Posted on 06/29/2015 10:17:35 AM PDT by Jane Long
Edited on 06/29/2015 11:00:41 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Ted Cruz gave a great interview this morning to an NBC host who tried twice to corner him on his response to the same-sex marriage ruling, comparing it to a supreme court ruling that invalidated laws that prohibited interracial marriage. But Cruz was having none of that, explaining that there was no religious backing for that kind of law. Cruz instead took the ‘elite’ justices on, explaining how they violated their oath and why they must be held accountable.
I said nothing about the role of government.
Homosexuals can claim that those opposing interracial marriage used religious grounds to object.
My statement is directed at homosexuals and their useful idiots. Nothing at all to do with government. Clear now?
They will give up debating him on the issues.
He called out yesterday that they will resort to the tactic of dividing conservatives so they can run a moderate up the middle.
Fair enough. When you said “[t]o claim anything is objectionable on religious grounds,” I assumed you were referring to the legal issue of religious objections.
The only involvement of government would be on 1st Amendment grounds in exercising religious liberty.
For courts of law to hear such arguments there would have to be clear scriptural references and a long history of religious customs deriving from those references (Scientology doesn’t cut it) for the court to adjudicate whether there was any restriction on the free exercise of religion.
There are however, clear scriptural foundations to oppose homosexual perversion. And that is where the fight now centers its focus.
I could not disagree more. The courts should not be in the business of determining whether someone's sincerely-held religious beliefs are sufficiently based in scripture to warrant First Amendment protection.
i thought he answered just right... regarding interracial marriage, he pointed out there was a Constitutional Amendment to address that... regarding homosexual marriage, the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to create law...
> “The courts should not be in the business of determining whether someone’s sincerely-held religious beliefs are sufficiently based in scripture to warrant First Amendment protection”.
The courts weigh whether a person is sincere in their pleading where religion is used as a pretext for their actions.
If one were to take your statement above as a universal constraint, then anyone could make up any religion at all for cover.
For example, tax exemptions based on religious reasons. The so-called ‘religion’ is heavily scrutinized.
I object to income taxes in general and favor a consumption based system but that’s another subject. The point is that people will use religion to evade the law, and they do so often. Judges do not put up with this unless the religion is historically established with clear reference to its foundations.
The problem is that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend for it to prevent state laws against interracial marriage (as evidenced by the fact that it took a hundred years before such laws were struck down).
I think the far stronger argument is the one Roberts made in his dissent - that bans on interracial marriage (and the others he discussed - limitations on marriage by people who owed child support and things like that) did not go to the core definition of marriage, but were rather laws that were layered on top of marriage. In other words, by prohibiting interracial marriage, states were not "defining" marriage, but rather were restricting access to marriage. By contrast, all the state amendments at issue in this case did was to define marriage as it has always been defined.
Courts weigh the sincerity of the person's religious belief, but do not weigh the religious belief itself. Weighing a person's credibility (which is really what the court is doing when it considers the sincerity of their stated religious belief) is something that courts do every day, in just about any context. Weighing the legitimacy of a religious belief, on the other hand, (as opposed to the sincerity), is something courts almost never do (and should not).
There is small army in a room just off camera directing her via earpiece. “Interrupt!”
I was very dismayed with his support of the disastrous and ominous ObamaTrade economic coffin nail.
Like any newsie has a snowball’s chance in hell in a legal debate against Ted Cruz.
“...he pointed out there was a Constitutional Amendment to address that... regarding homosexual marriage, the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to create law...”
She wasn’t asking him about the remedies, she was asking about motivations that caused opposition to both concepts. She was saying that the motivations were the same. They are not.
> “Courts weigh the sincerity of the person’s religious belief, but do not weigh the religious belief itself.”
To the contrary courts indeed weigh the religious belief itself.
Potheads use it now as a legal basis for breaking the law.
Whenever I get this 'what if...interracial' question, I always reply with 'what if the Supreme Court unanimously declared that the sky was green'? Then what? Settled law? No recourse? We start rewriting every book in the world that is now wrong? That question usually takes care of people who want to play 'what if' with me.
True! Savannah didn’t let the Ted Cruz schooling look as bad as most other leftie/newsie would. She saved face, for her own sake...she knew better...and, knew Cruz knew better ;-)
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.