Ted Cruz backs county clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples

[koshergrl]

The Chinese. The old Soviet Union both subjegated faith to the state.

Says the lass that advocates using the power of the State to compel unwilling people to abide your religious tenets.

You're the avatar of statism. Using state authority to force people to abide your will.....in defiance of the law, sworn oaths of office and the US Constitution.

And you'll lose. As you should.

No one is forcing anyone to abide by religious tenets but gays trampling the rights of Christians.

What they mean is...."How dare you not endorse homofuckery!!!! Kneel and renounce your faith or to the dungeons with you!"

 

[Skylar]

The same sex marriage laws are directly aimed at restricting religious beliefs.

Absolute horseshit. Any religion can practice any belief it wants. What that religion CAN'T do is use the State to FORCE unwilling people to practice any belief it wants. And that's exactly what these clerks are attempting to do: to use the authority of their office to deny services to those who they don't believe should have access to them based on their religious beliefs.

That's not their call to make. These clerks lack the authority to impose ANY of their religion upon any gay or lesbian couple. And if they're religion mandates that they abuse their State authority in such a manner, they should immediately be stripped of it. As using the State to force people to abide your religion is the Establishment of religion. And explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.

It may take a better people than we have become to remove the degeneracy. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the Russians restored the Church so there is hope for us yet. That is without having islam march through the cities hanging gays from lamp posts.

There's not a single church that has been closed because of gay marriage.. There's not a single faith that has been banned because of gay marriage. You are literally feeding yourself a persecution fantasy based on a mythical version of history that simply doesn't not exist in the real world. Lie to us if you want to. But when you lie to yourself, you break the cardinal rule of any propagandist:

Never drink your own Koolaid.

 

[OKTexas]

There is nothing in the Constitution about gay marriage. There is about the freedom of religion. By forcing Christians to participate in same sex weddings, the Constitution is being violated. Not taking an action is not forcing someone else to take an action.

There's nothing in the constitution about the 'right to self defense'. There is however, plenty about equal protection under the law. And that's one of the legal bases for same sex marriage.

And 'freedom of religion' is the freedom to practice your faith. Not the power to use the authority to the State to force other people to practice your faith. Your ilk can't comprehend that. Thankfully, the law can.

Demonstrate how faghadist were being denied equal protection.

 

[Katzndogz]

Allowing objectors the freedom to refuse to participate in same sex weddings isn't even refusing same sex marriages. Get someone else to issue the license. There's more than one person at that city hall or courthouse. If they have a right to marry, there is no right to have a particular individual do the evil deed.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is no problem with the state forcing people to abide by the state sanctioned religious belief in same sex marriage is there? The state can violate that religious belief.

 

[koshergrl]

There is nothing in the Constitution about gay marriage. There is about the freedom of religion. By forcing Christians to participate in same sex weddings, the Constitution is being violated. Not taking an action is not forcing someone else to take an action.

There's nothing in the constitution about the 'right to self defense'. There is however, plenty about equal protection under the law. And that's one of the legal bases for same sex marriage.

And 'freedom of religion' is the freedom to practice your faith. Not the power to use the authority to the State to force other people to practice your faith. Your ilk can't comprehend that. Thankfully, the law can.

Demonstrate how faghadist were being denied equal protection.

They want endorsement and forced servitude, not equality. That's ok....Mexicans and Muslims only use queers to test the strength of ropes. They'll learn soon enough what it means not to have American Christians standing between them and death.

 

[Skylar]

The freedom to practice your religion doesn't include the power to use State power to impose that religion on the unwilling and compel them to abide your beliefs. Especially in explicit defiance of the law and the constitution.

'Freedom' isn't the power to impose your will on the unwilling. Your entire conception of rights is a wasteland.

You don't get it, there is no religious compulsion or imposition, not when there are other alternatives readily available.

Not while the person imposing their religious views is using State authority. They simply lack the power to do so. They can't ignore the law, ignore their oath of office, and ignore the Constitution if they expect to keep their jobs.

Do your job. Or resign and let someone who will do the job take your place. Either that, or act as a conduit for tens of thousands of Texas State money to fund gay wedding after gay wedding as fines pile up.

Again, 'freedom' isn't the authority to impose your religious views using the State authority. Your entire conception of 'freedom' is completely fucked. You're confusing freedom with power. And a State official doesn't have the power you attribute to them.

Freedom also isn't 5 lawyers using the conduct of a small minority to forcibly grant rights either.

The courts exist for exactly this reason. As its the rights of the minority are the one's that need protecting from the majority. The majority generally takes care of itself.

And don't bother rejecting the authority of the courts. If the courts override the will of the people of a state in a ruling you agree with, you laud them. Its only when you disagree that you reject the entire concept of a judiciary. And your agreement isn't a condition of legitimacy. The courts are just as authoritative when the say, protect religious freedom or gun rights as when when they recognize the right to same sex marriage.

Faghadist already enjoyed all the same rights as everyone of their ethnic origin, race, age and gender. Show me where they didn't, the law was consistent, they were denied nothing.

That's the exact same argument used in defense of interracial marriage bans. As it applied to both whites and blacks....so it must be 'fair'. Its a bullshit argument. The standards of the law themselves must be reasonable and constitutional. They must serve a legitimate state interest, they must serve a legitimate legislative end, and they have to have a rational reason. Gay marriage bans failed on all fronts.

Says who? Says the Supreme Court of the United States. The body that is, by design, supposed to interpret the constitution. You don't like it? Tough shit. Your State fought for slavery, for segregation, against abortion, for criminalizing sodomy........and those shit kicking chaw slawers can learn one more time why they're always on the wrong side of history.

Of course the court never ever gets anything wrong. LMAO

That's the dichotomy? Either the court must have a perfect record.....or any horseshit you want to make up must be the law of the land?

Um, no.

Also the only thing that gave the court interpretative power over the Constitution or laws is the court.

Again, bullshit. You're feeding yourself a pseudo-legal fantasy.

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Federalist Paper 78

The court is the interpreter of the law and the constitution by design. It is the epitome of hapless horseshit to conclude that the judicial power only includes the power to AFFIRM laws. But never the authority to overturn them. That would be as braindead as assuming that the Executive Power doesn't include the authority to arrest anyone in the enforcement of the law.

Of course the courts can rule in favor or against a law when determining its compatibility the constitution. The concept of judicial review predates the Constitution itself. And has always been part of the Judicial Power.

But lets see if you abide your own standards. If Judicial review is invalid.......then you believe that McDonald v. Chicago is beyond the court's authority to rule upon? And any ordinance passed by any city or State limiting access to guns is beyond the court's authority to rule against?

If not, why not?

You can't have it both ways. The court doesn't have authority to overturn unconstitutional laws ONLY when you agree with them. But even when you don't. You're nobody. Your personal agreement isn't the threshold of the judicial power.

 

[Skylar]

There is no problem with the state forcing people to abide by the state sanctioned religious belief in same sex marriage is there? The state can violate that religious belief.

Again, the 'person' you're referring to is an officer of the State, weilding State authority. And they are using that authority to force people to abide their religious beliefs.

That's not 'freedom'. Freedom of religion is the ability to practice your own faith. Not to use the State to force unwilling people to practice your faith.

And using the State to establish religion and force gays and lesbians to abide the religious beliefs of State officials is EXACTLY what you're demanding be done.

Nope. That's a constitutional violation. If a state official can't perform their job because of their religion, they should be removed from office immediately.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is a Constitutional Amendment that secures the right to guns. There is no Constitutional right to marry.

Even so, a sales person with an objection to guns would be permitted not to ring up a gun sale.

 

[Skylar]

There is nothing in the Constitution about gay marriage. There is about the freedom of religion. By forcing Christians to participate in same sex weddings, the Constitution is being violated. Not taking an action is not forcing someone else to take an action.

