Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said marriage is an issue that should be left to the states, slamming the landmark 2015 US Supreme Court decision that recognized same-sex marriage nationwide. #CNN #News
‘Ted Cruz is pandering:’ Commentator reacts to Cruz’s same-sex marriage claim
Hey Ted, we also used to treat corrupt politicians differently. They were tarred and feathered and rode out on a rail!
@Bryan Mcfadden mmmhmm
Oh, please. bring this tarring and feathering back!
Start with trump.
I don’t agree with abortion. I am trying to be a Godly person. However I don’t think it’s our place to judge others and there’s many reasons why women have abortions and I say that’s between them and God and government is over reaching by banning it
Don’t judge rapists? OR are we cherry picking?
@Paola Grando
Vasectomies
Yeah you’re one of them just get on the boat with him lame
Plain and simple, the right-wing conservatives just want to “conserve” the right to discriminate.
@ALLisOn e get help !
isn’t that what you’re doing now though?
@flamingo boot Gay marriage is state recognized, therefore the state was never in the way, it just wasn’t in the business of defining what marriage is, unless you declare the state a religious wing of one religion over another, One religion says gay marriage doesn’t exist, and the other religion declaring Christian marriage doesn’t exist.
Its actually an infringement on religious beliefs forcing the christians to accept an inverted version of their religion pushed by the state.
@James Vaughn Conservatives wants to conserve the traditions of society.
The tradition of marriage has united a man and a woman for thousands of years until judicial activists on the supreme court forced it’s legalization on society.
Ted was born in Canada. He doesn’t have 200 years of history in the US
@Krusty yea it was legalized by the courts.
Federal courts undemocratically forced the legalization of same sex marriage in most Canadian Provinces despite the fact that a large majority of Canadians were opposed to it
The parliament later was encouraged by those court rulings to move forward and force legalization on Canadians.
Judicial activism legalized homosexual marriage in Canada and the same happened in the US without taking consent from voters.
Slavery was also an issue ‘left to the states’, should the Supreme Court overturn the laws on slavery to conform with Cruz’s argument regarding 200 years of history? Where does ‘enlightenment and social progress’ figure in this Republican fascist madness? 🤔😮😮😮
@mark croydon give one example. You can’t.
“No exceptions for rape” The fact conservatives keep specifying this part makes me think there’s something they’re not telling us…
@Jamtommy Okay Dino.
then you have Abbott saying that they will just stop the rapes now that there is no abortion for rape or incest. Hey Mr Abbott, why did you wait until now to try to stop rape and incest?
You, Mr Abbott, have zero sense of reality
Only difference between Christian Extremist, & Muslim Extremist is one wraps itself in The American Flag & The Bible, while the other uses The Quran. They’ll never see it but both sides actually have a lot in common with each other.
@Dale Hartley I think the republicans or some do want a theocracy. They are a very long way off.
I find it bizarre that you continue to equate the horrors of the Middle East to a few laws that haven’t been passed or enforced yet.
Per my first comment it’s an issue of intensity. I didn’t even bring up the Taliban. I was mostly referring to Muslim countries operating normally.
We are so gay that we have an entire month celebrating it for some reason.
I live in Kansas. Westboro is a joke. They have no real power. They are trolls.
Real power is punishing Christian’s, atheist and homosexuals with prison and death.
I assume.. you’re trying to say we COULD get that far?
But, hopefully you can concede that they aren’t the same.
(Edit) I reviewed you comment closer. You they could get there. But, I’m actually currently more worried about extreme liberals than the far right. Identity politics has become its own cult in my opinion.
Jacob I equate liberal with the definitions of liberal. I notice you avoided answer what there is about the word that you find distasteful.
2) 8 years…this liberals service to his country, what was yours.
3) the protests were mainly peaceful, most of the arson was done by a few who took advantage. I know in Minneapolis where MOST of the arson happened, it was two serial arsonist that had no connection to the protest, but just took advantage. I also know that the police station that was shot up and burned was done by a right wing boogaloo boi, and his friends shot up a courthouse killing a guard and clerk in california ( yes actually friends, not just other boogaloo bois)
4) the right wing has groups that are classified as domestic terrorist…a distinction the left has yet to try to claim
5) the insurrectionist WERE armed, luckily no one used their firearms
6) yes, but in all honesty it was a Donald trump plan, so it was doomed to fail from the get go….everything trump touches dies.
7)you obviously do not know many liberal…which are not the same thing as progressives, or leftist. There are even a few liberal conservatives left…but not many. The american ideal is liberalism, the american dream is liberalism, the american way IS liberalism….the great experiment.
8) no the president planned it…watch the public evidence from the hearings.
9) you have yet to say when the left has done anything like the right, or more specifically the religious right.
10) for all people what to complain about BLM, 1) mostly wrong and 2) still did not try to overthrow the government.
