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

[Skylar]

As usual your "analysis" is laughable. McDonald was predicated on Heller, which held the 2A was an individual right. McDonald expanded that to inclide the states under the obligation. All of that is explicit in the 2A and Scalia's masterful opinion is a model of original construction.

And Heller was predicated on the 'right to self defense with a fire arm'. Please show us where in the constitution that right is articulated.

Just don't hold your breath while you're trying to do it. It might end badly for you....given how long you're going to have to look.

In terms of protection by the courts and the State's inability to abrogate, its irrelevant. The 9th amendment makes it clear that there are other rights than those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Like, say....the right to self defense with a fire arm. Or the right to marriage.

 

[Skylar]

I heard Cruz's amendment is so poorly worded it would make murder legal.

Yeah, but the poor fool who said that couldn't explain how Cruz's amendment could possibly result in legal murder. Making the claim inconsequential.

"An amendment can change anything in the Constitution." Some Constitutional scholar propounded that nugget.

Do you disagree that an amendment can change any portion of the constitution? As it's definitely a point of contention. Some believe that certain portions of the constitution can't be changed by amendment. I argue that any portion can be changed by amendment.

 

[The Rabbi]

As usual your "analysis" is laughable. McDonald was predicated on Heller, which held the 2A was an individual right. McDonald expanded that to inclide the states under the obligation. All of that is explicit in the 2A and Scalia's masterful opinion is a model of original construction.

And Heller was predicated on the 'right to self defense with a fire arm'. Please show us where in the constitution that right is articulated.

Just don't hold your breath while you're trying to do it. It might end badly for you....given how long you're going to have to look.

In terms of protection by the courts and the State's inability to abrogate, its irrelevant. The 9th amendment makes it clear that there are other rights than those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Like, say....the right to self defense with a fire arm. Or the right to marriage.

You are an imbecile. Like that's any news. This is from the holding in Heller:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.]

 

[Skylar]

Ted Cruz needs to rewrite his amendment to remove government from marriage and the privacy of ALL of its citizens.

Each and every excuse for government to interject itself into the private lives of the citizen, each of us is harmed to a great extent.

If you want a 'marriage' that isn't recognized by the government nor defined by the government, you have it. Anyone can have a ceremony attended by anyone, officiated by most anyone, that does most anything. And they can call it whatever they'd like.

Thanks for pointing out that no state bans gay marriage.

Alas, its recognition by the government of a marriage that gays and lesbians are fighting for.

And winning.

 

[The Rabbi]

I heard Cruz's amendment is so poorly worded it would make murder legal.

Yeah, but the poor fool who said that couldn't explain how Cruz's amendment could possibly result in legal murder. Making the claim inconsequential.

"An amendment can change anything in the Constitution." Some Constitutional scholar propounded that nugget.

Do you disagree that an amendment can change any portion of the constitution? As it's definitely a point of contention. Some believe that certain portions of the constitution can't be changed by amendment. I argue that any portion can be changed by amendment.

Yes! Cruz's amendment is so poorly worded it would legalize child slavery.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ted Cruz needs to rewrite his amendment to remove government from marriage and the privacy of ALL of its citizens.

Each and every excuse for government to interject itself into the private lives of the citizen, each of us is harmed to a great extent.

If you want a 'marriage' that isn't recognized by the government nor defined by the government, you have it. Anyone can have a ceremony attended by anyone, officiated by most anyone, that does most anything. And they can call it whatever they'd like.

Thanks for pointing out that no state bans gay marriage.

Alas, its recognition by the government of a marriage that gays and lesbians are fighting for.

And winning.

Because people need government recognition for their marriage to be valid, right?
No. It is all about money, and all about ramming a social agenda down the throats of Americans. It might be winning now. But make no mistake it will have dire repercussions down the road.

 

[Skylar]

As usual your "analysis" is laughable. McDonald was predicated on Heller, which held the 2A was an individual right. McDonald expanded that to inclide the states under the obligation. All of that is explicit in the 2A and Scalia's masterful opinion is a model of original construction.

And Heller was predicated on the 'right to self defense with a fire arm'. Please show us where in the constitution that right is articulated.

Just don't hold your breath while you're trying to do it. It might end badly for you....given how long you're going to have to look.

In terms of protection by the courts and the State's inability to abrogate, its irrelevant. The 9th amendment makes it clear that there are other rights than those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Like, say....the right to self defense with a fire arm. Or the right to marriage.

