Posted on 04/26/2015 6:04:32 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The state of Alabama does recognize homosexual marriage. If you are an educator (college, university, primary, secondary) in any public institution in the state, then state provided medical insurance covers the same sex spouse if you choose.
My preferred candidate is Ted Cruz.
Re: Scott Walker and same-sex marriage -
Under current court rulings striking down states on same-sex marriage, and under a coming SCOTUS ruling almost certain to make a sweeping determination that there’s a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage, the question then DOES become, “can states ban same-sex marriage?”
Walker appears to be advancing his own belief that states have the right to define marriage. Under the Tenth Amendment they certainly do. By banning all but heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman, that WAS where most states stood on this, until Holder refused to follow the Defense of Marriage Act, and until federal courts started knocking down states like dominos on this issue. Federal Courts nor any other federal branch were given that power, therefore it devolves to the states.
I don’t see a problem with Scott Walker on this issue. His stance is absolutely the correct and courageous one.
Walker is being criticized by some for allowing a court decision to decide it for Wisconsin. In other words for not standing for nullification, civil disobedience, resistance - whatever one calls it - when federal courts usurp states powers.
What he might be trying to do is use states to amend the Constitution to actually spell out in precise words that states are the ones to decide this issue, by making it an agenda item if a Fifth Amendment Convention of the States does happen (see Mark Levin’s “The Liberty Amendments”), to put such a proposed amendment in play, there.
That seems to be where he’s heading on this. What other venue could produce an amendment that says the states, only, can define marriage, besides that one?
In the meantime, let’s compare his position on whether to obey, or to nullify, a federal court ruling on this issue, with positions of other candidates on the same thing.
Let’s compare apples to apples.
That might be news to all the people who voted for State Propositions that have been overturned by activist courts.
Walker believes marriage is between a man and a woman.
I'd like you to read this piece: Scott Walker, a Pastor’s Son, Runs on Faith as Iowa Beckons published in the NYT (not written to blow kisses at Scott Walker but it does inform us on some aspects that you might consider when you're making these opposition postings).
CW,
If citizens of a state overwhelmingly approve a constitutional amendment defining and upholding marriage, and some leftist hack federal judge strikes it down under false pretenses, then how can we be a nation of laws?
So we have to abide by a law deemed "the law" by usurpers who have absolutely no jurisdiction over our state, rather than the law voted on and added to the state constitution by its citizens?
THANK YOU!
That's fine, but has he followed through and stood up for his beliefs and others who also believe that marriage is one man/one woman against the lawlessness of the federal courts.
Sadly, a constitutional amendment would probably have as little effect as the current constitution which most clearly does NOT mandate homosexual marriage. If the justices can rewrite existing law, they can certainly rewrite any new laws. The problem isn’t the constitution. It’s the people we elect and their failure to reign in the judicial branch.
There’s a whole lot of judges needin’ impeachin’.
I'll second that.
When confronted with the homo-marriage insanity being imposed in his own home state, I found Walker’s response to be... unimpressive. To put it kindly.
These are not "bans on gay marriage."
Stop playing the leftist propaganda game.
All states did was define marriage as between one man/one woman based on biblical, historical, and constitutional laws.
Homosexuals can get married....they just have to marry a member of the opposite sex.
Natural Born Citizen means citizen by birth and not by being naturalized.
Congress has the right to define these matters.
Under the relevant statute, Ted Cruz is a citizen of the United States by birth, by being born to a United States citizen who was working in Canada at the time but who was herself a U.S. citizen at birth, not naturalized, and the relevant statute did not require that both parents be natural born citizens of the United States, therefore his mother satisfied that requirement.
Nice of you to note Walker’s qualification status, however, please don’t muddy up the waters by implication that Ted Cruz doesn’t meet the necessary criteria.
Yes, he does.
If you don’t believe it, ask Jim Robinson, who has made it crystal clear.
Do tell?
What would you have done Gov. greene66?
Nullification. State the rogue federal judge has no say in Wisconsin’s law, and no say in what defines a married couple. Fight, dammit.
If it's news to them, that's because they are not learning it public schools, or in the media, or from those who are supposed to be representing them.
Absolutely.
Gov. Walker is a fighter.
It’s laughable to suggest otherwise.
Yes, but the question I still have is whether Walker is a fighter for “my” interests and “my” values, or just a fighter for the GOP moneyed class and Chamber-of-Commerce crowd?
That’s a question I consider unresolved at this point.
If you vote, you will be forced to chose ‘between the lessor of two evils’. There are no other choices on the ballot, ever.
The only man who wasn’t ‘the lessor of two evils’ left the earth a long time ago.
That is true, but at some point the law of diminishing returns kicks in. It’s kicked in for me.
>>The question is, “can states permit same-sex marriage?”
Marriage is an historically observable state-established mechanism for regulating sociobiological/reproductive competitiveness among competing cultures.
In that context, same-sex “marriage” has what effect?
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.