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

[Seymour Flops]

I have already made it clear that is not what I believe. And we were doing so well.

Then you started lying again.

Of course you believe that the XIV protects what you would like it to protect. You've offered no other guiding principle for what it protects or what it doesn't. Instead you just take individual example as arbitrarily say it protects this, but not that.

Not completely your fault, because the XIV was written in flawed manner such that it is difficult to find a guiding principle.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No, I didn't say that. I said the federal courts can hear, and rule on a case of 14th ammendment violation, but the federal government (congress, senate) shouldn't be making laws governing marriages.

Well it is still a contradiction. The Federal Courts as well as Congress are part of the federal government. You'll have to explain why one branch of the federal gove has juridiction and another does not.

You might know that the Defense of Marriage that was passed in 1996, in part said that states that banned same sex marriage need not honor marriages under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. ( as well as to bar the federal governmentfrom reccognisingsame sex marriages ) That act. however, was rendered unenforcable by the Windsior and Obergefell rulings

Currently, the Respect for Marriage act is pending in congress. It would fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and require states that, in the future might ban same sex marriages, to honor marriages from other states. However, it stops short of requiring states to issue same sex marriage licenses, which, arguably might be out of bounds

Congress could also introduce a Constitutional Amendment to full protect same sex marriage. So while congres may be limited in terms of what they can do and how they can do it, but it is incorrect to say that it is powerless to do anything

 

[ThisIsMe]

Well it is still a contradiction. The Federal Courts as well as Congress are part of the federal government. You'll have to explain why one branch of the federal gove has juridiction and another does not.

You might know that the Defense of Marriage that was passed in 1996, in part said that states that banned same sex marriage need not honor marriages under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. ( as well as to bar the federal governmentfrom reccognisingsame sex marriages ) That act. however, was rendered unenforcable by the Windsior and Obergefell rulings

Currently, the Respect for Marriage act is pending in congress. It would fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and require states that, in the future might ban same sex marriages, to honor marriages from other states. However, it stops short of requiring states to issue same sex marriage licenses, which, arguably might be out of bounds

Congress could also introduce a Constitutional Amendment to full protect same sex marriage. So while congres may be limited in terms of what they can do and how they can do it, but it is incorrect to say that it is powerless to do anything

Not to dredge this up, but you know who signed DOMA, right?

Anyway, I don't find it a contradiction,the issue I have with federal courts ruling on things like obergefell is not that they upheld the 14th ammendment, it's that, as in with roe, the left took it to mean that it was law (many people state that roe is settled law, but it wasn't a law). Courts don't create law, they only interpret existing law.

I also disagree with federal government (legislators) codifying into law, as it's not a function designated by the constitution (as with a lot of things they do). It's a states rights issue first, and if states violate constitutional rights, then the federal courts have power to enforce the constitution.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Not to dredge this up, but you know who signed DOMA, right?

Yes I do. BUT, do you know why?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Anyway, I don't find it a contradiction,the issue I have with federal courts ruling on things like obergefell is not that they upheld the 14th ammendment, it's that, as in with roe, the left took it to mean that it was law (many people state that roe is settled law, but it wasn't a law). Courts don't create law, they only interpret existing law.

Yes the courts interpret existing law. And the interpre the constitution, and then apply that interpretation to existing law as they did in Obergefell and quite a few other matter on marrige such as Loving v. Virginia

"Settled law referrs to binding precidents such as Obergefell and Roe. For most of the courts history, the principle of stare decisis respect for and deference those rulings but this court has shown a popensity to disregard that tradition. And it is not only "the left" that believes that the court has run off the rails

But "settled law" in that regard is not legislation and no new laws were written by the court. "Law in the broad sense if far more than legislation If you think that they were please explain. In the case of same sex marriage they simply invalidated existing state laws. So please tell the class, when you say that the federal court can only interpret the law, how , if at all, can they apply that interpretation to existing law to bring it into compliance with the constitution? To put it differently, what recourse do plaintiffs have in cases such as Obergefell if the Federals Courts cannot go beyond interpretation of the law, but have no way of enforcing it?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I also disagree with federal government (legislators) codifying into law, as it's not a function designated by the constitution (as with a lot of things they do). It's a states rights issue first, and if states violate constitutional rights, then the federal courts have power to enforce the constitution.

