Posted on 04/16/2015 5:23:05 PM PDT by VinL
” Scripture commands us to love everyone, and to love everyone, and all of us are sinners...”
____________
When you use this as your premise, it’s hard to go wrong.
Free Republic Cruz Country
Stay free, Stand with Ted Cruz
Do you have 'friends' who would be so mean spirited as to put in in such a position?
Since you brought up Jesus, do you think he would evade answering whether or not he would attend?
Hillary will NEVER debate Cruz....I predict Hillary will not be the nominee, either.
No, Jesus would not evade it. Jesus never evaded anything and He does not evade anything now.
But that doesn’t mean He would answer directly.
Example: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.
Jesus put the situation into its larger and proper context.
Ted Cruz did not evade the question. He recast the situation into its proper context. Like Jesus, he put the question into its proper context and in so doing he addressed the larger issue.
Marriage has ALWAYS been a question for the states. They issue marriage licenses and would not have issued a license to two men or two women. When homosexuals became a problem, some states gave in and recognized their marriages. In Texas, in order to reinforce who can get married, Texans voted to add marriage is between a man and a woman to the Texas Constitution. We did that so there is no question about who can marry or be recognized as married, in this state. Homosexuals can go to another state if they want to marry; we don't want that here.
Because it doesn't matter if he goes to one or not. It is not the business of anyone to know if he will ever go to one. How could he answer that if it had never come up? He could say no, he wouldn't go, but he has small children and if one of those entered into such a marriage years from now, he might go. Then, he would have told a lie, since he did eventually go to one. That was a question such as, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Any answer would be the wrong one. He is not required to answer any question posed to him. The question was asked to get a “got cha” response and he didn't fall into that hole.
He did exactly the right thing: What mattered was the legal standard of marriage. He stated it is up to a state to determine their standard for marriage.
It is precisely because no one considered re-defining marriage, that this was not relevant; Every state simply assumed that marriage was between one man and one woman, and did not otherwise consider any kind of sexual deviancy.
It is due to the fact that sexual deviants are trying to re-define marriage through the SCOTUS (which, BTW, would be a violation of 10A), that we are made aware of the fact that marriage is a state matter.
As such, Mr Cruz did answer properly, and his answer could be logically extended to state the following:
That should a fairly comprehensive analysis of all of the arguments presented...
My casual observation is that I don’t think most Freepers were so magnanimous when Walker answered the question about Obamas Christian faith by saying he hadn’t asked Obama.
So then, Mr. Cruz, do you think marriage should be legal in your state of Texas?
DOMA is and was not necessary.
Windsor was not decided on grounds of the FFC Clause. It was ruled based on due process provisions of the 14A. As a result parts of DOMA were struck down.
Windsor did not redefine ‘marriage’ nor did it mandate one state’s definition on any other state. Windsor imposed upon states that contract provisions of ‘homosexual marriage’, specifically that estate, inheritance arrangements and benefits be recognized by the federal government. That falls under the Commerce Clause and the 14th A, not FFC.
If DOMA had not existed, Windsor would have been the same in that it forced the federal government to recognize contract arrangements similar to spousal arrangements. Therefore, DOMA was not necessary.
The FFC Clause was not crafted to establish uniformity in definitions but to promote consistency primarily in how debtors, creditors and insolvency were handled if debtors would flee from one state to another to escape creditors. The essence of the clause is not in mandating state definitions but in harmonizing contract arrangements and judicial acts.
Definitions of many objects vary from state to state. Example: Definition of Assault Weapon.
States can enter bizarre definitions of any sort. The state of Oregon say, may recognize that a man can record a contract of marriage to his goat. The definition of marriage is therefore extended to goats and humans in that state. The FFC clause does not require this bizarre definition to be recognized in every state nor does it necessitate that Congress pass a ‘Denial of Goat Matrimony Act’ (DOGMA) to see that it is prohibited. But it may support the inheritance of the man’s land to the goat and its offspring for establishing a protected reserve for free range goats.
LOL!
I too am a live and let live guy. I don't hate gays. But these activists drive me nuts. They're everywhere.
So he jokingly could have responded,..."He better not get married..."...and everybody would have chuckled.
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.