Ted Cruz Introduces Anti-Gay Marriage Bill

[Thebobo]

Tea Party Nation I said founder not leader.

Tea Party Nation is a conservative American political organization considered part of the Tea Party movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Nation

Interresting tidbit on the TPN

Criticism[edit]

Tea Party Nation is listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and is the only Tea Party-related group to be noted as such

Nazis = TPN?

 

[Fern]

This thing has bugged me for 2 days now.

Some facts:

The cases that struck down laws prohibiting same sex marriage were federal cases. The state laws were deemed unconstitutional.

That's puzzling because once ruled unconstitutional an amendment to the Constitution is required. Congress can't just pass a bill, it would be struck down immediately.

Also, the SCOTUS took up appeal of these cases earlier this year. So why bother with a new law now, why not wait until they rule?

- If the SCOTUS strikes down those lower federal courts Cruz's bill would seem unnecessary. The states get to have their no same sex marriage laws.

- If the SCOTUS upholds those decisions Cruz's bill would seem DOA. So why bother?

I then looked at the SCOTUS case in striking down DOMA. While I'm not reading the entire ruling there is some language that is of interest and may be relevant:

On Wednesday, the court’s majority ruled that the power of the individual state in defining marriage "is of central relevance" and the decision to grant same-sex couples the right to marry is "of immense import." The state, the court ruled, "used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community." The court held that DOMA "because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage."

So, the SCOTUS' own words emphasize the importance of a state being able to define marriage for itself. (I would think this gets a lot of play in the current cases of state marriage laws being ruled unconstitutional.) So, what Cruz may be angling for is forcing the federal govt to recognize marriage based upon the state of residence. Of course, this requires the SCOTUS to reverse the ban on state laws banning same sex marriage.

The effect, I guess, would be that gay couples in states with bans could not file income taxes jointly, not get the martial exemption for inheritance/gift taxes and would have other benefits (e.g., SS retirement) affected. In essence, he would be (partially) overturning the Obama admin's ruling to treat all gay couples as married for federal benefits etc.

Of course, putting aside my above conjecture, this all political show. Reid will never allow the bill to hit the floor, it wouldn't pass if it did, and Obama certainly wouldn't sign it.

Fern

 

[Siddhartha]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...bill_n_4780699.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Tell me again how the Tea Party isn't just the extreme socially far right wing of the Republican party?

Canada can you please take him and Justin Bieber back?

Will help create jobs or get the government off our backs?

 

[LunarRay]

This thing has bugged me for 2 days now.

Some facts:

The cases that struck down laws prohibiting same sex marriage were federal cases. The state laws were deemed unconstitutional.

That's puzzling because once ruled unconstitutional an amendment to the Constitution is required. Congress can't just pass a bill, it would be struck down immediately.

Also, the SCOTUS took up appeal of these cases earlier this year. So why bother with a new law now, why not wait until they rule?

- If the SCOTUS strikes down those lower federal courts Cruz's bill would seem unnecessary. The states get to have their no same sex marriage laws.

- If the SCOTUS upholds those decisions Cruz's bill would seem DOA. So why bother?

I then looked at the SCOTUS case in striking down DOMA. While I'm not reading the entire ruling there is some language that is of interest and may be relevant:



So, the SCOTUS' own words emphasize the importance of a state being able to define marriage for itself. (I would think this gets a lot of play in the current cases of state marriage laws being ruled unconstitutional.) So, what Cruz may be angling for is forcing the federal govt to recognize marriage based upon the state of residence. Of course, this requires the SCOTUS to reverse the ban on state laws banning same sex marriage.

The effect, I guess, would be that gay couples in states with bans could not file income taxes jointly, not get the martial exemption for inheritance/gift taxes and would have other benefits (e.g., SS retirement) affected. In essence, he would be (partially) overturning the Obama admin's ruling to treat all gay couples as married for federal benefits etc.

Of course, putting aside my above conjecture, this all political show. Reid will never allow the bill to hit the floor, it wouldn't pass if it did, and Obama certainly wouldn't sign it.

Fern

In Baker v Nelson the SCOTUS ruled or said there was a lack of a Federal question. In the DOMA issue there was... or it appears there is. Lawrence v Texas figures in tangentially but at the end of the day it seems, at least to me, that Baker continues to be at odds or at best irrelevant to the recent SCOTUS opinions.

