Ted Cruz Introduces Anti-Gay Marriage Bill

[LunarRay]

It's simple if you are not a bigot.

Bigotry is, as I see it, the attempt to speed up or alter to their liking societal evolution from a this to a that. But, as is often the case, a cataclysmic event extinct those unfit to endeavor to preserve.
Like I said to Fern, IF we were all of the same mind we'd all be happy rats in a cheese factory. I think, however, the human cannot cotton to that notion and there will be intolerance from one quarter toward another regardless. I'm intolerant of the Brain Dead Tea Party and their philosophy.... Way, beyond that perhaps. I guess there is some aspect of bigotry that is forgiven when it is applied toward what is axiomatically evil.

 

[Matt1970]

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

FTFY

Then again it is kinda hard to believe anything that comes out of his mouth.

 

[werepossum]

I can't see how it would. But I'm the wrong guy to ask since I can't make any sense out of the bill.

I don't see how it shows anything. I can only think Ted Cruz's office didn't adequately explain the bills purpose, because at this point I see none whatsoever. All I get is some vague, unnecessary, reaffirmation of states' rights regarding the fed govt respect of hetero marriage.

Mostly Washington DC angers me, this time I have to admit they've only managed to baffle me.

Fern

LOL Yeah, I was assuming that the purpose of the bill is to use the armed might of government to deny gays the same rights that we "normal" people enjoy. I'm still assuming that was the intention, even if Senator Cruz was not up to the task of successful execution. But I will concede it's possible that Cruz' intention is nothing more than convincing social conservatives he's working on the problem. Or perhaps he's just penning one of those worthless bills the Senate customarily uses to grab at the nation's purse strings. If so, someone tell him he has it backward.

Think of Rights as that which enables one to do or not do something. The rub comes when there is a conflict between the Rights of one and the Rights of another.

You have the Right to respect what you wish and to propound that Right from the mountain top to all who may hear it. But, that 'respect' does not block or alter the Rights of anyone else.... So, it seems fine to exercise that Right.
Our society here in the USA was founded and amended and will be further amended to reflect society at each time interval. I suspect that if everyone in the USA was Muslim we'd probably adhere to that 'rule' and if we were all left handed, long haired, hippy communal dwellers we'd live like Moonbeam would opt for.... It all depends, don't it?
It is why I'm not all that condemning of the Christian attempts to alter our society to that 'rule'.... It is natural and unalterable. But, as of today, we are neither all Muslim nor Christian... In essence, we are free.

Damned well said, sirrah. I'll only add that trying to change the law (or preserve the law) to deny fellow Americans the same rights is a bit of a grey area in that it's a belief system, to which we are all entitled, but also an action to establish or preserve a little bit of evil. I can certainly respect anyone who believes that gay marriage is wrong and/or cannot for its legalization while still believing that anyone who votes for banning gay marriage is doing a bad thing. While I'm pretty far to the right of you overall, here I'm to your left.

This is particularly vexing in conservatives. If one believes that government should intrude as little as possible on individual freedom, opposing gay marriage, even if one adamantly believes it is a mortal sin, is simply inconsistent. A veto on one's choice of spouse is pretty damned intrusive.

 

[Matt1970]

Many people hold bigoted views of different levels. Without thinking of it we might assume a group of black people are more likely to be dangerous of we're white. Or we might believe a person of hispanic origin is illegal. Or we may hold religious views that have us considering certain groups to be deserving of less. As many in here are fond of pointing out, black people themselves are often prejudiced against white people. There's a lot of things that get ingrained in us as we're growing up that force us to hold prejudice. The sign of a good person is one who can recognize that prejudice and evolve their views. Our current President was able to do that so I applaud him.

I never called Ted Cruz a bigot. I do however think he's an asshole, but that has almost nothing to do with the issue of this thread.

He didn't change his view until he was over 50. I guess some people grow up quicker that others.

 

[LunarRay]

FTFY

Then again it is kinda hard to believe anything that comes out of his mouth.

It seems that which he utters does not always find its way into policy or legislation....

I'd say, look to what he has put into effect rather than what he says he'll do. My back yard still needs mowing and my grandson still says he'll do it.... I want seeing the grass shorter and neat.... but, all he has to do is say, " I'll get it done shortly " and grandma is satisfied....

 

[LunarRay]

(...snip...)

