Page 8 of 46 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 456

Thread: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

  1. #71
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage - CNN.com



    wow what a waste of time and money, also nothing like making sure you wont be president either lol Equal rights is coming bigots . .. give it up

    again im not saying this one topic SHOULD decide who could be president but any candidate that comes out against equal rights and they make it "PART OF THEIR CAMPAIGN AND RUNNING PLATFORM" is sure to lose lol

    its just the way politics will be in 2016

    lastly traditional marriage is in no danger by equal rights, its a made up subjective thing, it wont be impacted at all

    next "the obama administration forcing it"? It doesnt get any dumber than that.

    good lord
    the war is over but its entertaining seeing the last desperate attempts of bigotry, it shows peoples true colors
    Posturing for Iowa and a Santorum style campaign to get him a position as a conservative party elder and book deal after his campaign inevitably loses.

  2. #72
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    What we are seeing is the last refuge of this political fight. It does not matter how many polls we bring up showing strong support for marriage equality, there will be a sizable group across the nation that pushes for legislation like what Cruz is proposing here. Predictably we still have plenty of voters in the SE especially that see this as a State's Rights issue as a potential last fight. Think, similarity to how this fight occurred out in California after the Proposition 8 vote.

    My issue at this point is political capital. With the recent success in gaining control of the 114th Congress it could be argued well that the intentions of the voter was to handle economic, some domestic spending, and foreign matters. There is not much evidence that the social barometer of the nation all of a sudden switched direction looking for the 114th Congress to introduce social conservative legislation. But to appease constituents it appears they will try anyway. My worry is these days that is how Democrats can bait Republicans right out of office, at stake is 2016 with Hillary in the wait with whatever 115th Congress she faces.

    If Republicans want to stay politically relevant going forward they are going to have to adapt to the social barometer of the nation. Support for marriage equality is doing nothing but going up and the number of States that have fallen one way or another to allow gay marriage is in the majority. Cruz's actions seem to me to be another "prop 8" vote. That was done right before California courts could decide on a few challenges, just as Cruz's proposal is right before the Supreme Court can decide on a few challenges.

    The backlash could be enough to compromise Republican momentum headed into 2016, and the last thing we need to do is hand Hillary a bigger win and potentially with a more complicit 115th Congress.
    Fantastic post.

  3. #73
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,827

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    1.)Regulation of marriage is not a Federal responsibility constitutionally.
    2.) I don't oppose gay marriage but the authority to regulate it belongs with the states.
    3.) Gay marriage is also not the leading problem of our day and too much time is wasted on it.
    1.) true, good thing they are not regulating it
    2.) true, and they are free to regulate it
    neither of those are an issue

    the fed is enforcing the constitution and protecting individual rights, when the states make a regulation that violate rights they are over stepping thier power. Thats the issue and what is factually happening with the banning and why the states are bign corrected. The system is working just like it is supposed too.

    3.) equal rights will always be a large issue but I do agree to much time is wasted on it, bigots need to simply stop infringing on it
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  4. #74
    Guru
    sawdust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    03-04-16 @ 09:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,177

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by 1750Texan View Post
    Correct, states do have the historical authority to regulate marriage...just as they do not have a constitutional authority to violate the rights of their residents in that regulation.
    That kind of tortured logic is why the constitution has turned into a joke. If you twist it like a pretzel you can do anything you want with the all powerful Federal government.
    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." Attributed to Alexander Tytler

  5. #75
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,827

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    That kind of tortured logic is why the constitution has turned into a joke. If you twist it like a pretzel you can do anything you want with the all powerful Federal government.
    nothing tortured about that "logic" its in fact how it works
    theres nothing about that that is "all powerful federal government" lol
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  6. #76
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,827

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by 1750Texan View Post
    Correct, states do have the historical authority to regulate marriage...just as they do not have a constitutional authority to violate the rights of their residents in that regulation.
    100% correct
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  7. #77
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    NE WI.
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 03:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,029

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    `
    Is Marriage a Civil Right?

    Yes, to wit;

    "Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

    The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:

    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.
    The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage . As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:"

    The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ...