You are an imbecile. Like that's any news. This is from the holding in Heller:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.]

And where, pray tell, does the constitution state that there is a right to self defense within one's home with a firearm?

Just quote the portion of the constitution. And remember to breath.

 

[Skylar]

Yes! Cruz's amendment is so poorly worded it would legalize child slavery.

[/quote]

And how would Cruz's amendment do this. Surely you thought your position through sufficiently to explain it.

 

[Skylar]

Because people need government recognition for their marriage to be valid, right?

People need government recognition to receive all the rights and protections of marriage from the government.

If you don't want any government involvement at all in your marriage then you can have a ceremony void of government recognition that will also be void of government involvement.

No. It is all about money, and all about ramming a social agenda down the throats of Americans. It might be winning now. But make no mistake it will have dire repercussions down the road.

Its about gays and lesbians having the same rights and protections for their marriages and every one else gets. And there's no rational reason to deny them, as there is no requirement of marriage that gays and lesbians don't meet.

 

[mdk]

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?

That is just rich. Polygamy has been discussed with you ad nauseam in numerous threads. Nobody is silent on the issue, that is something you crafted out of thin air. Besides, none of that has to do with the topic of the thread, which is Cruz's lame attempt to pass a Constitutional Amendment. It is just another one of his symbolic gestures.

 

[Darkwind]

Ted Cruz needs to rewrite his amendment to remove government from marriage and the privacy of ALL of its citizens.

Each and every excuse for government to interject itself into the private lives of the citizen, each of us is harmed to a great extent.

If you want a 'marriage' that isn't recognized by the government nor defined by the government, you have it. Anyone can have a ceremony attended by anyone, officiated by most anyone, that does most anything. And they can call it whatever they'd like.

You clearly do not understand.

I want government forbidden from even issuing marriage licenses, from giving tax breaks for marriage (of any kind) from saying what is or is not a legal marriage, from giving benefits because of marital status.

I want government eliminated from everything to do with marriage. Including making money from marrying people.

 

[Skylar]

I want government forbidden from even issuing marriage licenses, from giving tax breaks for marriage (of any kind) from saying what is or is not a legal marriage, from giving benefits because of marital status.

You can have a marriage that is void of licenses, tax breaks or government recognition of marital status. Right now.

And those who do want government recognition along with the rights and protections offered by it can have that. Right now.

Sounds like a win - win to me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Ted Cruz to introduce constitutional amendment on gay marriage after Supreme Court ducks appeals Hot Air

We will now witness the loss of power by the fool tools of the far right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anybody can marry without government involved.

We already have that.

 

[Skylar]

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

Ted Cruz to introduce constitutional amendment on gay marriage after Supreme Court ducks appeals Hot Air

We will now witness the loss of power by the fool tools of the far right.

We'll see. Cruz's power isn't his ability to motivate or persuade. As a politician, he's quite inept. Its in the Citizens United money that is directed against any republican that doesn't tow the line he's apeing. Which is why Cruz can threaten members of the republican house.

 

[JakeStarkey]

He has already done that in the primaries and his candidates overwhelmingly lost.

 

[bodecea]

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?

So...you think there is no legal difference between a legal contract between two people and between more than two people?

 

[bodecea]

The proposed amendment says nothing about same sex marriage. The amendment secures state's rights in defining marriage for themselves.

The proposed marriage amendment is so poorly written that it would make interracial marriage bans legal again.

I heard it would bring back slavery and public floggings.

And how would it do this?

In the case of interracial marriage bans, they were forbidden by the Supreme Court in their landmark ruling Loving V. Virginia. In which the portions of Virignia marriage law that made interracial marriage was overturned as unconstitutional. If the State marriage laws become absolute and can't be overruled or reviewed by the courts.......then such interracial marriage bans would again be perfectly legal.

See how this works? Now you try. Describe how the amendment would bring back slavery and public floggings.

It was so poorly written anything is possible. I heard it will result in suspension of habeas corpus and summary executions across the country.

Where have you heard that?

 

[Avorysuds]

We can't have another divider as President, nor a progressive liberal that wants Government controlling our lives. Ted stands no chance.

 

[Skylar]

We can't have another divider as President, nor a progressive liberal that wants Government controlling our lives. Ted stands no chance.

There's also the fact that Ted just doesn't have the votes to carry his amendment. Nor the public support.