The Prop 8 bit, again as I see it, was to do with a Right given (by the California Supreme Court) and then a Prop taking it away.... There could be no basis found to do that... Walker ruled there was not even a Rational Basis and when dealing with a Fundamental Right of a Suspect Class you MUST meet the strictest scrutiny standard. I think Walker opined... there was a Fundamental Right in so many words.

So... Cruz may be trying to do a few things. Enable States to NOT recognize the laws of another State... A non starter or reestablish Baker as the control for Same Sex Marriage in States so inclined and divorce it completely from Federal Law... The Feds can deal with the consequences just like Community Property States do for income tax purposes and there are only 9 of those, I think. He has to get past the hurdle of SSM being a Fundamental Right though if SCOTUS should clearly opine that way... I don't feel they have.

I don't think I have a clue on this Cruz endeavor and he's a pretty sharp fellow, it seems.

 

[Jhhnn]

Did you email him and tell him he's barking mad with Rabies-Strangelove Disorder?

It's refreshing to see you make sense when you don't like the 'type' either. It must be fun to belong to the political part of the spectrum that is producing so many demented psychotics they are creating their own extinction event.

One of the weird things about the Rabies-Strangelove disorder is that those who have it can't recognize it in others, nor can they possibly believe they have it themselves. Incorruptible qualifies, of course.

Cruz is the Teahad version of the boogeyman. They wind him up & send him out to spread gibberish.

They say "You can have this!"

When the vast majority of voters say "Are you out of your minds?", they offer up somebody only slightly more reasonable, who only looks good in comparison to Cruz. It's a basic variation on bait & switch, proven methodology.

 

[Incorruptible]

One of the weird things about the Rabies-Strangelove disorder is that those who have it can't recognize it in others, nor can they possibly believe they have it themselves. Incorruptible qualifies, of course.

Cruz is the Teahad version of the boogeyman. They wind him up & send him out to spread gibberish.

They say "You can have this!"

When the vast majority of voters say "Are you out of your minds?", they offer up somebody only slightly more reasonable, who only looks good in comparison to Cruz. It's a basic variation on bait & switch, proven methodology.

Still angry that I kicked your ass you scumbag and you got tea bagged real good by the Tea Party?

You refuse to condemn radical Islam because you yourself are a jihadist. I get it you're nothing but a coward since you spouted your BS at a Tea Party and they kicked your ass so you go bitch and moan on P&N.

 

[Wreckem]

point of the bill is a yet another useless political stunt by ted cruz. useless political stunts deserve to get bashed.




if you really think obama was against gay marriage then i have a bridge to sell you.

Has Ted done anything more than pointless political stunts? Hes running in 2016 because it looks like he could quite possibly get bumped off by another GOPer in the 2018 Senate race. The Republicans I know dislike Cruz more than they dislike Perry and that is saying a lot.

 

[Jhhnn]

Still angry that I kicked your ass you scumbag and you got tea bagged real good by the Tea Party?

You refuse to condemn radical Islam because you yourself are a jihadist. I get it you're nothing but a coward since you spouted your BS at a Tea Party and they kicked your ass so you go bitch and moan on P&N.

Delusional as you are, I wonder how you cope with society at all.

I've condemned radical Islam many times for the same reason I condemn you & yours- none of you are remotely rational. Islamic radicals have made several leaps of faith to arrive at their most cherished beliefs, and so have you. Both operate from a position of self righteous hatred & puffed up emotional outrage, even as each condemns the other.

What you believe cripples your intellect & capacity for human compassion, and it seems unlikely you will ever come close to any realizations about that. More's the pity.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I link to what I believe to be their official party platform and you come back linking a blog by Judson Phillips. WTH is Judson Phillips?

Edit: And ThinkProgress? LOL


Fern

So, for starters, you've just shown that you don't know all that much about the 'Tea Party' (including the fact that you don't seem to understand it isn't an actual political party).

Judson Phillips, Tea Party Nation:

"Tea Party Nation is a conservative American political organization considered part of the Tea Party movement. Their official website describes them as "group of like-minded people who desire our God given Individual Freedoms which were written out by the Founding Fathers. We believe in Limited Government, Free Speech, the 2nd Amendment, our Military, Secure Borders and our Country!"[1]
The group was created by former Shelby County, Tennessee assistant district attorney Judson Phillips in 2009.[2][3][4] It runs a social networking site for conservative activists[5] and is best known for organizing the 2010 National Tea Party Convention."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Nation

Then, you ignore the actual data involving the Washington Post poll but manage to make a disparaging comment about where the data was posted.

Then, you completely ignore the Pew Foundation data.

