Skip to comments.
Ted Cruz: Leave same-sex marriage up to the states
Washington Times ^
| Wednesday, February 11, 2015
| David Sherfinski
Posted on 02/11/2015 10:19:49 AM PST by SoConPubbie
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
"If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton |
|
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldnt make any sense at all." -- President Ronald Reagan |
|
"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." - Thomas Paine 1792 |
|
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams |
|
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams |
|
|
|
To: SoConPubbie
BillyBoy: Same-Sex Marriage is impossible regardless of what states say about it. Same-sex marriage won’t exist unless God changes human biology so people of the same gender can form a union.
2
posted on
02/11/2015 10:21:44 AM PST
by
BillyBoy
(Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
To: SoConPubbie
What happens to full faith and credit? Does Tennessee have to recognize same-sex marriages from Massachusetts?
3
posted on
02/11/2015 10:25:45 AM PST
by
Genoa
(Starve the beast.)
To: BillyBoy
4
posted on
02/11/2015 10:30:32 AM PST
by
stephenjohnbanker
(My Batting Average( 1,000) (GOPe is that easy to read))
To: Genoa
Does Massoftooshits have to recognize plural marriage from Utah, or marriage to farm animals from WA state?
5
posted on
02/11/2015 10:32:55 AM PST
by
Beagle8U
(NOTICE : Unattended children will be given Coffee and a Free Puppy.)
To: SoConPubbie
PING for the next time someone accuses Rand Paul of being a liberal or something for taking same position
6
posted on
02/11/2015 10:38:17 AM PST
by
Augustinian monk
(" If you ain't Muslim, you ain't Shiite")
To: SoConPubbie; All
As mentioned in related threads, the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment (10A) to clarify that the Constitutions silence on issues like marriage means that such issues are automatically uniquely state power issues.
In fact, PC interpretations of the Supremacy Clause (6.2) aside, the Supreme Court has clarified in broad terms that powers not delegated to the feds expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate marriage in this case, are prohibited to the feds.
From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. United States v. Butler, 1936.
But were not hearing anybody in corrupt DC mention 10A because, despite RINOs now controlling Congress, it is still one of the best-kept secrets in DC.
To: SoConPubbie
My recollection is Judge Moore had a similar problem with a federal court ruling that you couldnt put a huge Ten Commandments statue in the middle of your courthouse and, ultimately, federal law was obeyed,..."The author's recollection is incorrect. It was Judge Moore who stood on the ground of the Constitution and the Federal courts who disobeyed it.
Amendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
8
posted on
02/11/2015 11:08:03 AM PST
by
TigersEye
(ISIS is the tip of the spear. The spear is Islam.)
To: SoConPubbie; Kale; Jarhead9297; COUNTrecount; notaliberal; DoughtyOne; RitaOK; MountainDad; ...
Ted Cruz Ping!
If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.
Please beware, this is a high-volume ping list!
CRUZ or LOSE!
9
posted on
02/11/2015 11:10:37 AM PST
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: SoConPubbie
Ted’s plan will not work as the entire nation is devastated even if one state or one county has Gay Marriage.
To: SoConPubbie; All
This is asenine...then we should leave polygamy and bigamy up to individual states, too, eh?
Why not 5 guys & 2 gals in a "group marriage" -- perhaps the lefty loony states could lead the way in opening that door!
To: SoConPubbie
If it was up to the states it would be held off longer. But if the current trends continue there wouldn’t be a state in the union 20 years from now whose marriage amendment couldn’t just be repealed by a popular vote, in my opinion. There are states who only passed theirs in the 50-60% ranges in the middle of the last decade who probably couldn’t pass them again if a referendum was held now.
Freegards
12
posted on
02/11/2015 11:32:54 AM PST
by
Ransomed
To: SoConPubbie
That’s how Fred Thompson lost support of conservatives.
Leaving it to the states is and will be a disaster. Plus leaving it to the states often means leaving it to Federal courts which have been overturning state constitutions and state laws on the matter.
13
posted on
02/11/2015 11:39:54 AM PST
by
DannyTN
To: DannyTN
Thats how Fred Thompson lost support of conservatives.
Leaving it to the states is and will be a disaster. Plus leaving it to the states often means leaving it to Federal courts which have been overturning state constitutions and state laws on the matter.
That was then, this is now.
With all of the meddling by the court into this issue, and given that Ted Cruz IS THE ONLY potential POTUS candidate who has, and continues to take a strong stand on this issue, In Other Words, puts actions to his words, he can only benefit from his fidelity to this conservative policy position.
14
posted on
02/11/2015 11:43:09 AM PST
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: Colofornian
This is asenine...then we should leave polygamy and bigamy up to individual states, too, eh?
So, given that you have a mountain the size of Everest to climb to get a Federal law, much less an amendment to the constitution, at the federal level to solve this issue in the manner you propose, don't you think we should do what we can to protect those states that have already done the right thing to stop it in their own backyards?
15
posted on
02/11/2015 11:45:01 AM PST
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: SoConPubbie
actions to his words???....his words are saying he’ll do nothing as President on this issue...that it’s not a federal issue.
16
posted on
02/11/2015 11:45:56 AM PST
by
DannyTN
To: Oliviaforever
...that’s a bit over the top.....
To: SoConPubbie
Cruz is right.
First: The FEDERAL constitution is mute on marriage, as it was considered at the founding, and should still be considered, a matter that comes under the “rights” left to the states and the people to decide upon; not the Federal government; any of it.
Second: There is no FEDERAL constitutional amendment that adds “sexual orientation” to the protected classes under the civil war amendments, and without such an amendment the supreme court justices cannot - responsibly - make one up by themselves, and thus there is NOT a federal constitutional basis for same-sex marriage on the same grounds as was previously found for interracial marriage.
18
posted on
02/11/2015 11:55:50 AM PST
by
Wuli
To: C. Edmund Wright
I should have used the word detrimental rather than devastating.
To: BillyBoy
President Obama wants to claim that a majority of the States now recognize gay marriage, but he conveniently ignores the fact that gay marriage was FORCED upon the majority of those states through Federal Judicial Fiat, not through the legislative processes..
So, lying once again..!!
20
posted on
02/11/2015 12:35:18 PM PST
by
JSDude1
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson