| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
| Locked on 12/23/2015 12:04:44 PM PST by Sidebar Moderator, reason: |
Posted on 12/23/2015 11:14:00 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
After that audio of Cruz questioning Trump’s judgment at a private fundraiser leaked a few weeks ago, Mike Allen of Politico promised more was coming. Promise kept.
Here’s how he answered when someone stood up at a fundraiser in Manhattan on December 9th and told him he agreed with him on nearly everything — except gay marriage. What sort of priority would the fight against SSM be for President Cruz, he asked? The exchange:
Cruz: “My view on gay marriage is that I’m a constitutionalist and marriage is a question for the states. And so I think if someone wants to change the marriage laws of their state, the way to do so is convince your fellow citizens — and change them democratically, rather than five unelected judges. … Being a constitutionalist is integral to my approach to every other issue. So that I’m very devoted to.â€(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
It’s not.
Homosexual marriage is the fruit of government overstepping. Take care of that and homo marriage is taken care by result. By not making it an issue, you can get rid of it by another rouge. Ted is smart. Bout time we start communicating the Alynsky way.
The Huckster wouldn’t recognize the Constitution if Thomas J. himself rolled it up and repeatedly whacked him on the snout with it for leaving an oversized poop on his lawn.
This is a non-issue. Nothing can be done about gay marriage until one or more of the liberals on the SC is replaced by a conservative judge. And then there is the problem of what to do with the tens of thousands of gays already married.
What you do as president is what? It takes a new supreme court judge. It is terrible unconstitutional law but he can’t do a thing!!
Typical Huck . . . taking cheap shots at people on our side and exposing himself as the tax and spend RINO which he is.
+1. And I believe there is a appreciable probability that this leak is no accident.
I’m more concerned with the runaway judiciary that pushed the so called gay marriage and then enforces it on bakers, photographers and just about anybody.
All it takes is one state (preferable more join it) telling the Supreme Court that they do NOT have the CONSTITUTIONAL authority to rule on marriage, abortion, etc. - go pound sand.
Penumbrae do not count nor does European law, Sharia law, or “Law & Order” law. Only the Constitution as written, with Amendments. Period. If they want to talk about judicial precedents, then club them over the head with Dred Scott and similar decisions.
If the state lawmakers are worried about being “outed” by the “Gay Mafia”, conservatives need to make a preemptive strike and get all the dirty laundry on the table, heterosexual mistresses included.
This is why everyone except Trump, Cruz and Rubio need to get out of the race now. We don’t need potshots taken by negligible pollers at the three most likely nominees that can be used later against them.
I agree with you. And I don’t see gay marriage as a top three. Restoration of Constitutional principles, the economy, and security come first. Heck, there’s a lot I’d put first.
Cruz’s problem is that he’s being bolstered by the Evangelical vote. He got a lot of Carson’s steam.
Will *they* agree with him?
So Huckabee’s critique on Cruz’s leaked comments that could be problematic is more of an issue than the actual leaked comments themselves or the implications of said comments? What if Rubio pointed this out?
There are many "forbidden" marriages: siblings of same sex, siblings of opposite sex, multiple marriages of whichever gender, first cousins, father-son, father-daughter, mother-son, mother-daughter and so on.
The Farsis, thrown out of Persia/Iran eons ago, practiced the close marriages and for them, the ONLY forbidden marriage was mother-son.
Major yuck.
Zuben Mehta, a famous concert-master, was a product of such a close marriage. It CAN produce, occasionally, a genius, as he said, pointing to himself.
Marriage = one man + one woman (no transgenders allowed and not related as first cousins or closer).
****NO remarriage after divorce, no matter what Henry VIII did. That's the deal. Jesus said it: What God has joined together let no man put rend asunder.
Mark 10:9
Matthew 19:6
There are logical annulments, as when a husband PLANNED to beat the holy pie outta his wife. One of my high school classmates experienced that. The jerk thought that divorce was impossible. It was.
However, she FINALLY went to the Church, after her family and friends BEGGED her to. After two years of back and forth the Church saw that husband had INDEED planned to beat her up, continually.
Husband had NO intention to "love and honor" and broke his vows before God LONG before the marriage. So her marriage was annulled and "didn't exist." Their FIVE children were NOT considered illegitmate.
She married again to a really nice guy and continues to be extremely happy.
Amazing, a happy ending.
Huck: the SSM barn door is already opened...
Remember the rally for Kim Davis that Huckabee I think put together in KY?
Huckabee had a staff member keep Cruz from coming on the stage.
I do not know anything more than what was reported on cable news.
But it seemed a little petty to me that Huckabee would keep Cruz away from the stage...if in fact it was a rally to support religious freedoms.
In a similar situation Cruz invited Trump to attend and speak at a rally in DC to stop the Iranian nuclear deal.
I’m sure Huckabee is probably upset that he was not endorsed by the group of evangelical leaders. But I have seen nothing from Cruz to make me believe that he is not what he says he is.
I’ve been to two Cruz rallys, he talks about the first things he will do in office...
Investigate planned parenthood, defend religious liberties, and stop the IRS targeting of religious groups.
If I’m not mistaken, Cruz has even spoken about some of those things on tv and in the debates.
I’m not sure what Huckabee is trying to accomplish (I like Huckabee as a person) but I’ve seen nothing from Cruz that would make me question his beliefs or goals.
For craps sake! It is not in my top 3 either! I’d say that affects other people’s lives. Mine is concerned with executive overreach, executive orders repeal, gun rights, border control, Islam control, clean government of Muslim Brotherhood moles, get Veterans proper medical care, give veterans their just and due pension rights, job preferences, etc., get out of the the way of business so they can rebound the economy, jobs, rebuild military, develop better diplomats (rid State Dept of all the commies, Kerrys and fellow travelers), on and on and on.........
Hell’s bells. There are a hell of a lot more pressing issues than trying to reverse the Supreme Court’s decisions. Talk about tilting at windmills. Huckster can go to Hell.
In my mind, yes, and it wouldn’t be as bad if Rubio pointed it out. That is precisely my point.
Huckabee and Graham upset, remind me who are these people they speak of
Immigration, illegal and otherwise is the number one issue.
Cruz said leave it to the States, not through Federal Dictates and certainly not the Supreme Court
frankly I agree.
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.