So, yeah, I guess 'LOL' is all you've got then.

 

[brycejones]

One person doesn't represent the Tea Party and the Tea Party has no official leader.

So you can't speak for them either?

 

[Moonbeam]

So you can't speak for them either?

Perhaps he doesn't think the rule doesn't count when he speaks out of that end.

 

[sportage]

Seems obvious that all the controversy concerning gays simply boils down to all the controversy concerning gays.
And nothing more.
Ted Cruz, Mormons, Pat Robertson? So what?
Lets get down to the heart of the matter, of the matter.

What is gay?
What is it to be gay?
Why is gay such an big issue for others other than for other gays?
If you get my drift?
Soooo, lets get down to the heart of the matter, of the matter.

I mean really, since when has a single gay person turned someone/anyone you know gay?
Or abducted kids off the streets and turned them into gay?
Or abducted your wife in hopes of turning you gay?
Or went door to door asking if there were anyone at home that could possibly be converted into gay?

When you think about it, there is absolutely nothing with being gay that has anything to do, nor any influence what so ever, on the typical heterosexuals daily life.

If your kid suddenly one day tells you he/she is gay, that had nothing to do with an actual gay person approaching your kid and signing them up for gay school.
Or some gay hypnotist sent into your home hypnotizing into gay.
Or some gay person going door to door asking if anyone at home can be converted to gay.
Unlike, I might add, certain religious organizations that go door to door attempting to "convert" people over to there side.
Notice that not one congress person has ever proposed a law against THAT.
And damn well someone should.
I mean, if you truly believe in consistency.

Those delusional would have you believe gays go door to door converting people into gay, which they do not, yet many act and react as if gays do.
Where religion does in fact go door to door attempting to convert the yet to be converted into the converted. And that in fact that they do.

Wasn't it FDR that once said, "ALL WE HAVE TO FEAR IS FEAR ITSELF" ???

Same with homosexuality. All we have to fear are those that fear the fear of the gay.

What it boils down to, there is absolutely nothing about gay that directly affects one single boring typical non-gay persons daily life.
As with all hate and bigotry of any kind, there exists no concrete reasoning behind disliking/hating/despising any person or group that you have never personally met.
And likely never will.
To hate the unknown is bigotry.
That is hate.
That is fearing the fear.

There is absolutely no logical reasoning for possessing the desire to second-class-citizen gay people, or for abusing gay people, or for attacking gay people, or for hating gay people, or for caring one way or another about gay persons unknown.

People attack gays, hate gays, despise gays only because they fear the fear of the gay.
That invisible boogie man under the bed.
Possessing the mindset of a child, and lacking the ability for reason and logic.

Ones personal private life is called our life. We all have one.
And why anyone in their right sane mind should fear and attack the private life of something or someone they have no personal knowledge of simply would be that fearing of the fear.
Fearing that boogie man under the bed, when actually there is nothing under the bed, and more important, there never was.

Why some should be so consumed with hate toward an unknown person or group of persons, and their hate lacking any logical reasoning what so ever, seems like pure insanity.

To justify their insane hate, they make up excuses for hate.
Just as with hating any minority group, typically they will first claim their hate is justified by scripture. Which never holds true.
And only justified in their mind after the words and meanings of scripture are taken out of context, or heavily edited, or picked and chosen to fit their twisted philosophy to justify their hate.
If your only lesson from the teachings of religious scripture is hate, then you are attending the wrong Church.
Jesus will back me up on that.

And when scripture fails, they fake false example.
True scripture also covers that, its called false prophesy.
And when making up of stuff fails them, they are left with nothing but creating the fear.

Dogs hate cats for no reason, other than dogs are unintelligent uneducated unreasoning animals.
And as for Ted Cruz and his like?
Well, thats not exactly rocket science, now is it...?

 

[Incorruptible]

So you can't speak for them either?

When did I say that I did? Stop putting words into my mouth or are you still angry that you were called out for being a fake Christian?

Perhaps he doesn't think the rule doesn't count when he speaks out of that end.

Still angry about getting Teabagged?

 

[Fern]

So, for starters, you've just shown that you don't know all that much about the 'Tea Party' (including the fact that you don't seem to understand it isn't an actual political party).

