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

[JoeB131]

So, the marriage law limiting the Union of one man to one woman, not too closely related, and of legal age with the ability to consent, had rational reasoning behind it?

But follow me here, stupid.

There's a good reason to limit how closely people are related, because of inbreeding.
There's a good reason to limit age, because it is believe you need a certain level of maturity to consent.
There's really no good reason to limit it to just heterosexual couples, other than pandering to bible-thumping bigots....

Happy to have cleared that up to you, you seem to be a bit dopey.

 

[HeyNorm]

But follow me here, stupid.

There's a good reason to limit how closely people are related, because of inbreeding.
There's a good reason to limit age, because it is believe you need a certain level of maturity to consent.
There's really no good reason to limit it to just heterosexual couples, other than pandering to bible-thumping bigots....

Happy to have cleared that up to you, you seem to be a bit dopey.

Thanks, you just showed that the dynamics of the two groups are extraordinarily different, therefore not similarly situated as are interracial marriages as the dynamics remain exactly the same.



And this is why, when this gets kicked back to the States, you will see reality once again.

And not a civil rights issue.

Glad I could straighten ya out.

Been nice talkin to ya Joe.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Nope, just combined, no same sex couple can ever create a child. NOT EVEN AT A SAME SEX ORGY.

Thats it! We are really done here. You are either seriously mentally ill, or a zombie troll bot. Not doing this any more.

 

[HeyNorm]

Thats it! We are really done here. You are either seriously mentally ill, or a zombie troll bot. Not doing this any more.

Got a party to go to?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

At the very least, you're an admitted adulterer.

HOLY GUACAMOLE!

Goes directly to show how much respect he has for marriage in general.

 

[JoeB131]

Thanks, you just showed that the dynamics of the two groups are extraordinarily different, therefore not similarly situated as are interracial marriages as the dynamics remain exactly the same.

Uh, you missed the point entirely. There are no good reasons to ban interracial marriages or same sex marriages other than bigotry.

And this is why, when this gets kicked back to the States, you will see reality once again.

And not a civil rights issue.

Actually, it's not going to get kicked back to the states. The Respect for Marriage Act put an end to that. You lose.

Here's the other reason why you lose. Big corporations are done with homophobia. They've pretty much told the states to knock it the **** off.

Glad I could straighten ya out.

Been nice talkin to ya Joe.

You aren't straightened out, you are desperately trying to rationalize your own homophobia. Did you know that there have been scientific studies proving that homophobes are in fact latent homosexuals?

 

[HeyNorm]

Uh, you missed the point entirely. There are no good reasons to ban interracial marriages or same sex marriages other than bigotry.




Actually, it's not going to get kicked back to the states. The Respect for Marriage Act put an end to that. You lose.

Here's the other reason why you lose. Big corporations are done with homophobia. They've pretty much told the states to knock it the **** off.



You aren't straightened out, you are desperately trying to rationalize your own homophobia. Did you know that there have been scientific studies proving that homophobes are in fact latent homosexuals?

Progressive democrats disagree that the protection of marriage act will do as you say Joe. Are they stupid Joe.

I’ve demonstrated that Marriage Law, post obergfell is overly broad by the inclusion of an act, only some within its coverage are burdened with Joe. Making it bad, Ill conceived (pardon the pun) law.

Why, in the world would the state have a compelling interest in not sanctioning incestuously produced offspring by same sex couples?

And now Joe wants corporations creating Laws? Big corporations embraced slavery and child labor in the past Joe. How’d that work out. Hmmmm, and Joe, how’d that embrace work for Disney?

 

[JoeB131]

Progressive democrats disagree that the protection of marriage act will do as you say Joe. Are they stupid Joe.

I’ve demonstrated that Marriage Law, post obergfell is overly broad by the inclusion of an act, only some within its coverage are burdened with Joe. Making it bad, Ill conceived (pardon the pun) law.

Uh, guy, nobody has overturned Obergefell...or Loving... and this law makes it less likely they can.

Why, in the world would the state have a compelling interest in not sanctioning incestuously produced offspring by same sex couples?

Um, what? Okay, now you are going off the rails with your bigotry. Incest is illegal, homosexuality is not.

And now Joe wants corporations creating Laws? Big corporations embraced slavery and child labor in the past Joe. How’d that work out. Hmmmm, and Joe, how’d that embrace work for Disney?

Reasonably well. Disney is still out there. Disney's problem isn't inclusion, it's that they are making bad product from beloved IP's like Star Wars.

 

[HeyNorm]

Uh, guy, nobody has overturned Obergefell...or Loving... and this law makes it less likely they can.



Um, what? Okay, now you are going off the rails with your bigotry. Incest is illegal, homosexuality is not.



Reasonably well. Disney is still out there. Disney's problem isn't inclusion, it's that they are making bad product from beloved IP's like Star Wars.

Yep, you just illustrated perfectly how the law is overly broad.

So what is the compelling state interest in denying two straight closely related people from the institution of marriage?

Appreciate that Joe.

 

[JoeB131]

Yep, you just illustrated perfectly how the law is overly broad.

I never said it wasn't. It's meant to be overly broad, It's meant to prevent the bigots from finding any back door to sneak their bigotry in through.

 

[Redfish]

It is.

really? where are the gay dogs, cats, horses, cows, deer, rabbits, and bears? you may see short episodes of same sex contact in other mammals but only humans pretend that is a lifelong condition over which they have no control. In humans it seems to be a mental aberration, not a normal condition.

 

[Redfish]

Do you not deny them the right to marry for love and romantic/sexual attra

yes, mentally ill people should be able to make a commitment to another mentally ill person.

 

[Redfish]

I called you out. I nailed you . Gay people are human beings. They have the same rights as everyone else. No one believes your lies or buys into your duplicitous con games. That is reality.

The only question is, do you believe your own bullshit or are you just a con artist who is not very god at it. If the former, you're psychotic. If that latter your a not so bright sociopath

yes, and bi polar people have the same rights as all others. any form of mental illness does not remove rights guaranteed by the constitution.

maybe you should try a muslim country where gays are thrown off roof tops. The USA is the only country that shows complete tolerance to your aberrant behavior.

 

[Redfish]

You can believe that if you want. Hey, consider this. God might not be a bigot. You might be in for an unpleasant surprise someday when you stand before her.

by the way, progressive patriot is an oxymoron. you cannot be both.

 

[HeyNorm]

I never said it wasn't. It's meant to be overly broad, It's meant to prevent the bigots from finding any back door to sneak their bigotry in through.

Can you identify this bigotry? Who? I treat straight, gay, male and female equally, regardless of race, acknowledging that only opposite sex, closely related couples can create defective bloodlines that the government should not sanction.

 

[HeyNorm]

JoeB131

It appears your most compelling argument is that marriage, in and of itself, no longer needs to exist.

You argue that the law, which at its conception, was to stop incestuous relationships from creating defective bloodlines, stop shotgun weddings, and eliminate marriage to individuals too young to give proper consent, is moot, because all of the above is illegal anyway.

Interesting, I will have to give that some thought.

I wonder though, how that would play with public opinion.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

"“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.

