|
 |
|
|
CRUZ or LOSE!IS this not the same thing The Supreme Court of Alabama is doing?
It’s actually a bigger issue than just marriage laws.
It’s protecting a state’s rights to have their own laws. Differing from other states. It’s a 9th and 10th Amendment issue.
Churches in states defined marriage before fedgov existed. States have the right to define what a marriage is in legal terms, because that impacts potential legal issues that will come before courts such as inheritance, property issues, liability issues, 5th amendment issues (spouses not compelled to testify against the other), children, etc. Religion in this ocuntry has always had the right to determine what they recognize as marriage. Before government was established they’ve had this function and they did not derive it from government.
the GOP should listen to Sen Cruz. He knows how to explain social Conservatism using the Constitution.
Also its ironic the Feds are respecting state laws which legalize marijuana while not doing so on homosexual “marriage”
The Supreme Court overruled State Sodomy Laws.
Now that Gay Marriage is going Nationwide, State Laws against Adult Incest and Polygamy cannot stand. Consenting Adults and all that Jazz.
The Dam has burst and everyone must Drown.
We don’t need a bill from DC telling us it’s okay to defend our laws. We need our state pols to just defend them!
More where Ted Cruz is doing, on this issue, while others are just talking or being silent.
The only way to prevent that from happening, either now or in the future, is to pass an amendment.
So, I don't support Senator Cruz's approach to a constitutional amendment at all.
Later this year, Sen. Cruz will be introducing a constitutional amendment ... The amendment will make explicit that marriage is a policy question for the democratically-elected legislatures in each of the 50 states.
The definitions of the meaning of words, and the laws of nature and nature's God, are not legitimately open to "democratic" majorities.
The idea that democratic majorities can overrule the natural law is in fact anti-republican.
According to real smart folks like Cicero, and Aquinas, and Blackstone, and Hamilton, laws that violate the natural law are NULL and VOID.
That wise notion was and is the basis for the American republic.
We must protect state marriage laws in states that have normal marriage only. We must tear down state marriage laws that allow faggot “marriage”.
While I appreciate Ted’s efforts and determination to uphold and protect traditional marriage, this legislation would not deter the liberals from their current course of action. The reason is that they are equating the denial of a lifestyle CHOICE with historical discrimination against blacks.
But it is a specious analogy, as the discrimination against blacks turned on an immutable characteristic, i.e., skin color, which is clearly reprehensible. Laws that define marriage as between a man and woman regulate lifestyle CHOICES. Yes, it is a choice as to what type sexual or domestic relationship you decide to engage in.
Many people would apparently like to engage in sexual behavior with animals or under age girls. If such people are now able to make the case that they are somehow born or unalterably “wired” that way, and should not be discriminated against, will any laws against such behavior now be deemed unconstitutional?
Unless Cruz and the whole rest of the country can rebut these specious comparisons, there is not going to be any way to stop this. BTW, who is arguing this before the Supremes?
States need to assert their sovereignty. The constitution is fundamentally a treaty that establishes a super-state (federal government) subject to its terms. The super-state is a creation of the states and subservient to the treaty.
If abrogated, the treaty is void.