Ted Cruz is 'pandering to the worst kind of bigotry'

[Yssup Rider]

Not like everybody didn't already hate this lowlife POS.

What'll happen next? The photos of him and Rudy kissing? No, that was the guy who ranked Cruz's wife and implicated his dad in the Kennedy assassination (if you believe it wasn't staged).

Cruz also said he doubted anything could happen, but that didn't stop him from pandering to the phobes.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...9a0e833f53cf55

Ted Cruz is 'pandering to the worst kind of bigotry' with his latest crusade: CNN analyst

By Brad Reed

CNN analyst Margaret Hoover on Monday hammered Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) for saying the Supreme Court should now move to roll back marriage rights for LGBTQ Americans.

Cruz recently said that the landmark case establishing nationwide LGBTQ marriage rights "was clearly wrong" because "marriage was always an issue that was left to the states" and "the court said, no, we know better than you guys do and now every state must sanction and permit gay marriage."

Reacting to this, Hoover accused the Texas senator of appealing to rank prejudice among GOP voters.

"Ted Cruz is pandering, not just to the base of the Republican Party, but to the worst kind of bigotry in the Republican Party," she said. "The Texas GOP has passed this plank saying that gay marriage is abnormal."

Fellow CNN analyst John Avlon then suggested that Cruz's statements were part of a coordinated campaign to build consensus around overturning marriage rights, as evidenced by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's declaration that the court should reexamine its past ruling in the Obergefell v. Hodges case.

Hoover shared Avlon's assessment.

"What this is about, right, is on the political side you always want to start gathering momentum politically," she said. "Because the court has traditionally been afraid of being ahead of where the public opinion is on any political issue. 70 percent of the country is in favor of same-sex marriage now. 55 percent of Republicans as of 2021 were in favor of same-sex marriage. The country has gotten more in favor of same-sex marriage, not less, but the country is also more in favor of certain restrictions and protections of abortion and the court reversed that."

Watch the video below or at this link.

[Salty Again]

....Shouldn't ALL THE VOTERS get to make the decisions?
Not the silly politicians in Washington??

#### Salty

[Grace Preston]

Here is my take on things....


If marriage were still only a religious ceremony-- then a religious body would have the right to refuse to marry someone.


But that's not the case-- the states decided to get into the business of regulating marriage. Therefore, once sexual orientation became a protected class-- it means that the government is obligated to a certain degree to not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. That is why it became a federal matter. Federal discrimination laws trump state laws in regards to this.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by Grace Preston

Here is my take on things....


If marriage were still only a religious ceremony-- then a religious body would have the right to refuse to marry someone.


But that's not the case-- the states decided to get into the business of regulating marriage. Therefore, once sexual orientation became a protected class-- it means that the government is obligated to a certain degree to not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. That is why it became a federal matter. Federal discrimination laws trump state laws in regards to this.

This is true as long as the Supreme Court can keep to the separation of Church and State. However with the current makeup of the Court and some of their current rulings I'm not sure that's the case anymore. Some of their logic appears to me to be based on faith rather than reason.

[Jacuzzme]

There was never discrimination. Heterosexuals and homosexuals have both always been able to marry people of the opposite sex, their rights were exactly the same. I definitely agree this is a matter best left up to the individual, through their state legislators. Like Roe, it’s another small step towards giving people back their rights.

[Grace Preston]

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

There was never discrimination. Heterosexuals and homosexuals have both always been able to marry people of the opposite sex, their rights were exactly the same. I definitely agree this is a matter best left up to the individual, through their state legislators. Like Roe, it’s another small step towards giving people back their rights.

Wanting the ability to refuse to allow people to marry because your religion doesn't agree with it-- is not giving people back their rights. Its stripping rights away from others to give you what you want. A member of the clergy still has the right to decline to perform a marriage ceremony-- so their rights haven't been taken away. However, govt. employees have to agree to uphold the laws regardless of their personal stance-- so if you absolutely cannot marry people of the same sex, don't get a job at the county clerk's office or as a JP.

[Jacuzzme]

How can a right that doesn’t exist be stripped away? The powers of the federal government are few and enumerated, deciding on abortion and same sex marriage aren’t amongst them. Frankly, 90% of federal law is unconstitutional. The framers of the county abhorred centralized power and knew where it led, which is why they handcuffed them so explicitly. Unfortunately politicians choose to ignore their wisdom and the courts don’t seem to have the chutzpah to do anything about it.

Edit: Who said anything about religion? Religion has nothing to do with it. I’m not anti-gay marriage, I’m anti federal government pretending they have a say in the matter.

[Yssup Rider]

You seem to be pro-discrimination. Bigotry in the name of freedom is still bigotry.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

How can a right that doesn’t exist be stripped away? The powers of the federal government are few and enumerated, deciding on abortion and same sex marriage aren’t amongst them. Frankly, 90% of federal law is unconstitutional. The framers of the county abhorred centralized power and knew where it led, which is why they handcuffed them so explicitly. Unfortunately politicians choose to ignore their wisdom and the courts don’t seem to have the chutzpah to do anything about it.

Edit: Who said anything about religion? Religion has nothing to do with it. I’m not anti-gay marriage, I’m anti federal government pretending they have a say in the matter.

Attitudes like this is why we fought a civil war. Without the federal government and federal bureaucracy we never would have fought in the second world war. Communism would be rampant throughout the world. Nazi Germany might be ascendant in Europe. There would be no anti-pollution laws, or social security, or medicare. I might not like everything the federal government does but I would say they do more good than bad and I'm glad to have them.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

How can a right that doesn’t exist be stripped away? The powers of the federal government are few and enumerated, deciding on abortion and same sex marriage aren’t amongst them. Frankly, 90% of federal law is unconstitutional. The framers of the county abhorred centralized power and knew where it led, which is why they handcuffed them so explicitly. Unfortunately politicians choose to ignore their wisdom and the courts don’t seem to have the chutzpah to do anything about it.

Edit: Who said anything about religion? Religion has nothing to do with it. I’m not anti-gay marriage, I’m anti federal government pretending they have a say in the matter.

You seem fine taking the power away from the Federal government and giving it to State GOVERNMENT.

Why not give it to the individual(s)

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

This is true as long as the Supreme Court can keep to the separation of Church and State. However with the current makeup of the Court and some of their current rulings I'm not sure that's the case anymore. Some of their logic appears to me to be based on faith rather than reason.

Key words being "appears to me". Their logic to me, seems to follow the texualist version of the Constitution. If a right is not enumerated and given to the federal government, all other rights belong to the people and therefore the States. Abortion was not given to the federal government and enough Justices felt it was "needed" for their own reasons. This new set of Justices merely returned us to the textualist version, you know, the words actually written and not made up to suit a purpose. I'm as far from being a religious person as one could get. I've been in a church twice in my life and both times I did it for another person because they asked me too. I see no religion used in the Dobbs case.



You want to see religion where there is none.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Attitudes like this is why we fought a civil war. Without the federal government and federal bureaucracy we never would have fought in the second world war. Communism would be rampant throughout the world. Nazi Germany might be ascendant in Europe. There would be no anti-pollution laws, or social security, or medicare. I might not like everything the federal government does but I would say they do more good than bad and I'm glad to have them.

Because that "right" is clearly given to the federal government, to declare war. It didn't take much thinking by the founding fathers to know we couldn't leave going to war, up to a vote of the people.


I'm glad we have a federal government too because they do serve a purpose and that purpose is clearly defined ( for those that want to see it ) in the Constitution but a federal government that makes laws not given to them by the Constitution is a threat to the people.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Grace Preston

Wanting the ability to refuse to allow people to marry because your religion doesn't agree with it-- is not giving people back their rights. Its stripping rights away from others to give you what you want. A member of the clergy still has the right to decline to perform a marriage ceremony-- so their rights haven't been taken away. However, govt. employees have to agree to uphold the laws regardless of their personal stance-- so if you absolutely cannot marry people of the same sex, don't get a job at the county clerk's office or as a JP.

Now that last line, I agree with 100%



And if I didn't want it for reasons other than religion? That I just don't want it and I don't have to explain to anybody why I don't want it, it is my right to vote no, I don't want it and then out of convenience, somebody comes along and says "Oh, he is just saying that because of his religion".



That can be a cop out to the truth. We would all be better off not to question why someone believes what they believe and only their vote should be considered.


I keep repeating this and I'll say it again, any state that tries to pass a law at this point against gay marriage will find out that enough states (37) have already decided they would vote for a Constitutional Amendment, and then , Gay marriage would be a part of the Constitution and allowed in all 50 states whether a couple of states didn't like it or not.


Saying that I decided on something because of my religion when I have no religion is insulting.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

How can a right that doesn’t exist be stripped away? The powers of the federal government are few and enumerated, deciding on abortion and same sex marriage aren’t amongst them. Frankly, 90% of federal law is unconstitutional. The framers of the county abhorred centralized power and knew where it led, which is why they handcuffed them so explicitly. Unfortunately politicians choose to ignore their wisdom and the courts don’t seem to have the chutzpah to do anything about it.

Edit: Who said anything about religion? Religion has nothing to do with it. I’m not anti-gay marriage, I’m anti federal government pretending they have a say in the matter.

"They" clearly can not understand this and it is baffling to me. I do understand that some of you want what you want and you want it now, but thank goodness we live in a country where every citizen ( and soon to be non-citizens alike ) gets one vote and another persons vote is no more important than mine. I will not ask anyone, brow beat anyone as to why they voted the way they did, that is their right and it is my right to vote the opposite and I'm under no Constitutional, government authority to explain my vote.

[HedonistForever]

Democrats are not immuned from "pandering".