You lie! Where are these couples? They are in every shit hole red state, thats where. Same sex couples are more at risk, only because it is more aceptable to shit on gay people than on racial minorities ( unless they are immigrants) Racial discrimination, while still ramped, is somewhat less acceptable

If obergefell were to be overturned without the Respect for Marriage Act in place this is what would happen

1. Same sex marriage would quickly be halted in at least a dozen states
2. Same sex couples already married in those states could face having their marriages invalidated
3. Gay couples living in those states would NOT be able to go to another state to get married and then have that marriage recognized in their home state (because of the defense of marriage act that is still on the books, but unenforceable because of Obergefell)
4. The Federal government would no longer recognize same sex marriages for the purpose of federal benefits in states that still permit them (Also because of the defense of marriage act )

The Respect for Marriage Act would:
1)Protect existing marriages in all states although it does not compell states to issue new licenses
2)Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act allowing the Federal Govenment to continue to provide benefits to married same sex couples where allowed
3) Compell shit hole red states that ban same sex marriages to honor marriages that tale place in states that allow it

As for as interracial marriage goes, I am willing to bet that if gay marriage goes down, interracial marriage will be next

Now where is the duplicity?

 

[emilynghiem]

does equal protection language apply to mentally ill people who want to walk free on our streets? Does it apply to drug dealers who are poisoning the youth of america? Yes, those people should have access to a trial before being prosecuted but my analogy remains valid. Equal protection only applies as determined by the citizens to be in the overall best interests.

Personally I have no issue with gay unions, but I will never understand why you libs insist on calling them marriages. A marriage is the union of one man and one woman, nothing else. Some of your fellow libs on the west coast are ;pushing for multiple person "marriages" and person/dog marriages and person/sex doll marriages. Where does this shit end?

you claim that same sex marriage would prevail in most states, then why are you scared of letting the voters of each state make that decision?

The same reason gun rights activists don't trust state govt to make laws affecting those rights.

 

[emilynghiem]

Facts do not seem to have any effect on you. You also seem devoid of all human emotions or any capacity for empathy. The drivel is all yours

Dear TheProgressivePatriot and HeyNorm
1. I don't find many people on both left and right who can sympathize with the other side in wanting to defend their beliefs "treated equally as their own beliefs". Most people are conditioned politically to fight to defend their OWN creed beliefs and interests, even using Govt to endorse and impose that, but HATE when govt is abused to impose the OTHER side's beliefs and policies that violate their own rights beliefs and protections.

2. With rightwing Christians and Conservatives: Many cannot distinguish the BELIEFS in right to life, personhood beginning at conception, or Constitutionalism as a belief system as a CHOICE of belief that govt cannot force on others. Most believe "that is just the truth" and these rights are natural and not a choice.

3. With liberals, the inability to distinguish discriminating "against PEOPLE based on LGBT identity" versus "refusing a type of SERVICE, speech or activity" shows a similar ideological bias and belief. Similar to believing "right to health care" is a natural right for everyone. Or believing that public tax dollars can be voted on to pay for abortions, LGBT education in schools, etc even if the tax money comes from citizens who don't believe govt has authority to establish such faith based policies or force nonbelievers to pay for that through govt.

all these biases in ideology come across to the opponents as unreasonable and lacking respect.

But people cannot help having these beliefs. Like people cannot help if they are Atheist or believe in God and cannot be forced by Govt to change their beliefs.

Why not and when can we address political beliefs ideology and creed, and give the same respect and protections that we would not to harass Christians or Buddhists or Muslims for their beliefs?

How can we ask Govt to protect people of different beliefs from imposition or infringement by other groups. If we are still in the business of bashing and attacking each other for different beliefs?

 

[JoeB131]

Can you identify this bigotry? Who? I treat straight, gay, male and female equally, regardless of race, acknowledging that only opposite sex, closely related couples can create defective bloodlines that the government should not sanction.

You, sir, are a bigot. You want to keep gay people from getting married to the people they care about.

Give me a compelling reason why gay people shouldn't be able to marry.

It appears your most compelling argument is that marriage, in and of itself, no longer needs to exist.

Nope, didn't argue that...

You argue that the law, which at its conception, was to stop incestuous relationships from creating defective bloodlines, stop shotgun weddings, and eliminate marriage to individuals too young to give proper consent, is moot, because all of the above is illegal anyway.

Nope, never argued anything of the sort.

Interesting, I will have to give that some thought.

You'd need a ******* brain to do that.