Skip to comments.
Cruz: Amend U.S. Constitution to Preserve Marriage Bans
Texas Tribune ^
| Oct. 6, 2014
| Aman Batheja
Posted on 10/07/2014 6:50:49 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-71 next last
To: ScottinVA
All right, we can discuss the idea that an amendment may not pass.
Does that make this a futile move by Cruz? What other options are there? At least Cruz is taking a stand here - however pointless you may deem it to be.
And I applaud him for it. Far better than the usual idiot ideas that government should have no role in marriages anyway.
THAT type of libertardian thinking is what got us queer marriages AND the Supremes overturning bans on them in the first place.
41
posted on
10/07/2014 8:16:36 AM PDT
by
Responsibility2nd
(NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
To: Responsibility2nd
Funny that all the amendments to the state constitutions, duly amended by due process by the people of those states,
were ruled “unconstitutional”.
I would have little surprise if leftist judges, following a Constitutional Amendment thwarting their ability to destroy our society, ruled that the amendment itself was unconstitutional.
42
posted on
10/07/2014 8:17:59 AM PDT
by
MrB
(The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
To: Responsibility2nd
All right, we can discuss the idea that an amendment may not pass. Does that make this a futile move by Cruz? What other options are there? At least Cruz is taking a stand here - however pointless you may deem it to be. Of course he's taking a noble stand on this and I applaud him. But with the tide of public opinion shifting leftward, it'll die an early death. No legislation Harry Reid disagrees with makes it past his inbox. Where do we think this will go?
43
posted on
10/07/2014 8:20:05 AM PDT
by
ScottinVA
(We either destroy ISIS there... or fight them here. Pick one, America.)
To: SoConPubbie
" U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz called Monday for amending the U.S. Constitution to ... "It really doesn't matter WHAT a reason is ...
Have you any idea how much TIME is involved with calling for, gathering together, arguing and agreeing to .... ANYthing that adds to or changes the Constitution ?
The United States has a little time left before we breathe our last, but we should first focus on the criminals and not the perverts
44
posted on
10/07/2014 8:21:40 AM PDT
by
knarf
(I say things that are true .. I have no proof .. but they're true.)
To: ScottinVA
Where do we think this will go?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I guess it will go into some conservative forums where so called conservatives will sneer at it and pick it to pieces.
45
posted on
10/07/2014 8:24:43 AM PDT
by
Responsibility2nd
(NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
To: Responsibility2nd
A better stand would be our feet planted firmly, a trowel in one hand and a sword in the other.
ALL politicians love to get a rise and an attaboy from their constituents, but attaboys are not necessarily (good) policy
We've been up and down the Constitution and ammendments here in FR for (almost) decades ...
46
posted on
10/07/2014 8:26:49 AM PDT
by
knarf
(I say things that are true .. I have no proof .. but they're true.)
To: knarf
Have you any idea how much TIME is involved with calling for, gathering together, arguing and agreeing to .... ANYthing that adds to or changes the Constitution ?
The United States has a little time left before we breathe our last, but we should first focus on the criminals and not the perverts
You fight evil when and where you find it.
You don't make excuses for not fighting it.
You might as well just sit in the corner and gripe otherwise for all the good you will do.
47
posted on
10/07/2014 8:49:58 AM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: ScottinVA; Responsibility2nd
I wish I could agree on that point, but the facts say otherwise.
http://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/domestic-issues/attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-marriage-support-reaches-new-high.aspx
At least two of those polls historically skew way left-wing and really cannot be trusted for anything more than propaganda and bird-cage liner, the other one, I have no idea as to the quality of their polling.
48
posted on
10/07/2014 8:52:06 AM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: knarf
It's too bad your post will fall on deaf ears.
Giving the government dominion over marriage is why marriage doesn't mean anything anymore.
Marriage belongs to the church. The government should recognize contracts.
It's a state issue. Plain and simple. Ted is wrong on this and the Supreme Court is wrong to overturn state's ban on gay marriages.
