Ted Cruz Introduces Bills to Stop Gay Marriage

[Stephanie]

Gawd people. STOP letting these dishonest medias like the bloomingidiot and NY slimes lead you around by the nose. They are slimy dishonest and in the bag for Democrats.

SNIP;

EXCLUSIVE: Archive Evidence Contradict NY Times Anti-Ted Cruz Hit Piece
April 23, 2015 by Charles C. Johnson 7 Comments

Ted Cruz with David Panton, his best friend and debating partner.

Evidence from the student newspaper of Princeton’s college newspaper shows that the young Ted Cruz was a defender of women’s rights and not the anti-woman oaf.

Cruz favored instituting a patrol program at Princeton to cut down on violence and sexual assaults against women on campus, according to the Daily Princetonian on September 20, 1990.

Cruz also was a member of the campus safety committee on campus. He called for spending money to address the problem of date rape on campus instead of a costly $700,000 program to institute locks.

“Money should be spent on increasing proctor presence — especially in Prospect Gardens — and in an attempt to address the issue of date rape,” Cruz said to the Daily Princetonian in February 1991.

He thought date rape was such a serious problem that he gave multiple speeches against it. “I am very worried that administration concern for external crime is replacing concern for internal crime,” said committee member Ted Cruz. “The greater problem is date rape, or assaults by other students, which the planned system would do nothing to stop.”

Why mention this? Because there’s an effort afoot to make Ted Cruz look crazy based upon his past.

Yesterday the New York Times ran a hit piece by Jason Horowitz on Cruz’s past that suggested he was anti-woman based on the following anecdote.

In one debate, he proposed a method to detect infidelity, in which God should “give women a hymen that grows back every time she has intercourse with a different guy, because that will be a ‘visible sign’ of the breach of trust,” according to a recollection by David Kennedy published in a Harvard debate team reunion booklet in 2001. Mr. Kennedy’s debate partner mocked Mr. Cruz’s knowledge of the subject matter by contorting herself to see how the anatomy in question could be “visible,” according to the booklet.

The anti-Cruz remarks in the piece rely on two registered Democrats: Austan Goolsbee, a former advisor to Barack Obama, and a “David Kennedy,” who is probably the Harvard professor who backs the Marxist critical studies program.

This remark has been used to smear Cruz notes Charles C. W. Cooke in the media:

all of it here
Read more at EXCLUSIVE Archive Evidence Contradict NY Times Anti-Ted Cruz Hit Piece - GotNews

 

[rightwinger]

"It offends God" isn't exactly a very compelling legal argument.

our system of laws is based on judeo/Christian principles, so yes, it is a very compelling legal argument

What is the success rate of that argument in the courts concerning gay marriage? Yeah, not so good.

Why do we allow fat people to marry? Gluttony offends God.

Why do we allow liars to marry? Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord.

Why do we allow those that dishonor their mother and father to marry? They offend God.

Like I said, it is not a compelling legal argument.

nice try, but those things do not compare with homosexuality. Whether its a valid legal argument is yet to be seen. I think the gay mafia will win this round, and the country and society as a whole will lose.
The people deserve what they vote for. Obama is the perfect example of voters shitting in their own soup.

No, the country loses because people like you obsess with idiotic made up religious agendas and ignore the maintenance of the legacy of the true good works of the great republicans that preceded you.

"endowed by their creator" "In God we trust" the founders knew what they and the country stood for and those beliefs have made this country the greatest in the history of the world.

Can you list the Godless republicans from the past that you are so proud of?

They had the ability to put religious doctrine into the Constitution.....they chose not to

 

[The Rabbi]

Gawd people. STOP letting these dishonest medias like the bloomingidiot and NY slimes lead you around by the nose. They are slimy dishonest and in the bag for Democrats.

SNIP;
EXCLUSIVE: Archive Evidence Contradict NY Times Anti-Ted Cruz Hit Piece
April 23, 2015 by Charles C. Johnson 7 Comments



Ted Cruz with David Panton, his best friend and debating partner.

Evidence from the student newspaper of Princeton’s college newspaper shows that the young Ted Cruz was a defender of women’s rights and not the anti-woman oaf.

Cruz favored instituting a patrol program at Princeton to cut down on violence and sexual assaults against women on campus, according to the Daily Princetonian on September 20, 1990.

Cruz also was a member of the campus safety committee on campus. He called for spending money to address the problem of date rape on campus instead of a costly $700,000 program to institute locks.

“Money should be spent on increasing proctor presence — especially in Prospect Gardens — and in an attempt to address the issue of date rape,” Cruz said to the Daily Princetonian in February 1991.

He thought date rape was such a serious problem that he gave multiple speeches against it. “I am very worried that administration concern for external crime is replacing concern for internal crime,” said committee member Ted Cruz. “The greater problem is date rape, or assaults by other students, which the planned system would do nothing to stop.”

Why mention this? Because there’s an effort afoot to make Ted Cruz look crazy based upon his past.

Yesterday the New York Times ran a hit piece by Jason Horowitz on Cruz’s past that suggested he was anti-woman based on the following anecdote.

In one debate, he proposed a method to detect infidelity, in which God should “give women a hymen that grows back every time she has intercourse with a different guy, because that will be a ‘visible sign’ of the breach of trust,” according to a recollection by David Kennedy published in a Harvard debate team reunion booklet in 2001. Mr. Kennedy’s debate partner mocked Mr. Cruz’s knowledge of the subject matter by contorting herself to see how the anatomy in question could be “visible,” according to the booklet.

The anti-Cruz remarks in the piece rely on two registered Democrats: Austan Goolsbee, a former advisor to Barack Obama, and a “David Kennedy,” who is probably the Harvard professor who backs the Marxist critical studies program.

This remark has been used to smear Cruz notes Charles C. W. Cooke in the media:

all of it here
Read more at EXCLUSIVE Archive Evidence Contradict NY Times Anti-Ted Cruz Hit Piece - GotNews

The hatred for Cruz by the Left is all the more reason to support him.

 

[Stephanie]

Gawd people. STOP letting these dishonest medias like the bloomingidiot and NY slimes lead you around by the nose. They are slimy dishonest and in the bag for Democrats.

SNIP;
EXCLUSIVE: Archive Evidence Contradict NY Times Anti-Ted Cruz Hit Piece
April 23, 2015 by Charles C. Johnson 7 Comments



Ted Cruz with David Panton, his best friend and debating partner.

Evidence from the student newspaper of Princeton’s college newspaper shows that the young Ted Cruz was a defender of women’s rights and not the anti-woman oaf.

Cruz favored instituting a patrol program at Princeton to cut down on violence and sexual assaults against women on campus, according to the Daily Princetonian on September 20, 1990.

Cruz also was a member of the campus safety committee on campus. He called for spending money to address the problem of date rape on campus instead of a costly $700,000 program to institute locks.

“Money should be spent on increasing proctor presence — especially in Prospect Gardens — and in an attempt to address the issue of date rape,” Cruz said to the Daily Princetonian in February 1991.

He thought date rape was such a serious problem that he gave multiple speeches against it. “I am very worried that administration concern for external crime is replacing concern for internal crime,” said committee member Ted Cruz. “The greater problem is date rape, or assaults by other students, which the planned system would do nothing to stop.”

Why mention this? Because there’s an effort afoot to make Ted Cruz look crazy based upon his past.

Yesterday the New York Times ran a hit piece by Jason Horowitz on Cruz’s past that suggested he was anti-woman based on the following anecdote.

In one debate, he proposed a method to detect infidelity, in which God should “give women a hymen that grows back every time she has intercourse with a different guy, because that will be a ‘visible sign’ of the breach of trust,” according to a recollection by David Kennedy published in a Harvard debate team reunion booklet in 2001. Mr. Kennedy’s debate partner mocked Mr. Cruz’s knowledge of the subject matter by contorting herself to see how the anatomy in question could be “visible,” according to the booklet.

The anti-Cruz remarks in the piece rely on two registered Democrats: Austan Goolsbee, a former advisor to Barack Obama, and a “David Kennedy,” who is probably the Harvard professor who backs the Marxist critical studies program.

This remark has been used to smear Cruz notes Charles C. W. Cooke in the media:

all of it here
Read more at EXCLUSIVE Archive Evidence Contradict NY Times Anti-Ted Cruz Hit Piece - GotNews

The hatred for Cruz by the Left is all the more reason to support him.

Yep and it shows how they are the ones who disrespects and hates minorities.
I was reading this along with the article I posted

SNIP:
EXCLUSIVE: What Race Is Ted Cruz? We Checked The Media Reports Since 1990s…
March 24, 2015 by Charles C. Johnson 28 Comments

Ted Cruz Photo by Gage Skidmore : Flickr – Creative Commons

Ted Cruz, who founded the Latino Law Journal as a student at Harvard, is being attacked for being insufficiently Hispanic/Latino by the media.

National Public Radio even called Cruz a “white Hispanic” today. (we need to demand NPR be defunded of any taxpayers monies...this just so biased)



There’s a political reason for minimizing Cruz’s Hispanic heritage. Cruz reportedly got 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2012 while Mitt Romney got only 25% of the Hispanic vote in Texas. If Cruz can get Latinos to vote for him based solely on his surname he’s a threat and he’ll win the presidency.

We decided to check all of the media reports before Ted Cruz was a U.S. Senator to see how the press referred to him. This way we’ll be able to see if they decide to change how they view him racially.

ALL of it here
Read more at EXCLUSIVE What Race Is Ted Cruz We Checked The Media Reports Since 1990s... - GotNews

 

[The Rabbi]

Barack Obama is black but Ted Cruz is white. The media is nuts.

 

[Stephanie]

Barack Obama is black but Ted Cruz is white. The media is nuts.

Obama is more white than Cruz. They play some slimy tricks on the people. I wish more people in this country would WAKE up to it, before it's too late. They (medias) helped put that no EXPERIENCED in anything senator Obama in as President.

And now they are going all out to slime any Republican. except their Favorite, Jebby Bush.

I like Cruz a lot as well as Walker.

 

[Redfish]

Immoral and Sexual deviancy has brought down many society's all though out history.

Which ones? I keep hearing people make those claims yet when we look at the 'fall' of societies- I can't think of any that did.

The Ottoman Empire? Nope- that was losing World War 1 and rise of secular forces.
The Aztec Empire? Nope- that was caused by the Spanish and the collusion of the Aztec's conquered neighbors.
The Incan Empire? Nope- see above.

The reality is that the United States is the most powerful country in the world- and we have what ancient Jews would consider an immoral society.

The societies that are the least tolerant of 'immoral and sexual deviancy'? Well that would be the repressed of Muslim societies- Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Which do you choose as the most 'moral path'? The United States or Saudi Arabia?

We are tolerant and have always been tolerant. We have never killed gays in this country like the Muslim societies.

The Ottoman Empire killed Armenian Christians because of the rise of Islam and they were seen as a threat.
Aztec's over used their resources as well as the Inca's.

Have you read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon?
Life became cheap in the latter days of the Roman Empire. Burdensome regulation and taxes made manufacturing and trade unprofitable. Families were locked into hereditary trades and vocations allowing little if any vocational choice. Eventually, children were seen as a needless burden and abortion and infanticide became commonplace. In some cases, children were sold into slavery.

Manners and social life fell into debauchery. Under Justinian, entertainment grew bawdier and more bizarre. Orgies and love feasts were common. Homosexuality and bestiality were openly practiced. Under Nero, Christians were blamed for the great fire in Rome and horribly persecuted.

Similar patterns can be found in other civilizations. In Greece, the music of the young people became wild and coarse. Popular entertainment was brutal and vulgar. Promiscuity, homosexuality, and drunkenness became a daily part of life. And all moral and social restraints were lost leading to greater decadence.

In Carthage, worship turned from Baal to the earth goddess Tanit. "Sacrifices to the goddess of fertility were supposed to ensure productivity, long life, and even greater profits."Ornately carved funeral monuments depicting infant sacrifice can be seen today along with thousands of tiny stone coffins to infants sacrificed to the pagan goddess.

The parallels to our own nation are striking. No, we don't sacrifice infants to a pagan goddess, but we have aborted over 57 million babies on the altar of convenience. And various sexual practices are openly accepted as part of an alternative lifestyle.

It starts out small and continues until the society falls.
First it became acceptable to have sex out or wedlock
Then it became acceptable for couples to move in together without marriage and have children out of wedlock.
Our children are being exposed to violent video games and sex on TV
From acceptance of homosexuality it moves on to, polygamy, to sex with animals and on and on down the line.

It is a combination of all not just sex or homosexuality that leads to the society's downfall.

The Roman empire did NOT fall because of homosexuality. To suggest so it patently stupid. The Roman empire was toppled because of excessive conquest & the inability to defend all territories as the armies we're spread too thin. Political corruption also was a big factor.

ANYONE who twists those FACTS into an argument about sex in any fashion does not know shit about Roman history.

the Roman empire fell for several reasons. One of them was moral and cultural decline. Others were spin offs of that anything-goes culture. They ate, drank, and screwed instead of managing the empire, paying its bills, outfitting its military, and repairing infrastructure--------------see any similarities to the USA today?

I think it was because with the rise of Christianity sales of figures of their many gods fell way off. Hey! don't laugh! It was a big industry back then.

Come to think of it one could argue that Christianity caused the fall of Rome. HMMMMMMMMmmmmm????

It's not doing a bad job of destroying the American government also.

 

[Redfish]

our system of laws is based on judeo/Christian principles, so yes, it is a very compelling legal argument

What is the success rate of that argument in the courts concerning gay marriage? Yeah, not so good.

Why do we allow fat people to marry? Gluttony offends God.

Why do we allow liars to marry? Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord.

Why do we allow those that dishonor their mother and father to marry? They offend God.

Like I said, it is not a compelling legal argument.

nice try, but those things do not compare with homosexuality. Whether its a valid legal argument is yet to be seen. I think the gay mafia will win this round, and the country and society as a whole will lose.
The people deserve what they vote for. Obama is the perfect example of voters shitting in their own soup.

No, the country loses because people like you obsess with idiotic made up religious agendas and ignore the maintenance of the legacy of the true good works of the great republicans that preceded you.

"endowed by their creator" "In God we trust" the founders knew what they and the country stood for and those beliefs have made this country the greatest in the history of the world.

Can you list the Godless republicans from the past that you are so proud of?

They had the ability to put religious doctrine into the Constitution.....they chose not to

yes, because they believed in freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, or freedom of one religion only.

But the fact remains that this was and is a predominently Christian nation. But no one is forced to be a Christian or take part in Christian beliefs, or muslim beliefs, jewish beliefs, or no beliefs.

Its called FREEDOM. A concept that you libs have a hard time understanding.

 

[Seawytch]

What is the success rate of that argument in the courts concerning gay marriage? Yeah, not so good.

Why do we allow fat people to marry? Gluttony offends God.

Why do we allow liars to marry? Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord.

Why do we allow those that dishonor their mother and father to marry? They offend God.

Like I said, it is not a compelling legal argument.

nice try, but those things do not compare with homosexuality. Whether its a valid legal argument is yet to be seen. I think the gay mafia will win this round, and the country and society as a whole will lose.
The people deserve what they vote for. Obama is the perfect example of voters shitting in their own soup.

No, the country loses because people like you obsess with idiotic made up religious agendas and ignore the maintenance of the legacy of the true good works of the great republicans that preceded you.

"endowed by their creator" "In God we trust" the founders knew what they and the country stood for and those beliefs have made this country the greatest in the history of the world.

Can you list the Godless republicans from the past that you are so proud of?

They had the ability to put religious doctrine into the Constitution.....they chose not to

yes, because they believed in freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, or freedom of one religion only.

But the fact remains that this was and is a predominently Christian nation. But no one is forced to be a Christian or take part in Christian beliefs, or muslim beliefs, jewish beliefs, or no beliefs.

Its called FREEDOM. A concept that you libs have a hard time understanding.

No one will ever be forced to gay marry if they don't want to. You're silly.

 

[HUGGY]

What is the success rate of that argument in the courts concerning gay marriage? Yeah, not so good.

Why do we allow fat people to marry? Gluttony offends God.

Why do we allow liars to marry? Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord.

Why do we allow those that dishonor their mother and father to marry? They offend God.

Like I said, it is not a compelling legal argument.

nice try, but those things do not compare with homosexuality. Whether its a valid legal argument is yet to be seen. I think the gay mafia will win this round, and the country and society as a whole will lose.
The people deserve what they vote for. Obama is the perfect example of voters shitting in their own soup.

No, the country loses because people like you obsess with idiotic made up religious agendas and ignore the maintenance of the legacy of the true good works of the great republicans that preceded you.

"endowed by their creator" "In God we trust" the founders knew what they and the country stood for and those beliefs have made this country the greatest in the history of the world.

Can you list the Godless republicans from the past that you are so proud of?

They had the ability to put religious doctrine into the Constitution.....they chose not to

yes, because they believed in freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, or freedom of one religion only.

But the fact remains that this was and is a predominently Christian nation. But no one is forced to be a Christian or take part in Christian beliefs, or muslim beliefs, jewish beliefs, or no beliefs.

Its called FREEDOM. A concept that you libs have a hard time understanding.

The human race is evolving.

There are some aspects in our evolution that should be brought along as we gain wisdom, knowledge and experience.

I'm willing to concede that religion wasn't always an evil influence.

We certainly don't have all of the answers but we certainly have learned some of them.

If we don't honor the truth and reject what is obviously not true our future as a species is at risk.

 

[The Rabbi]

nice try, but those things do not compare with homosexuality. Whether its a valid legal argument is yet to be seen. I think the gay mafia will win this round, and the country and society as a whole will lose.
The people deserve what they vote for. Obama is the perfect example of voters shitting in their own soup.

No, the country loses because people like you obsess with idiotic made up religious agendas and ignore the maintenance of the legacy of the true good works of the great republicans that preceded you.

"endowed by their creator" "In God we trust" the founders knew what they and the country stood for and those beliefs have made this country the greatest in the history of the world.

Can you list the Godless republicans from the past that you are so proud of?

They had the ability to put religious doctrine into the Constitution.....they chose not to

yes, because they believed in freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, or freedom of one religion only.

But the fact remains that this was and is a predominently Christian nation. But no one is forced to be a Christian or take part in Christian beliefs, or muslim beliefs, jewish beliefs, or no beliefs.

Its called FREEDOM. A concept that you libs have a hard time understanding.

No one will ever be forced to gay marry if they don't want to. You're silly.

But they will be forced to teach that homosexuality is just another lifestyle and anyone who disagrees with that is the equivalent of Adolph Hitler.

 

[HUGGY]

nice try, but those things do not compare with homosexuality. Whether its a valid legal argument is yet to be seen. I think the gay mafia will win this round, and the country and society as a whole will lose.
The people deserve what they vote for. Obama is the perfect example of voters shitting in their own soup.

No, the country loses because people like you obsess with idiotic made up religious agendas and ignore the maintenance of the legacy of the true good works of the great republicans that preceded you.

"endowed by their creator" "In God we trust" the founders knew what they and the country stood for and those beliefs have made this country the greatest in the history of the world.

Can you list the Godless republicans from the past that you are so proud of?

They had the ability to put religious doctrine into the Constitution.....they chose not to

yes, because they believed in freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, or freedom of one religion only.

But the fact remains that this was and is a predominently Christian nation. But no one is forced to be a Christian or take part in Christian beliefs, or muslim beliefs, jewish beliefs, or no beliefs.

Its called FREEDOM. A concept that you libs have a hard time understanding.

No one will ever be forced to gay marry if they don't want to. You're silly.

Some enchanted evening.
Somewhere across a crowded room.
You may see a stranger.

You may be helpless to the attraction

 

[rcfieldz]

Semen injection between men = homosexual marriage?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

REDFISH SAID:

"yes, because they believed in freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, or freedom of one religion only.
But the fact remains that this was and is a predominently Christian nation. But no one is forced to be a Christian or take part in Christian beliefs, or muslim beliefs, jewish beliefs, or no beliefs.
Its called FREEDOM. A concept that you libs have a hard time understanding."

Wrong.

The Framers sought to both ensure freedom from religion as well as freedom to express one's religious beliefs.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment ensures freedom from religion by prohibiting government from codifying religious dogma into secular law; the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prohibits government from seeking to disadvantage religious expression.

That the United States is a predominately Christian Nation is irrelevant and has no bearing whatsoever on First Amendment jurisprudence, as all persons are free to believe regardless their religion – including those free from faith who enjoy freedom from religion, and cannot be made subject to religious dogma through force of law.

Moreover, liberals have been at the forefront for decades protecting the freedoms and liberties of the American people, including religious liberty – often in opposition to conservatives' efforts to violate the Framers' mandate that church and state remain separate by seeking to codify religious dogma into secular law; consequently neither you nor any other conservative are in a position to lecture anyone about 'understanding freedom.'

 

[Silhouette]

So you admit that LGBT is just another religion vyying for dominance in the US? I'll agree to that. But that new religion is going to have to expect a fight from some of the older ones whose core tenents are in complete 180 degree opposition to the new dogma..

 

[The Rabbi]

REDFISH SAID:

"yes, because they believed in freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, or freedom of one religion only.
But the fact remains that this was and is a predominently Christian nation. But no one is forced to be a Christian or take part in Christian beliefs, or muslim beliefs, jewish beliefs, or no beliefs.
Its called FREEDOM. A concept that you libs have a hard time understanding."

Wrong.

The Framers sought to both ensure freedom from religion as well as freedom to express one's religious beliefs.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment ensures freedom from religion by prohibiting government from codifying religious dogma into secular law; the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prohibits government from seeking to disadvantage religious expression.

That the United States is a predominately Christian Nation is irrelevant and has no bearing whatsoever on First Amendment jurisprudence, as all persons are free to believe regardless their religion – including those free from faith who enjoy freedom from religion, and cannot be made subject to religious dogma through force of law.

Moreover, liberals have been at the forefront for decades protecting the freedoms and liberties of the American people, including religious liberty – often in opposition to conservatives' efforts to violate the Framers' mandate that church and state remain separate by seeking to codify religious dogma into secular law; consequently neither you nor any other conservative are in a position to lecture anyone about 'understanding freedom.'

Well no, none of that is really correct.
The Framers sought to keep the national government from imposing religious tests on office. They also sought to keep the national governement from having an official religion. State governments were free to, and did, establish their own rules. But the fundamental basis of the government stems from Enlightenment thought that ultimately owes something to Christianity. The same system could never have been constructed in a predominently Muslim or even Buddhist society.

 

[danielpalos]

Why is the right so infidel, protestant, and renegade to the concept of natural rights and Individual Liberty.

 

[Stephanie]

Why is the right so infidel, protestant, and renegade to the concept of natural rights and Individual Liberty.

are you are programmed robot? or just brainwashed in DNC talking points?

 

[danielpalos]

Why is the right so infidel, protestant, and renegade to the concept of natural rights and Individual Liberty.

are you are programmed robot? or just brainwashed in DNC talking points?

I am on the federal left. Why only diversions for your Cause, Person on the Right.

 

[peach174]

They did by using facts, not their moral standards.
Morals and principals is not just about Homosexuality.

Except they did. And since your moral compass is in line with theirs you accept it as fact when it is not. It is opinion.

I gave you the EXACT reason for the collapse of the Roman Empire several pages back & you continue to dismiss it.

Since when is the actual writings from Seneca, Cato and Scipio not facts?

Sallus suggests that Seneca's account is historical hogwash.

Do you mean Sallust?
He was born before Seneca
Or
Salus? She was a Roman Goddess

Selected Letters - Seneca - Google Books

What does this have to do with what you said and my question?