Page 25 of 46 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 456

Thread: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

  1. #241
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:44 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,293
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    The 10th and the 14th are both parts of the Constitution and traditionally what isn't delineated as a province of the Federal Government would be decided by the States.
    Now, if you show me where the Constitution gives the Federal Government the authority to define marriage then there's no more discussion necessary.
    Are you really that ignorant of constitutional law. The 14th is part of the constitution. I lists, specifically, things the states cannot do. Since it is part of the constitution, then if you actually where to read the 10th(hint: you might want to do that) you will see why one of the two exceptions listed in the 10th will apply. I will walk you through this, here is the 10th again: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Bolding and underlining should help. Power goes to the states, except in two cases, listed in the 10th. Now let us look at the relevant portion of the 13th, with again some handy highlighting: "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."

    Are you still confused?

    And for you to suggest that the current USSC Justices view of SSM today couldn't be pretty accurately determined by looking at the Court makeup makes me think you're not serious.
    They don't have to have made a ruling on it before to discern such a thing.
    They got where they are today because of their experience & rulings in lower Courts and because the POTUS were aware of both.
    It's silly to argue otherwise.
    strawman.jpg
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  2. #242
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    06-05-17 @ 10:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    16,968

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    Look at the question very carefully:

    "Do you think homosexual relations between consenting adult should or should not be illegal?" It doesn't say "Do you think an adult caught committing a homosexual act should or should not be imprisoned?" I understand from someone who is a staunch support of SSM the difference is subtle or non-existent. But from someone whose been on both sides of the issue, I can tell you that gradience between "a relationship being legal" and "a marriage being legal" is very fine and not all the same as wanting them locked up.
    If it's illegal (1st question) then imprisonment (2nd question) follows yes? I mean what is appropriate punishment for consensual relationships in your view before they cross the line into totalitarianism? And my point was to illustrate the kind of filth you're defending. Most, in fact 75% of those who oppose SSM also want adoption banned, and for gay relationships to be illegal. Most find it immoral and for religious reasons and most have never had a gay friend/family that they know of. All of this is very obvious and i see it plainly in ted cruz's hate speech

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    of course most people who are against SSM believe that you're not born homosexual, that it's a lifestyle choice. And no more than you'd be locked up for choosing the wear baggy clothes.
    These polls prove otherwise. What is obvious is some "choices" are acceptable and others are not. Some cause immense harm and others do not. Bigots tend to not care. They believe that entire groups of people they don't approve of should be locked up or killed. Many of them furthermore do not care if the trait is a "choice." Ask a KKK member about that

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    But sure, if you can find me the time that Ted Cruz said that gays should be locked up or something very close to that statement, then I'd be welcome to see it.
    That is not what i offered to do. He's a politician whose job is to mask his real intentions. If he wants to erase doubt, he can say so definitively. Because i can read between lines and wasn't born yesterday, all of this indicates to me he adamantly hates and wishes to oppress LGBT. He will do what he can get away with, just a modern day anita bryant:

    The Texas Republican Party in 2010 published its party platform with the following language:

    “We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.”

    Ted Cruz was of course a part of this


    from How Ken Cuccinelli's Position On Sodomy Could Set Numerous Sexual Predators Free | ThinkProgress

    "The Family Foundation’s Cobb did not respond to a ThinkProgress inquiry about why her group has fought to keep oral and anal sex as a felony in Virginia, but the group featured Cuccinelli and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) this month at its annual fundraising gala. Table sponsors received free copies of Cuccinelli’s book. "

    Cuccinelli btw was attorney general of virginia and staunchly opposed removing the unconstitutional anti sodomy laws from the state


    Cruz spoke at notoriously anti gay FRC's "value's conference"

    He also opposes anti discrimination laws, but only those that protect LGBT. He has attacked a mayor for taking part in a pride parade


    After "DOMA" was overturned by SCOTUS, he attempted to pass a law allowing states to define marriage for *federal* rights purposes, just because he is that much of a sore loser. This was his reaction to "Windsor":

    "The Obama Administration should not be trying to force gay marriage on all 50 states." - complete lie


    He went on a show where the host earlier called the gay rights movement a "rainbow jihad"

    He alleged that SSM would put pastors in prison, referring to a pastor in *sweden*, where there is no separation of church and state

    He voted against a law that would ban "reparative therapy" being coerced onto minors