49
posted on
10/07/2014 8:53:08 AM PDT
by
randomhero97
("First you want to kill me, now you want to kiss me. Blow!" - Ash)
To: randomhero97
I heard Oklahoma has considered taking the State out of Marriage, if worse comes to worse, perhaps this is what will have to be done.
“I heard Oklahoma has considered taking the State out of Marriage, if worse comes to worse, perhaps this is what will have to be done.”
Meaning, Government out of Marriage if this is the way it is going to be done. I don’t like that choice either really.
To: randomhero97
You contradict yourself.
If the government should have no dominion over marriage and marriage belongs to the church, then why do you say “It’s a state issue. Plain and simple.”?
No, you are wrong. Marriage clearly is a State AND Federal concern.
52
posted on
10/07/2014 8:58:58 AM PDT
by
Responsibility2nd
(NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
To: Responsibility2nd
How did I contradict myself when I said marriage belongs to the church and the government should recognize contracts?
When two people join in a union, it's essentially a binding contract. That's what the government should recognize.
Why is marriage a state and federal concern? Why does this issue take priority over all the other issues that the People are getting screwed on?
53
posted on
10/07/2014 9:03:53 AM PDT
by
randomhero97
("First you want to kill me, now you want to kiss me. Blow!" - Ash)
To: ScottinVA
Unfortunately homosexual jamming has been successful so far. The Bible told us how to deal with them. I helped prosecute the CRIME of homosexuality just a few short years ago. Because we’ve strayed from those commands culturally, we’re constantly calling God a liar, and from the wrath He’s pouring on us, it’s clear He doesn’t like that very much.
54
posted on
10/07/2014 9:07:54 AM PDT
by
afsnco
To: randomhero97
Because people decided the government should not be involved in marriage, we now have queer marriages and black robed thugs overturning state laws against queer marriages.
So you believe the citizens of a state shoud have the right to vote that queer marriages are illegal? I do. I suspect you do too.
But when you DENY the Federal government that same involvement you open the door for a bunch of black robed activists to overturn Constitutional Law.
Cruz is here proposing an Amendment protecting the States Rights. The 10th should be adequate enough, but clearly it isn’t. So what would you do? Besides sit back and watch Fedzilla enact a nationwide policy favoring queer marriage?
55
posted on
10/07/2014 9:13:11 AM PDT
by
Responsibility2nd
(NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
To: Responsibility2nd
"No, you are wrong. Marriage clearly is a State AND Federal concern."ONLY so far as protecting the state from having inbreds and diseased people multiplying and ultimately becoming a burden to the taxpayer
56
posted on
10/07/2014 10:06:02 AM PDT
by
knarf
(I say things that are true .. I have no proof .. but they're true.)
To: SoConPubbie
57
posted on
10/07/2014 10:08:31 AM PDT
by
TheConservativeParty
(Colleen Hufford, American. We will never forget.)
To: SoConPubbie
Why amend the US Constitution when 10A is already in place?
If anything Cruz should introduce a bill stipulating that those adjudicating constititutional matters and blatantly obfuscating the Bill of Rights will be sentenced to 20 years of hard labor.
58
posted on
10/07/2014 10:21:37 AM PDT
by
Rodamala
To: Rodamala; demshateGod; Paine in the Neck
The 10th doesn’t dictate federal law and regulations on marriage, and that has been very important to the left/libertarians supporting it.
For instance gay marriage in the military, for federal employees, and in immigration and foreign policy makes a state trying to forbid it, impossible in reality.
59
posted on
10/07/2014 10:29:07 AM PDT
by
ansel12
To: SoConPubbie
GO TED..GOTTA LOVE THAT MAN!!!!! Yes, the men will be few but strong, the boys will squeal, squawk and do NOTHING!!!
VOTE THE BOYS OUT!!!
60
posted on
10/07/2014 11:08:01 AM PDT
by
pollywog
( " O thou who changest not....ABIDE with me")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-71 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson