Posted on 01/02/2016 12:43:36 PM PST by Isara
I’m not a supporter or fan of Huckabee’s, but Cruz is wrong. This is not a “question for the states” any more than “is up up, and down down”? a question for the states.
The natural law is what it is. Governments, at any level, can either reconcile their policies and laws with that reality and prosper, or they can contradict that reality and self-destruct.
Cruz would allow the states to violate the laws of nature if they see fit. Such an opinion is guaranteed to lead to national dissolution and destruction.
>>>The issue isn’t interpreting what Cruz did or did not mean to convey. The issue is he’s making these declarations behind closed doors to deep pocket donors.<<<
NO! The issue is NOT the location of the statement! Ted’s behind-door comments are actually consistent with previous Cruz public statements. The real issue is the selective editing of his statements taken out of context to impart a different meeting. The Huckabee SuperPac was deceptive with this ad and the Huckster defended it, so desperate he for a few votes in Iowa. As a minister, Huckabee should be ashamed of his own behavior!
meaning
You are evidently opposed to States Rights which is an important Conservative principle.
States have no right to do wrong. Never have, never will.
What part of federal choice to sanction homosexual do YOU not understand? The federal level decisions are NOT made by states. Cruz just accepted federal level rather than fight it. He is leading, if you ant to call it that, from behind or bending over to accept what Obama has wrought. Cruz loses this and sides with Obama and Clinton.
Only persons have rights. Governments have power and legitimate jurisdiction and authority.
Violations of the laws of nature and nature’s God lie outside any legitimate state power or authority, because those laws precede and supersede any man-made law or constitution.
Which makes any edict, act or legislation by any government, at any level, which is outside their lawful jurisdiction, illegitimate, and therefore null and void.
This is one of the primary principles of western civilization, going all the way back to Hamilton, and Blackstone, and Aquinas, and Cicero.
Without this principle, the foundations of American republican constitutional government are destroyed.
Look at the followers of this scumbag....past and present. They are the lowest
“The issue isn’t interpreting what Cruz did or did not mean to convey. The issue is he’s making these declarations behind closed doors to deep pocket donors.”
Um...when he takes the same position behind closed doors as he does in public, it’s what most people would refer to as a non-issue.
Cruz is right. This is a 10th amendment issue, since marriage is not in the Constitution. The Supreme Court was wrong for the same reason, it is a tenth amendment issues. Either states decide what legal marriage is or we have to add an amendment. Those are really the two current correct legal outcomes. Cruz is correct, SCOTUS and Huckabee are wrong
Cruz is wrong. Even his proposed “marriage amendment” would allow states to violate the laws of nature and nature’s God and have “gay marriage” if they want.
Why go to all the trouble of having a marriage amendment that doesn’t even protect marriage? It’s ridiculous.
The framers of the Constitution never presumed to be able to include in the document every single question that would determine the survival of the republic.
And make no mistake, “gay marriage,” and the destruction of real marriage and the natural family, makes every single clause of the stated purposes of the Constitution impossible of fulfillment.
Huck is a piker compared to what the ‘Trumpeters’ will do once they start posting on this.
I disagree, which is why the constitution can be amended
Either amend the Constitution or do not. Amend it for gay marriage or to oppose it, but until that is done, it is a tenth amendment issue.
I agree with part of that. The framers could not know what the future holds, that part is correct. They had foresight, and gave us the instrument to amend the constitution accordingly.
Congress saw no need for an amendment when they protected the union from the polygamists.
Which SCOTUS could have reviewed, etc and so forth.
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.