- Joined
- May 11, 2013
- Posts
- 24,890
- Reaction score
- 13,614
- Points
- 2,755
- Location
- Morganton, N.C.
- Website
- conversations-ii.freeforums.net
'F*** what Ted Cruz has to say about anything, especially gay marriage': A word to live by
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....
www.dailykos.com
With no due respect to the Canadian-born Rafael Cruz, the Supreme Court got it right in Obergefell....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.”
Certain rights in this world are simply universal; marriage - the right to marry the person you love, irregardless of gender - is one of them.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.