from the provisions of the 14th, to say that “the 14A gives people the right to marry whom they want is balderdash pure and simple. Same sex marriage was not on anyone radar back then. It was unthinkable.

Of course it wasn't on their radar, but that's the beauty of the cotus, it didn't need to be. They wrote this document to be forward looking and future proof, because in it was supposed to be all the protections from, and limitations by, the federal gov to the people. The way they wrote it guaranteed freedoms that they might have not known about or seen at that time.

That's my whole point about the cotus, in order for it to work as intended, we have to adhere to the document, as intended. When you start giving power to the gov that it was never intended to have, you mess up the whole idea this country was founded on. Over the years, our government has become so bloated that its gotten far away from what it was supposed to be, and now it's doing things the cotus never said it could. Now we're at a point to where whoever is in power wields the gov to their own desires and the rest of us fight amongst each other.

Then you say that “there is no indication they intended to have influence on marriage” which is true, but it is also it is also a direct contradiction to the first part of that paragraph.

No, it's not. As I said, they didn't need for it to intend on regulating marriage, their intent was to give the fed gov certain powers, and the rest to the states and people. In that, they tried to allow max freedom for the people, which would include the 14A protection of gay marriage, hundreds of years into the future.

 

[ReinyDays]

I always surprises me when conservatives demand bigger government so government can better inspection our bedrooms at night ... more regulations on how consenting adults have sex ... it's hypocritical ... how long has it been since you've read George Orwell's 1984? ...

Religious marriage is governed by the church ... secular marriage is governed by written law, and not surprisingly, most of marriage law is similar to contract law ... that's right, marriage is only about money in the eyes of our government, or at least ... it better be ...