If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.
Please beware, this is a high-volume ping list!
CRUZ or LOSE!Posted on 04/16/2015 5:23:05 PM PDT by VinL
Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz gave an honest answer to a gay-themed question Thursday.
“Well, I will tell you, I haven’t faced that circumstance. I have not had a loved one go to a, have a gay wedding,” Cruz told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, who asked the senator if he would go to a gay wedding (Marco Rubio said yesterday that he would go to one).
“You know, at the end of the day, what the media tries to twist the question of marriage into is they try to twist it into a battle of emotions and personalities,” Cruz continued.
“And they try to make it say, so for example, you know, they routinely say well, gosh, any conservative must hate people who are gay. And as you know, that has nothing to do with the operative legal question. And listen, I’m a Christian, and the Scripture commands us to love everyone, and to love everyone, and all of us are sinners,” the Texas senator stated. “But the legal question, I’m a Constitutionalist. And under the Constitution, from the beginning of this country, marriage has been a question for the states. It has been a question for elected legislatures in each of the 50 states. And what we’ve seen in recent years from the left is the federal government and unelected federal judges imposing their own policy preferences to tear down the marriage laws of the states.”
“And so if someone is running for public office, it is perfectly legitimate to ask them their views on whether they’re willing to defend the Constitution, which leaves marriage to the states, or whether they want to impose their own extreme policy views like so many on the left are doing, like Barack Obama does, like Hillary Clinton does. That’s what we would be doing.”
CRUZ or LOSE!Hugh Hewitt is neither the liberal media nor the so-called GOP-E.
Before I die, I will come to be known as the guy that “spoke now” because he refused to “forever hold his peace”.
I’m sure you like Sen. Cruz, and you and he are in agreement on the same sex marriage issue. There’s no argument.
The question posed to Sen. Cruz is - are you so principled and so steeped in religion - that in a hypothetical circumstance where your brother, sister,son or daughter was gay and invited you to his/her marriage ceremony, would you not attend?
Such a question is tantamount to asking if your 2 sons were trapped in a house fire, which one would you save?
Politically, the question is a trap for fools— and he properly replied that it was effectively irrelevant to the underlying legal issue—
It was a fair question and Cruz gave a good answer.
I like the way Cruz speaks in interviews, and elsewhere.
DOMA was struck down by Justice Kennedy who ignored laws and traditions to inject his own personal view in the question of marriage. He was wrong and his ruling will be voided in time.
DOMA was not needed although its sponsors thought otherwise. If marriage definition was left to states, it does not require federal resolution to rectify inconsistencies or clear distinctions in the various state definitions. Federal government is only brought in to regulate interstate commerce and marriage is not commerce.
However, contracts between people are under the jurisdiction of federal courts as such contracts may be construed as commerce. Real and personal property, debts are carried forward in marriage to divorce and probate.
But these matters although carried forward by marriage need not be adjudicated as carried forward by marriage; they can be treated as civil contracts. For those choosing perverted lifestyles recognized in one state as civil union or domestic partnership or in the bizarre sense as marriage, such states that do not recognize same-sex marriage can and must recognize the domestic partnership in the same manner as marriages.
And this was the case that was ignored by Justice Kennedy who should be admonished and sanctioned. And that is possible to do within federal government or an Article V Convention of States. Kennedy is an unelected tyrant.
The notion of ‘marriage’ between homosexuals makes a mockery to rational sensibilities, encroaches on religious liberties and opens Pandora’s box to all forms of perversion.
Should one or more states bizarrely define marriage as between consenting adults or among consenting adults, and possibly later between a minor and an adult and so on, then other states that define marriage to be between one man and one woman can treat the bizarre marriage certificate from another state in the manner of a civil union and dispense with contract matters under laws of domestic partnership.
There is no conflict with states defining marriage as they wish as long as they handle bizarre migrations according to contract law. This was argued before the court and it was a solid argument showing with certainty that homosexuals were not damaged by differing definitions. But Justice Kennedy decided to inject his personality into the mix rather than resolve the confusion as a jurist should do. He has created more confusion, coercion that has led to violations of fundamental rights. His Windor decision is no less than Roe v. Wade in impact. Such decisions have resulted in anger, frustration and confusion on many levels. The social angst and buildup of pressure will find an outlet. Justice Kennedy should hope he’s in retirement before it blows but I think it will happen sooner. It will not be violent. It will be legislative. But he will feel the blow back for sure.
Didn’t say he was- don’t listen to his show. He might have asked the question to give Sen. Cruz a chance to answer it before someone else asked it; or potentially, he might favor another candidate.
The point is— is it a fair and proper question as to the same-sex issue.
Ooops, see you answered before my last post— you think its a fair question— ok.
It’s a fair question given the current political atmosphere (sigh).
I’m tired of hearing about this whole gay marriage thing.
“The love that dare not speak its name has become the love that won’t shut up.” - Robertson Davies (1913-1995)
The States enforced Sodomy Laws until the SCOTUS changed it.
The States currently enforce Incest Laws that differ from State to State.
If Gay Marriage is Nationalized by the SCOTUS, how can the States continue to enforce discretionary Incest Laws of anti Polygamy Laws for that matter?
The correct terminology should be “homosexual fake marriage”.
It’s not gay. It isn’t real. And it certainly has nothing to do with the union of one man and one woman.
Yeah, me too. I’m a live and let live guy, but these fanatical Gay Mafia extremists are too much. I can see why historical they end up in the closet— Let them out, and they are hell-bound to take over the house.
Bravo, sir!
Answering such a question directly only serves to dignify the question and establish the premise.
Cruz did okay here.
He could say that he would go if invited to hitlery’s wedding.
> Damn He’s Good, Damn Good!!!!!
He understands precisely what he’s dealing with and their Alinkskyte methods of deception
Questions like this are a Humanist religious test.
Very good. He's got my vote!
> The States enforced Sodomy Laws until the SCOTUS changed it
Well more than half of them probably engage in it. Its no wonder why they changed it.....
Article IV Section 1 says, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." "Public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings" includes civil marriage - and Congress does have a role. Hence DOMA.
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.