Ted Cruz To Introduce Constitutional Amendment On Gay Marriage After Supreme Court Ducks Appeals

[WorldWatcher]

No one had ever denied a male from marrying a female.

The Commonwealth of Virginia denied marriage to Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter.


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

No one had ever denied a male from marrying a female.

The Commonwealth of Virginia denied marriage to Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter.


>>>>

A ruling that would be undone if Cruz's ammendment passes.

Which, of course, it won't. Its classic Cruz: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 

[Pop23]

No one had ever denied a male from marrying a female.

The Commonwealth of Virginia denied marriage to Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter.


>>>>

Here we go again.

Yes dear, and that 'twas fixed.

Now any male can marry any female.

That, my silly friend is 100% coverage.

Oh noes itz notz, a brother kaint marriez a sizter


But you'll fix that next right?

 

[WorldWatcher]

No one had ever denied a male from marrying a female.

The Commonwealth of Virginia denied marriage to Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter.


>>>>

Here we go again.

Yes dear, and that 'twas fixed.

Now any male can marry any female.

That, my silly friend is 100% coverage.

Oh noes itz notz, a brother kaint marriez a sizter


But you'll fix that next right?

Maybe before you start typing about something that "no one has ever been denied" you ought to think about what you type.


>>>>

 

[Pop23]

No one had ever denied a male from marrying a female.

The Commonwealth of Virginia denied marriage to Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter.


>>>>

Here we go again.

Yes dear, and that 'twas fixed.

Now any male can marry any female.

That, my silly friend is 100% coverage.

Oh noes itz notz, a brother kaint marriez a sizter


But you'll fix that next right?

Maybe before you start typing about something that "no one has ever been denied" you ought to think about what you type.


>>>>

Yes mother.

So no comment on the rest?

Thought not

Kinda shameful what can of worms just got opened aye chum?

 

[Silhouette]

Maybe before you start typing about something that "no one has ever been denied" you ought to think about what you type.


>>>>

Yes, for instance, Worldwatcher and friends stay totally silent about polygamy having the identical legal "argument" they do. Silence breeds inequality, right Worldy? Why are you trying to deny polygamists marriage equality with your silence on their identical struggles to LGBTs?

 

[007]

Ted Cruz has the right idea even though he is not constitutionally eligible for Article 2 Section 1since he is Canadian born.

Oh heck... that's all been done away with since a kenyan was elected president twice. Where you were born doesn't matter anymore... everyone just looks the other way and pretends everything is OK.

 

[Skylar]

Ted Cruz has the right idea even though he is not constitutionally eligible for Article 2 Section 1since he is Canadian born.

Oh heck... that's all been done away with since a kenyan was elected president twice. Where you were born doesn't matter anymore... everyone just looks the other way and pretends everything is OK.

Its funny....Ted Cruz actually is everything that the birthers accused Obama of being. And yet when they are asked to apply their standards to Cruz, they don't.

Odd that. Its almost like they were politically motivated.

 

[007]

Ted Cruz has the right idea even though he is not constitutionally eligible for Article 2 Section 1since he is Canadian born.

Oh heck... that's all been done away with since a kenyan was elected president twice. Where you were born doesn't matter anymore... everyone just looks the other way and pretends everything is OK.

Its funny....Ted Cruz actually is everything that the birthers accused Obama of being. And yet when they are asked to apply their standards to Cruz, they don't.

Why should they?

What's good for the goose is good for gander. It's the obama defenders turn to KNOW that someone that isn't constitutionally eligible to be president is going to be.

What goes around comes around. The progs need to just shut up about Cruz.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

Just a thought about this from a legal perspective...


The discriminatory bans in 30 states have been wiped out with 19 States already having SSCM and another 11 to be added shortly based on the SCOTUS allowing the 10th, 7th, and 4th Circuit Court rulings to stand overturning those bans. The 9th Circuit Court issued their decision today which adds another 6 states (3 already had SSCM) - a decision that had already been written and was expected.

So that's 36 States where SSCM was or soon will be legal, the laws making them illegal being unconstitutional and dead.

If the Amendment were to pass, highly unlikely to begin with, any of those 36 States that wanted to ban SSCM would have to re-pass new legislation or re-pass a State Constitutional Amendment to create new bans. The unconstitutional laws wouldn't be automatically reactivated. Don't expect the high pass rate that was achieved a decade ago. SSCM won at the ballot box in all 4 States where it was on the General Election ballot in 2012. A big shift from the early 2000's when SSCM bans won with (IIRC) 23-76% margins of victory.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

>

Just a thought about this from a legal perspective...


The discriminatory bans in 30 states have been wiped out with 19 States already having SSCM and another 11 to be added shortly based on the SCOTUS allowing the 10th, 7th, and 4th Circuit Court rulings to stand overturning those bans. The 9th Circuit Court issued their decision today which adds another 6 states (3 already had SSCM) - a decision that had already been written and was expected.

So that's 36 States where SSCM was or soon will be legal, the laws making them illegal being unconstitutional and dead.

If the Amendment were to pass, highly unlikely to begin with, any of those 36 States that wanted to ban SSCM would have to re-pass new legislation or re-pass a State Constitutional Amendment to create new bans. The unconstitutional laws wouldn't be automatically reactivated. Don't expect the high pass rate that was achieved a decade ago. SSCM won at the ballot box in all 4 States where it was on the General Election ballot in 2012. A big shift from the early 2000's when SSCM bans won with (IIRC) 23-76% margins of victory.


>>>>

You know...for someone so certain the states will vote in gay marriage, you're sure fighting like hell to make sure they don't have that right to self-rule.

Wonder why that is with all your "professed optimism" about the public's views on gay marriage?

 

[francoHFW]

Cruz/Palin 2016!

 

[Skylar]

Ted Cruz has the right idea even though he is not constitutionally eligible for Article 2 Section 1since he is Canadian born.

Oh heck... that's all been done away with since a kenyan was elected president twice. Where you were born doesn't matter anymore... everyone just looks the other way and pretends everything is OK.

Its funny....Ted Cruz actually is everything that the birthers accused Obama of being. And yet when they are asked to apply their standards to Cruz, they don't.

Why should they?

What's good for the goose is good for gander. It's the obama defenders turn to KNOW that someone that isn't constitutionally eligible to be president is going to be.

What goes around comes around. The progs need to just shut up about Cruz.

If precedent establishes validity, then all of the Birther babble was nixed years ago. As President Chester Arthur had a Canadian father. And he was clearly eligible.
Natural born status follows place of birth. Which is why both Chester and Barack were eligible, being born in the US. For those born outside the US, its gets a little muddier. I'd argue that Cruz is eligible based on his mother's citizenship.

That's the difference. I recognize that both are eligible. A birther would argue that neither are. But they'd make an exception for the white conservative....after arguing for years that the black liberal shouldn't be allowed.

Wiping their ass with their own standards. While mine remain perfectly consistent. And making me giggle at how easily they give up their own standards for political expediency.

 

[Skylar]

You know...for someone so certain the states will vote in gay marriage, you're sure fighting like hell to make sure they don't have that right to self-rule.

Wonder why that is with all your "professed optimism" about the public's views on gay marriage?

The State's haven't been able to vote away rights since the 14th amendment was passed. And I don't hear so much lamenting about State's Rights when the USSC overturned gun control legislation that was created using State authority.

 

[Silhouette]

That's the difference. I recognize that both are eligible. A birther would argue that neither are. But they'd make an exception for the white conservative....after arguing for years that the black liberal shouldn't be allowed.

Wiping their ass with their own standards. While mine remain perfectly consistent. And making me giggle at how easily they give up their own standards for political expediency.

What does race have to do with polygamy and other forms of so-called "marriage equality" for behaviors?

 

[Skylar]

That's the difference. I recognize that both are eligible. A birther would argue that neither are. But they'd make an exception for the white conservative....after arguing for years that the black liberal shouldn't be allowed.

Wiping their ass with their own standards. While mine remain perfectly consistent. And making me giggle at how easily they give up their own standards for political expediency.

What does race have to do with polygamy and other forms of so-called "marriage equality" for behaviors?

Where did I say they did?

 

[TemplarKormac]

A man who ignores the Constitution proposing a Constitutional amendment. What an irony.

The Rabbi

So many Obama threads, didn't see the words 'Ted Cruz.'

To be honest though, I don't think anyone on either side of the aisle respects the Constitution, maybe perhaps in words only. A commitment to the Constitution requires one to actually do his sworn elected duty. Do you see anyone in congress doing such a thing?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm sorry, I don't care what Ted Cruz does, if law doesn't back it up, it is a waste of his time to propose such an Amendment. This is why Congress gets nothing done. They succumb to petty ideological battles that have no merit.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No one had ever denied a male from marrying a female.

The Commonwealth of Virginia denied marriage to Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter.


>>>>

A ruling that would be undone if Cruz's ammendment passes.

Which, of course, it won't. Its classic Cruz: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5.

Now, he has everything in common with every other politician in Washington, they are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 

[Skylar]

No one had ever denied a male from marrying a female.

The Commonwealth of Virginia denied marriage to Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter.


>>>>

A ruling that would be undone if Cruz's ammendment passes.

Which, of course, it won't. Its classic Cruz: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5.

Now, he has everything in common with every other politician in Washington, they are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I left out the 'tale told by an idiot' part out of simple courtesy.