Damned well said, sirrah. I'll only add that trying to change the law (or preserve the law) to deny fellow Americans the same rights is a bit of a grey area in that it's a belief system, to which we are all entitled, but also an action to establish or preserve a little bit of evil. I can certainly respect anyone who believes that gay marriage is wrong and/or cannot for its legalization while still believing that anyone who votes for banning gay marriage is doing a bad thing. While I'm pretty far to the right of you overall, here I'm to your left.

This is particularly vexing in conservatives. If one believes that government should intrude as little as possible on individual freedom, opposing gay marriage, even if one adamantly believes it is a mortal sin, is simply inconsistent. A veto on one's choice of spouse is pretty damned intrusive.

I'm probably best defined as Right, Left and Central... depending on the issue. Like anyone free from some 'party' dogma.

I have this anti Hamiltonian view that States have the Right to legislate their wants.... I say this because I have this notion that back when the folks came here to settle they did so because of differences... mainly religious, I'd say, and that seems to carry on today.

Having said that, however, there exists a powerful Central Government which has its tentacles into every crevice of the State and Community. So... there has to be some things that are Nationally Universal. Among those are the Rights guaranteed to individuals and the means to deny them. That statement presumes all Rights inure initially and with out prejudice.

The Ninth Amendment seems to say this as well... and we all agree that is law... well... all but some on the SCOTUS.

 

[UberNeuman]

Why did the chicken cross the road?

Because it saw Ted Cruz come back to fuck it again!

 

[Victorian Gray]

TEA Party isn't about social issues, even though it seems libs would like
it to be.

I've looked and can't find much, if anything, on social issues (unless it's a lib site denouncing them).

This seems to be their (official?) platform: http://www.teaparty-platform.com/

Nothing in their list of ten of "goals" has anything to do with social issues.

Another site, and I don't know if they're partisan or not, lists issues etc for the various parties including the TEA Party and they have nothing about gay marriage: http://www.ontheissues.org/Tea_Party.htm

Fern

Doesn't seem that you looked all that hard.

Tea Party Nation:

"Now the far left wants to turn marriage into a freak show involving 3 men, 5 women, 2 dogs and a Bengal tiger.
The left’s definition of equality is to allow anyone and anything to marry.

Marriage is recognized by various religions for theological reasons. Marriage is also recognized by the state for policy reasons.

Policy is simply the promotion of certain behaviors that we the people consider good and beneficial. Creating a stable structure for the raising of children is a good and beneficial behavior.

Creating structures that encourage young men in particular to do good and beneficial things, such as working and not engaging in bad behavior is a beneficial thing.

The left’s attempt to turn marriage into a freak show is not beneficial. Given their track record on being wrong with everything else, the fact they support these policies should be enough of a warning that we should automatically reject these policies."


http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/liberty-against-equality



"A new Washington Post poll provides some insights into how people of various political persuasions feel about the issue of same-sex marriage. Overall, 53 percent of all respondents support legalizing same-sex marriage with 42 percent opposed, reflecting the majority support that has been documented over the past two years. Democrats (68 percent) and independents (57 percent) support marriage equality more strongly, whereas Republicans only offered 30 percent support. When divided into political party clusters, the poll found that only 6 percent of those who identify with the Tea Party movement support the freedom to marry, with 94 percent opposed:"


http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/...y-members-adamantly-oppose-marriage-equality/


"In addition to adopting a conservative approach to the economy, Tea Party supporters also tend to take socially conservative positions on abortion and same-sex marriage. While registered voters as a whole are closely divided on same-sex marriage (42% in favor, 49% opposed), Tea Party supporters oppose it by more than 2-to-1 (64% opposed, 26% in favor). Similarly, almost six-in-ten (59%) of those who agree with the Tea Party say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, 17 percentage points higher than among all registered voters. Tea Party supporters closely resemble Republican voters as a whole on these issues."


http://www.pewforum.org/2011/02/23/tea-party-and-religion/

 

[Victorian Gray]

"Self evident" is one of those mythical concepts like 'common sense' and 'unicorns'.

Is the right not to respect something (e.g., gay marriage) also a "self evident" human right?

Fern

Were did the following come from? Was it a story about unicorns?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

 

[werepossum]

I'm probably best defined as Right, Left and Central... depending on the issue. Like anyone free from some 'party' dogma.

I have this anti Hamiltonian view that States have the Right to legislate their wants.... I say this because I have this notion that back when the folks came here to settle they did so because of differences... mainly religious, I'd say, and that seems to carry on today.

