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

[Redfish]

States are covered under the US Constitution

They are not allowed unequal protection under their laws either

yes, but each state is required by the constitution to have its own statutes and they do not all have to be the same. SC has already ruled on this, the debate of federal or state is over.

 

[rightwinger]

yes, but each state is required by the constitution to have its own statutes and they do not all have to be the same. SC has already ruled on this, the debate of federal or state is over.

As long as they provide equal protection under their laws

States still deal with the Supremacy Claise

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

can you quote the language in the 14th that addresses gay marriage? you claim it covers it, so back up your claim----------or admit that you lied about it.

Read the Obergefell decision. Due process. Equal protection under the law.

 

[Redfish]

Read the Obergefell decision. Due process. Equal protection under the law.

I am well aware of that, the point is that the 14th is silent on both gay marriage and abortion. As the SC ruled, those activities are the responsibility of each state's voters to decide, not the federal government. If you want to test any state's decision in federal court, go for it.

 

[Redfish]

As long as they provide equal protection under their laws

States still deal with the Supremacy Claise

the issue here is what equal protection means, you libs have one definition, others have different ones. and there is nothing in the constitution that says we all have to agree on everything

 

[rightwinger]

the issue here is what equal protection means, you libs have one definition, others have different ones. and there is nothing in the constitution that says we all have to agree on everything

You don’t have to agree on gay marriage, but you can’t push your hatred on others.

 

[Redfish]

You don’t have to agree on gay marriage, but you can’t push your hatred on others.

I already said that I am ok with gay marriage, do you ever read before responding? I hate no one, the hate is all coming from the left. The morons on the View spout hate every day and you fools think they are just great.

 

[rightwinger]

I already said that I am ok with gay marriage, do you ever read before responding? I hate no one, the hate is all coming from the left. The morons on the View spout hate every day and you fools think they are just great.

You claim to support gay marriage but object to them being public about their relationship and “pushing it in your face”
Do you object to gays holding hands or kissing in public? Do you object to a gay teacher speaking to kids about their spouse?

Gay couples have as much right to be open about their relationship as anyone else.

 

[Redfish]

You claim to support gay marriage but object to them being public about their relationship and “pushing it in your face”
Do you object to gays holding hands or kissing in public? Do you object to a gay teacher speaking to kids about their spouse?

Gay couples have as much right to be open about their relationship as anyone else.

as usual you totally missed the point. there is a difference between being open and flaunting. that is my issue. openness is fine, flaunting is wrong no matter who is doing it.

 

[rightwinger]

as usual you totally missed the point. there is a difference between being open and flaunting. that is my issue. openness is fine, flaunting is wrong no matter who is doing it.

Should a school teacher be allowed to discuss their same sex partner?

You can’t in Florida

 

[Redfish]

Should a school teacher be allowed to discuss their same sex partner?

You can’t in Florida

that is up to the voters in florida, whether at the state level or the local school board. its not a federal issue. Are you gay? is that why you are so angry about this?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I am well aware of that, the point is that the 14th is silent on both gay marriage and abortion. As the SC ruled, those activities are the responsibility of each state's voters to decide, not the federal government. If you want to test any state's decision in federal court, go for it.

You really don't seem to understand much about constitutional law. The 14th is also silent on interracial marriage. Was that also a bad decison.?

The entire constitution is silent on marriage. Any kind of marriage. But the fact is that marriage for opposit sex, consenting adults who are not too closely related had been treated as a right. And that right was denied to gay people while the states were unable to articulate a compelling government reaason or even a rational basis for doing so

 

[rightwinger]

that is up to the voters in florida, whether at the state level or the local school board. its not a federal issue. Are you gay? is that why you are so angry about this?

No, I am a Democrat
I fight for Truth, Justice and the American Way

That is why it offends me when people are singled out for abuse

 

[rightwinger]

You really don't seem to understand much about constitutional law. The 14th is also silent on interracial marriage. Was that also a bad decison.?

Clarence Thomas supports Loving v Virginia…..He has a white wife

But he voted against Oberkfell……Gay marriage is yucky, his interracial marriage is not

 

[badger2]

n 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 Paul lists some sinful lifestyles that give evidence that a person is not saved: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men . . . will inherit the kingdom of God.” In other words, a practicing, unrepentant idolater, adulterer, or homosexual is fooling himself if he thinks he is going to heaven. Christians are saved from such sins.
-----------------------------
Here I thought God was all forgiving.

