Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Which bigots are those that, in your delusional world, I am rooting for?


.

HeyNorm

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

HeyNorm

www.usmessageboard.com

Quote me "rooting for" HeyNorm.


Edit: Waiting TheProgressivePatriot

Too late, TheProgressivePatriot


.

 

[Redfish]

Bullshit cop out!

nope, simple truth.

 

[initforme]

Interracial marriages are probably superior to same race marriages

 

[Curried Goats]

No one was taking away interracial marriage between a man and a woman—damned liars.

Well you cuck boys certainly aren't going to now.

 

[Curried Goats]

Thomas meant the reasoning used for them. He himself is in an interracial marriage, duh.

The law itself may be unconstitutional since Congress has no authority over marriage.

But the left may use it if it is held to be constitutional for all sorts of other things including a national age of consent law. Bet on that.

Why would anti-groomers be worried about national age of consent laws?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

nope, simple truth.

Then spit it out Fish!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Quote me "rooting for" HeyNorm.


Edit: Waiting TheProgressivePatriot

Too late, TheProgressivePatriot


.

Post 1972 HeyNorm, I'm really enjoying your posts but I'd advise you to show that poster the amount of contempt it deserves and also show it your heels. I just did.

 

[martybegan]

Why is it 'evil' to protect same sex marriage?

Why is it moral to ruin a baker or a photographer because they don't want to participate in a same sex wedding celebration?

 

[martybegan]

This supreme court has shown they have no problem overturning sensible decades old rulings. If they can overturn Roe, they can overturn Obergefell or even Loving.



Actually, the law probably passes constitutional muster, because it only covers FEDERAL recognition of marriage. Hypothetically, if SCOTUS overturns Obergefell or even Loving, there's nothing that the Feds can do to stop a state from outlawing those marriages, but they would still be protected under the full faith and credit clause.

Obergfell should have just done what this law does in part, force States to recognize full faith and credit. Even this law doesn't force States to issue SSM licenses.

And the Religious protection of businesses will be decided before this law would ever impact it, because the SC is already taking up those cases.

If they do it right, they will find contracted services are not PA's in these cases, and the right to free exercise in these situations overrides the right to commerce.

 

[HeyNorm]

This supreme court has shown they have no problem overturning sensible decades old rulings. If they can overturn Roe, they can overturn Obergefell or even Loving.



Actually, the law probably passes constitutional muster, because it only covers FEDERAL recognition of marriage. Hypothetically, if SCOTUS overturns Obergefell or even Loving, there's nothing that the Feds can do to stop a state from outlawing those marriages, but they would still be protected under the full faith and credit clause.

The problem you have here is logic.

Almost no one who would lose the right to marry a person of the same sex would have exercised the right in the first place. So almost no one eligible, would feel slighted by the loss. That’s logic.

Now a far greater number, would feel slighted if they were not allowed to marry an opposite sex individual of a different race.

I know I have the right to marry another male, but I see no reason to do such an absurd thing, being that I am straight, as does roughly 97% of the population.

 

[initforme]

97 percent of the american population doesn't really care all that much who marries who. There's logic as well. To each his own. Nobody else's business.

 

[initforme]

Why were interracial marriages ever frowned upon in the first place? Those people were truly evil americans

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Why are they "evil" for this?

The Supreme Court has gone to the right, despite the fact that the popular vote has been very much against Republicans (one popular vote win for president since 1990, and yet the Supreme Court has moved to the right, huh?)

It’s gone centrist.. when the radical left ceases to dominate, even equal treatment and moderation seems like extreme conservatism to them.

Basically, you’re the trust fund baby who no longer gets a red corvette for graduation. It’s so unfair to you, but the rest of us see you as just having been spoiled

 

[Redfish]

Then spit it out Fish!

no matter how many times the truth is presented to you, you will never be able to understand or accept it. you are a waste of time, a totally indoctrinated compliant sheep to your socialist masters.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

no matter how many times the truth is presented to you, you will never be able to understand or accept it. you are a waste of time, a totally indoctrinated compliant sheep to your socialist masters.

You reakky should no say stupid shit like "you leftites want to legalize "whatever feels good" no matter who it damages or how it destroys society " if you cant back it up with facts and examples. And clearly you can not

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

I'm still waiting for TheProgressivePatriot to quote me "rooting for" HeyNorm

Great disappearing act, no?


.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Thomas meant the reasoning used for them. He himself is in an interracial marriage, duh.

The law itself may be unconstitutional since Congress has no authority over marriage.

Marriage is already a constitutional right.

But the left may use it if it is held to be constitutional for all sorts of other things including a national age of consent law. Bet on that.

 

[Catsnmeters]

No one was taking away interracial marriage between a man and a woman—damned liars.

Like nobody was going to take away abortion rights? Dems already fell for that once.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The law itself may be unconstitutional since Congress has no authority over marriage.

Just to address this narrow point. Congress is not exercising authority over Civil Marriage, they are excerising their Article IV delegated power under the Full Faith & Credit class to determine the effect thereof of Public Acts between the states.

If people read the legislation, that's exactly what the RMA of 2022 does.

It requires states to honor legal Civil Marriages performed in other jurisdictions based on the Full Faith and Credit clause. It does not mandate the states perform same-sex and interracial marriages, only that they recognize Civil Marriages from other states equally.

What requires states to allow interracial and same-sex marriages internally are the SCOTUS Loving and Obergefell decisions.

If the SCOTUS were to overturn Loving and Obergefell, states could stop performing interracial and same-sex marriages, but because of the RMA of 2022 they would still be required to recognize equally Civil Marriages from other states. Which, in the event the decisions are overturned, states won't be able to discriminate - couples just cross state lines, get married and return.

Subtle difference, but one that comports with the legal authority of Congress under the FF&C clause.

WW