Everyone needs to donate!
All contributions are for the current quarter expenses.
Posted on 04/26/2015 1:04:01 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
Ted Cruz, along with most of the other Republican presidential candidates, actual and potential, appeared at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Summit on Saturday. He decried what he sees as “liberal fascism” that has ensured "there is no room for Christians in today's Democratic Party." Ironically, some people who support LGBT rights are busily making Cruz’s case, albeit inadvertently. Indeed, recently, Hillary Clinton, still the likely Democratic presidential nominee despite the play for pay scandal that is consuming her campaign, recently gave Cruz a boost.
As a way of illustration, a recent article in the Daily Beast by Jay Michaelson gave two gay hoteliers, Ian Reisner and Mati Weiderpass, both barrels for daring to be in the same room with Cruz. Reisner and Weiderpass agree with Cruz on a number of issues, particularly support for the State of Israel. The event the two men held for Cruz also provided an opportunity for some frank, but friendly dialog concerning same-sex marriage that they support but Cruz opposes.
The irony is that Cruz’s position is more gay-friendly than that of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton circa 2008. Cruz does not support the restoration of a federal defense of marriage act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton. He would leave the matter up to the states....
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Good news. Cruz has a wide range of appeal.
I love his Irish eyes (from his mother’s side.)
“When Irish Eyes Are Smiling” should be his campaign song.
That article was apparently pulled by Free Republic.
I did a search and came up with this. Perhaps I didn’t get it before because you didn’t have a live link. Here is a live link ... :-) ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3283151/posts
But, Reagan's response was something like : Well, that is great if they support me, even though I don't support what they do. Or something like that.
It did not mean that he was extending support for their position and he made a point of diffusing the leftist tirade as they were trying to hang the supposed discrepancy around his neck.
Anyone who is saying it's a state's right thing should just come out and say they support gay marriage.
Did the citizens of Utah want gay marriage? No, but they got it, because it was thrust upon them, because it's a federal issue.
The other cowardly thing about this argument, is that the people perpetuating it know that Justices Roberts and Kennedy are going to enforce federal gay marriage within a couple months. So what then? "Aw shucks, there's nothing we can do. I tried absolutely nothing to defend marriage, but you can't blame me because I said the magic words State's Rights (TM), so I'm off the hook."
State's rights on gay marriage is just a way to shirk responsibility, without admitting it.
Are there ANY politicians out there willing to defend marriage? Sadly, no.
Liberal, Gay, Brainless Totalitarians.
The lies need to stop.
State’s rights don’t matter when someone gets married in one state and moves to another, seeking either recognition of the marriage or a divorce.
Texas doesn’t have gay marriage, but there’s a lesbian couple seeking divorce. So the case involves a demand for the homosexual marriage to be recognized so the separating couple can know whether/if/how to divide the property.
“State’s rights on gay marriage is just a way to shirk responsibility, without admitting it.”
I do not think this is the case with Senator Cruz, but I do concede your point in principle. For many it is just the magic words to say when you want to sound conservative without it costing you anything or requiring any work.
IF the federal courts would truly allow each state to set its own marriage requirements and enforce them within its borders (to include refusal to recognize “illegal” marriages performed in other states), then it wouldn’t be meaningless. However, I am afraid the idea of state rights - although entirely Constitutional - has pretty much been a dead thing since the Civil War.
In truth the DOMA needs to be restored....by constitutional amendment if necessary. The federal government should NOT be recognizing homosexual marriages. IF a state wants to, then allow them (within their borders) to do so. However, the “federal” norm MUST be no recognition of homosexuality as a protected class or even a genuine lifestyle that requires “marriage” to define any unions by homosexuals.
When DOMA was wrongly destroyed by the SCOTUS, and congress went along with it...then it pretty much ruined any chance of a “State’s Rights” argument. It will fall on deaf ears in the screwed up SCOTUS.
I support Senator Cruz, but think my support would be stronger IF he said homosexuality should not enjoy the protection of a “special class” or as persons that can enter into a “marriage” recognized by the federal government. That is the real conservative position. Although it is wrong - state’s rights is pretty much a dead issue.
I stand with Ted
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.