Anal retentive.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So, you give me a list of 27 states, more than half the country, who haven't updated their laws to include sexual orientation, but we have no idea why. Are they just deferring to federal civil rights statutes? You'd have us believe that 27 states are just wringing their hands, biding their time, waiting for obergefell to be overturned so they can start discriminating against gay people!

We don't know why they haven't added then, maybe they felt, with current federal protections, it would have been redundant, maybe they are hesitant because of inherent conflict with religious freedoms. I'm just not buying that they are all ready and eager to start discriminating.

Also, you know who else doesn't include discrimination laws for LGBT? As far as I can tell, federal civil rights act and discrimination laws also don't mention sexual orientation.

Apparently, the bostock vs Clayton county decision changed the definition of "sex" to also mean sexual orientation and gender, which means that all state civil rights laws inherently cover sexual orientation by their inclusion of "sex", but that the only federal reference to sexual orientation protection that I could see. Do you have a link to the federal anti LGBT discrimination laws?

More bizarre and contradictory bovine excrement! In the same post you first say that "maybe the states have not provided these protections because the "current federal protections' Then later acknowledge that the Federal Civil Rights act does not provide these protections.

My point which still stands is that those states- for whatever reason- do not provide the protections that I listed and that is irrefutable. But you try to gloss that over with speculation about why they do not afford those protections

Then to further deflect, you blather on -again- about how you do not believe that states will not ban gay marriage if Obergefell is overturned -when marriage is not even the issue that I was responding to-proving again that you are either very stupid or dishonest.

And we have been all though this crap about religious freedom too many times. I am not even going there again.

Lastly, Bostock only covers discrimination in employment. And don't think that the current court would not overturn it if given the chance. States need to pass protections

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

that is up to the voters in florida, whether at the state level or the local school board. its not a federal issue. Are you gay? is that why you are so angry about this?

All decent people who care about justice and civil rights should be angry about discrimination. The apparent fact that you think that someone who speaks up must be gay tells me all that I need to know about you

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'm just not buying that they are all ready and eager to start discriminating.

PS, They are already discriminating, fool. Those states are allowing discrimination and you are making excuses for them. Whatever claims you b=make to supporting gay rights is complete bullshit. You are an appologist for discrimination and a discrimination denier

 

[ThisIsMe]

More bizarre and contradictory bovine excrement! In the same post you first say that "maybe the states have not provided these protections because the "current federal protections' Then later acknowledge that the Federal Civil Rights act does not provide these protections.

My point which still stands is that those states- for whatever reason- do not provide the protections that I listed and that is irrefutable. But you try to gloss that over with speculation about why they do not afford those protections

Then to further deflect, you blather on -again- about how you do not believe that states will not ban gay marriage if Obergefell is overturned -when marriage is not even the issue that I was responding to-proving again that you are either very stupid or dishonest.

And we have been all though this crap about religious freedom too many times. I am not even going there again.

Lastly, Bostock only covers discrimination in employment. And don't think that the current court would not overturn it if given the chance. States need to pass protections

More bizarre and contradictory bovine excrement! In the same post you first say that "maybe the states have not provided these protections because the "current federal protections' Then later acknowledge that the Federal Civil Rights act does not provide these protections.

Ok, but the point is that you point to all these states who have not changed their civil rights laws, but our federal government hasn't even changed the national Civil rights laws to include sexual orientation. My point was, we don't know why the states haven't included them, but that doesn't stop you from automatically inferring that it must be because they are all 27 of them just waiting for the time when they can start discriminating against gay people...

And in bostock, the case was about firing someone based on their sexual orientation, and the court ruled that title 7 of the civil rights act, in the term "sex" would apply to same sex couples. If they decided that for employment, surely they would also apply that definition to civil rights in general.

But you try to gloss that over with speculation about why they do not afford those protections

I'm not glossing over anything, I'm simply saying there has to be a reason why they haven't amended their civil rights laws yet, and I'm certain it's not because "they don't like gay people".

And don't think that the current court would not overturn it if given the chance. States need to pass protections

Sure, they need to add it to both state and federal civil rights acts. However, you're always going to believe that states are just itching for the courts to overturn obergefell so they can ban same sex marriage. I don't believe any state will ever outright ban same sex marriage. The 14th A would prevent that, and any state that did it would have a firestorm.on their hands with all the lawsuits, protests.

 

[ThisIsMe]

PS, They are already discriminating, fool. Those states are allowing discrimination and you are making excuses for them. Whatever claims you b=make to supporting gay rights is complete bullshit. You are an appologist for discrimination and a discrimination denier

What states are discriminating against gay people? Please list them.