Ted Cruz Absolutely ETHERS Reporter

[falc39]

So he should ignore any issues if there is a more important issue? I guess the President is only allowed to focus on 1 issue then until it is resolved, then he can move on to the next

No, only you are saying that. Ted addressed the issue and then schooled the reporter on how it relates to the Constitution and state legislatures

[ThePhantomCreep]

No, only you are saying that. Ted addressed the issue and then schooled the reporter on how it relates to the Constitution and state legislatures

Since Cruz is such a Constitutionalist, I want to see him argue that the federal government overstepped its bounds on "Loving v. Virginia", a ruling that overturned state bans on interracial marriage. Cruz won't do that because he'll only go so far pandering to the bigots--deep down he knows his "state's rights" argument is shit.

[NumberSix]

Since Cruz is such a Constitutionalist, I want to see him argue that the federal government overstepped its bounds on "Loving v. Virginia", a ruling that overturned state bans on interracial marriage. Cruz won't do that because he'll only go so far pandering to the bigots--deep down he knows his "state's rights" argument is shit.

Why would a constitutionalist argue AGAISNT interracial marriage being legal?

It's explicitly outlined in the constitution that interracial marriage can not be made illegal. Marriage being defined as 1 man 1 woman, it's explicitly breaking the equal protection clause to outlaw certain people from participating.

The argument about marriage is about what marriage IS. Not who can participate. It's currently not legal to ban any group of people from participating in the 1 man 1 woman definition of marriage.

[MJ(Mean John)]

Damn. Lol
He roasted my man. Pretty hilarious.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Why would a constitutionalist argue AGAISNT interracial marriage being legal?

It's explicitly outlined in the constitution that interracial marriage can not be made illegal. Marriage being defined as 1 man 1 woman, it's explicitly breaking the equal protection clause to outlaw certain people from participating.

The argument about marriage is about what marriage IS. Not who can participate. It's currently not legal to ban any group of people from participating in the 1 man 1 woman definition of marriage.

"The people should decide the issue of marriage, not the courts" - Ted Cruz

"Marriage has been a question for the states since the beginning of this country." - Ted Cruz

As late as 1968, several states (backed by the people) defined marriage as 1 man and 1 woman... of the same race. The states justified this clear violation of the 14th amendment with an argument similar to the crap you just posted.

No one was banned from getting married, as long as they married within their own race. Sound familiar, dumbass?

Ted Cruz should be outaged over "Loving v. Virginia". The federal government clearly usurped the will of the people!

[Dresta]

Since Cruz is such a Constitutionalist, I want to see him argue that the federal government overstepped its bounds on "Loving v. Virginia", a ruling that overturned state bans on interracial marriage. Cruz won't do that because he'll only go so far pandering to the bigots--deep down he knows his "state's rights" argument is shit.

Where do you constantly pull such garbage from? Seriously, the above makes no sense whatsoever - no candidate is going to argue against interracial marriage in the 21st century - are you literally deranged or something? Let me get this right: he's won't argue against interracial marriage and is thus 'pandering to bigots' - impressive logic that .

Honestly, you're one of the worst froth-at-the-mouth partisans on this site - and it's damn sad to see such a pathetic display from a fellow human being. States rights is the oldest and most important aspect of the Federal Constitution, one that devolved nearly all powers to the states, and still barely passed (because it was deemed to create too great a central power - see the Anti-Federalist papers, Madison at Constitutional convention, etc.). To ignore this debate, deny its importance, or pretend it doesn't exist, is to basically to deny everything that made the United States the United States - its history and design.

The real question is why you feel the need to force your beliefs onto people who disagree with them? Why can't you be happy living a state that allows gay marriage simply because another doesn't? I find it hilarious how the non-religious have become the sanctimonious fanatics, determined to impose their beliefs on others through force ('Might is Right!' - oh, how very moral of you ).

[ThePhantomCreep]

I dont mind homos. I accept that they're apart of human society and that most of them are born that way (Although I still believe you can be influenced to become homo if you're in a certain environment). However its not a human right to abuse and try to change another groups culture and tradition (marriage) for another group.

