This is one of the things I love about Ted Cruz: he understands the point of American Conservatism, that one of the major foundations is based on federalism and the importance of the 10th Amendment
(ABC News) Sen. Ted Cruz today invoked the protections included in the Constitution when a gay man asked the Republican presidential candidate about his work protecting the rights of gay voters.
Responding to a question from Todd Calogne, a married gay man who is a registered Republican and owner of a pizza parlor in New York City, Cruz said the Constitution protects the rights of all citizens equally. (Snip)
When asked further about the Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriagenationally and what would happen to gay people who are already married, Cruz said marriage laws should be settled on the state level rather than the federal level.
On this he is correct, this should be left to the states to decide for themselves, until and unless those in favor want to have a Constitutional Convention to make it the law of the land, rather than, as he put it, 5 unelected justices deciding to create this so-called right.
Regrettably, Senator Cruz is not right on this, due to the full faith and credit clause: if same-sex “marriage” were allowed in some states but not others, the ones which didn’t allow such “marriages” would still have to recognize the ones legally performed in states which did have them.
Were I Tsar and Autocrat of All the Americas, homosexual relationships would be legally allowed, but not legally recognized, and marriages would only be allowed by the state between one man and one woman. Alas! The left have managed to so corrupt our public morals that there is actually some support for same-sex “marriage” even amongst normal people.
some support ??? one year ago about 60% of all Americans say gay marriage should be legal. I am quite sure that has gone up in the last year
The Supreme Court decided on the constitutionality of law in the United States. It is not determined by popularity. It was also the SCOTUS that in 1967 said that the laws (primarily in the South) that outlawed interracial marriage were unconstitutional. At that time in 1967 only 20% of Americans agreed with that decision. That decision was also made by 5 unelected
Justices. Should that have “been left up to the States” ?
[…] William Teach points out a very important value about Cruz. Principles […]
Why not let the State legislatures decide all the civil rights? NC could outlaw miscegenation.
Says the guy who has never read or understood the Constitution.
[…] Cruz is opposed to gay marriage, yet he said that is an issue best left up to the states. […]
In response to my statement:
John wrote:
Which proves my point: our public morals have been corrupted. If you believe that same sex ‘marriage’ is either legitimate or moral or good, you have been corrupted.
And conservatives opposed women’s rights, Black rights, Black white marriage, gay rights, immigrant rights etc etc… all in the name of “morals”.
Dana’s religion of choice considers homosexuality a sin but most Americans disagree with his cult bosses. Bummer.
You’re entitled to your opinions on what constitutes moral behavior but you’re not entitled to use the power of the state to force others to abide by your religious beliefs. Ask the Lying C–ksucker – he can construct imaginary rights for conservatives from what he imagines the Constitution says.
Jeffrey wrote:
Actually, no. The Catholic Church considers homosexuality an unfortunate condition, no different from any other disease, and as such the condition of homosexuality is not sinful. Acting on homosexual impulses, however, is sinful, as is clearly stated in both the Old and New Testaments, and while some pussified Protestant churches have tried to ignore that, those words remain in the book they all call holy.
That is very true; how unfortunate it is that you cannot understand why conservatives make the same argument concerning your Church of Climatastrophe.
But, but, but, since you are just such a supporter of homosexuality, surely you can’t be using “C–ksucker” as an insult, since you think that it is just so, so noble!
Once again Jeffery has problems with the English language.
You would think that someone who claims to be as smart as he claims could read above the level of pre-K, but alas he cannot.
The funny (in a sad way) thing about Jeffery’s comments is that most laws area based on morals. It is immoral to steal, which is why we have laws against theft. It is immoral to murder, but then again, Jeffery is for the murder of children. It is immoral to rape a woman, but as Jeffery has admitted to that…..
Maybe it is not the source of morals that bothers Jeffery, but rather that he has none.
Dana,
Of course it is funny that Jeffery is using a homosexual slur. It just goes to show that he has no self awareness. He hates what he says he supports. He denigrates women, black, minorities and gays with his actions while talking out the side of hie mouth in support.
The vile Lying Cocksucker lies again. Gitarcarver = Lying Cocksucker
Dana: the difference between christianity and the scientific theory of AGW is that there is overwhelming scientific evidence to support the scientific Theory while the christian god is a myth with no evidence in support. AGW is a falsifiable theory and your god is admittedly make believe.
See the difference? Scientific method vs bronze age mythology?
My Carver wrote:
I’d say that the laws against theft are not so much the enforcement of morality than it is the defense of one person’s rights against the infringement by another. But, then again, when it comes to the moral aspect of it, Jeffrey is all too happy to use the power of the state to steal the property of people who actually work for a living to support those who will not.
As far as murder being immoral, for the left it depends upon whom is being murdered. You noted that the left are perfectly fine with the murder of the unborn, defining them as non-persons, with reasoning much the same as that of Chief Justice Roger Taney in Dred Scott v Sanford. But that’s hardly all: the killing, whether actually murder or not, of a black criminal by a police officer or a white man, is horrible, appalling, a most terrible thing, while the murder of one black male by another in Chicago or Philadelphia, well, that’s really not all that important.
It’s easy to pick on the J Boys here, because they are constant commenters, but they are only a very small sample of a like-thinking left.
There is overwhelming scientific evidence to support…AGW.
No, there’s computer models and manipulated data. Put that together your natural totalitarian instincts, and you have the latest scam being pushed by the left.
As for your slurs, you use them repeatedly.
Ever plan to back up your assertion that we regulated our economy into the powerhouse it is?
