Replies

Doesn't this boil down to the meaning of "rule of law?" Taken literally, this means Cruz finds homo marriage acceptable (see rule of law), affirmative action to be okay (rule of law again), federally-mandated methods and standards for public education (see rule of law), and so on, and so forth.

Right! <\ HEAVY SARCASM with Extreme Eye Rolls>

That's why Ted has been urging all states not covered by this ruling to ignore it.

That's why Ted has been urging clerks in Texas to ignore this ruling.

That' why he has stated emphatically that he is against this and it should be left to the States to decide and outright stated that the judges making this decision violated their oaths and should resign.

How you, as a FReeper, can come to that conclusion, absolutely mystifies me.

[[That’s why Ted has been urging clerks in Texas to ignore this ruling.]]

He should be demanding that they ignore it- and getting other states to join him in civil disobedience

This isn’t just a friendly chess match- the left are playing hardball and we NEED to do so as well- The left are DESTROYING this country and everything our forefathers fought and DIED for- and it’s happening rapidly! What the left are doing isn’t just ‘friendly disagreements’ anymore- they are VIOLATING our constitutional rights! and the SC is violating their oaths and violating law- and since the ruling was a violation of law it is invalid and does not need to be followed! The SC gave NO valid reason for redefining marriage- none!

My primary point was that "rule of law", without more, is not a sound base for argument.

-- That's why Ted has been urging all states not covered by this ruling to ignore it. --

No he hasn't. He's been proposing various ways to reverse the law, constitutional amendment for retention elections being the chief remedy, I think; along with giving legal cover for those who find homo marriage to be an abomination on religious grounds.

Same with urging clerks to ignore it. Cruz is a slave to the law, and if the law says the state has to grant homo marriage licenses, and has to allow conscientious objection, Cruz's focus in on the conscientious objection part. Hardly ignoring the ruling, it is 100% abiding by it.

-- he is against this and it should be left to the States to decide and outright stated that the judges making this decision violated their oaths and should resign. --

I don't recall any suggestion that they resign or even recuse. And "leaving it up to the states" creates a substantial mess.

I'll recede from saying Cruz finds homo marriage, affirmative action, and federal control of education to be acceptable - but he does find them to be lawful, and he has not expressed any respect for civil disobedience to immoral law.