Ted Cruz To Introduce Constitutional Amendment On Gay Marriage After Supreme Court Ducks Appeals

[Steve_McGarrett]

Great news. Ted Cruz has the right idea even though he is not constitutionally eligible for Article 2 Section 1since he is Canadian born.

Ted Cruz to introduce constitutional amendment on gay marriage after Supreme Court ducks appeals Hot Air

 

[g5000]

“Putting the paddles on the chest of a divisive issue with absolutely no hope of the outcome he promises is a hallmark of Ted Cruz,” says GOP consultant Rick Wilson acidly

 

[Dot Com]

more Cruz-started fires for McConnell to put out lol

 

[Political Junky]

Poor Teddy, hanging on by his finger nails.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Sen. Cruz is leading the Crusades!!!

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“The Court is making the preposterous assumption that the People of the United States somehow silently redefined marriage in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment.”

Ignorant nonsense.

The 14th Amendment means exactly what it says, as originally intended by its Framers, and as correctly interpreted by the Supreme Court:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And that includes marriage law, where for the state to seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage (contract) law they're eligible to participate in, is in fact a violation of the original intent of the Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and its current jurisprudence.

 

[The Rabbi]

“The Court is making the preposterous assumption that the People of the United States somehow silently redefined marriage in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment.”

Ignorant nonsense.

The 14th Amendment means exactly what it says, as originally intended by its Framers, and as correctly interpreted by the Supreme Court:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And that includes marriage law, where for the state to seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage (contract) law they're eligible to participate in, is in fact a violation of the original intent of the Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and its current jurisprudence.

Nope. Last I checked everyone had equal access to marriage.
What does it say when one unelected person strikes down the will of a vast majority in a state? That is tyranny. Nothing more.
Go, Ted.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Will he write it in Dr. Suess quatrains?

 

[Skylar]

Great news. Ted Cruz has the right idea even though he is not constitutionally eligible for Article 2 Section 1since he is Canadian born.

Ted Cruz to introduce constitutional amendment on gay marriage after Supreme Court ducks appeals Hot Air

That's not going to pass. But I suppose it will be an emotionally satisfying waste of time for those who believe is such things.

 

[Skylar]

“The Court is making the preposterous assumption that the People of the United States somehow silently redefined marriage in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment.”

Ignorant nonsense.

The 14th Amendment means exactly what it says, as originally intended by its Framers, and as correctly interpreted by the Supreme Court:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And that includes marriage law, where for the state to seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage (contract) law they're eligible to participate in, is in fact a violation of the original intent of the Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and its current jurisprudence.

Nope. Last I checked everyone had equal access to marriage.
What does it say when one unelected person strikes down the will of a vast majority in a state? That is tyranny. Nothing more.
Go, Ted.

Protecting the rights of the individual from abrogation of them by the majority isn't tyranny. Its what the judiciary is supposed to do. The majority doesn't have the authority to vote away rights. They never have

 

[Vigilante]

Marriage is NOT a right, it's simply a word that can be looked up in a dictionary whose meaning has been subjugated!

 

[Skylar]

You say marriage is not a right. The Supreme Court says its a fundamental right. On issues of the law and the protection of rights, the USSC is authoritative. You're not.

 

[Vigilante]

You say marriage is not a right. The Supreme Court says its a fundamental right. On issues of the law and the protection of rights, the USSC is authoritative. You're not.

They're wrong, as usual! But that's their interpretation, and the idiots in this country go along with it, even when referendums show that is not what the voters want!

 

[The Rabbi]

“The Court is making the preposterous assumption that the People of the United States somehow silently redefined marriage in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment.”

Ignorant nonsense.

The 14th Amendment means exactly what it says, as originally intended by its Framers, and as correctly interpreted by the Supreme Court:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And that includes marriage law, where for the state to seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage (contract) law they're eligible to participate in, is in fact a violation of the original intent of the Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and its current jurisprudence.

Nope. Last I checked everyone had equal access to marriage.
What does it say when one unelected person strikes down the will of a vast majority in a state? That is tyranny. Nothing more.
Go, Ted.

Protecting the rights of the individual from abrogation of them by the majority isn't tyranny. Its what the judiciary is supposed to do. The majority doesn't have the authority to vote away rights. They never have

There are no rights of individuals at stake. Gays have exactly the same right to marry as anyone else. It's absurd.

 

[candycorn]

It's the best thing that could have happened to Gay marriage; to have the right wing talk about it and look oh so stupid the entire time.

The regret is that it won't happen soon enough to shape the 2014 election :-(

 

[guno]

Great news. Ted Cruz has the right idea even though he is not constitutionally eligible for Article 2 Section 1since he is Canadian born.

Ted Cruz to introduce constitutional amendment on gay marriage after Supreme Court ducks appeals Hot Air

Good luck with that cruz, you bible thumping retard

 

[Katzndogz]

The proposed amendment says nothing about same sex marriage. The amendment secures state's rights in defining marriage for themselves.

 

[Skylar]

The proposed amendment says nothing about same sex marriage. The amendment secures state's rights in defining marriage for themselves.

The proposed marriage amendment is so poorly written that it would make interracial marriage bans legal again.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

It's a lost cause guys, America has jumped the shark, and it ain't gonna do anything but get worse. The millenials will be firmly in charge in another decade, and they're more concerned about getting stoned and eating cheeseburgers.