Ted Cruz Introduces Anti-Gay Marriage Bill

I'd say my debate skills on this are more than up for the task, believe me. Not only have I considered the root of my premise, I have also considered the fact that you are unable to address that premise. Instead of throwing your argument off on God, and being a big boy by answering it yourself, either you physically had a conversation with God about this matter, or, you are God. Which is it? Just saying it comes from God is just an escape route to avoid answering a very direct and very serious question. You and others accuse people of committing murder through abortion, then show me through physical evidence how God has made this decision on abortion and that you somehow own this knowledge. If you are unable to produce this evidence from God himself or you being God, then in Gods name you are lying in Gods name, and using God as a scapegoat to push your religious beliefs. So, in the name of God, if your going to talk the talk, walk the walk. Show us this proof through God.

 

Tell that to Obama who has gone around congress countless times.

 

Tell that to your CongressCritter.

 

Wow. Assign me a position I never claimed and then argue agaisnt it. Classic strawman.

That is amusing. You can marry someone of the opposite gender, so all things are equal!.

Well, luckily every one of these laws that has been in a courtroom says your opinion is fundamentally wrong.

 

You are all about dodging when you get backed into a corner. My statement was a very easy one to interpret. You instead, for salvaging your own losing argument decide to show babies being tossed in the air, which has nothing to do with gay couples marrying. More evidence the gay marriage argument is not going your way.

 

That equal protection that I mentioned actually is mentioned in the Constitution.

 

I'm sure you understand that is irrelevant just like the rest of the Constitution unless they agree with it.

 

she is denied based on gender, just as race was used to deny couples in the past the right to marry

 

I don't hate people for having ideas. I don't particularly believe political leaders should be allowed to pursue their own agendas..I'd like to see a democratic prioritization feature in our government alongside our Republic system, but oh well.

Expression of homosexuality has been legal and illegal at different times in many nations throughout history. Frankly, I don't think regulation either direction has much affected the population of gays or the productivity of nations. What I think people need to remember is that regulation costs money. It requires people to monitor behavior. It requires checks and balances to make sure the regulation is being carried out effectively and fair (which requires more people). Regardless of whether or not gay marriage is or isn't wrong, should or shouldn't be legal for any reason, I refuse to pay judges to annul marriages simply because one or more of the participants is gay. I refuse to pay police to monitor the gay population unless there is significant reason to believe they are in special danger. I don't support this regulation because the cost to society of free gay marriage (which has yet to be properly quantified) is likely much less than cost of regulation (including indirect lost revenue from rich homosexuals having their ceremonies abroad or going dual citizen and squandering assets in different countries).

 

Spot on! After watching the silly Obama administration go after some little nuns I believe Cruz is correct. The rest of the nation that matters will also.

 

You are inventing your own definitions here. There is zero evidence to back up being gay is the same as skin color. Teh gayz should stop trying to ride other's coat tails so they can shame people into agreeing with them. That is a sure sign they have nothing else to base their wanting "equality" on.

 

she is being discriminated against based on her gender, in the past the discrimination was based on race, both were discriminated against for no good reason other then religion....

people were just as ridiculous back then on their reasons for denying them equal rights

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
-Judge Leon M. Bazile (January 6, 1959)


.

 

If only, we could find nice politicians of morals who are willing to faithfully execute our own supreme law of the land regarding the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States.

 

Sexual orientation has no basis in gender?

Herp derp.

Mary can marry Joe but cannot marry Jane because of her gender. Which she did not choose.

And don't try and argue that gay and straight people are BOTH equally barred from marrying a person of the same-sex. That kind of argument was flatly rejected in Loving V Virginia.

 

You keep citing the Good and Plenty clause of the 14th Amendment and failing to recognize that the 10th Amendment grants the states the right to make laws for their state. Maybe some day the Federal Government will pass laws defining marriage. Then you might have something.

 

Gays can marry. Just not each other. You can try to twist the Good and Plenty clause of the 14th Amendment all you want. Until there is an Amendment, the right to make state laws isn't overshadowed by the 14th, but enforced by the 10th.

 

I think you need to recognize the difference between sexual orientation and gender.

 

The States can make laws until the cows come home. But if you make a law that discriminates against gender, which is the case in letting gays get married, but not recognizing that marriage on paper, the law is an illegal law, which goes against the constitution. It is discrimination. Period!

 

Nice try. Banning gay marriage doesn't discriminate against gender. It would ban it for both gay men and gay women. State laws are inviolate unless they go against Federal Law. You seem to have a problem realizing that the government hasn't defined marriage. Once they do, you will be correct. Until that time, you are wrong. Have a nice day.

 

The 14th isn't overshadowing the rights of states to make all laws. It is overshadowing laws that discriminate.

 

So get an Amendment that defines that states can't make laws reflecting their views on marriage. Get the Federal Government to define marriage. Get the SCOTUS to make gay people a suspect class or rule on gay marriage.

Good luck!

 

You think we need luck for the last one? Lol

 

Yes, I do. As I've said in the past, I don't give two whits either way. I'm arguing strictly on a constitutional basis. I just don't think the SCOTUS will rule on this until states with standing push it to them. It might get to the SCOTUS in a few years. It might not.

They have already shown a propensity for punting all-things-gay-marriage away for lack of standing. With lack of federal definition of marriage, I see no recourse but for them to kick it to the states to decide.

Then again, Roberts changed ObamaCare from a mandate to a tax, so anything is possible.

 

Who said anything about banning gay marriage? I haven't said that. You did. And by the way, yes it does. If someone were to ban gay marriage, what is their reason for the ban? The only reason I can think of would be that the couple marrying is either all male or all female. What else would it be?

"Government hasn't defined marriage'? Then what are people doing getting married? Your post doesn't make sense. What you are trying to say I believe, is that states "ONLY" have defined marriage, not the Federal government. And if that is the case, and it is just a state issue, how come straight couples marrying in their prospective states get to reap federal benefits by the contract of marriage between the two? If both are receiving "FEDERAL" retirement through social security, they both benefit from that marriage. Sounds to me like the states have already defined marriage at the expense of the federal government, and same sex couples aren't allowed the same benefits because some states do not recognize that marriage, because marriage for them, hasn't been defined. Talk about some twisted logic going on right here. Man, you better start figuring out how to weigh apples for apples. Because this is some real hypocritical off the charts logic right here, if this is what you are trying to say.

 

It's definitely headed for the Supreme Court. Federal judges in Utah, Oklahoma, Ohio, Kentucky and Virginia have issued various rulings declaring all or part of their same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional. The Utah case is the most likely to reach the Supreme Court first, and the UT Attorney General has pledged to defend their anti-marriage amendment, so standing will not be an issue. It's likely that this case will reach the high court by next year.