Christians did not Invent, nor do they own the concept of marriage--my happily married atheist buddies can attest to this. Your argument is invalid.

[Dresta]

"The people should decide the issue of marriage, not the courts" - Ted Cruz

"Marriage has been a question for the states since the beginning of this country." - Ted Cruz

As late as 1968, several states (backed by the people) defined marriage as 1 man and 1 woman... of the same race. The states justified this clear violation of the 14th amendment with an argument similar to the crap you just posted.

No one was banned from getting married, as long as they married within their own race. Sound familiar, dumbass?

Ted Cruz should as outaged over "Loving v. Virginia". The federal government clearly usurped the will of the people!

Pity you didn't read the rest of his post (after what you bolded), because he already explained why what you are trying to argue here is completely nonsensical. But go ahead, keep talking about irrelevant shit from 1968 (before Cruz was even born funnily enough - and yet you still seem to be accusing him and his constituents of being no different to the most racist parts of the country of 1968). I guess this is what people do when they don't actually know anything? Resort to childish and ignorant slander in order to brag about what a moral paragon they are. So ... Damn ... Childish ... Damn ...

[NumberSix]

"The people should decide the issue of marriage, not the courts" - Ted Cruz

"Marriage has been a question for the states since the beginning of this country." - Ted Cruz

As late as 1968, several states (backed by the people) defined marriage as 1 man and 1 woman... of the same race. The states justified this clear violation of the 14th amendment with an argument similar to the crap you just posted.

No one was banned from getting married, as long as they married within their own race. Sound familiar, dumbass?

The definition of what "marriage" is has been clear since the dawn of Western Civilization. At no point in the history of western civilization has there ever been a racial restriction on marriage.

Back to the days of Greeks marrying Persians. The Roman Empire days of marriage between Europeans, norther Africans and middle easterners being commonplace.

In the entire history of western civilization, race has never been a component of marriage. The racist American laws were NOT about what marriage is. It was about who was allowed to participate, which is explicitly unconstitutional.

A more apt comparison to "gay marriage" would be "plural marriage". An argument of DEFINITION. Not who can participate.

Ted Cruz should be outaged over "Loving v. Virginia". The federal government clearly usurped the will of the people!

It's in the constitution. There is nothing to "usurp".

[9erempiree]

I see that he is very mad. He got very offensive.

He didn't own anyone but deflected the question like a true politician.

[ThePhantomCreep]

The definition of what "marriage" is has been clear since the dawn of Western Civilization. At no point in the history of western civilization has there ever been a racial restriction on marriage.

Back to the days of

In the entire history of western civilization, race has never been a component of marriage. The racist American laws were NOT about what marriage is. It was about who was allowed to participate, which is explicitly unconstitutional.

A more apt comparison to "gay marriage" would be "plural marriage". An argument of DEFINITION. Not who can participate.

Appeal to tradition = fallacy

Social norms are dynamic – slavery, racial segregation and sexual discrimination were all considered morally acceptable in the past but are now not only morally unacceptable but are also against the law.

Split all the hairs you want, the two bans are largely identical at their cores. In both cases, two consenting adults who love each other are legally not allowed to marry. That's discriminatory and unconstitutional, period.

[Akrazotile]

Since Cruz is such a Constitutionalist, I want to see him argue that the federal government overstepped its bounds on "Loving v. Virginia", a ruling that overturned state bans on interracial marriage. Cruz won't do that because he'll only go so far pandering to the bigots--deep down he knows his "state's rights" argument is shit.

Why are you against states rights?

Please legitimately articulate a reason. Even a brief one. But make a an actual case against it, if youd be so kind.

[NumberSix]

[QUOTE=ThePhantomCreep]Appeal to tradition = fallacy

Social norms are dynamic

[andgar923]

I think this Ted Cruz fella might be gay. Thats the vibe I get from this video.

This.

And for the record... he was deflecting the question. He stuck to his talking points just like instructed.

Btw... why was he so defensive over a simple question?

[andgar923]

A strict constitutionalist= idiot

The constitution was made to adapt and change, not be iron clad.