There's nothing in the constitution about the 'right to self defense'. There is however, plenty about equal protection under the law. And that's one of the legal bases for same sex marriage.

And 'freedom of religion' is the freedom to practice your faith. Not the power to use the authority to the State to force other people to practice your faith. Your ilk can't comprehend that. Thankfully, the law can.

Demonstrate how faghadist were being denied equal protection.

They want endorsement and forced servitude, not equality.

Again, bullshit. The only things that gays and lesbians are looking for is what the law requires: that they be issued marriage certificiates. Its your ilk that are using the State power to force them to abide your religious beliefs, establishing religion and denying them their rights.

Just do your jobs and there's no conflict. Its only when you try to use your office to COMPEL others to practice your religion that you run into problems.

That's ok....Mexicans and Muslims only use queers to test the strength of ropes. They'll learn soon enough what it means not to have American Christians standing between them and death.

Oh, lovely. Threats of death and violence. You imbred hicks are as predictable as clockwork. If you can't treat gays like shit.....well, you'll just have to threaten and hurt them.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is no problem with the state forcing people to abide by the state sanctioned religious belief in same sex marriage is there? The state can violate that religious belief.

Again, the 'person' you're referring to is an officer of the State, weilding State authority. And they are using that authority to force people to abide their religious beliefs.

That's not 'freedom'. Freedom of religion is the ability to practice your own faith. Not to use the State to force unwilling people to practice your faith.

And using the State to establish religion and force gays and lesbians to abide the religious beliefs of State officials is EXACTLY what you're demanding be done.

Nope. That's a constitutional violation. If a state official can't perform their job because of their religion, they should be removed from office immediately.

No one is forcing you to abide by any religious belief. You can go get married just find someone else to marry you.

I once refused to paint the wedding portrait of a lesbian couple. They could not force me to do so.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is nothing in the Constitution about gay marriage. There is about the freedom of religion. By forcing Christians to participate in same sex weddings, the Constitution is being violated. Not taking an action is not forcing someone else to take an action.

There's nothing in the constitution about the 'right to self defense'. There is however, plenty about equal protection under the law. And that's one of the legal bases for same sex marriage.

And 'freedom of religion' is the freedom to practice your faith. Not the power to use the authority to the State to force other people to practice your faith. Your ilk can't comprehend that. Thankfully, the law can.

Demonstrate how faghadist were being denied equal protection.

They want endorsement and forced servitude, not equality.

Again, bullshit. The only things that gays and lesbians are looking for is what the law requires: that they be issued marriage certificiates. Its your ilk that are using the State power to force them to abide your religious beliefs, establishing religion and denying them their rights.

Just do your jobs and there's no conflict. Its only when you try to use your office to COMPEL others to practice your religion that you run into problems.

That's ok....Mexicans and Muslims only use queers to test the strength of ropes. They'll learn soon enough what it means not to have American Christians standing between them and death.

Oh, lovely. Threats of death and violence. You imbred hicks are as predictable as clockwork. If you can't treat gays like shit.....well, you'll just have to threaten and hurt them.

No one is threatening to hurt gays. Just being more understanding when they are hurt.

 

[Skylar]

There is a Constitutional Amendment that secures the right to guns. There is no Constitutional right to marry.

Show me the right to self defense with a fire arm in the Constitution.

It doesn't exist. Yet its the basis of the McDonald v. Chicago ruling. And once again, you shameless hypocrites demonstrate that even you don't buy your bullshit. As you fully embrace the judicial power, judicial review, and the authority of the court to overturn unconstitutional laws....if you agree with their ruling.

The judicial power isn't a ******* light switch. It doesn't turn off whenever its inconvenient to your argument. It exists regardless of your agreement or existence. If you pass this mortal coil tomorrow, the judicial power just keeps on trucking. Rendering your personal agreement a glorious irrelevance to the authority of any court ruling.

Even so, a sales person with an objection to guns would be permitted not to ring up a gun sale.

Depends on the basis and the State. If a sales person didn't sell guns to Blacks or Jews....they're gonna run into problems.