Judson Phillips, Tea Party Nation:

"Tea Party Nation is a conservative American political organization considered part of the Tea Party movement. Their official website describes them as "group of like-minded people who desire our God given Individual Freedoms which were written out by the Founding Fathers. We believe in Limited Government, Free Speech, the 2nd Amendment, our Military, Secure Borders and our Country!"[1]
The group was created by former Shelby County, Tennessee assistant district attorney Judson Phillips in 2009.[2][3][4] It runs a social networking site for conservative activists[5] and is best known for organizing the 2010 National Tea Party Convention."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Nation

Then, you ignore the actual data involving the Washington Post poll but manage to make a disparaging comment about where the data was posted.

Then, you completely ignore the Pew Foundation data.

So, yeah, I guess 'LOL' is all you've got then.

No, I understand it's not an actual political party.

Thus, depending on your pov, they are very difficult to define, or quite easy to paint as whatever you like.

Almost all of their literature focuses exclusively on fiscal issues.

I've met 3 self identified TEA Party people. Two had attended rallies in Washington DC. Their focus is exclusively on fiscal issues.

One ran for political office here and rented one of my commercial units for his HQ. His campaign was focused exclusively on fiscal issues.

When I've seen their rallies etc on TV news, their signs focus almost exclusively on fiscal issues.

When I've seen (snippets) of speeches at those rallies they were about fiscal issues.

Does a TEA Party that focuses on fiscal conservatism also attract some who are socially conservative? Yes, of course. But to then ascribe that characteristic to the TEA Party makes no more sense then ascribing socially conservative views to the Democrats. A lot of the Democrats down here are blue collar Southern Baptists types. They like OSHA, they like SS, they like govt disability benefits etc. But in large part they do not support abortion or gay marriage.

No, I did not ignore what the Pew site said. I noticed this yesterday:

But support for the Tea Party is not synonymous with support for the religious right. An August 2010 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that nearly half of Tea Party supporters (46%) had not heard of or did not have an opinion about “the conservative Christian movement sometimes known as the religious right”; 42% said they agree with the conservative Christian movement and roughly one-in-ten (11%) said they disagree

So 57% either don't care about social issues or disagree with the Christian conservative right.

I don't find this Judson Phillips person or the existence of the 2010 National Tea Party Convention compelling in any way:

Tea Party Nation organized the National Tea Party Convention held February 4–6, 2010.[6] Around 600 activists attended the event,[7] and Sarah Palin was featured as the keynote speaker. The event was criticized for its $549 ticket price,[8][9][10][11] as well as the fact that Palin was apparently paid $100,000 USD for her appearance.[12][source needs translation] Palin has said she will donate the fee to unspecified conservative causes.[13]

Several prominent conservative organizations refused to participate in the event due to its for-profit nature. The Tea Party Patriots advised members not to participate in December 2009.[14] Erick Erickson of the conservative blog RedState.com described the convention as "scammy" on January 11.[15] The American Liberty Alliance (ALA), initially a co-sponsor, withdrew its support on January 13.[16] Later in January, Michele Bachmann and Marsha Blackburn cancelled their plans to speak.[17]

A whole 600 people attended and they had to pay a 'known' person $100k to show up? And other "prominent conservative organizations" boycotted it?

Just one of the small splinter groups sporting the name. And IMO your insistence upon emphasizing their importance speaks more to your motivations than anything else.

I think the Dems would be better off just leaving the Repubs and Tea Party people to fight it out among themselves. No need to jump into the fray. From what I've seen the attempt to (mis)define them just motivates them. The only people you are persuading are those in your choir, so to speak, anyway.

Fern

 

[bradly1101]

I don't get 'state's rights' as it applies to marriage. Are some of us [gays who want marriage rights] to avoid states that outlaw same sex marriage? Is that the idea? What if one's company transferred them from a state with rights to one without?

 

[UberNeuman]

I don't get 'state's rights' as it applies to marriage. Are some of us [gays who want marriage rights] to avoid states that outlaw same sex marriage? Is that the idea? What if one's company transferred them from a state with rights to one without?

well, that is the idea. Of course, state's rights was also a battle over the right to own slaves...

 

[LunarRay]

I don't get 'state's rights' as it applies to marriage. Are some of us [gays who want marriage rights] to avoid states that outlaw same sex marriage? Is that the idea? What if one's company transferred them from a state with rights to one without?

End of day... Think of a driver license. Assume the law in AZ is you must be 18 to drive... but you are a CA resident with a CA license and only 16... Because of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution each State must recognize the 'just' laws of all other States. You, therefore, can legally drive in AZ.

As I see it!

