Sen. Ted Cruz says SCOTUS decision legalizing
gay marriage was ‘clearly wrong’
New York Daily News,
by
Muri Assunção
Original Article
Posted By: Ribicon,
7/17/2022 10:34:41 AM
Sen. Ted Cruz said Saturday that the U.S. Supreme Court made a mistake when legalizing same-sex marriage. The Texas Republican made the remarks while discussing the “vulnerability” of Obergefell v. Hodges—the 2015 landmark civil rights case in which the country’s highest court ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples—during an interview with conservative commentator Liz Wheeler.(Snip)“Marriage was always an issue that was left to the states. We saw states before Obergefell—some states were moving to allow gay marriage, other states were moving to allow civil partnerships. There were different standards that the states were adopting,” he said.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
jimboscott 7/17/2022 10:41:42 AM (No. 1218853)
There is a very practical problem that exists with the issue of gay marriage. Marriage DOES create different legal standing within the Federal Government. There are laws that are different for married couples as opposed to singles. If a gay married couple in New York moves to Kansas... would their legal standing change with regard to these Federal Statutes?
You can try to kick it back to the states, but a 'marrried' gay couple in New York will pay lower taxes than the same couple were they to move to Kansas. This could be argued as an 'equal protection' issue.
Regardless, this is what happens when you start to legislate stupidly.
8 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
franq 7/17/2022 10:48:49 AM (No. 1218861)
The fish rots from the head down. The media can try to stoke fears of theocracy™ as a threat to democracy™, but when a nation deserts God's laws, it is headed for trouble. To wit: the current state of our country.
16 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
2assume 7/17/2022 10:51:04 AM (No. 1218866)
Marriage is a word that describes a legal union between a man and a woman. I don’t mind if people of the same sex have a legal contract, I think it would be best if they found their own word to describe the contract.
29 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
WhamDBambam 7/17/2022 11:25:54 AM (No. 1218912)
But...but...Anthony Kennedy was so pleased with himself!
6 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Rand Al'Thor 7/17/2022 11:32:46 AM (No. 1218918)
Marriage has been between one man and one woman for 10,000 years. A bad stretch of Supreme Court decisions by a bunch of 60's misfits is not going to change that.
21 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
bpl40 7/17/2022 11:34:46 AM (No. 1218919)
Homosexuality is abnormal and the homosexual act is abnormal. Whether it can be considered 'unnatural' depends on one's view point. But those who consider it so must have equal standing and consideration as those who don't. Unless we as a society agree on this, homosexuals will never get the truly equal treatment they deserve.
3 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
TLCary 7/17/2022 12:25:33 PM (No. 1218976)
A change of law in a Constitutional Representative Democracy requires legislation passed by both houses of the legislature and signed by an elected President. Any other authoritarian dictates that create new laws are an attack on our Constitution and oppression of a free people. Some judges must be impeached for their violation of their oaths.
6 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
DVC 7/17/2022 1:03:08 PM (No. 1219025)
Cruz is right.
12 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Barbara Joy 7/17/2022 1:07:34 PM (No. 1219033)
Why in the world would Cruz bring this up before the midterms? It is an unforced error. Thought he was smarter than that.
3 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
stablemoney 7/17/2022 1:08:34 PM (No. 1219035)
It was very wrong. Marriage is a union of a man and a woman to form a family for raising children.
10 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Mass Minority 7/17/2022 1:14:05 PM (No. 1219046)
The court should have not interfered with the Gay marriage issue. The proper response would have been to kick it back to not only the states but the feds as well.
There is no "right" to marriage because in the end Marriage is a religious matter. No heterosexual in America has a Right to marriage either. I am Protestant, My wife is Catholic. The Catholic church refused to marry us, flat out refused. We mmarried in a dfferent church. I had no Right to a catholic wedding.
What we are arguing over are not rights granted by our creator but for Priveleges provided by the whims of our governments. All of those supposed rights conferred by a marriage certificate could be erased tomorrow by a simple majority vote in any of the states or in congress.
