Presley’s mind has left the building...
The Supreme Court decided to review marriage equality cases this spring. This concerns me because the Fifth Circuit Court, which presides over my home state of Texas, also took up a marriage equality case. However, the Fifth Circuit may refrain from making a decision until the Supreme Court decides......Naturally, you are at liberty to marry any consenting adult your heart desires based on equal protection and due process. There are literally thousands of benefits handed out to married couples that are not available to homosexuals, a blatant violation of equal protection. I would argue giving special treatment to married couples is a violation of equal protection, but I’m just a crazy libertarian that’s all about equality and stuff.
That brain full of mush should do more research. At least one of the couples that is pushing this matter is seeking a DIVORCE, they want the state to recognize their (out of state marriage) for the purpose of separation and dissolution, not love.
Selling the argument based on emotion is a LIE.
Let’s see.....Ted Cruz has argued 9 cases before the Supreme Court, and was called by Alan Dershowitz, famed liberal Harvard lawyer, the smartest student he ever taught.
How do we balance these 2 opinions, hmmmmmm.......?
It is impacting private businesses that are contracted to photograph events (which requires attending the 'offensive' ceremony).
Lawyers are not required to take cases or defend positions they oppose.
It is also impacting the public schools (which have taken up the mantle to indoctrinate children in the "normalcy" of same sex sodomy ("your parents are WRONG that this is a sin, it is not, and it should be celebrated!").
It is also impacting the lives of children who are adopted into same sex households.
So much for the repeated lie that this is just the actions of consenting ADULTS in private. Kids are affected at the school level (where they are even sheltered and applauded for engaging in homosexual activity) as well as at the household level (two parents of the same sex when they may want a NORMAL household arrangement).
Beck Says the Tea Party Has to Change Its Name: ‘We’ve Got to Find New Language’
Sounds like he has spent his life so far navel gazing in isolation from the real world.
I love my mother; she loves me.
Given that situation, young Presley would of course have no objections to our marriage.
States didn’t start issuing licenses (permission from the gov’t) to get married until later in the 1800s. It was a religious institution until then. After people married they registered it or made it public to protect children and property in case of divorce or death.
Ted is talking about this being a “states rights” issue .. and should not be a FEDERAL issue at all.
I agree with him.
“Wrong” begs the question of a Standard.
By what standard is he wrong and why is that standard “better” than another standard that says he’s right?
Leftist response to this: “kerblbufb blubf blllrbf.... HOMOPHOBE!”
Related;
Colorado Democrats block bill aiming to keep boys out of girls’ changing rooms
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3254841/posts
“You are guaranteed you will not be deprived of liberty and the State will treat you equally.”
The queers are treated equally! A queer can marry any woman that will have them, exactly the same as everyone else.
A carpet muncher can marry any man that will have them, just like any other woman can.
You think you are going to get us to turn on Cruz with a pro-LGBTQHBFJHT hit piece?
“Naturally, you are at liberty to marry any consenting adult your heart desires based on equal protection and due process.”
Hmmm. Can you marry more than one at a time, if that’s what your heart desires? How about family members? What if the heart desires a non-human? What if it has nothing to do with what the heart desires, and it’s just a way to get benefits of some kind?
Also, what if somebody else’s heart doesn’t desire to “marry” you? Are they at liberty to refrain from doing so? Are they at liberty to refuse to bake a cake for you? What if they refuse to recognize your “marriage”? Are they at liberty to do so?
I see costs to allowing same sex marriage. I see zero benefits. Homos get their perversions approved by the government. How does society benefit from that?
“What consenting adults do in their bedroom or how consenting adults form their relationships is no business of mine or the State.”
He thinks that marriage has a lot to do with stuff in the bedroom. Ah, silly youth. But seriously, isn’t “gay marriage” simply inviting the government into the bedroom? Isn’t this just homos looking for the all-important governmental stamp of approval for their perversions?
Cruz: "I think the proper place to debate those issues is in the legislative chambers."
Both Sen. Cruz and Gov. Walker are sitting on the fence imo, treating the constitutionality of gay marriage as if it was merely a matter of opinion. But hypothetically speaking, even if all citizens supported gay marriage, it remains that the states still have the 10th Amendment power to prohibit constitutionally unprotected gay marriage. The states would need to amend the constitution to expressly make gay marriage a right in order to prohibit the states from prohibiting gay marriage.
The Blaze hired some libertarian writers. Ted is friends with Beck and they went to that event at the border that angered people. But that aside the Blaze since S.E. Cupp, who one worked there, came out in favor of gay marriage has had some people who are pro-gay marriage. But I a sure you Dana Loesch who has a show on the channel is anti-gay marriage. they have diverse veiw points. I know nothing of this author though as writers have changed at the Blaze since one left to the Washington Examiner and another guy went to Mediaite after being fired.
P.S. Cupp is all over the map and she left to CNN, but when Crossfire was canned she started a weekend radio show on The Blaze Radio with Will Cain so she is still with The Blaze technically. I am not a a fan of Cupp. But I am a huge fan of Dana Loesch who works at The Blaze.
This man has no idea what marrage is, he thinks its about a feeling or mere commitment when it is about famly.
Insolently Equal protection of the law still invoes the law otherwise its just whatever a judge things constitutes equality among men.
Due process of law is also just as depended upon the existances of said law being carried out successfully. Take away the law and what is right or wrong is again entirely up to the arbitrary whim of some judge aka dictator.
Without law under which to decide judgement a judge is a boundless authority, and there is no justice for anyone.
Ditto.