Ted Cruz (R) introduces Anti-Gay marriage bill

[mvaliz]

Going to go ahead and edit this to show how this sounds to anyone with some basic human empathy and a knowledge of the history of the US:

I loved that video where the guy went to some senate hearing and read off a massive hate-speech against gay marriage, and then ended with "Wait... I seem to have mistakenly substituted my speech with that of a Pastor from the 1930s talking about the perrils of mixed-race marriage - but swapped out the Mixed-race words with the word "Gay".

He got a well-deserved round of applause for that. ^_^

[Espe]

Now look, before you start to rant on me, please read the entire post.
I feel like we might aswell give the church the right to marry only heterosexuals.
HOWEVER
We should offer gay couples something similiar to a wedding, might aswell call it the same thing. Have cake, dance, say vows, just let the state fix the marrying part instead of the church. With this comes exactly the same benefits as marriage. and to get out of it you get a divorce.

If it's so important to the church, let the bratty children have it and they can go play in their own sandbox.

The problem is these "bratty children" have money and power, and they want their word all to themselves because nobody else can have it because they invented it (even though they didn't) and waaaaaaaa.

You get the idea.

[Shadowmelded]

Ohman, there's going to be some amount of backpedaling when you-know-who gets here

Now look, before you start to rant on me, please read the entire post.
I feel like we might aswell give the church the right to marry only heterosexuals.
HOWEVER
We should offer gay couples something similiar to a wedding, might aswell call it the same thing. Have cake, dance, say vows, just let the state fix the marrying part instead of the church. With this comes exactly the same benefits as marriage. and to get out of it you get a divorce.

If it's so important to the church, let the bratty children have it and they can go play in their own sandbox.
edit: i'm all for homosexual's marriages and rights, why should i care what goes on in someone elses bedroom?

The churches don't share well. If it's the same word they won't deal.

[Chasavaqe]

That's really kinda the weird thing. He's all for less Washington-based government... but seems to want to make every state some unique feudalistic island with its own set of rules on every subject. /shrug

The great political paradox
Both sides think government is too invasive while at the same time vying for more government control.

[lavafoxx]

That's really kinda the weird thing. He's all for less Washington-based government... but seems to want to make every state some unique feudalistic island with its own set of rules on every subject. /shrug

with few exceptions, that IS how it is supposed to be.

[satimy]

States have absolutely no right to violate the US Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.

When the Supreme Court comes out and says that barring gay marriage is a violation of that you would be right

[RaenavenBlacksun]

"Biblical truths"? Did someone forget to inform him on how the bible claimed there were domesticated camels several decades/centuries before they were actually domesticated? That, yet again, science has proven the bible wrong?

Meh, he's just trying to keep in the news, and keep Congress from taking care of the issues they should really be focusing on.

- - - Updated - - -

When the Supreme Court comes out and says that barring gay marriage is a violation of that you would be right

which has happened in several states where that fact was brought up.

[satimy]

That's really kinda the weird thing. He's all for less Washington-based government... but seems to want to make every state some unique feudalistic island with its own set of rules on every subject. /shrug

Well generally speaking thats how the country was supposed to be, the states could have their own laws as long as they didn't violate the federal laws. I think the SCOTUS just needs to rule on it one way or the other, I would guess they would say it falls under equal protection as they did with the anti-interracial laws, but I don't think its an absurd idea for states to have differing views on the matter for the time being either.

[mvaliz]

What equal protection aren't gay people receiving? Its not like non-gay people are allowed to marry people of the same sex. I like the idea of it being a states rights issues but I'm not sure how that would work either.....would Texas nullify a marriage of someone from California that moved to Texas? How would it even nullify it? By tax breaks?

...that's the reason it's gone over all 50 states. A gay couple moved from Canada to California, and her spouse died - but the widow was denied all kinds of things, too tired to look - but I believe it was things like the house property, the bank account, ect... not to mention stuff like Life Insurance and what-not. That case made it all the way up to the Supreme Court.

[Icyflamez]

When the Supreme Court comes out and says that barring gay marriage is a violation of that you would be right

With all of the state appeals headed there soon it more than likely will.

[Arrogant Bastard]

Now look, before you start to rant on me, please read the entire post.
I feel like we might aswell give the church the right to marry only heterosexuals.
HOWEVER
We should offer gay couples something similiar to a wedding, might aswell call it the same thing. Have cake, dance, say vows, just let the state fix the marrying part instead of the church. With this comes exactly the same benefits as marriage. and to get out of it you get a divorce.

If it's so important to the church, let the bratty children have it and they can go play in their own sandbox.
edit: i'm all for homosexual's marriages and rights, why should i care what goes on in someone elses bedroom?

Churches are private institutions, they can marry whoever they want. What is being discussed is a separate issue altogether.

[satimy]

"Biblical truths"? Did someone forget to inform him on how the bible claimed there were domesticated camels several decades/centuries before they were actually domesticated? That, yet again, science has proven the bible wrong?

Meh, he's just trying to keep in the news, and keep Congress from taking care of the issues they should really be focusing on.

- - - Updated - - -


which has happened in several states where that fact was brought up.

And its been ruled the opposite way in other states, so we need a SCOTUS decision. The Supreme Court of California has no authority on Texas.

[Chasavaqe]

I think how it should be is that government ONLY gives out unions, which strictly have political and governmental importance (such as sharing wealth and establishing each other as next of kin)... This goes to heterosexual and homosexual marriages... It would be political.

Marriage would be a social thing done at a church, a country club, a synagogue, whatever. It would have NO political/economic results. It could then be up to the individual to say "Oh I don't acknowledge your marriage because X (it's between a man and a man, it wasn't done before God, because I am a jerk, etc. etc.)" It would be social.

You could have both when you get married/join the civil union to get the results that marriage currently gives on its own. But at least on an official level, everyone would have equal rights. It would lead to NO forcing of any specific organization to marry anyone, because the only thing the government would have power over is the civil union.

[satimy]

...that's the reason it's gone over all 50 states. A gay couple moved from Canada to California, and her spouse died - but the widow was denied all kinds of things, too tired to look - but I believe it was things like the house property, the bank account, ect... not to mention stuff like Life Insurance and what-not. That case made it all the way up to the Supreme Court.

The supreme court of California or the SCOTUS?

[Stormkhan]

Gay marriage lol so bed

[RaenavenBlacksun]

Churches are private institutions, they can marry whoever they want. What is being discussed is a separate issue altogether.

According to these politicians, it's not a separate issue. They have repeatedly said that this would lead to the feds forcing churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples. That's the thing with politics, a lot of strawmans and slippery slopes to rile people up over stupid shit.

[Espe]

"Biblical truths"? Did someone forget to inform him on how the bible claimed there were domesticated camels several decades/centuries before they were actually domesticated? That, yet again, science has proven the bible wrong?

Most conservatives are programmed to live in a state of willed ignorance. They reject any truth that does not conform to their prejudices. This is a common trait amongst conservatives of many different faiths and cultures.

Meh, he's just trying to keep in the news, and keep Congress from taking care of the issues they should really be focusing on.

Like I said, this is why he was elected by his base. They hate the gays (mostly because of repressed attraction to the same sex), and they want to control women (for the same reason most likely).

[Deleted]

All I hear (read) is "We have a god-given right to trample on other people's rights!"

[RaenavenBlacksun]

And its been ruled the opposite way in other states, so we need a SCOTUS decision. The Supreme Court of California has no authority on Texas.

Texas, the state where sex toys and anal (even hetero anal) were decriminalized only in the last ten years.

[satimy]

According to these politicians, it's not a separate issue. They have repeatedly said that this would lead to the feds forcing churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples. That's the thing with politics, a lot of strawmans and slippery slopes to rile people up over stupid shit.

I don't think its a strawman, it is a slippery slope argument however. But the slippery slope argument isn't always wrong