Then you should support the Respect for Marriage Act which I described earlier because, what it basically does is repeal the so called Defense of Marriage Act and clears the way for the Full Faith and Credit clause to take effect with respect to gay marriage.

After all of this, I am not clear as to where you stand on gay marriage. Are you just a wannabee legal wonk who supports it but just wants it to happen in what you consider the "right way"? Or it this your way of trying to undermine gay marriage without admitting that you are against it?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Yes I do. BUT, do you know why?

To save his political ass.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

To save his political ass

It's a little more complicated than that.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It's a little more complicated than that.

The excuses are but not the reality.

What's your excuse for his behavior with Monica? Using her for a cum dump to keep a worse guy from using her more cruelly?

Because that's what your excuse for his signing DOMA sounds like.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yes I do. BUT, do you know why?

Doesn't matter why. Did he sign it?

Yes I do. BUT, do you know why?

Because there was a movement for a constitutional ammendment. So, rather than letting that play out in the courts, and testing whether or not they could have gotten 2/3 of the house and senate, and 3/4 of the states to ratify such an ammendment, he jumped the gun and just enacted it himself.

Did clinton actually believe that it could have been made a cotus ammendment? Surely not. Even if it passed house and senate, you would have never had 3/4 of the states to ratify it.

It seems he also wasn't keen on marriage being decided by Congress, granted for different reasons.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yes the courts interpret existing law. And the interpre the constitution, and then apply that interpretation to existing law as they did in Obergefell and quite a few other matter on marrige such as Loving v. Virginia

"Settled law referrs to binding precidents such as Obergefell and Roe. For most of the courts history, the principle of stare decisis respect for and deference those rulings but this court has shown a popensity to disregard that tradition. And it is not only "the left" that believes that the court has run off the rails

But "settled law" in that regard is not legislation and no new laws were written by the court. "Law in the broad sense if far more than legislation If you think that they were please explain. In the case of same sex marriage they simply invalidated existing state laws. So please tell the class, when you say that the federal court can only interpret the law, how , if at all, can they apply that interpretation to existing law to bring it into compliance with the constitution? To put it differently, what recourse do plaintiffs have in cases such as Obergefell if the Federals Courts cannot go beyond interpretation of the law, but have no way of enforcing it?

Plantiffs have recourse in courts for 14th A violations. A law is not needed to do this. If a state tries to ban gay marriage the federal courts can strike them down in thr basis of the 14th.

By the way, are there actually any states left that have outright bans on gay marriage? I thought they all pretty much were recognizing them anyway.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Then you should support the Respect for Marriage Act which I described earlier because, what it basically does is repeal the so called Defense of Marriage Act and clears the way for the Full Faith and Credit clause to take effect with respect to gay marriage.

After all of this, I am not clear as to where you stand on gay marriage. Are you just a wannabee legal wonk who supports it but just wants it to happen in what you consider the "right way"? Or it this your way of trying to undermine gay marriage without admitting that you are against it?

From a religious perspective, gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, believe the government or a state has a right to deny gay marriage based on religious reasons. Not everyone is religious, nor do they worship the same religions, so the gov nor a state should be able to apply that religious standard to them.

I also don't think the gov should be able to make laws regarding gay marriage. I'll explain in a little bit. Gott go!..

 

[DudleySmith]

The term 'gay' isn't correct; the terms homosexual fetishists or faggots is the correct term. They wouldn't use euphemisms if they truly thought their sicko neurosis was a good thing.

 

[DudleySmith]

From a religious perspective, gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, believe the government or a state has a right to deny gay marriage based on religious reasons. Not everyone is religious, nor do they worship the same religions, so the gov nor a state should be able to apply that religious standard to them.

I also don't think the gov should be able to make laws regarding gay marriage. I'll explain in a little bit. Gott go!..

Doesn't have shit to do with religion; that's just a strawman mentally ill deviants dreamed up. The Christian organizations were very tolerant of sicko faggots, and all it got them a lot of molested boys and bankruptcy from lawsuits from the faggots' victims. We can see the infestations in our schools now, with faggots earnestly promoting sexual mutilations to 6 year olds.

Screw 'libertoons' and their stupid absolutist NAMBLA Logic. They're part of the problem, not a solution.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Then you should support the Respect for Marriage Act which I described earlier because, what it basically does is repeal the so called Defense of Marriage Act and clears the way for the Full Faith and Credit clause to take effect with respect to gay marriage.

After all of this, I am not clear as to where you stand on gay marriage. Are you just a wannabee legal wonk who supports it but just wants it to happen in what you consider the "right way"? Or it this your way of trying to undermine gay marriage without admitting that you are against it?

So, the problem with making anything a law is that laws mean it can be regulated. What one hand giveth, one taketh away.

An example of why I wouldn't want to see gay marriage codified into law is because you'd see religious freedom destroyed over night. Every liberal gay person with an axe to grind would be going into bakeries and other businesses across the country,.or they would be applying to church leadership positions, knowing that for religious reasons, they couldn't grant these people their wishes. Many of them would be legitimate, many others would just be for spite, to see if they could get a lawsuit against then, in an attempt to ruin them.

If someone walks into a kosher deli and requests a ham and bacon sub, if the deli says they can't prepare that kind of food because of their laws, nobody is going to bat an eye at that. Same with a butcher ran by Muslims. Nobody is going to make an issue out of that because people understand. Hey, it's a religious thing...move along. But when it comes to Christian beliefs against gay marriage, we'll now we have to make a big deal over it, because they think it's "hate"! They won't even entertain the religious liberty aspect of it, or maybe they do but just don't care. Some of them are like "we have to GET those Christian people because they don't agree with us, and we're going to force OUR lives onto them!".

For the same reason a kosher deli, or a muslim butcher wont handle foods that biolate their laws are the same reasons christian businesses wont participate in gay weddings.

if you make gay marriage a law, then religious freedom will be gone.

Now,.i know you're going to say "well, businesses and churches shouldn't discriminate". I don't see thus as discrimination. Firstly, you have to get rid of this notion that Christians do these things out of hate. In some cases, sure, that happens, but in others, it's really about their beliefs. Many of these Christians don't hate gay people, they just don't agree with their lifestyle.

If you make a law on it, then it means everyone, regsrdless of their own civil rights, has to abide by it, you open up the possibility for people being sued for breaking the law, and it will likely lead to these people being charged with hate crimes.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Doesn't matter why. Did he sign it?

Because there was a movement for a constitutional ammendment. So, rather than letting that play out in the courts, and testing whether or not they could have gotten 2/3 of the house and senate, and 3/4 of the states to ratify such an ammendment, he jumped the gun and just enacted it himself.

Lamest excuse I ever heard. If true it would be worse than if his fanboys just admitted that he did it to save his political ass. You think it is a coincidence that the Repubs sent it to him less than two monthis before his re-election vote? He signed it because his campaign pollsters told him to and because he had run on favoring gay rights, but not including same-sex marriage:

While he was pressed for commitments on a range of concerns to the LGBT community, marriage rights were not one of them. The only documented statement Clinton made about the topic was in a brief written response to a Reader’s Digest that questioned whether he agreed that “homosexual couples should have the right to get married.” “I’ve taken a very strong stand against any discrimination against gays and lesbians,” the then-governor of Arkansas responded, “but I don’t favor a law to legalize marriages.”

