Ted Cruz Introduces Bills to Stop Gay Marriage

[Syriusly]

Ted Cruz Introduces Bills to Stop Gay Marriage
Bloomberg | 4/23/2015 | Heidi Prszbyla


Bloomberg Title and Link Only
Ted Cruz Introduces Bills to Stop Gay Marriage - Bloomberg Politics
Sub-Heading-- "The Texas senator wants to establish a constitutional amendment that protects states that define marriage as being between a man and a woman from legal action. "

---
Cruz Is going to fight the gays!

A Constitutional Amendment?

He just rose a notch or two in my estimation.

Finally, political leadership manifesting some courage, rather than pandering to the whores in the Gay Mafia PACs.

LOL- now he is just pandering to the whores of the Christian Mafia PACs

I'll take the Christian Mafia over the organized Fudge-Packers Union (Gay Mafia) any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

Thanks for sharing your fears with us.

 

[Syriusly]

Have you ever seen so many people FLIPPING out over someone just PRESENTING a bill?

good ole Bloomingidiot...his job of lying and rattling people gages did it's job

how sad.

I haven't seen anyone 'flipping out' over Cruz grandstanding for his potential voters.

 

[Syriusly]

REDFISH SAID:

“many believe that sanctioning gay marriage would harm society, you don't believe it would. There is a difference of opinion-----------so lets put it to a vote in every state and let the will of the people prevail.

I will accept the will of the people, will you?”

People believe all sorts of nonsense, ignorance, and idiocy – one of the many reasons why we are a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy.

In our Constitutional Republic citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly – laws seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law are evidence of that.

Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, and residents of the states subordinate to that, where citizens' civil rights are immune from attack by the state – indeed, one does not forfeit his civil rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor are one's civil rights subject to 'majority rule.'

Consequently, whether or not a citizen will be 'afforded' his civil rights cannot be 'put up to a vote,' the notion is ignorant and ridiculous, as our rights are inalienable, they manifest because of our being human, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

That, or amend the Constitution to proscribe homosexuality - which might be a better and more sustainable outcome.
t.

And that gets us back to the Conservatives wanting to regulate what Americans do in their bedrooms.

Which we all pretty much knew anyway.

You should suggest that to Cruz- it would be a winning platform for him.

 

[peach174]

I put it up from the English historian Edward Gibbon who wrote 6 volumes on The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
Gibbon wrote that the Roman Empire succumbed to barbarian invasions in large part due to the gradual loss of civic virtue among its citizens.

Civic virtue? That seems like quite the stretch to me. Service in the emperors army was not a choice. So how exactly does Bobby sucking Joes schlong cause the Roman front lines to collapse?

I would suggest you read the history books of Edward Gibbon and Catherine Edwards (The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome)

There is your problem right there and you don't even see it.

The authors are attempting to apply their own moral standards to a historical event. A good historian would examine the facts and draw a conclusion that is not tainted with personal perception but rather relies on the supporting facts.
Every single culture in human history has homosexuality in it. Every one of them. If you twist enough bullshit into it I suppose you could then say that the USSR collapsed because of homosexuality? Or how about all the British conquered areas that are no longer under British rule? How but the native Americans? Or the Mexicans in Texas or Arizona?

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?

 

[peach174]

REDFISH SAID:

“many believe that sanctioning gay marriage would harm society, you don't believe it would. There is a difference of opinion-----------so lets put it to a vote in every state and let the will of the people prevail.

I will accept the will of the people, will you?”

People believe all sorts of nonsense, ignorance, and idiocy – one of the many reasons why we are a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy.

In our Constitutional Republic citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly – laws seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law are evidence of that.

Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, and residents of the states subordinate to that, where citizens' civil rights are immune from attack by the state – indeed, one does not forfeit his civil rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor are one's civil rights subject to 'majority rule.'

Consequently, whether or not a citizen will be 'afforded' his civil rights cannot be 'put up to a vote,' the notion is ignorant and ridiculous, as our rights are inalienable, they manifest because of our being human, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

That, or amend the Constitution to proscribe homosexuality - which might be a better and more sustainable outcome.
t.

And that gets us back to the Conservatives wanting to regulate what Americans do in their bedrooms.


Which we all pretty much knew anyway.