Having said that, however, there exists a powerful Central Government which has its tentacles into every crevice of the State and Community. So... there has to be some things that are Nationally Universal. Among those are the Rights guaranteed to individuals and the means to deny them. That statement presumes all Rights inure initially and with out prejudice.

The Ninth Amendment seems to say this as well... and we all agree that is law... well... all but some on the SCOTUS.

I agree completely. I think states should be free to set their own policies, but not where they infringe on individual rights we supposedly agree are inherent to all men and merely protected by government.

Doesn't seem that you looked all that hard.

Tea Party Nation:

"Now the far left wants to turn marriage into a freak show involving 3 men, 5 women, 2 dogs and a Bengal tiger.
The left’s definition of equality is to allow anyone and anything to marry.

Marriage is recognized by various religions for theological reasons. Marriage is also recognized by the state for policy reasons.

Policy is simply the promotion of certain behaviors that we the people consider good and beneficial. Creating a stable structure for the raising of children is a good and beneficial behavior.

Creating structures that encourage young men in particular to do good and beneficial things, such as working and not engaging in bad behavior is a beneficial thing.

The left’s attempt to turn marriage into a freak show is not beneficial. Given their track record on being wrong with everything else, the fact they support these policies should be enough of a warning that we should automatically reject these policies."


http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/liberty-against-equality



"A new Washington Post poll provides some insights into how people of various political persuasions feel about the issue of same-sex marriage. Overall, 53 percent of all respondents support legalizing same-sex marriage with 42 percent opposed, reflecting the majority support that has been documented over the past two years. Democrats (68 percent) and independents (57 percent) support marriage equality more strongly, whereas Republicans only offered 30 percent support. When divided into political party clusters, the poll found that only 6 percent of those who identify with the Tea Party movement support the freedom to marry, with 94 percent opposed:"


http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/...y-members-adamantly-oppose-marriage-equality/


"In addition to adopting a conservative approach to the economy, Tea Party supporters also tend to take socially conservative positions on abortion and same-sex marriage. While registered voters as a whole are closely divided on same-sex marriage (42% in favor, 49% opposed), Tea Party supporters oppose it by more than 2-to-1 (64% opposed, 26% in favor). Similarly, almost six-in-ten (59%) of those who agree with the Tea Party say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, 17 percentage points higher than among all registered voters. Tea Party supporters closely resemble Republican voters as a whole on these issues."


http://www.pewforum.org/2011/02/23/tea-party-and-religion/

Gotta give the GOP credit. The Tea Parties were a spontaneous outburst which included many non-traditional Republicans, and they were as much threat to the GOP establishment as strength, but the GOP has been almost totally successful in co-opting the movement into its own essentially social conservative/lip service to fiscal conservatism agenda. In the process they lost a lot of the Tea Party members, but they blunted much of the threat to themselves. Damned shame really.

 

[dmcowen674]

Ted Cruz Introduces Anti-Gay Marriage Bill

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

While Cruz's bill has next to no chance of even coming up in the Democratic-controlled Senate, let alone being signed by President Barack Obama, it is a sign that gay marriage is still an issue among the conservative right.

=================================================
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?

Republicans in Indiana just came very close to putting an anti-gay law on the books.

2-7-2014

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/...e-delays-vote-on-anti-gay-marriage-amendment/

Indiana legislature delays vote on anti-gay marriage amendment

Today, legislative leaders from Indiana's House and Senate announced that they would not vote in 2013 on an anti-gay constitutional amendment that proposes to permanently limit the freedom to marry for same-sex couples. Lawmakers in the state could still choose to take up the vote during the 2014 legislative session.

 

[Paratus]

Why did the chicken cross the road?

Because it saw Ted Cruz come back to fuck it again!

Cruz is going to have to blow a foul on that joke.

:sneaky:

 

[Vic]

Is Cruz gonna be the "Perot" in 2016 that the Republicans seem destined for? 😉

 

[LunarRay]

Is Cruz gonna be the "Perot" in 2016 that the Republicans seem destined for? 😉

I don't think Cruz and his baggers can mount a third party effort... not in '16 but... I think by '20 they'll have enough sway to move the Republican Party to their side or they will mount a third party effort in all races in all areas.

 

[Matt1970]

It seems that which he utters does not always find its way into policy or legislation....

