Bruce Jenner Endorses Cruz, Wants To Be His "Trans Ambassador"

Guard Dad said:
Yes, it makes sense.

In the past, this country has denied entire groups of rights, which violated their individual rights. Not allowing women to vote is an example of that.

Making same-sex marriage legal on the federal on the federal level is an example of giving a group special rights. I'll explain...

First off...just because you have a right does not mean that it isn't subject to regulation. The First Amendment gives all individuals the right to of free speech and to peacefully assemble; but that doesn't mean government can't place certain regulations on it such as requiring a permit for marches or demonstrations. Free speech does not give you the right to liable someone. Also, our individual rights do not allow us to deny or restrict another person's rights. An example of this happening would be if you were holding a demonstration to protest my line of sexy thongs and it blocked me from getting to my home.

Marriage was ruled a right some years ago by a federal court. That ruling could be challenged by the higher court, but as far as I know it was not. But even if it is a right under our constitution, the states had the authority to regulate it so long as the regulations did not deny individual rights. Basically, that meant every one had the right to marry. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment guaranteed that any regulations must apply equally to all. Some of the regulations (varying from state to state) were age limits, limits on marrying blood relatives, and of course some states not allowing marriage to a person of the same sex.

So prior to the SCOTUS ruling on SSM, every one of us had the right to marry, subject to regulations by the states that applied equally to all. So to be accurate; a gay person had the same right to marry that you or I did, and was subject to the same regulations. By ruling as they did, the SCOTUS gave homosexuals special rights, in that they overruled just the state regulations that applied to that group. The ruling did not enforce an individual right, it created a new group right.

Scalia was absolutely correct in his dissent, if not a bit grouchy in his demeanor. There was nothing in the constitution that gave the court authority to essentially create a new right, and there is actually some potential danger in doing what they did, that the ruling will be further used as precedent for more special rights. In a statement he made regarding congress well before the court took the case up, and I'm paraphrasing; If you want same-sex to be legal, then pas a law making it legal. But the Constitution doesn't say anything about it. He was absolutely right.

So regardless of whether you are for or against same-sex marriage, and I really don't care which way you feel about it; the ruling was an overreach by the Supreme Court. It was made a clear case of justices using their personal agendas to essentially create a new right.
Click to expand...

And, therefor, I should have the right to marry a second wife. Not that I would, but by the same reasoning it should be permitted for those who choose to. That is where we are headed.
 
Grey Colson said:
And, therefor, I should have the right to marry a second wife. Not that I would, but by the same reasoning it should be permitted for those who choose to. That is where we are headed.
Click to expand...
There are already challenges based on the recent ruling working their way through the system. And yes, there are challenges over marrying children and even animals. I doubt most will go anywhere, but one will eventually get to the high court.
 
Guard dad I would appreciate you telling me exactly WHAT
Guard Dad said:
Here's the thing...under our Constitution, individuals have rights. Not groups.

Trying to deny entire groups of rights (EX: denying black people or women of the right to vote), and more recently trying to WHAT????? entire groups special rights is part of what has done damage to our country.
Click to expand...
 
ShoeDiva said:
I have had 3 language arts teachers look at your sentence and come to the same conclusion I did. You left out a word..I am not even reading your forty paragraphs.
Click to expand...
It's not my fault they don't understand critical thinking.

Since you pitched a fit about my statement, you have a moral obligation to read my post expanding on it.
 
Guard Dad said:
It's not my fault they don't understand critical thinking.

Since you pitched a fit about my statement, you have a moral obligation to read my post expanding on it.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding? I do not have a moral obligation to do anything. I was and still am ticked you left out a word and will not admit it. I asked Huh and what to the missing word in your statement, not anything else.

(I AM exhausted and so I thought maybe I WAS misreading it. No, it is you.)
 
ShoeDiva said:
Are you kidding? I do not have a moral obligation to do anything. I was and still am ticked you left out a word and will not admit it. I asked Huh and what to the missing word in your statement, not anything else.

(I AM exhausted and so I thought maybe I WAS misreading it. No, it is you.)
Click to expand...
Even if I did, you could have asked for an explanation instead of "huh, what". See...you weren't clear in what your request was. So pot, this is kettle.
 
Guard Dad said:
Even if I did, you could have asked for an explanation instead of "huh, what". See...you weren't clear in what your request was. So pot, this is kettle.
Click to expand...
OH M GEE ........... you will not admit your mistake....This is PRICELESS.

BTW..huh, what? would equate to I do not understand your statement. I have ASKED NUMEROUS times the what? You still refuse to say you left out a word and then deflect on that error when I said that I had people look at it with, they can not understand critical thinking.

PRICELESS
 
ShoeDiva said:
OH M GEE ........... you will not admit your mistake....This is PRICELESS.

BTW..huh, what? would equate to I do not understand your statement. I have ASKED NUMEROUS times the what? You still refuse to say you left out a word and then deflect on that error when I said that I had people look at it with, they can not understand critical thinking.

PRICELESS
Click to expand...
I could have made it more clear to the simple mind.

Seriously...you should have known what I meant. Are you going to discuss the issue at hand, or just keep griping about my writing?
 
Guard Dad said:
I could have made it more clear to the simple mind.

Seriously...you should have known what I meant. Are you going to discuss the issue at hand, or just keep griping about my writing?
Click to expand...

You should really start on the book soon. I was really intrigued with that, "Journey to Thong Mountain" title you've been playing around with. :confused2:
 
Guard Dad said:
I could have made it more clear to the simple mind.

Seriously...you should have known what I meant. Are you going to discuss the issue at hand, or just keep griping about my writing?
Click to expand...

I will make this comment, but then I can not respond anymore because I will have kids (just so you know I am not ignoring anything else posted.)

When I came into the topic I read Jenilyn's post and then yours. Hers made sense and I could not figure out what you were trying to say...the beginning was perfectly fine and then you lost me with leaving out "giving", "taking", or "denying." My response of Huh? What? is perfectly normal for me, and when you started on something else I DID point out that I was asking about the word. Whether I should or should not have known, is not the point. It did not make sense as worded (and instead of assuming) and I was just asking. It became a big deal when you became defensive. And you are still being condescending in your simple mind statement.

I actually gave you more credit than others in the fact I thought you could admit you were wrong instead of deflecting or just being hateful, because acting like you know more (constitution) than others, others can not comprehend, or people have simple minds, says much more about the person stating that then the person(s) on the end of the comments.

Totally disappointed in this exchange.
 
ShoeDiva said:
I will make this comment, but then I can not respond anymore because I will have kids (just so you know I am not ignoring anything else posted.)

When I came into the topic I read Jenilyn's post and then yours. Hers made sense and I could not figure out what you were trying to say...the beginning was perfectly fine and then you lost me with leaving out "giving", "taking", or "denying." My response of Huh? What? is perfectly normal for me, and when you started on something else I DID point out that I was asking about the word. Whether I should or should not have known, is not the point. It did not make sense as worded (and instead of assuming) and I was just asking. It became a big deal when you became defensive. And you are still being condescending in your simple mind statement.

I actually gave you more credit than others in the fact I thought you could admit you were wrong instead of deflecting or just being hateful, because acting like you know more (constitution) than others, others can not comprehend, or people have simple minds, says much more about the person stating that then the person(s) on the end of the comments.

Totally disappointed in this exchange.
Click to expand...
Because you didn't specifically cite the part you were questioning, I really had no idea what you were referring to. I am typically doing several things at once from the time I wake until I conk out at night, so I don't always have time to go back and analyze my posts. Had you asked a specific question instead of "huh, what", I probably could have clarified much sooner. Your "huh, what" response came off as a smart azz reply instead of a question.
 
jenilyn said:
You haven't heard Ted Cruz speak of LGBT issues? I have, I watched an interview with him and Pat Robertson just last week. He has been very outspoken against gay marriage, which is a LGBT issue. I'm not assuming anything. I do my research before I come to the conclusions that I come to. I find it interesting that you are a Cruz supporter and you don't know the things he's talked about and said concerning these issues.

Anyhoo, now I know why I don't participate in the political section on this site more often.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't have time to watch every interview. And I don't watch Pat Robertson. It doesn't surprise me that Cruz doesn't personally support gay marriage, but again, I trust that he will follow the constitution, even parts he may not like. I don't think anyone is placing LGBT issues at the forefront of this campaign, because, quite frankly, that's not our most pressing issue.
 
Madea said:
Sorry, I don't have time to watch every interview. And I don't watch Pat Robertson. It doesn't surprise me that Cruz doesn't personally support gay marriage, but again, I trust that he will follow the constitution, even parts he may not like. I don't think anyone is placing LGBT issues at the forefront of this campaign, because, quite frankly, that's not our most pressing issue.
Click to expand...

I agree it's not one of our most pressing issues but I'm not so sure Ted does.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ted_Cruz.htm

http://www.endtime.com/blog/same-sex-marriage-2016-republican-presidential-candidates/
 
Madea said:
Sorry, I don't have time to watch every interview. And I don't watch Pat Robertson. It doesn't surprise me that Cruz doesn't personally support gay marriage, but again, I trust that he will follow the constitution, even parts he may not like. I don't think anyone is placing LGBT issues at the forefront of this campaign, because, quite frankly, that's not our most pressing issue.
Click to expand...

Yeah, let's see...

19 Trillion in Debt.
ISIS beheading Christians and whoever else doesn't subscribe to their lunacy.
The smallest rate of economic growth in a generation.
Millions out of the work force.
Half the population living on government handouts.
A "president" who can't put a genuine thought together without reading it off a teleprompter.
An invasion of illegal aliens not only being permitted to enter our sovereign country, but encouraged to do so by a leftist administration.
A congress that will not make law, but a Supreme Court who will instead of doing their job and interpreting them.
Not only a congress that will not make law, but will not prevent a dictator who does so unconstitutionally.
A socialist health car system designed to fail so every citizen will have to depend on a single payer system that will determine when you should die.

Need I go on?

And to think the driving issue to some folks in deciding the next president is whether or not an LGBT has an option of using the opposite sex's bathroom. Maybe we can wait to take a peek at that issue after the fire is under control and ALL the bathrooms burn down and we are reduced to squatting and peeing in a hole in the ground.
 
Madea said:
I don't think anyone is placing LGBT issues at the forefront of this campaign, because, quite frankly, that's not our most pressing issue.
Click to expand...

And frankly, not really in the President's job description.

As I mentioned above; we should focus on individual rights and stop trying to find rights for specific groups. If we assure individual rights, the group rights issues solve themselves.
 
jenilyn said:
No, no I didn't. Madea suggested that I don't know where Ted Cruz stands on the LGBT issues. She said she has never seen him speak on the subject. I thought that was weird because I've seen him speak about it several times and I'm not even a supporter of his, just a person who likes to stay informed. Jenner can support whoever she wants, I never said she couldn't. Ever. I simply said it seems hypocritical given her advocate status.
Click to expand...


That's not hypocrisy, it is practicality.

Ted Cruz stands with the Constitution.

His personal views on gay marriage are irrelevant.


:fingerwag:
 
jenilyn said:
Personal views of presidential candidates are very relevant.
Click to expand...

How are Cruz personal views on gay marriage relevant? I don't care about his personal view on gay marriage, abortion, etc. That's not the job I'm (trying) to send him there to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top