If homosexuality is not a perversion, then there is no basis for preventing homosexual marriage. Or imprisoning bakery owners for refusing homosexual wedding cakes.
There is no moderate or half-way position on this one. The moderate position loses. Perhaps it is now so late in the game that the strident position loses as well, but at least you stood for something.
Republic leaders are spineless. They tiptoe around immigration, homosexual marriage, race-baiting and a host of other issues because they are cowed and afraid the media will criticize them.
Yes. We agree. Homosexuality is a perversion. However, one has nothing to do with the other. Indeed, in logic one simply cannot have anything to do with the other. "Marriage" is by definition on the civil level the legal union of a man and a woman as recognized by the state. For example, in Europe, couples marry civilly, and then in church. What those in favor of "Gay Marriage" propose is the recognition of exclusive same-sex partnerships based on perversion as "marriage." Man is not woman. Day is not night. A horse is not a cow.
IOW, the state may be powerless to prevent the perversion, but has the power to prevent those of the same sex from entering into a "marriage." No state, IIRC, has the power to prevent perverted behavior between consenting adults. What Cruz is saying, I believe, is that every state has the right to refuse them to call their partnership in perversion "marriage," by sanctioning it with a license. Furthermore, the federal courts are beyond their scope when they override such state laws, especially when called for by referendum.
At one time homosexual (and bestial) perversion was punishable in every state, subjecting perverts to arrest, and punishments up to and including death. Many of these state laws were very rarely, or often selectively enforced, and so were overturned in some cases, rescinded, or simply allowed to lapse. What the gays are attempting is to silence the opposition to their drive for state recognition of their illicit unions, because the activity is no longer punished.
Not much of a reason, IMNVHO. Those opposed have every right to shout them down. The trouble will come when pervert-couples from one state wish to have their partnership in perversion recognized formally in another state. If the state's are truly sovereign, one state need not honor another state's license, just as they deny out-of-state licenses of Dentists and Real Estate agents!
Again, if two homosexuals wish to enter into some sort of lifetime legal contract with each other, privately granting each other all sorts of rights, that is available to them now, without legal prejudice. If that's not enough, TS.