I'd say, look to what he has put into effect rather than what he says he'll do. My back yard still needs mowing and my grandson still says he'll do it.... I want seeing the grass shorter and neat.... but, all he has to do is say, " I'll get it done shortly " and grandma is satisfied....

Oh look, Obama lied his ass off repeatedly to get elected. That's ok, my grandson lies too. Big difference is I bet eventually even your grandson will mow the lawn.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Sorry, human rights are universal.

huh......

 

[LunarRay]

Oh look, Obama lied his ass off repeatedly to get elected. That's ok, my grandson lies too. Big difference is I bet eventually even your grandson will mow the lawn.

I wouldn't bet on Kyle, my adopted son and grandson, ever getting into the back yard.... let alone mowing it. 🙂

As far as Obama goes... I see no difference tween him and any other trying to get elected... Many think what he says he'll do is what he will do while I don't ever listen to the BS... What has he done and how does it relate to what needs doing is all that matters to me.... No record... No confidence.

Obama is a great disappointment to lots of worshipers from the Left but they won't admit it... They rightly blame Congress for much of it but I figure that if Romney was President something would have gotten done... I'd not have liked it probably in the first term but the second would probably provided the more moderate Romney a legacy across the board...
Me thinks anyhow..

 

[Whiskey16]

Is the right not to respect something (e.g., gay marriage) also a "self evident" human right?

In a state bound by equality, it does not have the right to disrespect human rights.

For individuals, one does not have a right to deny repercussions for the expression and actions of prejudicial bigotry.

Fern, you are presenting false equivalencies. Individuals may have a right to disrespect and espouse bigotry, but nothing shelters them from the repercussions of such statement nor particularly actions.

On the position of gay marriage, the greater rights is the protections and enforcement of equality at the expense of the bigots who feel such acts of union infringe upon their homophobic sensibilities.

 

[Moonbeam]

huh......

Not sure what your huh means. BUnit spouted states rights on gay marriage. Eskimo said rights are universal to that post and I said then we should have slavery and state religion implying the exact same idea. We posted at the same time before I saw his post so I asked him how it could be that there can be folk who can't see such a profoundly obvious fact. You quote me as saying what eskimo said but I agree with it. The states can't pass laws that are unconstitutional and violate universal rights.

 

[Matt1970]

I wouldn't bet on Kyle, my adopted son and grandson, ever getting into the back yard.... let alone mowing it. 🙂

As far as Obama goes... I see no difference tween him and any other trying to get elected... Many think what he says he'll do is what he will do while I don't ever listen to the BS... What has he done and how does it relate to what needs doing is all that matters to me.... No record... No confidence.

Obama is a great disappointment to lots of worshipers from the Left but they won't admit it... They rightly blame Congress for much of it but I figure that if Romney was President something would have gotten done... I'd not have liked it probably in the first term but the second would probably provided the more moderate Romney a legacy across the board...
Me thinks anyhow..

I think you are giving too much of a pass for Obama. Remember how much ridicule Bush Sr. got for going back on ONE promise.....

 

[LunarRay]

I think you are giving too much of a pass for Obama. Remember how much ridicule Bush Sr. got for going back on ONE promise.....

The only thing that sticks in my memory about Sr. is his apparent order to stop short of Baghdad. I'm much more critical of Clinton's NAFTA bit.

My wife sits on the right of Attila it seems and has this notion that if a Democrat did anything it must be wrong while I'm more interested in how what is enacted affects me directly.
For instance, Obama care does not affect me since all my health care is VA so I look at that issue from a different perspective. Gay marriage is sort of the same... All rights belong to the individual... Contrary to the Tea Bags, I'd simply include the words, "marriage is a contract between two individual humans" or some such like that.

At the end of the day... I am convinced each president tends toward the middle and wants a legacy. Even though 45ish % don't vote they do help create that legacy. The middle is where it is at, I think.

 

[theeedude]

I love this issue, because it's so toxic to the GOP with young people, and it's completely self inflicted. So much karma in this one.

 

[Fern]

Doesn't seem that you looked all that hard.
children is a good and beneficial behavior.
-snip-

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

 

[Thebobo]

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

Judson Phillips is the founder of Tea Party Nation.

Since you seem to be an intelligent person I would think Think Progress would be the perfect site for you! :sneaky:

 

[Incorruptible]

Judson Phillips is the founder of Tea Party Nation.

Since you seem to be an intelligent person I would think Think Progress would be the perfect site for you! :sneaky:

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