 

[UberNeuman]

End of day... Think of a driver license. Assume the law in AZ is you must be 18 to drive... but you are a CA resident with a CA license and only 16... Because of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution each State must recognize the 'just' laws of all other States. You, therefore, can legally drive in AZ.

As I see it!

As I see it, it's an attempt by states rights advocates to carve out little fiefdoms that the Full Faith and Credit clause doesn't apply as it circumvents "states rights."

\and, oh, have they've been working on it...

 

[LunarRay]

As I see it, it's an attempt by states rights advocates to carve out little fiefdoms that the Full Faith and Credit clause doesn't apply as it circumvents "states rights."

\and, oh, have they've been working on it...

Federal District Courts in Kentucky and Ohio have ruled that same sex marriages from States permitting such must be recognized.

I see this much like when Loving was decided and some States rejected recognition in their State... The Court ruled they must...

SCOTUS in their last two decisions, one being Prop 8 did not actually address the issue but the District Courts can't really come to any other conclusion. I do have a problem with the possibility of an Ohio resident going to some State with SSM, getting married then driving back to Ohio so maybe the only way for SCOTUS to prevent that is to make SSM a Fundamental Right as it ought to be...

As an aside, when CA was finally enabled to have SSM beyond the short time it was allowed before Prop 8 was over turned, I thought my daughter and her partner would rush out and get married... She chuckled and said, "Why?", "We'll get married when we want not when we're allowed".

 

[UberNeuman]

As an aside, when CA was finally enabled to have SSM beyond the short time it was allowed before Prop 8 was over turned, I thought my daughter and her partner would rush out and get married... She chuckled and said, "Why?", "We'll get married when we want not when we're allowed".

How nice. How nice it must be laugh it off once the battles have been waged...

\yet the war goes on...

 

[LunarRay]

How nice. How nice it must be laugh it off once the battles have been waged...

\yet the war goes on...

She was a warrior among warriors... front line stuff... Me... I just wrote letters and emails. Her actions were not for her but for the Right for all so her chuckle relates to her personally and not the cause.

 

[bradly1101]

Federal District Courts in Kentucky and Ohio have ruled that same sex marriages from States permitting such must be recognized.

I see this much like when Loving was decided and some States rejected recognition in their State... The Court ruled they must...

SCOTUS in their last two decisions, one being Prop 8 did not actually address the issue but the District Courts can't really come to any other conclusion. I do have a problem with the possibility of an Ohio resident going to some State with SSM, getting married then driving back to Ohio so maybe the only way for SCOTUS to prevent that is to make SSM a Fundamental Right as it ought to be...

As an aside, when CA was finally enabled to have SSM beyond the short time it was allowed before Prop 8 was over turned, I thought my daughter and her partner would rush out and get married... She chuckled and said, "Why?", "We'll get married when we want not when we're allowed".

My partner and I are the same. I actually never thought I'd see it in my lifetime (especially after DOMA and Prop. 8 ), so I made my peace with it, and never considered 'needing' to get married. If straight people didn't want us in their club, then I saw no reason to want to join the institution. My partner and I are committed to each other despite the lack of 'papers' and ceremony. We may marry someday though, and appreciate the right to.

 

[LunarRay]

My partner and I are the same. I actually never thought I'd see it in my lifetime (especially after DOMA and Prop. 8 ), so I made my peace with it, and never considered 'needing' to get married. If straight people didn't want us in their club, then I saw no reason to want to join the institution. My partner and I are committed to each other despite the lack of 'papers' and ceremony. We may marry someday though, and appreciate the right to.

I am no better than you and have no Rights that you shouldn't also have.

I hope for you and your partner a long and love filled life together.

 

[bradly1101]

I am no better than you and have no Rights that you shouldn't also have.

I hope for you and your partner a long and love filled life together.

Thanks! A good life to you to!

 

[Atreus21]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...bill_n_4780699.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Tell me again how the Tea Party isn't just the extreme socially far right wing of the Republican party?

Canada can you please take him and Justin Bieber back?

“I support traditional marriage. Under President Obama, the federal government has tried to re-define marriage, and to undermine the constitutional authority of each state to define marriage consistent with the values of its citizens,” Cruz said in a statement. “The Obama Administration should not be trying to force gay marriage on all 50 states. We should respect the states, and the definition of marriage should be left to democratically elected legislatures, not dictated from Washington. This bill will safeguard the ability of states to preserve traditional marriage for its residents.”

Makes sense to me. Oligarchical decision-making overruling elected representatives is a problem. You know, the whole reason Obamacare was upheld.