Speaking of lying cocksuckers…
It’s so cute when Jeffery has nothing to say but insults.
Such is the depth of his thinking skills.
Dana,
I would agree with you to an extent, but if the rights being asserted are not moral, are they really “rights?” For example, some believe there is a “right” to have sex with children. I would say that the foundation of the morals may be the rights of men.
Jeffrey wrote:
Translation: you say that Christianity is false, and you say that the Church of Climatastrophe simply must be true, so therefore you can use the power of government to force us all to take communion at your church.
Yet it’s obvious that a lot of people don’t believe in the dogma of the Church of Climatastrophe, and some of those who do think that perhaps the climate is changing don’t agree with your prescriptions for solving that. There is no reason that those people should be forced to make obeisance to your church any more than the law should compel you to attend Mass.
The funny thing about Christianity is that it’s wholly voluntary, and many people actually do volunteer, attending Mass and supporting the Church with their donations, yet, when it comes to the Church of Climatastrophe, we really don’t see the same commitment, don’t see the adherents practicing what they preach.
Consider Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires, who eschewed the luxurious Archepiscopal residence in the outskirts of Buenos Aires, in favor of a small apartment. Then, as Pope, Francis decided to reside in the Domus Sanctae Marthae guesthouse rather than the luxurious papal apartments in the Apostolic Palace. As a pontiff who regularly champions the poor, he lives as austere a lifestyle as a Pope can these days.
And Pope Algore, of the Church of Climatastrophe? Two huge energy sucking houses, and jetting all around the globe, frequently on chartered jets, to preach his gospel. Perhaps, just perhaps, some of us would take y’all a bit more seriously if you actually lived the lifestyle you wish to enforce on others.
I am reminded of a priest I once knew in Richmond, Virginia. Father Robery was pastor of a poor downtown parish, one which had seen better days. He sold off the rectory, and set up an apartment in the church basement, living a simple and frugal lifestyle. His regular parishioners included the homeless, who couldn’t make an offering. Father Robert did what maintenance work he could himself. Do the priests and bishops of the Church of Climastrology live so simply?
But, perhaps Pope Algore has learned something from an unfortunate part of Catholic history — he was, after al, a (failed) divinity student — the selling of indulgences. To what else could we more properly compare the selling of ‘carbon credits’ than indulgences? The carbon credits His Holiness Pope Algore was selling did nothing at all to actually reduce carbon emissions, but simply gave out a piece of paper by which an industry which had higher carbon emissions could claim lower emissions, by ‘trading’ with an industry with lower emissions? It was cheaper to buy the
indulgencecarbon credit than it was to change the industrial process or buy the equipment to actually reduce the emissions!Mr Carver asked the philosophical question:
The pedophile, if he does abuse children, is violating the rights of the child, and for tyhat, we prosecute and (insufficiently) punish him.
But yes, there are plenty of privacy rights we accept and are still not really moral. We’d both hold that everyone has a right to smoke cigarettes, providing he can pay for them, but such certainly isn’t moral. It is clearly wrong to get stinking drunk, but as long as a person doesn’t do so in a situation in which he can injure another person, I’d say that he has a perfect right to do so. Even a conservative Catholic like me says that it is wholly immoral to engage in homosexual activity, but I wouldn’t make it illegal.
That humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere is causing the Earth to warm is a fact.
Dana claims his conservative catholicism is voluntary. Ask the young boys raped with Dana’s financial support if they volunteered to be assaulted by old men. And we have all subsidized the church by not taxing their income. Just one of several ‘special’ rights.
Abortion is not murder.
“That humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere is causing the Earth to warm is a fact.” False. But do continue drinking the kool aid.
Catholicism IS voluntary. Your subsequent statement is simply stupid and inflammatory. Even allowing that, far more children are raped by teachers in the liberal school systems presently ruining our youth.
Abortion? Choose any term you’d like but it is without a doubt the killing of a human.
I can see why you’re fine with it. You’ve got yours and the hell with anyone else.
Jeffrey wrote:
Feel free to look through my website and find anyplace where I say that abusive priests shouldn’t be criminally prosecuted.
Jeffrey wrote:
There have been many societies where the killing of certain people was not murder. A couple of centuries ago, it wasn’t murder to kill a black slave. I would have thought that you’d have realized that when I referenced Dred Scott v Sanford, but I suppose that went over your head.
Somewhat more recently, the government in Germany decided that it wasn’t murder to kill Jews. And it wasn’t just der Führer, who personally killed nobody (probably), but hundreds of thousands of good Germans who participated in the Holocaust, from the actual killing mechanisms, to the railroad companies and crews transporting Jews to the camps, to just turning in neighbors who might have been Jews flying under the radar.
And even today, the Islamists hold that it is perfectly moral and legitimate to kill and rob and rape ‘infidels.’
You are in excellent company, Jeffrey: you are not alone, not in the slightest, when it comes to deciding that killing some human beings really isn’t murder.
And yet abortion is still not murder. I appreciate your opposition to abortion but yours is only one voice. Good luck getting abortion banned.
M
It’s not kool-aid, it’s evidence. You should be a bit more skeptical of your sources – they are lying to you.
Jeffrey continues to commune with Chief Justice Taney and Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden:
That abortion is not murder legally is sadly true enough; that abortion is murder ethically and morally remains very true. I pointed out to you those other instances in which the killing of certain people wasn’t legally murder, but it appears that you were unable to grasp the point.
You had better hope that you are right, Jeffrey, and that Christianity is all bogus. Because if it is true, you and the rest of the left will discover that special place in Hell for the abortionists and their enablers.