What's new

Welcome to Offtopix 👋, Visitor

Off Topix is a well-established general discussion forum that originally opened to the public in 2009! We provide a laid-back atmosphere, and our members are down to earth. We have a ton of content, and fresh stuff is constantly being added. We cover all sorts of topics, so there's bound to be something inside to pique your interest. We welcome anyone and everyone to register and become a member of our awesome community.

🎁

Member Interviews

Feel free to start a thread here! We'd love to ask you some questions and get to know you better. Can't wait to chat!

In the News

Share all current news stories here to inspire discussion and comments. Check here for engaging articles that spark curiosity.

Member Introductions

Welcome to Off Topix! We're excited to have you here. Take this opportunity to introduce yourself to our vibrant community and start connecting with others!

"F--- What Rafael (Ted) Cruz Has To Say About Gay Marriage...."

Webster

Retired Snark Master
Administrator
Joined
May 11, 2013
Posts
24,890
Reaction score
13,614
Points
2,755
Location
Morganton, N.C.
Website
conversations-ii.freeforums.net

Obliterating Roe v. Wade apparently wasn't enough. Sen. Ted Cruz said during his Verdict+ podcast on Saturday that he believes the Supreme Court was “clearly wrong“ in deciding to support same-sex marriage in the 5-to-4 decision on Obergefell v. Hodges. The landmark decision made same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories in keeping with the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment. But Cruz wants to follow the logic of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote in his concurrent opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that “because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’” we have “a duty to ‘correct the error.’”

Cruz said: “Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation’s history. 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.”
With no due respect to the Canadian-born Rafael Cruz, the Supreme Court got it right in Obergefell....
The Supreme Court wrote in its original decision on same-sex marriage: From their beginning to their most recent page, the annals of human history reveal the transcendent importance of marriage. The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations.The centrality of marriage to the human condition makes it unsurprising that the institution has existed for millennia and across civilizations. Since the dawn of history, marriage has transformed strangers into relatives, binding families and societies together. (...)

It is fair and necessary to say these references were based on the understanding that marriage is a union between two persons of the opposite sex. That history is the beginning of these cases. The respondents say it should be the end as well. To them, it would demean a timeless institution if the concept and lawful status of marriage were extended to two persons of the same sex. Marriage, in their view, is by its nature a gender-differentiated union of man and woman. This view long has been held—and continues to be held—in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world.The petitioners acknowledge this history but contend that these cases cannot end there. Were their intent to demean the revered idea and reality of marriage, the petitioners’ claims would be of a different order. But that is neither their purpose nor their submission. To the contrary, it is the enduring importance of marriage that underlies the petitioners’ contentions. This, they say, is their whole point. Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities. And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment.
Certain rights in this world are simply universal; marriage - the right to marry the person you love, irregardless of gender - is one of them.
 
I couldn't agree more with the comment below....
To hell with Cancun Cruz. This is the same cowardly transphobic piece of shit who would join in with the other Qpublicans to wipe out the LGBTQ community. November can’t come fast enough so we can send him along with the other Qpublicans back to Siberia and I am talking about Siberia Russia and not the city in the United States.
 
I don’t want gay marriage stopped, but I do want government completely out of marriage and handing out benefits because you said yes. And that’s why I was opposed in the beginning simply because it just expands the government and gives out more money. You get a divorce or separate after several years then that’s when the courts need to step in if both parties disagree. Close the offices that hand out marriage licenses and everyone is equal no matter who you like. Anyways it is a state issue and should have stayed a state issue like 90% percent of anything the federal government proposes on the state’s.
 
Anyways it is a state issue and should have stayed a state issue like 90% percent of anything the federal government proposes on the state’s.
So screw the part of the 1st Amendment that refers to petitioning the government for redress of grievance then, huh?

That's nice.
 
So screw the part of the 1st Amendment that refers to petitioning the government for redress of grievance then, huh?

That's nice.

Has nothing to do with this issue and the meaning in those words. Get government out of marriage and everyone can marry any way they so desire.
 
Has nothing to do with this issue and the meaning in those words.
It has everything to do with it; you can either petition your elected officials or you can go to the courts. Either way, that's what I was referring to.
Get government out of marriage and everyone can marry any way they so desire.
We're not going back, I can tell you that straight up.
 
It has everything to do with it; you can either petition your elected officials or you can go to the courts. Either way, that's what I was referring to.

We're not going back, I can tell you that straight up.
Getting government out of marriage and your life is going back?????
 
Getting government out of marriage and your life is going back?????
No, treating everyone as equal before the bar of the law should be the standard, not "go to the front if you're a straight white Christian male".
 
Yep. Welcome to the Theocratic States of America where someone's Christian beliefs take priority over our rights.
And over the rights of the rest of us Christians, Tempest, who don't support and/or believe as they do.
 
And over the rights of the rest of us Christians, Tempest, who don't support and/or believe as they do.

I think that the Separation of Church and State needs to be heavily enforced. I don't think they should let anyone have a "vote" if it violates Separation of Church and State because obviously they are voting based on a Christian postulate that they should have left at home in the closet. People are getting to where they force their beliefs onto others and that's just not going to sit well with a lot of people.
 
No, treating everyone as equal before the bar of the law should be the standard, not "go to the front if you're a straight white Christian male".
And again getting government out of marriage does all that and more.
 
And again getting government out of marriage does all that and more.

lol divorce is such a bitch. Everyone including the government is up your ass about "marital rights" even though you bought and have your name on a car you worked your ass for and you lose half of your shit that you worked for.
 
So you don’t really want freedom of choice in marriage then.
No, I want it to be available to all and not denied by religious/moralistic busybodies.

You have to have some civil standard that everyone abides by.
 
No, I want it to be available to all and not denied by religious/moralistic busybodies.

You have to have some civil standard that everyone abides by.
And not having a federal government determining what marriage is and isn’t is exactly what you get.
 

Create an account or login to post a reply

You must be a member in order to post a reply

Create an account

Create an account here on Off Topix. It's quick & easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Welcome to Offtopix 👋, Visitor

Off Topix is a well-established general discussion forum that originally opened to the public in 2009! We provide a laid-back atmosphere, and our members are down to earth. We have a ton of content, and fresh stuff is constantly being added. We cover all sorts of topics, so there's bound to be something inside to pique your interest. We welcome anyone and everyone to register and become a member of our awesome community.

Theme customization system

You can customize some areas of the forum theme from this menu.

  • Theme customizations unavailable!

    Theme customization fields are not available to you, please contact the administrator for more information.

  • Choose the color combination that reflects your taste
    Background images
    Color gradient backgrounds
Back