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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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?

Once again, states rights are not absolute . Powers reserved to the states must be exercised in accordance with the rights of thye individuals that are effected by what the state does. You can't keep emphasising the 10th amendment and pretend that the 14th does not matter. The 14th requires the states to provide equal protection under the law and due process.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

States need to be constrained as well...by the federal courts

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

nd 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.

We do not love majority rule when it comes to civil rights. We love the rules of law

 

[ThisIsMe]

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.

Again, my statement want specifically about gay marriage vs gun rights, it was about believing that scotus has the power to create rights and laws governing abortion, forcing states to allow abortions, but then saying scotus doesn't have the power to say that no state can deny a citizen its right to bear arms. It's a double standard.

a law limiting where and how you can carry a gun applies equally to everyone

But the constitution says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If a state denies a citizen the right to carry a firearm, then his right is being infringed. Your argument that scotus has the power to create abortion laws that force states to allow abortions would also mean that scotus has the power to force states to allow nationwide reciprocity.

second Amendment which says nothing about the right to bring a gun accross state lines.

Again, "shall not be infringed". If a state says I can't bear arms, then they are infringing on a constitutional right.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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

Yes, I agree with the 14th ammendment protection of gay marriage, but I also agree with Cruz that the government has no place to make laws governing marriage. If a state denies someone the right to marriage, then they can sue the state for equal protection violations, but I don't think the federal governments role is to create a law stating gay marriage is legal, because there are no laws against it, at least to my knowledge. I dinr believe there are any laws on the books specifically stating hetero marriage is legal either. Its just assumed. Its just not the federal governments job. Just like I don't think the federal government has the right to codify abortion into law. It's just not their responsibility.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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

Yes, but states have often thumbed their noses at the constitution as they did with bans on gay marriage.

.

And those states should have been sued for equal rights violation, and the federal government could have made sure that states were following the constitution, but that could have all been solved without the federal creating a law for a protection that already exists.

No rights or powers deligated to the states or the people are absolute

Actually, I think they are. I generally stick to a literal interpretation of the cotus. I think powers delegated to the federal government are absolute, everything not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people, which are also absolute.

 

[ThisIsMe]

States need to be constrained as well...by the federal courts

Only as far as if a state is violating the rights of the people or not following cotus, then i think it's the duty of the federal government to step in and make sure equal protections are being adhered to. Beyond that, the federal government needs to remain neutral.

 

[ThisIsMe]

We do not love majority rule when it comes to civil rights. We love the rules of law

I meant majority rule when it comes to voting.

 

[AsherN]

Yes, I agree with the 14th ammendment protection of gay marriage, but I also agree with Cruz that the government has no place to make laws governing marriage. If a state denies someone the right to marriage, then they can sue the state for equal protection violations, but I don't think the federal governments role is to create a law stating gay marriage is legal, because there are no laws against it, at least to my knowledge. I dinr believe there are any laws on the books specifically stating hetero marriage is legal either. Its just assumed. Its just not the federal governments job. Just like I don't think the federal government has the right to codify abortion into law. It's just not their responsibility.

You are pretty much describing what's already happened. All the way to the USSC. And they declared State laws that banned same-sex marriages unconstitutional.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Once again, states rights are not absolute . Powers reserved to the states must be exercised in accordance with the rights of thye individuals that are effected by what the state does. You can't keep emphasising the 10th amendment and pretend that the 14th does not matter. The 14th requires the states to provide equal protection under the law and due process.

I'm not disagreeing with that. States must adhere to the 14th ammendment because it's spelled out in cotus. Federal government must adhere to the 10th ammendment for the same reason.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You are pretty much describing what's already happened. All the way to the USSC. And they declared State laws that banned same-sex marriages unconstitutional.

Because it would violate their 14th ammendment rights. I agree with this. I'm not advocating states be allowed to ban gay marriage, I'm saying the federal government has no right creating laws regulating marriage, especially since there are already protections in place for it.

 

[AsherN]

Because it would violate their 14th ammendment rights. I agree with this. I'm not advocating states be allowed to ban gay marriage, I'm saying the federal government has no right creating laws regulating marriage, especially since there are already protections in place for it.

If States keep trying to undermine same-sex marriage, then a Federal law would be required. The federal gov has "skin in the game" as a number of tax and legal benefits are confered to married couples from the Feds.

 

[San Souci]

The issue is Congress will try to pass a law making it illegal nationwide

Good. Should also bring back all VICE laws.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Once again, states rights are not absolute . Powers reserved to the states must be exercised in accordance with the rights of thye individuals that are effected by what the state does. You can't keep emphasising the 10th amendment and pretend that the 14th does not matter. The 14th requires the states to provide equal protection under the law and due process.

To whom?

Seriously, to whom does the 14th apply, and for what issues?

Does it apply to a deadbeat dad applying for a concealed carry permit? A non-citizen going to the voting place? A man wanting to be on the women's volleyball team? A defenseless child in the womb? Remember the relevant part says "any person," not "whoever TheProgressivePatriot decides deserves equal protection on certain issues."

Your answer to those question will be something along the lines of "that's different." It sure is. So is same-sex marriage. So is everything. You can either say "differences matter when applying the XIV," or "differences don't matter when applying the XIV."

What you want do say doesn't work. You want to say "Fourteenth amendment so I win!"

 

[ThisIsMe]

If States keep trying to undermine same-sex marriage, then a Federal law would be required. The federal gov has "skin in the game" as a number of tax and legal benefits are confered to married couples from the Feds.

No, federal law wouldn't be required, federal enforcement of the 14th ammendment would. Again, this is what the 14th ammendment is for. It was put into cotus for things like this.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Does it apply to a deadbeat dad applying for a concealed carry permit?

Possibly. If the deadbeat claimed discrinination and if the state could not articulate a compelling government interest in denying the permit, then it could be a case of discrination. There was a SCOTUS case a while back where a state law prohibited men from remarrying if they owed child support. It was shot down. The state can't do that.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A non-citizen going to the voting place?

No it does not apply. No non citizens can vote. It is not discrimination

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A man wanting to be on the women's volleyball team?

There are no men on womens teams. Transwomen are women. To ban then is discrimination

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A defenseless child in the womb?

Now you are really reaching! A clump of cells is not a child

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So is everything. You can either say "differences matter when applying the XIV," or "differences don't matter when applying the XIV."

What you want do say doesn't work. You want to say "Fourteenth amendment so I win!"

You are sure twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to make me into some sort of hypocrite while trying to justify your opposition to Obergefell. Not working . All that you have done is, out of deparation, employed a logical fallacy....my favorite actually A Tu quoque.

Appeal to Hypocrisy This is also known as Tu quoque. This is the fallacy where what one person says something that appears out of character according to another person's view of him, therefore it is rejected by that other person.

Logical fallacy: Appeal to Hypocrisy - firmitas.org​

firmitas.org/logic-tuquoque.php