Posted on 04/30/2015 10:03:48 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Ted Cruz. Accept No Substitute.
Of course this annoys the anything-goes libtards at Reason Magazine.
It is good, but the hiccup is the Full Faith and Credit clause. If a man marries his brother in Massachusetts and then they move to Tennessee, will they still be married? Will there be federal benefits? Will they file taxes jointly for federal and the state of Tennessee?
It should never have been allowed to get this far. It should have been banned nationwide if logic had ever come into play. Now here we are with lots of these marriages and it is much harder to take something away than to never give it in the first place. Of course the left knew this. The right has been dumb and gutless.
So here we stand with the best case outcome being some states allow it and some states ban it. But the FF&C clause will eventually bring it to every state. Still better than making it a Constitutional right — our road to social hell is slowed — but destination is hell on earth just the same.
And Robert Bork speaks from the grave: I told you so. Slouching no more. Full out USofG.
Ted just said he’d support increasing the H1B limits 500%, he can say whatever he wants, that statement shows he’s in the back pocket of a few big businessmen, and everything else is lip service.
Articles like this are like flypaper. Thanks for proving that once again.
[Ted leads, Scott follows]
TED CRUZ is a leader, a watchman and defender of the U.S. Constitution. He speaks and stands for truth whether or not it is popular.
The others put their finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing before making a stand on the issues of our day.
TED CRUZ 2016
https://www.tedcruz.org/
Walkers trying desperately to get to the right of Cruz on any issue.
Never going to happen, 2/3 of congress would have to approve, and that isn’t going to happen, and then 2/3 of the states would have to ratify. Look at your map friends, this isn’t a popular vote thing, popular vote this would happen hands down, but there is no way you are going to get 34 states to ratify it.
You already have 11 states with legal homosexual marriage by legislative or popular vote, to think 5 more of the list that have had it instituted by judicial action won’t validate that as part of any ratification movement, is naive.
It’s a nice talking point, but we are past the point where you are going to get an ammendment ratified by 34 state legislatures.
A pure full on popular vote, no doubt it would get 2/3 majority nationwide, but 2/3 of the congress and then 2/3 of all state legislatures ratifying, not going to happen.
He is not ready for prime time
There is not need for a constitutional amendment.
It is already Unconstitutional to do anything except the enumerated powers. Everything else is ALREADY reserved to the states and to the people.
I stand with Ted
You’re FOS and spreading it.
Since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect the so-called “right” to gay marriage, likewise with the so-called “right” to have an abortion, the states already have the 10th Amendment-protected power to prohibit such things.
But if the 17th Amendment had never been ratified then there would probably have been all different faces on the Supreme Court when the Court decided Roe v. Wade, state sovereignty-respecting justices probably deciding in Texas’s favor if such was the case.
In fact, patriots probably wouldn’t be concerned about pro-gay activist justices trying to legislate the right to gay marriage from the bench.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear.
This is why the gay lobby bypasses the legislative body and avoids any and all right of the states, and instead counts on the judicial branch alone.
Eventually there will be non-compliance by pastors and certainly priests, and these critters will have to find the same kind of pretender, same as they are, who will be willing to perform a fake ceremony to come up with a fake marriage in order to make a fake claim.
Marriage is actually between one man and one woman and can never be anything else. It is a sacrament bestowed on man by God. No court changes fact and reality. They play pretend, but they change nothing. It’s too laughable or words.
I am of the opinion that anything NOT an enumerated power, is covered by the 10th Amendment and is therefore a State controlled issue until a constitutional amendment says otherwise.
As such, marriage is not an enumerated power and should be left to the individual states.
Or, Ted is already thinking policy separation at the Federal / State boundaries due to his experience in Constitutional Law and as a U.S. Senator and Walker is just now expanding his view from the State level. I will grant him that.
Divorce law is already state specific, as is estate law. There is already precident on resolving these issues. Leave marriage law to the states as well.
Context is your friend, if you are indeed seeking truth, try harder.
I have a feeling after the first debate or two the Walkerbots will lose a little steam.
But it will end in federalizing gay marriage. It is the only option right now and will take us on a slower path to this nonsense, but it will end the same.
So you can’t get a divorce fast enough in your state you just travel to Nevada and get one there. You are still divorced at home. In the same way if you go get married in a state where two men can marry each other, your home state will have to accommodate because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. States must recognize the contracts agreed to in other states.
Some states allow marriage at 16 and some at 18. So all people do is travel to the state that allows it and voila. They are married even in the state that would not facilitate it. Now that matters very little in that age is not stagnant. The couple will be 18 soon enough. But what is being proposed is vastly different and the states rights argument will not allow states to not accommodate it in the long run. That is unless a constitutional amendment specifies some sort of solution. Of course that would mean homos are married in one state but if they move, they become unmarried. I do not see how that will hold.
Correct me if I am wrong. That is how I understand it. This was lost because crafty people on the left used bogus and mutable arguments to incrementally bring this to all. The right has been gutless, lazy and stupid. They thought it would go away if they accommodated it step by step. But the steps were a lie and a scam. They only led the blind down the path to their own destruction. Kind of like how Hitler would sign peace agreements to buy time before he invaded a country.
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.