 

[Katzndogz]

That gay couple who was whipped with some kind of metal lash. Who could really blame the people who did that? They look at what's happening here and certainly don't want this in their country.

 

[Skylar]

There is nothing in the Constitution about gay marriage. There is about the freedom of religion. By forcing Christians to participate in same sex weddings, the Constitution is being violated. Not taking an action is not forcing someone else to take an action.

There's nothing in the constitution about the 'right to self defense'. There is however, plenty about equal protection under the law. And that's one of the legal bases for same sex marriage.

And 'freedom of religion' is the freedom to practice your faith. Not the power to use the authority to the State to force other people to practice your faith. Your ilk can't comprehend that. Thankfully, the law can.

Demonstrate how faghadist were being denied equal protection.

They want endorsement and forced servitude, not equality.

Again, bullshit. The only things that gays and lesbians are looking for is what the law requires: that they be issued marriage certificiates. Its your ilk that are using the State power to force them to abide your religious beliefs, establishing religion and denying them their rights.

Just do your jobs and there's no conflict. Its only when you try to use your office to COMPEL others to practice your religion that you run into problems.

That's ok....Mexicans and Muslims only use queers to test the strength of ropes. They'll learn soon enough what it means not to have American Christians standing between them and death.

Oh, lovely. Threats of death and violence. You imbred hicks are as predictable as clockwork. If you can't treat gays like shit.....well, you'll just have to threaten and hurt them.

No one is threatening to hurt gays. Just being more understanding when they are hurt.

And let the backpedal begin. That's what you say now. This is what you said just a minute ago.

That's ok....Mexicans and Muslims only use queers to test the strength of ropes. They'll learn soon enough what it means not to have American Christians standing between them and death

Sorry, thug. But we're not turning our people over to be killed by you, your ilk, Mexicans, Muslims or Martians. Your murder fantasies for gays and lesbians will remain that.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is a Constitutional Amendment that secures the right to guns. There is no Constitutional right to marry.

Show me the right to self defense with a fire arm in the Constitution.

It doesn't exist. Yet its the basis of the McDonald v. Chicago ruling. And once again, you shameless hypocrites demonstrate that even you don't buy your bullshit. As you fully embrace the judicial power, judicial review, and the authority of the court to overturn unconstitutional laws....if you agree with their ruling.

The judicial power isn't a ******* light switch. It doesn't turn off whenever its inconvenient to your argument. It exists regardless of your agreement or existence. If you pass this mortal coil tomorrow, the judicial power just keeps on trucking. Rendering your personal agreement a glorious irrelevance to the authority of any court ruling.

Even so, a sales person with an objection to guns would be permitted not to ring up a gun sale.

Depends on the basis and the State. If a sales person didn't sell guns to Blacks or Jews....they're gonna run into problems.

So you agree that a city office could refuse to issue any marriage licenses at all.

Good.

 

[OKTexas]

You don't get it, there is no religious compulsion or imposition, not when there are other alternatives readily available.

Not while the person imposing their religious views is using State authority. They simply lack the power to do so. They can't ignore the law, ignore their oath of office, and ignore the Constitution if they expect to keep their jobs.

Do your job. Or resign and let someone who will do the job take your place. Either that, or act as a conduit for tens of thousands of Texas State money to fund gay wedding after gay wedding as fines pile up.

Again, 'freedom' isn't the authority to impose your religious views using the State authority. Your entire conception of 'freedom' is completely fucked. You're confusing freedom with power. And a State official doesn't have the power you attribute to them.

Freedom also isn't 5 lawyers using the conduct of a small minority to forcibly grant rights either.

The courts exist for exactly this reason. As its the rights of the minority are the one's that need protecting from the majority. The majority generally takes care of itself.

And don't bother rejecting the authority of the courts. If the courts override the will of the people of a state in a ruling you agree with, you laud them. Its only when you disagree that you reject the entire concept of a judiciary. And your agreement isn't a condition of legitimacy. The courts are just as authoritative when the say, protect religious freedom or gun rights as when when they recognize the right to same sex marriage.

Faghadist already enjoyed all the same rights as everyone of their ethnic origin, race, age and gender. Show me where they didn't, the law was consistent, they were denied nothing.

That's the exact same argument used in defense of interracial marriage bans. As it applied to both whites and blacks....so it must be 'fair'. Its a bullshit argument. The standards of the law themselves must be reasonable and constitutional. They must serve a legitimate state interest, they must serve a legitimate legislative end, and they have to have a rational reason. Gay marriage bans failed on all fronts.

Says who? Says the Supreme Court of the United States. The body that is, by design, supposed to interpret the constitution. You don't like it? Tough shit. Your State fought for slavery, for segregation, against abortion, for criminalizing sodomy........and those shit kicking chaw slawers can learn one more time why they're always on the wrong side of history.

Of course the court never ever gets anything wrong. LMAO

That's the dichotomy? Either the court must have a perfect record.....or any horseshit you want to make up must be the law of the land?

Um, no.

Also the only thing that gave the court interpretative power over the Constitution or laws is the court.

Again, bullshit. You're feeding yourself a pseudo-legal fantasy.

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Federalist Paper 78

The court is the interpreter of the law and the constitution by design. It is the epitome of hapless horseshit to conclude that the judicial power only includes the power to AFFIRM laws. But never the authority to overturn them. That would be as braindead as assuming that the Executive Power doesn't include the authority to arrest anyone in the enforcement of the law.

Of course the courts can rule in favor or against a law when determining its compatibility the constitution. The concept of judicial review predates the Constitution itself. And has always been part of the Judicial Power.

But lets see if you abide your own standards. If Judicial review is invalid.......then you believe that McDonald v. Chicago is beyond the court's authority to rule upon? And any ordinance passed by any city or State limiting access to guns is beyond the court's authority to rule against?

If not, why not?

You can't have it both ways. The court doesn't have authority to overturn unconstitutional laws ONLY when you agree with them. But even when you don't. You're nobody. Your personal agreement isn't the threshold of the judicial power.

God, can't you come up with a hard one, Chicago's ban was in direct conflict with the plain language of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Katzndogz]

There's nothing in the constitution about the 'right to self defense'. There is however, plenty about equal protection under the law. And that's one of the legal bases for same sex marriage.

And 'freedom of religion' is the freedom to practice your faith. Not the power to use the authority to the State to force other people to practice your faith. Your ilk can't comprehend that. Thankfully, the law can.

Demonstrate how faghadist were being denied equal protection.

They want endorsement and forced servitude, not equality.

Again, bullshit. The only things that gays and lesbians are looking for is what the law requires: that they be issued marriage certificiates. Its your ilk that are using the State power to force them to abide your religious beliefs, establishing religion and denying them their rights.

Just do your jobs and there's no conflict. Its only when you try to use your office to COMPEL others to practice your religion that you run into problems.

That's ok....Mexicans and Muslims only use queers to test the strength of ropes. They'll learn soon enough what it means not to have American Christians standing between them and death.

Oh, lovely. Threats of death and violence. You imbred hicks are as predictable as clockwork. If you can't treat gays like shit.....well, you'll just have to threaten and hurt them.

No one is threatening to hurt gays. Just being more understanding when they are hurt.

And let the backpedal begin. That's what you say now. This is what you said just a minute ago.

That's ok....Mexicans and Muslims only use queers to test the strength of ropes. They'll learn soon enough what it means not to have American Christians standing between them and death

Sorry, thug. But we're not turning our people over to be killed by you, your ilk, Mexicans, Muslims or Martians. Your murder fantasies for gays and lesbians will remain that.

No one need be turned over. Gays are capable of attracting that kind of attention on their own. They do it all over the world.

 

[Skylar]

That gay couple who was whipped with some kind of metal lash. Who could really blame the people who did that? They look at what's happening here and certainly don't want this in their country.

And again, thuggish threats of violence.