Those priveleges were originally provided to encourage the proper health and safety of children and to promote a strong nuclear family to improve our civic lives. The fact that many heterosexual unions do not produce children or that some fail is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether we as a society decide that our definition of nuclear family needed to expand to include non traditional unions. That discussion was almost over by the time the court overstepped its line, with most people not really caring what happened in the bedroom and not really objecting to an expansion of that legal definition. Actually, with the exception of the tax codes same sex couples have always been legally allowed to set up all of the legal priveleges provided by "narriage". They could even start a church that supports the doctrine and have all the flash and pomp they want. Gay commitment ceremonies have been a thing since at least the 70's.
What we did object to was using the term Marriage, because it is a religious term, not a legal standard and the gay community's attempt to ursurp the term in order to not just legitamize their lifestyle but to somehow obtain a general endorsement of it is what caused most of the problems. They argued it was just a word and we should give it up. Yet they would not accept any compromise on that supposedly meaningless word. They argued that it shoud not be important to us but somehow it was the most important issue to them.
In the eyes of the government all marriages are simply civil unions, contracts between two people and the government outlining the priveleges and obligations of the parties. But unlike legal contracts, the Government can arbitrarily change the terms of this contract at any time, for any reason. Marriage has never been, and is not now a Right for anyone.
8 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
udanja99 7/17/2022 2:21:03 PM (No. 1219114)
Can’t read the article without signing up. Not doing that so I don’t know if this was mentioned…never forget just exactly who it was that got the ball rolling on homosexual “marriage”. That’s right - then VP Joe Biden.
0 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
moebellini3 7/17/2022 2:25:59 PM (No. 1219119)
Lets just cut through all the bullsh**. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Got it. The gay marriage issue should have stayed a state issue. It was pushed to the supreme court by Obama through an activist judge because states voted against gay marriage. Why, because it's a civil union between two people and not a marriage. Marriage has been a scared union between a man and a woman since the beginning of time practiced by people of all religions. Democrats just destroyed and cheapened that sacred union just like everything else they touch. Get it yet.
12 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
Citoyen 7/17/2022 3:49:16 PM (No. 1219194)
Gay marriage is not an issue at this time. The Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe specifically stated that marriage is not to be addressed by the decision. Why O why must Republicans constantly take their eye off the ball to bloviate for no reason?
3 people like this.
Marriage should be a states' rights issue. That being said, all 50 states expect and accept reciprocity among married couples. Marry in New York and then move to Alabama - you're still legally married. That makes sense. Was unfortunate that the case before the court was marriage and packed with all the political emotion. A much more reasonanable approach would have been "civil unions" among any two people that would carry all the legalities of marriage including survivorship.
Agree with #9. What on earth prompted Cruz to throw this bomb out there and risk upsetting the apple cart going into November?
3 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
DVC 7/17/2022 8:29:31 PM (No. 1219368)
Re #7, you posit a "Constitutional Representative Democracy" which is a fictional entity, having no connection to our Representative Republic form of government.
People often erroneously about "our democracy " and this is no minor point, even though many will roll their eyes when corrected, imaging that the two terms are interchangeable or so minorly different as to be pointless to make the disinction.
This is a great failing in our educational institutions, either incompetence or malice, I don't know, but look at the names of the political parties....one imagines a democracy which has never existed while the other KNOWS that we have always been a representative republic.
The founders specifically rejected a democracy for its anarchist tendencies.
3 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
DVC 7/17/2022 8:41:20 PM (No. 1219377)
Currently our obviously legitimate 2nd Amendments rights are not recognized in some states. The antigun folks love this version of state's rights.
Homosexual marriage isn't anywhere in the Constitution, so if there are different interpretations in different states.....so be it. States rights is the 10th Amendment. But the 10th clearly does not put the 2nd Amendment to the control if the states.
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Ribicon"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
Certainly. But federal overreach has been the name of the game for a very long time.