Had he not signed, Hawaii would have performed same-sex marriages that same-sex couples could have demanded be recognized in other states due to the full faith and credit clause. The court would likely rule correctly that same-sex marriages must be recognized in other states just as states with higher legal ages to marry, states that don't allow first cousin marriages, and states that require blood tests, must recognize marriages from other states. That would have been the correct procedure, not signing an unconsitiutional law that let states out of the full faith and credit clause for one type of marriage only.

Did clinton actually believe that it could have been made a cotus ammendment? Surely not. Even if it passed house and senate, you would have never had 3/4 of the states to ratify it.

It seems he also wasn't keen on marriage being decided by Congress, granted for different reasons.

What he wasn't keen on is letting voters decide the issue. Except that he didn't want to stop them voting for him by vetoing that terrible law.

 

[DudleySmith]

Lamest excuse I ever heard. If true it would be worse than if his fanboys just admitted that he did it to save his political ass. You think it is a coincidence that the Repubs sent it to him less than two monthis before his re-election vote? He signed it because his campaign pollsters told him to and because he had run on favoring gay rights, but not including same-sex marriage:

While he was pressed for commitments on a range of concerns to the LGBT community, marriage rights were not one of them. The only documented statement Clinton made about the topic was in a brief written response to a Reader’s Digest that questioned whether he agreed that “homosexual couples should have the right to get married.” “I’ve taken a very strong stand against any discrimination against gays and lesbians,” the then-governor of Arkansas responded, “but I don’t favor a law to legalize marriages.”

Had he not signed, Hawaii would have performed same-sex marriages that same-sex couples could have demanded be recognized in other states due to the full faith and credit clause. The court would likely rule correctly that same-sex marriages must be recognized in other states just as states with higher legal ages to marry, states that don't allow first cousin marriages, and states that require blood tests, must recognize marriages from other states. That would have been the correct procedure, not signing an unconsitiutional law that let states out of the full faith and credit clause for one type of marriage only.


What he wasn't keen on is letting voters decide the issue. Except that he didn't want to stop them voting for him by vetoing that terrible law.

lol Clinton was forced to deny faggots NGO status at the UN because one of the ILGA's proud founding member organizations was NAMBLA, the kiddie raper gang. Your silly attempts at normalizing ****** neuroses isn't original nor even remotely true. Faggots wanted 'marriages' so they could milk health insurance bennies from their 'spouses' employee benefits, and that's it; they could care less about 'marriage', but they do like the added bonus of getting to adopt kids and warp them into perverts, too. Your babbling about 'unconstitutional' is just idiot dimwittery.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

lol Clinton was forced to deny faggots NGO status at the UN because one of the ILGA's proud founding member organizations was NAMBLA, the kiddie raper gang. Your silly attempts at normalizing ****** neuroses isn't original nor even remotely true. Faggots wanted 'marriages' so they could milk health insurance bennies from their 'spouses' employee benefits, and that's it; they could care less about 'marriage', but they do like the added bonus of getting to adopt kids and warp them into perverts, too. Your babbling about 'unconstitutional' is just idiot dimwittery.

Look at the Afghan tradition of bacha bāzī. Boys forced to dress and dance effeminately, and to be sexually abused by older men.

What do you suppose the motive is, here in the U.S., behind grooming boys to think their are girls, while teaching them about homosexuality? What do you think the real desire is, of every man who supports this shit? What do you really think the motive is for ****** couples adopting children, especially boys?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

From a religious perspective, gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, believe the government or a state has a right to deny gay marriage based on religious reasons. Not everyone is religious, nor do they worship the same religions, so the gov nor a state should be able to apply that religious standard to them.

A brief glimmer of sensability

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I also don't think the gov should be able to make laws regarding gay marriage. I'll explain in a little bit. Gott go!..

Can I assume that includes all of laws and referendums passed by the states that said marriage in between a man and a woman?