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

Thanks for the vocabulary lesson. My bad. You know what I mean so stop trying to avoid it
Actually, I've heard of originalism, but not "textualism." I'm sure it is a thing, but all this constitutional analyis and pigeonholing of people into such categories is usually an excuse to pretend that the constitution says something that it does not say. I'd be happy to see you in your own words explain what you mean by textualism, so I know how you perceive my position.

Whatever your perception, the constitution leaves marriage to states.

I will agree with one thing, though probably not in the way you mean it: The equal protection clause does not specify race. It specifies nothing, except "any person."

Section 1​

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You could read anything you want into "equal protection," and who it applies to, which is why it is a deeply flawed amendment. For example, a pro-lifer could say that "any person," certainly includes unborn persons. Using exact words, it does. But, in its historical context, abortion was legal and not very controversial at the time, so clearly the authors did not mean unborn persons.

Just as they clearly did not mean that states have to allow sibling marriage, plural marriage, or same-sex marriage.

The Flawed Fourteenth does mention race in the next section:

Section 2​

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Shameful, truly shameful.
 
It was a rational tactive decision in the context of the times
I'm sorry, did you mean "tactical?" Are you typing this on your phone? I make my share of errors, but yours make it nearly impossible to understand your points.

If you did mean tactical, the Ted Cruz is doing exactly the same.

Do you see some moral difference between Obama and Clinton opposing gay marriage for tactical reasons, and Ted Cruz doing the same?

Or are you going to tell me that Cruz is going against his voters by opposing same sex marriage?
 
Really. ? You might want to start by comparing and contrasting the issue of gun rights to civil rights. And then there was that bit about "forcing states to perform abortions" Are you fucking serious?
My comparison is not about gun rights vs civil rights, but about the Lefts willingness to use the constitution and scotus to push one set of rights, but ignore cotus when it comes to other things. I'm measly saying if you believe in the 14th, and the scotus, as a way to argue your stance, then you must also agree that those same principles apply to other things, such as freely carrying a weapon across state lines.

For the record, I agree with you, the 14th ammendment does apply here. Gay marriages are protected under the 14th, but, I also think that Cruz was right in that it's not the federal governments job to create laws on marriage. All they can do is make sure that people's rights are not being violated


And yes, I'm serious. What roe did was tell states that they had to allow abortions. Forcing states to perform medical procedures is not the scope of scotus. All they should have done is said that people have a right to privacy with their doctor, which is essentially what they did, but somehow it went from that to being a "constitutional right".

The left was all too happy to allow scotus that kind of leeway, which is why I asked the question, if you agree that scotus makes a ruling that says abortion is a constitutionally protected right, and thus states have to allow them, then you should also agree that if scotus said that "shall not be infringed" means that citizens will have national carry reciprocity, then you should be for that too.
 
Why should they have to when the constitution is supposed to protect everyone equally?
His point was, giving states back as much power as possible. If we are to adhere to the constitution, then does it not say that the there are certain things that we designate the federal government to do, the rest is reserved to the states and then the people?

My point was, how can that be wrong? The constitution protects everyone equally insomuch as the power and responsibility that we designate to the federal government allows, but if we grant the federal government unlimited power, and the ability to do things outside of the scope originally designated to it, eventually it goes into roles it was never meant to, and that's where disagreement comes. One side wants the federal government to do this, and the other side wants it to do that, and neither side likes what it is doing. That is a problem that we created by allowing the government to exceed its authority.

Keeping the government small and constrained, and only allowing it to do what it's supposed to do, and let the states have control over the rest means that you are only affected by the policies your state enacts.

And your next question is "how do we keep states from enacting laws that violate our rights". My answer to that is, if it's something the constitution designates to the federal government, then they step in, if not, then the state is the first place where majority rules is viable, and since the left loves majority rules, they should be in favor of this. It's up to the people of that state to make their voices heard to their local and state government, and vote out the people if they are not doing what the people want. This also means that politicians from across the country are not having a voice in what goes on in your state, unless it is a constitutionally designated function of the federal government.

That's all I'm saying.
 
It's hard to understand that any hatred exists towards people of different races or orientation in the year 2022. Move on folks. Someone else explain how people can be so naive.
 
its amazing how many on the left have misquoted or misunderstood what Cruz said. All he said is that gay marriage is not a federal constitutional issue and therefore the SC should not have ruled on it. It should be decided by the voters of each state. There is no rule or law that says all states must have the same laws. Fear not dems, Cal and NY will continue to allow your perversions, and in fact encourage them.
 
I'm sorry, did you mean "tactical?" Are you typing this on your phone? I make my share of errors, but yours make it nearly impossible to understand your points.

If you did mean tactical, the Ted Cruz is doing exactly the same.

Do you see some moral difference between Obama and Clinton opposing gay marriage for tactical reasons, and Ted Cruz doing the same?

Or are you going to tell me that Cruz is going against his voters by opposing same sex marriage?
Yes I meant tactical. As far as Cruz vs Clinton / Obama goes , there is a big moral difference. While Clinton and Obama voiced opposition to samesex marriage, Cruz introduced a radicial anti LGBT constitutional amendment


So do not try to tell me that what Cruz says is just for political survival
 
Yes I meant tactical. As far as Cruz vs Clinton / Obama goes , there is a big moral difference. While Clinton and Obama voiced opposition to samesex marriage, Cruz introduced a radicial anti LGBT constitutional amendment


So do not try to tell me that what Cruz says is just for political survival
Quote the most radical anti LBGT part of Cruz proposed amendment. But first explain why the DOMA isn't anti-LGBT.
 
Quote the most radical anti LBGT part of Cruz proposed amendment. But first explain why the DOMA isn't anti-LGBT.
Of course TheProgressivePatriot posts an article with a description of Cruz' supposed amendment and no quotes from it.

Just based on that description it is the same as Clinto and Obama's DOMA.

If Dems had no double standards, they'd have no standards at all.
 
Quote the most radical anti LBGT part of Cruz proposed amendment.
"Cruz’s bills as reported by Bloomberg “would establish a constitutional amendment shielding states that define marriage as between one woman and one man from legal action” and “bar federal courts from further weighing in on the marriage issue until such an amendment is adopted.”

I know that you don't have a problem with that being all in on states rights and pretending that the 14th Amendment does not exist, but this is pretty hateful shit. But the main pont is that it shows that he is different -and his motives are different that Clinton and Obama
 
Last edited:
My comparison is not about gun rights vs civil rights, but about the Lefts willingness to use the constitution and scotus to push one set of rights, but ignore cotus when it comes to other things. I'm measly saying if you believe in the 14th, and the scotus, as a way to argue your stance, then you must also agree that those same principles apply to other things, such as freely carrying a weapon across state lines.
The problem with that argument is obvious, or atleast should be. Same sex marriage was decided on the equal protect under the law clause and due process clause of the 14th Amendment . Simply put, gay people were not afforded equal protection under the law because marriage for heterosexual couples was treated as a right while gays were denied that opportunity. In short it was discrimination. Gays were denied due process until the federal courts interviened.

Guns are not a 14 amendment issue because, unlike same sex marriage, a law limiting where and how you can carry a gun applies equally to everyone. There is no discrimination or issue of unequal protection under the law. In addition, gun advocates have had ample access to due process in the courts at all levels. The courts and law makers must ballance public safet against the vague meaning of the second Amendment which says nothing about the right to bring a gun accross state lines.

In conclusion, yiu have fallen back on a false equivalency logical fallacy rather than actually arguing you point on its merits.
 
For the record, I agree with you, the 14th ammendment does apply here. Gay marriages are protected under the 14th, but, I also think that Cruz was right in that it's not the federal governments job to create laws on marriage. All they can do is make sure that people's rights are not being violated
Wait!! What? What a glaring contadiction...! The 14 applies and gay marriage is protected by it BUT you agree with Cruz??? For the record, the federal government did not "create a law" The federal court determind that state laws banning gay marriage were unconstitutional. So yes , as YOU said made sure that people's rights are not being violated
 
"Cruz’s bills as reported by Bloomberg “would establish a constitutional amendment shielding states that define marriage as between one woman and one man from legal action” and “bar federal courts from further weighing in on the marriage issue until such an amendment is adopted.”
I actually asked you to quote from the proposed amendment, not Bloomberg's interpretation of it. If you are going to link to a source that is paywalled, and expect me to read it, I'll have to ask you to paypal me the money. It's [email protected].

Since you did not quote the proposed amendment, I assume there is nothing more "hateful" in the bill than that, or you would have quoted it. For the sake of argument, since you don't know how to back up a claim, let's pretend Bloomberg got it right.

How is that more hateful than DOMA which Clinton gleefully signed and Obama fully supported? Section 3 reads as follows:

1664485654781.png



This was not some sneakly language that they fooled poor Bill and unwitting Barack into signing and supporting. It is the definition of marriage that they campaigned on, same as Ted Cruz does.

I know that you don't have a problem with that being all in on states rights and pretending that the 14th Amendment does not exist, but this is pretty hateful shit. But the main pont is that it shows that he is different -and his motives are different that Clinton and Obama
It doesn't show that his motives are different. If you want to argue that Clinton and Obama really actually supported gay marriage all along, but voted to prevent it in order to get elected, I'd say that makes them much worse than Cruz, who is acting from his actual beliefs.

Cruz really believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman and he really believes that states should decide on marriage laws. Or at least he has been consistent in saying so.

Obama and Clinton threw gays under the bus to get elected, what makes you think they wouldn't throw them in a gas chamber to get elected?
 
Common on Seymour!! Stop with the straw man logical fallacy bullshit! I never said that it was not anti LGBT> I said that there were reasons for it-to ward off more draconian anti LGBT actions
That's too absurd to even argue. Clinton and Obama acted hatefully to gays, to keep the Republicans from acting even more hatefully?

Any other issues on which they used that strategy? Abortion for example? Or any example?

But by co-ink-ee-dink, they both used it for gay rights?
 
His point was, giving states back as much power as possible. If we are to adhere to the constitution, then does it not say that the there are certain things that we designate the federal government to do, the rest is reserved to the states and then the people?
Yes, but states have often thumbed their noses at the constitution as they did with bans on gay marriage. In that case the federal courts can and must step in. No rights or powers deligated to the states or the people are absolute
 
That's too absurd to even argue. Clinton and Obama acted hatefully to gays, to keep the Republicans from acting even more hatefully?

Any other issues on which they used that strategy? Abortion for example? Or any example?

But by co-ink-ee-dink, they both used it for gay rights?
Believe what you want Seymour. Or, pretend to believe it. What ever
 
I actually asked you to quote from the proposed amendment, not Bloomberg's interpretation of it. If you are going to link to a source that is paywalled, and expect me to read it, I'll have to ask you to paypal me the money. It's [email protected].

Since you did not quote the proposed amendment, I assume there is nothing more "hateful" in the bill than that, or you would have quoted it. For the sake of argument, since you don't know how to back up a claim, let's pretend Bloomberg got it right.

How is that more hateful than DOMA which Clinton gleefully signed and Obama fully supported? Section 3 reads as follows:
Now I think that you are just trying to be annoying. I documented what Cruz did. Nothing that Obama or Clinton did comes close .Deal with it.
 
its amazing how many on the left have misquoted or misunderstood what Cruz said. All he said is that gay marriage is not a federal constitutional issue and therefore the SC should not have ruled on it. It should be decided by the voters of each state. There is no rule or law that says all states must have the same laws. Fear not dems, Cal and NY will continue to allow your perversions, and in fact encourage them.
There is no misunderstanding on our part." All that he said...." It is bullshit and hateful. Decided by voters? More bullshit! Voters do not get to decide a question of the rights of others. Read Anthony Kennedy's words

 

Forum List

Back
Top