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

[bodecea]

its a biological rationale, if you want to make perversion legal where does it end? what will you want to legalize next, beastiality?

If you can't distinguish between con-senting adult humans and animals..............you need to stay away from animals.

 

[bodecea]

Pedophilia is clearly on their near agenda.

Seventy-five-year-old men demanding to marry three-year-old boys.

Hetero males are more the danger of being pedophiles than any other demographic.

 

[bodecea]

You sure seem hot to trot for promoting the institution of Gay Marriage for someone who claims to be normative.

I can understand you not getting that. Just like you don't get why men would support women's rights...or white people would support equal rights for minorities.

 

[bodecea]

weird shit = lgbtq, trannys, pedifiles, illegals, inflation, AGW, senile Joe, crazy nancy, crying Schumer, CNN, Antifa, BLM.
just for starters.

its you who is dodging with your head up your ass.

Do you have Tourettes?

 

[Dagosa]

Yes , I sure they are going to ban BC pills.

It seems logical to conservatives. They’re all neutered anyway.

 

[HeyNorm]

Once again you are proving yourself to being a liar, a fraud and a bigot. You think that you’re slick....and you are but only because you are slime.

This is discussion has been and still is about the LEGAL ACCESS to same sex, gay marriage. It is about what you said in that regard. Now you are once again showing your cowardice and refusing to own up to it. So you move the goal posts to try to make it about what you did not say instead of what you did say .

You are not smart enough to gas light me by denying what you said or claiming that you meant something else. For the record, by the time Obergefell was decided gay were able to marry in most states, but if it is overturned many more states that were forced to accept same sex marriage by the lower courts could prohibit it again. In addition, if the majority of congressional Republicans had there way, those states would not have to recognize marriages from other states.

It does not matter what you said or did not say . Those are the facts and I am quite sure that you would be ok with all of it. Unless you are talking about something other than legal marriage with this tripe, your post is pointless and duplicitous. If you are talking about something other than legal marriage, it is still pointless and duplicitous

That fact is, as I have said, you have admitted to being opposed to same sex gay marriage and by your own admission, lied about the reason for you opposition. Now do I have to shove it all in your face again?

Oh, don’t get me wrong. I don’t only oppose gay same sex marriage, I oppose all straight same sex marriage as well.

For the record, I oppose all marriage that would allow those closely related as well for obvious reasons. But those same sex, the reasons are not so clear. And since it is your wish that all married couples be treated equally?

Well Houston, we have a problem.

Now go and at least try to have a nice day.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You sure seem hot to trot for promoting the institution of Gay Marriage for someone who claims to be normative.

And the freedom riders were not black

 

[Skylar]

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

So no answer on why its evil to protect gay marriage.

If ever y'all are curious why you badly lost the gay marriage debate....you just demonstrated why. Whenever pressed to demonstrate why we gay marriage is wrong, your ilk change the topic.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Oh, don’t get me wrong. I don’t only oppose gay same sex marriage, I oppose all straight same sex marriage as well.

How fucked in the head are you? A while back, you called me a bigot for alledgedly wanting to exclude straight same sex people who want to marry.( if in fact there are any) You can't seem to keep your bizarre bovine excrement straight.

Now that we have clearly established the fact that you oppose same sex marriage, isnt it time that you explaned why?

 

[martybegan]

So no answer on why its evil to protect gay marriage.

If ever y'all are curious why you badly lost the gay marriage debate....you just demonstrated why. Whenever pressed to demonstrate why we gay marriage is wrong, your ilk change the topic.

When did I ever say it was evil?

The issue with this law is it can be read by some as extending to individuals as opposed to just government, as the supporters propose. It provides protections for churches and clergy, but not to individual person's rights to free exercise.

The concern is that it would make federal the current overuse of PA laws to punish people for their own free exercise right use.

 

[Skylar]

When did I ever say it was evil?

The issue with this law is it can be read by some as extending to individuals as opposed to just government, as the supporters propose. It provides protections for churches and clergy, but not to individual person's rights to free exercise.

The concern is that it would make federal the current overuse of PA laws to punish people for their own free exercise right use.

When did I say you did?

You did quote me addressing the claim that defending gay marriage was 'evil'......and then tried to change the topic.

Demonstrating my point elegantly. Whenever pressed to demonstrate why we gay marriage is wrong, your ilk change the topic. Which is why y'all lost the gay marriage debate.

 

[Polishprince]

And the freedom riders were not black

Just a tip, Black people don't like to be called Homosexuals.

 

[martybegan]

When did I say you did?

You did quote me addressing the claim that defending gay marriage was 'evil'......and then tried to change the topic.

Demonstrating my point elegantly. Whenever pressed to demonstrate why we gay marriage is wrong, your ilk change the topic. Which is why y'all lost the gay marriage debate.

The person you quoted said democrats are evil.

I asked why is it moral to make a baker decide between their livelyhood and one transaction that violates THEIR moral code.

This all springs from States recognizing SSM as equal to traditional marriage.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

For the record, I oppose all marriage that would allow those closely related as well for obvious reasons. But those same sex, the reasons are not so clear. And since it is your wish that all married couples be treated equally?

".......But those same sex, the reasons are not so clear"? Really, so for reasons that you can't articulate, you would deprive that group of all of the benefits and rights of marriage? You would punish their children by depriving them of the chance to have the security of two legal parents. Just like that. You sure are a fuzzy thinking selfish prick. At least your inching towards some degree of honesty

 

[HeyNorm]

How fucked in the head are you? A while back, you called me a bigot for alledgedly wanting to exclude straight same sex. You can't seem to keep your bizarre bovine excrement straight.

Now that we have clearly established the fact that you oppose same sex marriage, isnt it time that you explaned why?

I think I’ve expressed several very sound and well thought out reasons, but my latest wasn’t included in your quote. Why?

Again, try to have a nice day.

 

[Skylar]

"“We can ease the fear that millions of same-sex and interracial couples have that their freedoms and their rights could be stripped away,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), a sponsor of the bill. “We are guaranteeing same-sex and interracial couples, regardless of where they live, that their marriage is legal.”

Where exactly, are these same-sex couples and inter-racial couples whose marriages are endangered?

Is Justice Clarence Thomas worried? Mitch McConnell? Mayor Pete?

Democrats are evil. Never forget it.

As to the why this law coedifying same sex marriage protdctions would be useful....is this:

In his concurring opinion, Thomas — an appointee of President George H.W. Bush — wrote that the justices “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell” — referring to three cases having to do with Americans’ fundamental privacy, due process and equal protection rights.

Justice Thomas: SCOTUS ‘should reconsider’ contraception, same-sex marriage rulings

Democrats warned that the court would seek to undo other constitutional rights if it overturned Roe v. Wade, as it did on Friday.

www.politico.com

 

[Skylar]

The person you quoted said democrats are evil.

I asked why is it moral to make a baker decide between their livelyhood and one transaction that violates THEIR moral code.

This all springs from States recognizing SSM as equal to traditional marriage.

He claimed democrats were evil.....after they voted for codifying legal protections for same sex marriage.

To which I asked 'Why is it 'evil' to protect same sex marriage?'

A simple question you couldn't answer.....and fled from like it was on fire, desperately trying to change the topic.

Demonstrating my point elegantly. Thank you.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Just a tip, Black people don't like to be called Homosexuals.

No one does Princess.

 

[martybegan]

As to the why this law coedifying same sex marriage protdctions would be useful....is this:

In his concurring opinion, Thomas — an appointee of President George H.W. Bush — wrote that the justices “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell” — referring to three cases having to do with Americans’ fundamental privacy, due process and equal protection rights.

Justice Thomas: SCOTUS ‘should reconsider’ contraception, same-sex marriage rulings

Democrats warned that the court would seek to undo other constitutional rights if it overturned Roe v. Wade, as it did on Friday.

www.politico.com

The issue is the law goes beyond that, and only protects Clergy, Churches, and Religious organizations, not normal people exercising their 1st amendment rights.

If it just made State governments recognize SSM's issued by other States, I would be fine with it, that's what I thought Obergfell should do.

 

[martybegan]

He claimed democrats were evil.....after they voted for codifying legal protections for same sex marriage.

To which I asked 'Why is it 'evil' to protect same sex marriage?'

A simple question you couldn't answer.....and fled from like it was on fire, desperately trying to change the topic.

Demonstrating my point elegantly. Thank you.

I think he claims Dems are evil in general.

The "evil" is in the wording that federalizes possibly forcing State level anti-discrimination via PA laws in situations where it isn't warranted, where it is not a case of economics or politics, but simply butthurt.

That's my answer.

Now answer my question.