  3. #243
    Guru
    Hamster Buddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 06:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    If it's illegal (1st question) then imprisonment (2nd question) follows yes? I mean what is appropriate punishment for consensual relationships in your view before they cross the line into totalitarianism? And my point was to illustrate the kind of filth you're defending. Most, in fact 75% of those who oppose SSM also want adoption banned, and for gay relationships to be illegal. Most find it immoral and for religious reasons and most have never had a gay friend/family that they know of. All of this is very obvious and i see it plainly in ted cruz's hate speech

    These polls prove otherwise. What is obvious is some "choices" are acceptable and others are not. Some cause immense harm and others do not. Bigots tend to not care. They believe that entire groups of people they don't approve of should be locked up or killed. Many of them furthermore do not care if the trait is a "choice." Ask a KKK member about that
    No, these polls are only telling you what you want to hear. I get it though; you want to believe that the only reason for people to oppose SSM is because they're hateful, or bigoted, or just otherwise scum because it's easier for someone like you to understand and thus hate yourself. I know these people because a lot of these people are family and friends that oppose SSM I'm sad to admit. But I can guarantee you that not one of them would deprive them or liberty what they see as a personal choice. Find a poll that says Americans want very specifically that they want to lock up people for merely being gay and I'll change my mind. You won't find it of course.


    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    That is not what i offered to do. He's a politician whose job is to mask his real intentions. If he wants to erase doubt, he can say so definitively. Because i can read between lines and wasn't born yesterday, all of this indicates to me he adamantly hates and wishes to oppress LGBT. He will do what he can get away with, just a modern day anita bryant:

    The Texas Republican Party in 2010 published its party platform with the following language:

    “We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.”

    Ted Cruz was of course a part of this


    from How Ken Cuccinelli's Position On Sodomy Could Set Numerous Sexual Predators Free | ThinkProgress

    "The Family Foundation’s Cobb did not respond to a ThinkProgress inquiry about why her group has fought to keep oral and anal sex as a felony in Virginia, but the group featured Cuccinelli and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) this month at its annual fundraising gala. Table sponsors received free copies of Cuccinelli’s book. "

    Cuccinelli btw was attorney general of virginia and staunchly opposed removing the unconstitutional anti sodomy laws from the state


    Cruz spoke at notoriously anti gay FRC's "value's conference"

    He also opposes anti discrimination laws, but only those that protect LGBT. He has attacked a mayor for taking part in a pride parade


    After "DOMA" was overturned by SCOTUS, he attempted to pass a law allowing states to define marriage for *federal* rights purposes, just because he is that much of a sore loser. This was his reaction to "Windsor":

    "The Obama Administration should not be trying to force gay marriage on all 50 states." - complete lie


    He went on a show where the host earlier called the gay rights movement a "rainbow jihad"

    He alleged that SSM would put pastors in prison, referring to a pastor in *sweden*, where there is no separation of church and state

    He voted against a law that would ban "reparative therapy" being coerced onto minors
    As I stated before, you (and many others, including those on this topic I'd surmise) want Cruz to be your boogeyman. Easier to hate a man that way after all. And if you really want to believe that Cruz is the scum of the earth, worse than the devil himself then be my guest. It's not going to help bring any understanding with others of course. Then again, working with one another hasn't exactly been a strong suit of American politics of late. Hell, even if I could assuage you otherwise I wouldn't. After all, it's your choice.

  4. #244
    Guru
    Hamster Buddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 06:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Sidenote: You stole my picture, and I want it back.

  5. #245
    One with the Force
    LaylaWindu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    PA
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 02:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,964

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    Sidenote: You stole my picture, and I want it back.
    At least you admit you have no real solid argument and you just make stuff up. That counts for something.
    "We are never done with lessons, not while we live"

  6. #246
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    06-05-17 @ 10:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    16,968

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    No, these polls are only telling you what you want to hear. I get it though; you want to believe that the only reason for people to oppose SSM is because they're hateful, or bigoted, or just otherwise scum because it's easier for someone like you to understand and thus hate yourself. I know these people because a lot of these people are family and friends that oppose SSM I'm sad to admit. But I can guarantee you that not one of them would deprive them or liberty what they see as a personal choice. Find a poll that says Americans want very specifically that they want to lock up people for merely being gay and I'll change my mind. You won't find it of course.
    Uh, the poll asked specifically if they want gay relationships to be ILLEGAL and 30% said yes. If you believe that's somehow more permissible or doesn't reflect their hatred, it says a lot more about you than me. And hate myself, what are you even on about here? Thanks for the lovely psychoanalysis, i guess, but i'll go to some other shrink