This is why you dipshits lost. Because Americans got to know gays and lesbians. They worked with them. They went to school with them. They attended PTA meetings with them. And they're just folks. Not better. Not worse. Just people.

And then there is the hateful, bigoted shit coming from your ilk....the thinly veiled threats of violence, the excuses and justification for the murder, assault and beating of gays and lesbians for no other reason than their sexual orientation.

It was you and your ilk that pushed public sentiment so powerful in favor of gays and lesbians. As your hateful rhetoric is so loathsome. And gays and lesbians are so.....unremarkable. Just folks.

 

[Skylar]

Not while the person imposing their religious views is using State authority. They simply lack the power to do so. They can't ignore the law, ignore their oath of office, and ignore the Constitution if they expect to keep their jobs.

Do your job. Or resign and let someone who will do the job take your place. Either that, or act as a conduit for tens of thousands of Texas State money to fund gay wedding after gay wedding as fines pile up.

Again, 'freedom' isn't the authority to impose your religious views using the State authority. Your entire conception of 'freedom' is completely fucked. You're confusing freedom with power. And a State official doesn't have the power you attribute to them.

Freedom also isn't 5 lawyers using the conduct of a small minority to forcibly grant rights either.

The courts exist for exactly this reason. As its the rights of the minority are the one's that need protecting from the majority. The majority generally takes care of itself.

And don't bother rejecting the authority of the courts. If the courts override the will of the people of a state in a ruling you agree with, you laud them. Its only when you disagree that you reject the entire concept of a judiciary. And your agreement isn't a condition of legitimacy. The courts are just as authoritative when the say, protect religious freedom or gun rights as when when they recognize the right to same sex marriage.

Faghadist already enjoyed all the same rights as everyone of their ethnic origin, race, age and gender. Show me where they didn't, the law was consistent, they were denied nothing.

That's the exact same argument used in defense of interracial marriage bans. As it applied to both whites and blacks....so it must be 'fair'. Its a bullshit argument. The standards of the law themselves must be reasonable and constitutional. They must serve a legitimate state interest, they must serve a legitimate legislative end, and they have to have a rational reason. Gay marriage bans failed on all fronts.

Says who? Says the Supreme Court of the United States. The body that is, by design, supposed to interpret the constitution. You don't like it? Tough shit. Your State fought for slavery, for segregation, against abortion, for criminalizing sodomy........and those shit kicking chaw slawers can learn one more time why they're always on the wrong side of history.

Of course the court never ever gets anything wrong. LMAO

That's the dichotomy? Either the court must have a perfect record.....or any horseshit you want to make up must be the law of the land?

Um, no.

Also the only thing that gave the court interpretative power over the Constitution or laws is the court.

Again, bullshit. You're feeding yourself a pseudo-legal fantasy.

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Federalist Paper 78

The court is the interpreter of the law and the constitution by design. It is the epitome of hapless horseshit to conclude that the judicial power only includes the power to AFFIRM laws. But never the authority to overturn them. That would be as braindead as assuming that the Executive Power doesn't include the authority to arrest anyone in the enforcement of the law.

Of course the courts can rule in favor or against a law when determining its compatibility the constitution. The concept of judicial review predates the Constitution itself. And has always been part of the Judicial Power.

But lets see if you abide your own standards. If Judicial review is invalid.......then you believe that McDonald v. Chicago is beyond the court's authority to rule upon? And any ordinance passed by any city or State limiting access to guns is beyond the court's authority to rule against?

If not, why not?

You can't have it both ways. The court doesn't have authority to overturn unconstitutional laws ONLY when you agree with them. But even when you don't. You're nobody. Your personal agreement isn't the threshold of the judicial power.

God, can't you come up with a hard one, Chicago's ban was in direct conflict with the plain language of the 2nd Amendment.

If the judiciary doesn't have the authority to overturn laws or interpret the constitution, how then could they have dealt with any such 'direct conflict'?

Laughing........why look! Like magic, the judicial power suddenly DOES include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.

How did I know that was coming, hypocrite?