You should suggest that to Cruz- it would be a winning platform for him.

While liberals want to micromanage your life in everything.

 

[HUGGY]

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.

No it's people like you who are very uninformed and know very little history.

Let's do a short quiz and we can settle the "truth in history" battle.

Do you believe ln Noah and the Ark?

Yes? or no?

I do. I believe there is historical fact to a lot of bible stories. The interpretation or reason behind those stories is up for debate however.
For instance, I believe Jesus was a real person. I just don't believe the story of who he supposedly is or how he came to be.
I also believe there is some truth to the Ark story

WOW! O........K........

Why is that surprising?
Did you know the "flood" story is not unique to Christians? In fact it is told in almost every religion in some fashion.

Thank you for that. As an atheist I have been wondering if there was a common link that made all religions ridiculous.

 

[Kondor3]

...And that gets us back to the Conservatives wanting to regulate what Americans do in their bedrooms...

Nahhhh...

The little perverts can do whatever the hell they want to in their own bedrooms...

The rest of us just don't want to see it, or hear about it, or pretend like it's anything but deviant and perverse behavior, and we don't want it mainstreamed or normalized.

Because homosexuality is not normal.

It is sexual deviancy and perversity - an abomination in the eyes of God, Nature and Man.

Keep that nasty shit in the closet where it belongs.

 

[HUGGY]

Civic virtue? That seems like quite the stretch to me. Service in the emperors army was not a choice. So how exactly does Bobby sucking Joes schlong cause the Roman front lines to collapse?

I would suggest you read the history books of Edward Gibbon and Catherine Edwards (The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome)

There is your problem right there and you don't even see it.

The authors are attempting to apply their own moral standards to a historical event. A good historian would examine the facts and draw a conclusion that is not tainted with personal perception but rather relies on the supporting facts.
Every single culture in human history has homosexuality in it. Every one of them. If you twist enough bullshit into it I suppose you could then say that the USSR collapsed because of homosexuality? Or how about all the British conquered areas that are no longer under British rule? How but the native Americans? Or the Mexicans in Texas or Arizona?

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.

 

[peach174]

I would suggest you read the history books of Edward Gibbon and Catherine Edwards (The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome)

There is your problem right there and you don't even see it.

The authors are attempting to apply their own moral standards to a historical event. A good historian would examine the facts and draw a conclusion that is not tainted with personal perception but rather relies on the supporting facts.
Every single culture in human history has homosexuality in it. Every one of them. If you twist enough bullshit into it I suppose you could then say that the USSR collapsed because of homosexuality? Or how about all the British conquered areas that are no longer under British rule? How but the native Americans? Or the Mexicans in Texas or Arizona?

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

 

[LeftofLeft]

Are Blacks, Latinos, and Muslims in favor of gay marriage??

 

[deltex1]

Ted Cruz Introduces Bills to Stop Gay Marriage
Bloomberg | 4/23/2015 | Heidi Prszbyla


Bloomberg Title and Link Only
Ted Cruz Introduces Bills to Stop Gay Marriage - Bloomberg Politics
Sub-Heading-- "The Texas senator wants to establish a constitutional amendment that protects states that define marriage as being between a man and a woman from legal action. "

---
Cruz Is going to fight the gays!

I think Ted was referring to Obama getting butt fudged by the Iranian ayatollah.

 

[HUGGY]

There is your problem right there and you don't even see it.

The authors are attempting to apply their own moral standards to a historical event. A good historian would examine the facts and draw a conclusion that is not tainted with personal perception but rather relies on the supporting facts.
Every single culture in human history has homosexuality in it. Every one of them. If you twist enough bullshit into it I suppose you could then say that the USSR collapsed because of homosexuality? Or how about all the British conquered areas that are no longer under British rule? How but the native Americans? Or the Mexicans in Texas or Arizona?

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

 

[bravoactual]

Ted Cruz Introduces Bills to Stop Gay Marriage
Bloomberg | 4/23/2015 | Heidi Prszbyla


Bloomberg Title and Link Only
Ted Cruz Introduces Bills to Stop Gay Marriage - Bloomberg Politics
Sub-Heading-- "The Texas senator wants to establish a constitutional amendment that protects states that define marriage as being between a man and a woman from legal action. "

---
Cruz Is going to fight the gays!

