Really? I think the opposite. Our 2016 candidate has to win over voters who disagree with us on this one issue. Refusing to associate with gay people is not the way to do that. He hasn’t changed his views on marriage, and even spoke of it at this event. He’s got ballz.
Ah, the sound of lib heads exploding.
Cruz once hung out with sinners. Boom!
well, we just disagree on this one matter I guess, is all.
he can associate with homosexuals in his normal campaign rallies along with everybody else... he doesn’t have to go visiting homosexual couples specifically in their homes.
anyway, he’s strong on a lot of other issues....to be sure!
thanks
Yup, it’s not about keeping them from some type of “union”, it’s about their (or the powers that be)’s attempt to undermine a fundamental definition of civil AND social law in order to weaken and destroy the Republic.
The definition of “marriage” is the union of a man and a woman, from the bible to the common law. allowing that to be fundamentally corrupted opens the door to changing every legal definition known.
They could (and I would have no problem with it) have ANY other term as the definition of the “union of two people of the same sex”, “Garriage”, “Homoarriage”, whatever, but they CAN NOT alter the legal definition of what a marriage is!