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

[Zincwarrior]

quote the constitutional language that addresses gay marriage and abortion. Show us those words in the constitution.

Where in the Constitution do states have the power to regulate marriage?

 

[Zincwarrior]

once again, why are you libs so scared of letting the voters in each state decide these issues? There is no doubt that Cal, NY and others will vote your way. What exactly are you so scared of?

Gerrymandered state districts that represent no one but the politicians infesting them.

 

[GMCGeneral]

With Christ ... it's our present that is bright ... why are you waiting to enter His kingdom? ... be wise, just because the path is well marked doesn't mean it's easy to follow ... the benches are there to rest, but do not tarry or you might get distracted and be lead off the path ...

Kill your TV ...

Because the Kingdom is the prize at the end of the day. These mortal coils will be shed either through death or rapture.

 

[Polishprince]

Where in the Constitution do states have the power to regulate marriage?

The 10th Amendment

 

[GMCGeneral]

Gerrymandered state districts that represent no one but the politicians infesting them.

So?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A man taking it in the caboose may be a lot of things, but it isn't a "constitutional principle".

Lawren ce v. Texas says that it is

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Theocracy Edward Reaches Around For Tyranny By Majority Whimsy Violations Of Establishment Clause "

* Blind Justice Contemplating Whether To Make Distinctions Between Individuals *

another brain dead lib disagrees, So why doesn't one of you quote the language in the constitution that makes gay marriage and abortion federal constitutional issues that must be decided by the SC rather than the voters in each state?

In this republic , states are not allowed to dictate public policy based on whim .

Negative liberties represent protections , independence and individualism , and are to be equally protected .

Positive liberties represent endowments , dependence and collectivism , and are may not be equally endowed .

The credo of this us republic is e pluribus unum that is based on individualism , where elements of individualism are self ownership with free roam , free association and progeny and self determination with private property and willful intents by contract that relies greatly upon informed consent .

States are to implement policy to protect the negative liberties of individuals based on a necessity for safety and security , and in so far that the negative liberties of one individual entitled to equal protection do not encroach on the negative liberties of other individuals entitled to equal protection .

Citizens must be born and by induction birth is a requirement for equal protection ; a state does not have a legitimate interest in protecting the wright to life of any which is not entitled to equal protection .

The wrights of negative liberty do not need to be enumerate and any intellectual neophyte that does not understand that , and claims otherwise , is a loathsome , despicable , traitorous piece of shit .

Based on negative liberties , two or more individuals may enter into a civil union that is made valid by informed consent , however the issue of marriage is " Which are the entitlements to negative liberties or positive liberties , if any , for the members of the private social civil agreement with respect to the state and with respect to other individuals ? " .

The declaration of independence states that all men are created equal which surreptitiously implies that women are not equal that us 19th amendment clearly exemplifies , and further per son means male and countable by census , hence born .

Classical liberalism views on marriage is that it is a private issue in which the state is without interest to provide positive liberties such as tax breaks or employer insurance .

Given a republic based on individualism , it becomes more difficult to challenge that a state may offer positive liberties for civil unions while making a distinction between the identity of those contract holders .

That is , if a state wishes to grant positive liberties for civil unions between two individuals , the specific identity of the two individual members of the civil union may not be a concern of the state , any more than a state finds it of interest to make a distinction between businesses models such as those selling pornography and those which do not .

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Well, they're going full federalist. Leave everything possible to the states.

Okay. I understand the reasoning, but we're going to see big, big differences going from state to state. The country will no longer be purple, it will be dark red OR dark blue.

E Pluribus Unum is dead. I think that's what they want. It beats trying to secede.

Obergefell was decided under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. There is far more Constitutional support for that decision than there ever was for Roe. In Roe, the Berger Court literally invented a right to privacy in order to justify their ruling.

 

[Mac1958]

Obergefell was decided under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. There is far more Constitutional support for that decision than there ever was for Roe. In Roe, the Berger Court literally invented a right to privacy in order to justify their ruling.

Yeah, good point. I would guess that the Supes, at least Thomas, will be looking for a way, though.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Obergefell was decided under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. There is far more Constitutional support for that decision than there ever was for Roe. In Roe, the Berger Court literally invented a right to privacy in order to justify their ruling.

Wow, have you told the scotus judges this? At least one of them seems to think it's the same error and needs to be corrected in the same way.

And since the Roe decision relied 100% on the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause, I imagine you will have an uphill climb.

 

[Zincwarrior]

The 10th Amendment

No that says non-federal powers are reserved to the states. Where do states get the power to regulate a religious practice? It violates the First on it's face

 

[expat_panama]

Not at all. No need. They do it in broad daylight. The preach it in their churches, and put it in their messaging. It's not a secret. Go anywhere in america that isn't an academic setting full of educated elites. Talk about America and the Constitution and wait 5 minutes.

That simply doesn't compute, please help me out here.

You can't be saying that every single Christian preaches and messages that they "claim dominion over basic ethics and morality". Sure, you could probably find some Christian that might say something like that once in a while but hell I can name Atheists that gleefully murder 50 million Ukranians or 100 million Chinese --it proves nothing.

While we're on the subject. are u trying to allege that the Atheists themselves can rightfully claim dominion over basic ethics and mortality? Like, the Atheists told the ancient Isrealites all about it because Moses and the gang was stuck at 5 and needed a few more to bring the list up to a full Ten Comandments?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You can't be saying that every single Christian...

I'm not. So you can toss that out right now.

are u trying to allege that the Atheists themselves can rightfully claim dominion over basic ethics and mortality

Not at all! I am saying these things should be decided on rational arguments and evidence. Even a religious person can put aside their pet mythogy for 5 minutes and do that.

 

[expat_panama]

Where in the Constitution do states have the power to regulate marriage?

That's what the US Supreme Court said back in 2010 when the declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. They said the federal government had no business interfering w/ states rights on the marriage issue.

Yeah, I know they changed their mind a couple years later w/ homosexual unions but u got to admit the issue is controversial and there are lots of very good people on both sides.

 

[Zincwarrior]

So?

You like that to defend your rights?

 

[expat_panama]

I'm not. So you can toss that out right now...

Ah, so you misspoke and what you meant to say was that there are only "some" Christians that say that. We agree that it's not Christianity as a whole making that claim.

...Not at all! I am saying these things should be decided on rational arguments and evidence...

We need to remember here that no matter how wonderful the tools of logic, reason, evidence may be, they are not appropriate for choosing values. The decision to do what is right and to avoid harm to others can only be argued if it's in relation to other similar values and the goal is that of logical consistency. Anyone who begins w/ the basic assumption of "might makes right" can logically justify all kinds of atrocities.

... Even a religious person can put aside their pet mythogy for 5 minutes and do that.

Sure, I'd even go further and say that there may be some Atheists sometime capable of putting aside their mindless partisan ideology to accept basic ethics and morality. OK, please forgive, I just couldn't resist.

Seriously I'm well aware that there are many very good people who allow themselves to be labeled "atheist". I'd go even further and say personally my preference is for a profound respect for a complete unwillingness to put the forces of the universe in some kind of box. Much better than my experience w/ too many Christians I've run into who may SAY they got Jesus in their hearts but in reality they got God up their ass.

I digress.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

quote the constitutional language that addresses gay marriage and abortion. Show us those words in the constitution.

Quote the Constitutional language that addresses an individual right to possess a firearm and a right to self-defense. Show us those words in the Constitution.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ah, so you misspoke and what you meant to say was that there are only "some" Christians that say that.

No, you made the mistake of inferring "all", and you did so dishonestly anyway to nitpick. Either way, the error has been corrected. Moving on...

Sure, I'd even go further and say that there may be some Atheists sometime capable of putting aside their mindless partisan ideology to accept basic ethics and morality

Sure, but you would sound like an idiot. Knock yourself out.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A man taking it in the caboose may be a lot of things, but it isn't a "constitutional principle".

Wrong.

The Constitutional principle of individual liberty and self-determination:

“The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.” Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 10th Amendment

And the 14th Amendment requires the states to afford citizens residing in the states access to state laws, such as state marriage laws, regardless of race or sexual orientation.