    To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. (source)

    While the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on same-sex marriage, it is unlikely that it would overturn the foundational premise that marriage is a civil right.


    PS - States cannot "regulate" marriages insofar as to who a person can or cannot marry. Loving v Virgina shot down all the miscegenation laws in the US which by regulation, would not legally recognize a black/white marriage.
    `
    `
    `
    `

    `
    Last edited by Paxaeon; 02-12-15 at 02:35 PM. Reason: grammar

  8. #78
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    Regulation of marriage is not a Federal responsibility constitutionally. I don't oppose gay marriage but the authority to regulate it belongs with the states. Gay marriage is also not the leading problem of our day and too much time is wasted on it.
    True, as contract law is much the province of the state, not the federal.

    I don't oppose recognition, but not under the term "marriage", as it, obviously, violates respect for words and their true meaning and the reasonable and customary beloved social cultures built upon them, which is why I don't call a cat a dog or try to enter a cat in a dog show.

    Regardless, such determination, whether out of intelligence or ignorance, belongs to the state from a federal constitutional perspective.

    And, regarding much time wasted on this issue, oh that is soooo true! The vast majority of Americans really don't care one way or the other from a social perspective. When people are asked to weigh in on a poll, then they make a choice, but it's just a choice on a question, not all that important.

    In fact, in a recent relevant poll on the matter, 37% favored the oxymoronic "gay marriage", 33% favored recognition but under a different term than marriage (like, say, "homarriage", or something), and 30% were opposed to recognition at all. This makes it crystal clear that there is no cultural traditional long-standing precedent for the oxymoronic "gay marriage", as although 70% favor recognition, 63% oppose the oxymoronic "gay marriage" in these polls.

    If the SCOTUS said state's rights, the great majority would be just fine with that. If the SCOTUS said state's rights but that recognition is required under a different term, the great majority would be just fine with that.

    Sadly, the Supreme Court is loaded now with enough left-wing ideologist weight, thanks to Obama's two appointees, that the relevant matter before the SCOTUS could be 4-4 .. leaving the quiet megalomaniac Kennedy to once again stamp his signature on "an earthshaking" decision, about which the great majority of Americans would be opposed .. but most of whom really wouldn't care all that much.

    Truly sad.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  9. #79
    A sinister place...
    OrphanSlug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Last Seen
    08-08-17 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,860

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    in many ways i agree wholeheartedly and have said so in other threads.
    Its not how I think it should be but in 2015 the political atmosphere will make it that way.
    any candidate that has recently fought hard against equal rights or makes it part of thier running campaign to overturn it will lose the election, and yes you are right hand Hilary a large win
    We agree. Because of the history of this political fight, the fallout is a level of polarization that by the numbers is putting social conservatives into a minority. The further we go, the more it appears that minority status is not going to improve. Politically cornered, especially given where certain voter blocks are holding the Republican Party hostage to yesteryear ideologies. Democrats on the other hand have already transitioned from the days of Clinton signing the Defense of Marriage Act. Just during Obama's time we have seen the marriage equality support numbers jump up enough to ensure Republicans have a national level losing position on this. Hence, trying to make this a State's rights issue.
    "Every time something really bad happens, people cry out for safety, and the government answers by taking rights away from good people." - Penn Jillette.

  10. #80
    Guru
    sawdust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    03-04-16 @ 09:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,177

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) true, good thing they are not regulating it
    2.) true, and they are free to regulate it
    neither of those are an issue

    the fed is enforcing the constitution and protecting individual rights, when the states make a regulation that violate rights they are over stepping thier power. Thats the issue and what is factually happening with the banning and why the states are bign corrected. The system is working just like it is supposed too.

    3.) equal rights will always be a large issue but I do agree to much time is wasted on it, bigots need to simply stop infringing on it
    You can't support states rights which regulate the institution of marriage and then claim the states don't have the right to regulate the actions of the people who are affected by the regulation. It's laid out in article 1 section 8. If the country decides the constitution needs to be amended, there is a procedure for that. I wouldn't have a problem with that but I do have a problem with the way the document is being abused.
    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." Attributed to Alexander Tytler

Page 8 of 46 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... 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
  •