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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It struck down bans on interracial marriage beased on the 14th Amendment, the same as Obergefell

Well? What say you now? tahuyaman

 

[Seymour Flops]

Once again, you disappoint me. I thought you were smarter than that. "All the Dems have to do"?? Good luck with that in the shit hole red southern states. How long would YOU wait for justice if YOUR rights were denied?

I guess more Dems will move out of red states. Not sure I'm seeing the downside to that.

As far as Federal law goes, the Defence of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal goverment from recognising same sex marriages performed in the states is still on the books. It is currently unenforcable because of the US V. Windsor decision 0f 2013, but that ruling may also be in jeopardy .

Yeah, why did Bill Clinton sign that thing?

Was it because he was from a shit hole red southern state?

The Respect for Marriage Act which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and require states to recognise same sex marriages from other states has passed in the house but is stalled out by the Republican bigots. We need 60 votes

Work harder Democrats! Gay marriage is one issue I agree with you on, and you punted it.

Lament that your leaders were so cowardly that they waited for the Supremes to do their work of protecting the right to gay marriage.

Furthermore the bill stops short of requiring states to issue same sex marriage licenses so gay couples. I suppose that would be a bridge too far.

Considering that the US Constitution leaves marriage laws to states it would be. But the full faith and credit clause could be enforced to require them to recognize same sex marriage from other states. I married in a state that requires no blood test, and when I came back to Texas, Texas had to recognize my marriage. The same could work for same-sex marriage if Democrats would stop obsessing about Trump and get to work for their constituents.

Those couples would have to travel, perhapps thousands of miles from home, friends and family to get married, and then return to a state that is hostile to their marriage and may or may not actually recognise it.

That's life in a federal system. Canada awaits.

In short, it is not so simple and easy-peasy as you pretend.

I never said it was easy. I said it's all they have to do.

By Allah! You participation trophy babies think the only place you work up a sweat is in a sauna.

Get to work! Clarence Thomas' father told him "there is no problem elbow grease can't solve." Take it to heart.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I guess more Dems will move out of red states. Not sure I'm seeing the downside to that.

Blue and purple states will get bluer and the red states will be left to self destruct under the weight of their draconian laws and policies. Left unchecked, they will further devolve into shitholes of diseas, death including infant mortality, poverty and ignorance. Google Mississippi

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yeah, why did Bill Clinton sign that thing?

Was it because he was from a shit hole red southern state?

Wrong. He signed it because Republicans were threatening to introduce a contitutional amendment declaring that marriage is a man and a woman. It was around the time that the first states were moving towards allowing same sex marriage . In addition, Clinton was promised legislation that provided protection for gays in employment but they reneged on it.

 

[flan327]

... separate schools for white children and black children ...

Keep all the gals barefoot and pregnant!

 

[flan327]

Blue and purple states will get bluer and the red states will be left to self destruct under the weight of their draconian laws and policies. Left unchecked, they will further devolve into shitholes of diseas, death including infant mortality, poverty and ignorance. Google Mississippi

No

Google it yourself

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Work harder Democrats! Gay marriage is one issue I agree with you on, and you punted it.

You agree? I have not gotten a sense of they from you. How did we punt?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Considering that the US Constitution leaves marriage laws to states it would be.

The constitution says nothing about marriage. It is largely the purview of the states as per the ten Amendment . However, neither marriage of any other power that is left to the states gives the states authority to excercise that power in a way that violates individual rights. I keep asking people, if you disagee with Obergefell based on states rights, do you also disagree with Loving v Virginia? I never get a reasonable answer . Your turn.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

But the full faith and credit clause could be enforced to require them to recognize same sex marriage from other states. I married in a state that requires no blood test, and when I came back to Texas, Texas had to recognize my marriage. The same could work for same-sex marriage if Democrats would stop obsessing about Trump and get to work for their constituents.

Invoking FFC to force states to reccognise gay marriages from elsewhere was tried prior to Obergefell and failed . I forget the details. I'll look it up when I have nothing better to do.

States reccognise hetero marriages from other states -not because of FFC but because they choose to

 

[Seymour Flops]

Blue and purple states will get bluer and the red states will be left to self destruct under the weight of their draconian laws and policies. Left unchecked, they will further devolve into shitholes of diseas, death including infant mortality, poverty and ignorance. Google Mississippi

The good people of Miss sippy were finally improving their lives after decades of Democratic Party led slavery, segregation, and the new slavery of welfare.

Trump brought their unemployment rate to the lowest point in history. Then the Dems destroyed it and then flooded the state with illegals to steal entry level jobs.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The constitution says nothing about marriage. It is largely the purview of the states as per the ten Amendment .

Correct.

However, neither marriage of any other power that is left to the states gives the states authority to excercise that power in a way that violates individual rights.

In Texas, I could marry one of my first cousins if I wanted (too country for my taste), but in other states, others cannot. I married in Virginia without a blood test, but in other states, I could not have.

Is refusing plural marriage to people whose faith allows it violating their individual rights? What about denying a bisexual plural marriage so they can’t have a spouse of each sex? Or denying multiple marriage to those desiring several spouses all of different genders?

Do different marriage laws in different states violate individual rights or is that states exercising the powers reserved to them by the constitution? When we get married, we invite government to approve or disapprove of our union. That’s the problem in the first place.

I keep asking people, if you disagee with Obergefell based on states rights, do you also disagree with Loving v Virginia? I never get a reasonable answer . Your turn.

I strongly support the rights of same-sex couples to marry. But the constitution does not require states to do so.

If Obergefell is overturned I hope every state or most states allows same sex marriage. I also hope that the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by Clinton and supported by Obama, is struck down so that people who marry in one state have their marriage recognized in all states as the founders intended.

Clinton and Obama were loathsome homophobes, while I cried when Cam and Mitch got married. Fit that in with your pre-conceived ideas about me.

Loving v. Virginia was correctly decided because when the equal protection clause was added, the legislatures clearly meant to protect racial equality, and Loving v. Virginia was decided after Brown v Topeka Board which established the principle that “separate but equal” is inherently unequal.

For the same reasoning to have applied in Obergefell, the lawmakers who passed the fourteenth amendment must have intended to require states to recognize same-sex marriage. I often ask Democrats if they believe that was the intent, and I have never gotten a reasonable answer.

Your turn.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I never said it was easy. I said it's all they have to do

Same thing.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The good people of Miss sippy were finally improving their lives after decades of Democratic Party led slavery, segregation, and the new slavery of welfare.

That was a different Democratic party and you know it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Trump brought their unemployment rate to the lowest point in history. Then the Dems destroyed it and then flooded the state with illegals to steal entry level jobs.

You'll have to document that

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I strongly support the rights of same-sex couples to marry. But the constitution does not require states to do so.

I doubt that you feel strongly about it at all. If you did, you would not be clinging to the dubious constitional theory of texturalism which few constitutional scholars adhere to .

 

[Seymour Flops]

That was a different Democratic party and you know it.

No, the are still racist just in different form.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You'll have to document that

You'd ignore it if I did.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I doubt that you feel strongly about it at all. If you did, you would not be clinging to the dubious constitional theory of texturalism which few constitutional scholars adhere to .

Why ask me anything if you tjen claim to already be an expert on my feelings?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Is refusing plural marriage to people whose faith allows it violating their individual rights? What about denying a bisexual plural marriage so they can’t have a spouse of each sex? Or denying multiple marriage to those desiring several spouses all of different genders?

Perhapps it does violate their rights. I have not argued against any of that. However, they all represent different issues with different social and legal ramifications. Anyone who wishes to engage in any of those practices is free to tey to drum up public support and pursue it through the courts or the legislative process life same sex couples did. It would be incumbent upon those seeking stop them to provethat ther is a compelling government interest, or at minimum a rational basis for doing so. The states were unable to in the case of one on one gay marriage. They may or may not be able to in any or all of those cases

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Why ask me anything if you tjen claim to already be an expert on my feelings?

Based on my experience with people who take that position