So feel free to respond, but the Floyd movement was nothing compared to the existential threat that the Jan6th insurrection was. At best people and property would be hurt by BLM, mostly property…our government would have been lost and all our essential freedoms under the other. I would point out that authoritarian regimes like fascism ban weapons immediately.
What ever happened to separation of church and state? Like just because religion (Christianity in particular) has an issue with gay people that means we need to base societal laws and regulations around their wants?
Freedoms in this country are an absolute joke. Why do we even have a constitution if it’s never lived by?
Freedom of religion means your free to believe whatever you want, not your free to believe in whichever branch of Christianity best suits you.
@Brian Johnston marriage is a legal contract with legal standings in matters of health, familial, and property matters. No single religion owns marriage. It is not owned by Christianity as other non-Christian religions recognize marriages as well.
@Brian Johnston Genesis is the first book of the Hebrew Bible. Tradition credits Moses as the author. Modern scholars suggest the book was authored around the 6th or 5th Century BC. I do not think anyone of sound mind would argue that Moses or the folks around 500 years before Christ were Christians.
@Brian Johnston how many wives did Esau, Jacob, Elkanah, David, and Solomon have?
I want to see someone get in Clarence Thomas face and say we need to get rid of mixed marriages.
I wanna see what he say then.
@WE THE PEOPLE 🙌 Loving v. Virginia (which struck down bans on interracial marriage) was decided in part on the basis of a right to privacy. It was, however, omitted from Thomas’s Dobbs concurrence which questioned the validity of associated rulings including Obergefell (gay marriage), Planned Parenthood v. Casey (abortion) and Griswold (access to contraception). Many see this as a hypocritical or inconsistent position and the omission has led to questions of political motivation.
@WE THE PEOPLE 🙌 I think Ez-8’s reasoning is that Clarence Thomas had no trouble listing:
> Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 ruling protecting married couples’ rights to contraception;
> Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 decision that protected the right to same-sex sexual activity;
and
> Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 case protecting the right to same-sex marriage;
as SCOTUS’ previous precedents that were based on the “Right to Privacy” that need to be revisited, but he did not list Loving v Virginia, which struck down state laws banning interracial marriage in the United States and was also based on “Right to Privacy”.
I hope that answers your question.
And Jason M is correct about the hypocrisy demonstrated by Clarence Thomas.
@Borvo nope
@Matt 😂😂😂 fu** 😂😂😂😂👏👏👏
Marriage is a legal union between two consenting adults. That’s all there is to it. Same-sex marriage is only wrong because it’s viewed through the lens of religious zealots. And remember, the rights you try to deny to others will ultimately be denied to you too.
@SayTheHua in the history of humanity there are two books that come to mind when it comes to sexual expression, the Bible and Kamasutra, the Bible being the tool of religion, which is not a religious book, talks about how a man and a woman can express their sexual desires as well as the Kamasutra. The Bible, though says that when a man and a man and a woman and a woman express their sexual desires is a barbarity or an aberration but you don’t need the Bible to understand that nature created a male and a female for a single purpose.
@oussama bayar yes it was tradition for many thousands of years, you are correct. Although I would note that during this time frame religious institutions were often de facto governments that ruled with impunity. And homosexuality was usually not permitted within the major religious movements during that period on religious/moral grounds (obviously) and thus forbidden in wider society. I mention this to refute the notion of tradition being some sort of benchmark that all arguments for social advancement need to meet. Put simply there is no comparable tradition of homosexual marriage over the last few thousand years because it was outlawed and stigmatized with a fairly ferocious zeal, ie it was not permitted to exist in society. And due to such an unlevel playing field thats why there is a ‘tradition ‘ of one kind of marriage but not of another.
@David Carton I should remind you that Communist governments in the Soviet Union and elsewhere during the cold war were atheists they launched a campaign to eliminate religion from evey society that they ruled which is normal since communism is against religion.
And yet despite their atheism and hate toward religion the communists didn’t legalize same sex marriage.
Not a single Communist country legalized same sex marriage
Even Lenin and Stalin didn’t dare to destroy the tradition of marriage which proves that someone can defend traditional marriage without being religious.
It’s kind of scary because when it comes to social issues even the Communists look moderate when compared to today’s leaders in the West.
When you can travel with your partner and be breaking the law across state lines, just for existing. It about the most ridiculous thing I can think of.
Yeah but that is what they want! They are all grievance and hate, they just want to punish everyone who is different
That really brings up an interesting question on what status a same sex married couple would have if they moved to a state where it isn’t allowed ? Would those that are married now get grandfathered in or have their marriages annulled ? Republicans have no hesitation in taking other people’s rights away that they don’t like.
@Brown 25 Thank you.
How are we moving forward as a nation towards a more perfect union by moving backwards? How are we improving as a society providing equal protection under the law by hurting others and holding them back? Outlawing same sex marriage makes about the same amount on sense as not recognizing and outlawing all marriages.
@mrgold35 Yeah, you people like to compare it to interracial marriage, but it is hardly the same thing.
Men and women from different races have been intermarrying for centuries. In the USA, it goes back to John Rolfe and Pocahontas. In Mexico, the Spaniards often mated with the indigenous peoples. Or how about going back to ancient Rome, with Antony and Cleopatra? And long before that as well. Believe me, for centuries, men have fallen for beautiful women of all races.
In fact, races that have failed to venture outside their own tend to suffer for it, like the Jews, whose kids often succumb to various genetic diseases due to all the inbreeding.
And it’s not about your “right” to marry. You can get married any time you want, so long as the girl is not a minor or already married to someone else.
The issue is the definition of marriage. You people want to change that, and the vast majority of the world disagrees. And there is nothing in the Constitution that gives you the right to change it.
BTW, can you blame people for wanting to return to the “old days” if they were good? Because the shithole society you warped people have created over the past few years is anything BUT good.
‘Ted Cruz is pandering.’ When is Ted Cruz not pandering?
@Brian Johnston sure mindless drone. 🙄
@Brian Johnston hey bigot, sthu.
Good question
Nothing to criticize on Sesame Street this week, Ted? So you have to attack someone else.
@Brian Johnston People like you are very concerned about hearsay just now, so you are presumably talking from first hand experience. How do you find so much time to hang around in those places?
I am a 30 year old gay man. I met my husband when I was 19. We’ve were married a week after California legalized it. Under Ted Cruz theory leaving it up to the states would be fine, if the federal government recognized it. Meaning, we couldn’t file taxes together for 2 years after we got married, meaning we paid HIGHER taxes.
I was homeless for a bit at 18 as my family didn’t really want me for many reasons, being gay was one. Since the way the federal student loans were issued, I needed my parents information. It wasn’t until I got married that I could get aid for college, that just took two more years until the 2015 decision. I started college and finished my BSA and months from finishing my MBA. I wouldn’t be where I am without the decision made by the court. These rulings have real world impact.
….The one thing I always come back to is, none of that hurt a single person and made me a better, more productive member of society. But yeah, let’s take that away.
Why do married people get a tax break and singles get screwed over? Seem completely unfair
Dude, you have every right to be married to the man you love. We’ll do whatever we have to to ensure that.
@randal gibbons I would argue “Home of the Un-Brave” as well, since despite having the largest and best funded military in the world, we all seem to find it necessary to be personally armed to the teeth.
Yes, this man really yelled ‘Freedommmmm’ at a republican conference… 🤡
*The whole truth about the Monkeypox.. Watch the video, everyone is shocked* EVERYDAYS.ML
Mr.Dunn – respect for you.
Jeez, scammers buying accounts and even account to like, what a shame
Cnn bot subs are the only subs they have LOL
It’s none of your business Ted. This boy can’t even defend his wife from Trump.
He’s spineless.
@ragingbull alf well let my replies stand for the record.
That’s why he punches down with his privilege
@Aphrodite Health Coaching indeed, it must be nice for him to have the privilege to get married, even if it’s not one of true love and happiness. I can’t understand how awful it must be to be that bitter with your life and marriage that some people like him would deny others the privilege he has but throws aside and takes for granted. Its ok to get a divorce Ted, you don’t have to stay in an unhappy marriage just to look good or reap benefits from. He’s just grouchy and need a shave…
When it comes to human rights and progress it is interesting to see how the world and America are moving in opposite directions! Just weeks ago Slovenia legalized same-sex marriage while America is already talking about overturning it less than 10 years ago after it was legalized. Two people of the same sex marrying doesn’t harm anyone nor is talking anything away for people, quite the contrary, it gives part of the population the rights and equality as everyone else but for republicans the cruelty is the point
1 Andrea Sandoval Fuk what you saying it here 😠 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zrfSK6pnpQ
Felicidades, es un buen ejemplo. 😠
5:25 Se deja ver que hay muy buenos resultados 😠😠
Saludos desde la Cd.. de world 🌹😉💖
los mortales abian apreciado tan hermosa mujer
we have been ‘wed’ four times trying to be legal. 0ne commitment ceremony, a legal marriage, voted down by Oregon conservatives, a domestic partnership and finally a legal marriage recognized by the U.S. government. I lost my heath care when Oregon annulled our first marriage. There are may legal considerations to messing with the legally married now. separate church and state for real.
Do you also want to separate common sense from the state? I ask because if you study the history and etymology of the words “marriage” and “matrimony” you will discover that “marriage” or “matrimony” can only be between one man and one woman.
You don’t need to “marry” any person you claim to “love”. You don’t need to have “sex” with any person you claim to “love”.
“Ted Cruz has a fundamental likability problem”
One of the most accurate things I’ve ever heard.
@Mohamed Trevino Hey Mohamhead. I didn’t bother watching your clickbait. Already done that. BUT I still don’t understand why you bother?