Posted on 01/02/2016 12:43:36 PM PST by Isara
Cruz says that states should define marriage, not the federal government.
Because of the modern day insanity and wickedness of so many, I approve of an amendment to clarify the matter. But not Cruz's way, which would leave a large part of the country in the hands of the sodomites.
But again, there is no absolute need for an amendment. There's nothing in the Constitution that prevents American government at all levels from obeying the natural law and protecting the republic's existence from those who would destroy it.
SCOTUS has no right to do wrong either. And if they do wrong, they should be ignored. Their opinions are null and void.
Yet the Republic is being destroyed, because we do not follow the process written as the founders intended.
The amendment process is there for exactly that, to override SCOTUS when necessary
When the SCOTUS rules immorally or unconstitutionally, no amendment is needed to rein them in. All that is required is for the officers of the other branches to keep their own oaths and provide the necessary checks and balances.
Their oath is to protect and defend the constitution, which brings us back to article 5 and the 10th amendment again
Protecting the Constitution includes the fulfillment of its stated purposes, all of which are destroyed by the destruction of the natural family.
Which, I agree with, as John Adams pointed out, that this thing will come crashing down without a moral society. Since we do not have moral society, or so we’ve been told, we go to Article 5. We either have adherence to the 10th amendment or we exercise Article 5 of the constitution.
Agree with Cruz of this, unless the Constitution is amended
And just who sets federal policy?
Feds got this one wrong, in my opinion, so if we disagree with this, we mount a 10th amendment challenge. If that does not work, we use Article 5 of the constitution.
The Constitution says the federal government has no such power.
Stop being dense! Who tells federal agencies and IRS, etc. how they should handle homosexual marriage? Who tells the military how to handle homosexuals and marriage? Not the states.
Amazing how Constitutionally retarded you are.
Marriage is a religious ceremony or a religious sacrament. Why should the Federal Government take a position about an individual based on whether they are single or married?
And, AGAIN, who sets federal policy for government agencies and the military for their handling homosexual marriage? Who leads and sets IRS regulations? Not the states, not churches. A leader in the White House. And this is where Huckabee rightly nailed Cruz, he is so wrapped up in wanting to make this a state issue that would go away for him as candidate so he could appease his homosexual money supporters, that he forgot that the federal government has policies and regulations to set at the federal level, that the president has a bully pulpit to use. Cruz proved a hack, more worried about supply of money, not ready to lead.
Again. Federal government policies and regulations CAN be set without taking a position on marriage.
And for every specific example you give, I can respond with how it should be done.
Okay, so how does the federal government get out of sanctioning homosexual marriages, of ordering them be accepted, even performed on military bases? Of opening base housing to homosexuals? Of giving federal benefits to homosexual couples? Remove “marriage” from this and you still have the same problem. States do not do this. Cruz gave this up to appease his homosexual supporters. He’s playing people.
Individuals and their declared dependents should receive benefits.
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.