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    As I stated before, you (and many others, including those on this topic I'd surmise) want Cruz to be your boogeyman. Easier to hate a man that way after all. And if you really want to believe that Cruz is the scum of the earth, worse than the devil himself then be my guest. It's not going to help bring any understanding with others of course. Then again, working with one another hasn't exactly been a strong suit of American politics of late. Hell, even if I could assuage you otherwise I wouldn't. After all, it's your choice.
    He is trying to come to power and he has a track record of trying to oppress homosexuals, even this week. Yeah he is the devil and the #1 enemy of the movement right now, within the US at least. I don't work with bigots either. There is no compromising away of equality or dignity

  7. #247
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,267

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    It isn't in conflict at all. The Tenth clearly states the states and the people, plus the 14th came after the Tenth, so it would then hold more precedence in law where there would be a conflict.
    Just as prohibition is no longer in effect because the Amendment was basically voided by another Amendment enacted later.


    Oh no no no. The 10th was not voided by the 14th. You're terribly wrong about that. Maybe "voided" was just an unfortunate choice.

    "The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers that are not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, except for those powers that states are constitutionally forbidden from exercising."

    The 14th says (among other things) "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's the conflict. The 14th will be used to try to grant SSM. The problem is that the definition of marriage wasn't specifically granted to the US Congress. That brings us to where we are today.
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  8. #248
    One with the Force
    LaylaWindu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    PA
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 02:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,964

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    Oh no no no. The 10th was not voided by the 14th. You're terribly wrong about that. Maybe "voided" was just an unfortunate choice.

    "The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers that are not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, except for those powers that states are constitutionally forbidden from exercising."

    The 14th says (among other things) "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's the conflict. The 14th will be used to try to grant SSM. The problem is that the definition of marriage wasn't specifically granted to the US Congress. That brings us to where we are today.
    Hahaha Who said the 14th voided the 10th Why do you continue to make stuff up? Also there is no conflict its simply a limit. This is really basic stuff.
    "We are never done with lessons, not while we live"

  9. #249
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,267

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    I've said this recently to another but i'm not going to allow unchallenged this revisionism to diminish the hard work of activists, and the courage of many to come out, which is what truly ended the opposition.

    TV reflects popular culture, not the other way around. I defy you to name any tv show that could seriously be considered progressive. The gay characters there are now are also no more than walking stereotypes. Movies? There are 0 gay characters in a top 100 grossing fantasy/sci fi film and none in any blockbuster film period. Only a few pop bands were in front on this issue either. There are 0 openly gay athletes in the 4 major pro sports and only 2 in Division 1 college sports.

    It's also absurd to claim that Ginsburg's appointment or Kennedy or even that wannabe tyrant scalia had anything to do with SSM

    Not sure where you get any of this from
    Don't be silly.
    When Obama made his appointments, for example, he was well aware, in general terms, how each would very likely decide cases that would come before them.
    Haven't you ever heard that one of the advantages to a political Party is having a POTUS of your party in a position to make Judicial appointments?
    Why do you think that is?
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  10. #250
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    Oh no no no. The 10th was not voided by the 14th. You're terribly wrong about that. Maybe "voided" was just an unfortunate choice.

    "The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers that are not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, except for those powers that states are constitutionally forbidden from exercising."

    The 14th says (among other things) "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's the conflict. The 14th will be used to try to grant SSM. The problem is that the definition of marriage wasn't specifically granted to the US Congress. That brings us to where we are today.
    I didn't say that the 10th was voided by the 14th. I was pointing out that later Amendments can change earlier ones, just as they are meant to change the Constitution itself, because the Amendments are part of the Constitution. In the case of the 14th, it limited the power of the states when it comes to the individual liberties/rights within the states. It made the people part of the 10th much more important than the states part of the 10th.

    You are misreading the 14th. It has nothing to do with the power of the federal government, but the individual rights of the people as being more important. The people come before the states, which is why we now have tests that require states to show "state interest" when it comes to laws that impact people particularly certain groups of people who are being treated differently than other people within those states.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

Page 25 of 46 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •