Posted on 04/23/2015 6:31:19 PM PDT by VinL
Bloomberg Title and Link Only
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-24/ted-cruz-introduces-bills-to-stop-gay-marriage
Sub-Heading-- "The Texas senator wants to establish a constitutional amendment that protects states that define marriage as being between a man and a woman from legal action. "
Ohhh man, what did you guys do to my thread??????
You're as sure about that as you are about Sen. Cruz's obligation to attend meaningless votes.
Trolling a thread concerning ending gay marriage. Something you need to tell us?
Well, yes.
But only if it allows a State to define Marriage in the traditional sense as well.
I don't believe there is a Constitutional basis (but, certainly there is a moral, cultural and historical basis) for the Federal Government to define Marriage.
Not without an Amendment that says they can.
If the vast majority of the nation wants that, they can make it happen.
According to Article V the Congress and the President don't even have to be involved.
Start another one. I’m interested in this topic.
Good for Ted!
Well, if you read through 100+ posts, I would think you are!
So, after all that reading, what’s your opinion?
The federal government has to define marriage for itself though.
People forget that millions and millions of Americans in the military and federal employment, and for immigration purposes, and even for foreign aid, that the feds have to have their own definition of marriage.
President Obama made a decision to allow gay marriage in the military, and in fact recognized it for the entire federal government.
No. Minnesota rejected such an amendment in 2012.
And doing his job, as opposed to running around campaigning. There’s a time and a place for everything. Either that, or he should resign his seat.
It was a dinner "at the Central Park South penthouse of Mati Weiderpass and Ian Reisner, longtime business partners who were once a couple and who have been pioneers in the gay hospitality industry," according to the Times.
 Mati Weiderpass, Ted and Heidi Cruz, Kalman Sporn Weiderpass's Facebook page |
The article quotes Reisner quoting Cruz: "If one of my daughters was gay, I would love them just as much."
Today at morning mass, we acknowledged that it was St. George’s Day, who like other martyrs, gave up his life because he would not renounce his Christianity. The deacon said, he was not perfect, except for his effort and his love for God.
I recognize that we have someone in Ted Cruz who is a brave and capable soldier for the US and the conservative principals we hold dear. I pray that he has the Holy Spirit guiding him. And although not voting against Lynch (I understand he sounded the alarm during cloture and before the vote) and going to a fund raiser sponsored by the homosexual community sounds cacophonous to my ear, I will trust he sees beyond my little discomforts, to the war that must be won.
Jesus dined with tax collectors, because that is where his teachings were needed. Perhaps, Cruz was doing the same. The traditional definition of marriage has been embraced by the voters in each state that brought it to ballot, only to have it overturned. Cruz is trying to preserve the rights and sovereignty of the states. And with the money from conservative gays, he brings this issue to the national stage.
Ironic or poetic justice?
Thank-you for asking. How are you on these parallel events?
OK, if not silly, then empty and a waste of time.
Another FReeper (Unam Sanctam) posted this to me recently and I think two things: #1. This is “right on”, and #2. Ted Cruz is the only one in the race who can duplicate this:
“Ronald Reagan was a good model — he wasn’t personally a very strict social conservative, but he understood and made accommodation for their legitimate concerns.”
Hear, Hear!!!
Going to a fund-raiser. A non-vote carries as much weight as a "nay," since 51 "yay" votes are required by passage. So hanging around is a waste of time.
If a meaningless vote is important to you, that's your business.
What's important to me is that Cruz worked to expose the legislative sleight of hand, where Republicans vote for cloture, and then the Speaker allows a certain number of these Senators to vote against the nomination.
Do you support Cruz for president?
Indeed it is.
But apparently we are supposed to take it out on Ted Cruz.
We have a government selling uranium to the Russians, but I’m supposed to be mad at Ted Cruz.
We have a government systematically destroying America while enriching itself, but I’m supposed to be mad at Ted Cruz because he went to go catch his plane instead of participating in a dog an pony show vote to confirm a lawless racist AG.
I can’t take it anymore, I really can’t.
bump
Take heart, because that is the objective of Alinsky-style tactics --to wear down the opposition.
Since I know that this is their objective, I simply put their nonsense out of my mind. It's now become a habit. I then redouble my efforts, and try to wear them down with facts.
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.