So, you oppose "Big Government" and to prove how much your support "Big Government" you approve of "Big Government" because it wants ban Same Sex Marriage.

Just like how you oppose "Government being involved in Health Care", while at the same time wanting ban Abortion.

You cons have the most amazing lopsided thought process there is.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Good.

Let the locals decide whether or not they want fornicating fecal matter worshippers in their community.

Shouldn't we let the locals decide gun rights, too? I mean, if local control is more democratic and fair than having the big central government decide issues..

1: Firearms are constitutionally protected, they are mentioned explicitly.

2: The act of a man licking his own feces off another man's penis is not protected by the Constitution, nor is the regulation of licking one's own feces off another man's penis an enumerated power of the federal government, therefore its falls within the jurisdiction of the Several States to decide whether or not they want fecal faggot fiends fornicating within their territory.

 

[The Rabbi]

It wouldn't end gay marriage in America like the loony Left will bleat about, it would simply allow states to decide the issue for themselves. Not all would ban gay marriage and the butt pirates can all move to the states that allow it.

Then the Feds were wrong when they outlawed slavery. They should have left it up to the states, right?

Slavery violated the Constitution, defining marriage does not. Try to pay attention.

It actually did not violate the Constitution. Thus the 13th Amendment. But enough people thought it was wrong that it became the law.

And the 14th protects same sex marriage as an equal right.

You're so stupid you probably spend all day wondering how they get the tail of the C through the loop of the L in the Coca Cola logo.

 

[The Rabbi]

I can't remember Dwight David Eisenhower ever mentioning the word "homosexual".

me either, the gay mafia did not exist in those days. But there were plenty of openly gays. remember Liberace? Whats your point?

Liberace wasn't openly gay. He successfully sued two newspaper that claimed he was gay. It was obvious he was gay but he kept it private as not damage his career.

If you couldn't tell Liberace was gay then you weren't paying attention. I saw him on various TV shows when I was a kid..Ed Sullivan etc. I remember asking my parents why he dressed like that and talked like that and it was explained that he was probably a homosexual. My parents were not stupid. Neither am I.

We are duly impressed by your obviously early onset gaydar. The rest of America was behind the 8 ball. There were no openly gay people in the 50s like there are today. In fact, can you name anyone who was out and openly gay in the 50s?

Tennessee Williams, I think.

Truman Capote.
It was rare because people understood the meaning of "private life" in those days.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I think we should all obey the PC police and refrain from referring to homosexuals as:

"Gay, Homo, fag, faggot, queer...[insert preferred 'slur']"

We should simply refer to them by a sequence of hyphenated words describing what it is that they do:

"Fecal-Matter-Lickers"

"Rectum-Plungers"

"Mutual-Testicle-Fondlers"

"Willing-Volunteers-of-Penis-Induced-Constipation"

"Human-Derived-Chocolate-Connoisseurs"

If the description fits, use it!

 

[jasonnfree]

It wouldn't end gay marriage in America like the loony Left will bleat about, it would simply allow states to decide the issue for themselves. Not all would ban gay marriage and the butt pirates can all move to the states that allow it.

Then the Feds were wrong when they outlawed slavery. They should have left it up to the states, right?

Slavery violated the Constitution, defining marriage does not. Try to pay attention.

It actually did not violate the Constitution. Thus the 13th Amendment. But enough people thought it was wrong that it became the law.

And the 14th protects same sex marriage as an equal right.

You're so stupid you probably spend all day wondering how they get the tail of the C through the loop of the L in the Coca Cola logo.

You're just bragging because it only took you only half a day, right ?

 

[The Rabbi]

Then the Feds were wrong when they outlawed slavery. They should have left it up to the states, right?

Slavery violated the Constitution, defining marriage does not. Try to pay attention.

It actually did not violate the Constitution. Thus the 13th Amendment. But enough people thought it was wrong that it became the law.

And the 14th protects same sex marriage as an equal right.

You're so stupid you probably spend all day wondering how they get the tail of the C through the loop of the L in the Coca Cola logo.

You're just bragging because it only took you only half a day, right ?

You'r proud of yourself because it only took you several hours to come up with that lame insult.

 

[Politico]

Don't these people have anything better to do with their time?

Not as long as long as their parents continue to provide a rent free basement.