Ted Cruz: Once Obama resigns, we can talk about clerk Kim Davis.

[jj-]

HOUSTON, Texas – U.S. Sen. Cruz, R-Texas, today released the following statement regarding the arrest of Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis:

“Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny. Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America.

“I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to chose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion.

“In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts rightly observed that the Court’s marriage opinion has nothing to do with the Constitution. Justice Scalia observed that the Court’s opinion was so contrary to law that state and local officials would choose to defy it.

“For every politician — Democrat and Republican — who is tut-tutting that Davis must resign, they are defending a hypocritical standard. Where is the call for the mayor of San Francisco to resign for creating a sanctuary city — resulting in the murder of American citizens by criminal illegal aliens welcomed by his lawlessness?

“Where is the call for President Obama to resign for ignoring and defying our immigration laws, our welfare reform laws, and even his own Obamacare?

“When the mayor of San Francisco and President Obama resign, then we can talk about Kim Davis.

“Those who are persecuting Kim Davis believe that Christians should not serve in public office. That is the consequence of their position. Or, if Christians do serve in public office, they must disregard their religious faith–or be sent to jail.

“Kim Davis should not be in jail. We are a country founded on Judeo-Christian values, founded by those fleeing religious oppression and seeking a land where we could worship God and live according to our faith, without being imprisoned for doing so.

“I call upon every Believer, every Constitutionalist, every lover of liberty to stand with Kim Davis. Stop the persecution now.”

 

[acptulsa]

What? Stumping for Cruz?

Did Trump lay you off? Or did that article about 'closer cooperation' mean they're sharing their troll army now?

 

[LibertyEagle]

What? Stumping for Cruz?

Did Trump lay you off? Or did that article about 'closer cooperation' mean they're sharing their troll army now?

Did you miss Bryan's post (I know you didn't) about there being no trolls?

Regardless this thread is under News and Current Events --> U.S. Political News. It's not Ron Paul Grassroots or Rand's subforum. So, he's allowed to post here from what I can tell.

So cut out the harassment!

 

[jllundqu]

She should be fired, not jailed. This is not a religious freedom argument. She doesn't have to agree with gay marriage, if her faith tells her so. But if her employer tells her to do something, and she doesn't do it.... you either quit or you get fired. If I worked at a government office and my boss suddenly told me I had to do something I didn't like or agree with, I'd quit. She should have quit in good conscience... she has no right to NOT do what she is hired to do, her personal opinions and beliefs don't mean squat. My faith and my beliefs inform what I do, but they don't dictate to my boss what he can tell me to do or not do.

 

[jj-]

She should be fired, not jailed. This is not a religious freedom argument. She doesn't have to agree with gay marriage, if her faith tells her so. But if her employer tells her to do something, and she doesn't do it.... you either quit or you get fired. If I worked at a government office and my boss suddenly told me I had to do something I didn't like or agree with, I'd quit. She should have quit in good conscience... she has no right to NOT do what she is hired to do, her personal opinions and beliefs don't mean squat. My faith and my beliefs inform what I do, but they don't dictate to my boss what he can tell me to do or not do.

I think part of her job is to act in accordance with the Kentucky Constitution. There is nothing in there that allows for gay marriage.

 

[Zippyjuan]

I think part of her job is to act in accordance with the Kentucky Constitution. There is nothing in there that allows for gay marriage.

Supreme court overrules them. Can they refuse marriage licenses to black couples if they don't want to?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Supreme court overrules them. Can they refuse marriage licenses to black couples if they don't want to?

Is gay marriage in your copy of the U.S. Constitution, because it sure isn't in mine.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Can you show me the part where it says they can't be married? Or where it says marriage is only between a man and a woman?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Can you show me the part where it says they can't be married?

Really, Zip? The Constitution tells the federal government what they CAN do. You've never heard of enumerated powers? If it ain't specifically enumerated, they don't have the authority to do it.

The 10th Amendment takes it from there.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

 

[Sonny Tufts]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Last time I looked the 14th Amendment prohibited States from denying equal protection and due process, which the Supreme Court said were violated by refusing to allow gays to marry. So the 10th is really beside the point.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

Last time I looked the 14th Amendment prohibited States from denying equal protection and due process, which the Supreme Court said were violated by refusing to allow gays to marry. So the 10th is really beside the point.

But the ruling had no basis in reality. The Fourteenth Amendment provides equal protection under the the law for citizens. It does not provide for equal treatment of all lifestyles. This is like saying that the Second Amendment means that the government must provide free guns for everyone.

 

[wizardwatson]

Can you show me the part where it says they can't be married? Or where it says marriage is only between a man and a woman?

It's called "the accepted definition". Scalia (or Roberts, can't remember) remarked in his dissent that was the legal definition (as in, that's what the definition was in lawyer dictionaries, one man one woman).

People who fail to see this as a redefinition (like even Rand Paul does), are way off base saying "where does it say they can't". It doesn't say dogs can't marry people either. You don't need to clarify that because it's not defined that way.

Saying what you're saying Zippy, to me, is the same as saying "where does it say knocking someout out isn't murder?" It isn't murder because murder is defined as taking someone's life. It isn't marriage because marriage is defined as two different genders entering into it. Polygamists have more ground to stand on than gays when it comes to marriage and for some reason SCOTUS didn't put the stamp of approval on them.

 

[Krugminator2]

Is gay marriage in your copy of the U.S. Constitution, because it sure isn't in mine.

It is in my copy.

The right to contract is part of the 14th Amendment.

 

[LibertyEagle]

It is in my copy.

The right to contract is part of the 14th Amendment.

No one is stopping you from drawing one up, either. Go for it.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Supreme court overrules them. Can they refuse marriage licenses to black couples if they don't want to?

Yes.

 

[Krugminator2]

Yes.

No they can't. There are fundamental rights every individual has. The right to contract is fundamental. A state government cannot deny the right to contract. The whole purpose to having a government is protect individual liberty. If a local jurisdiction oversteps, then it is the responsibility of the federal government to overturn the local government.

A state cannot enforce segregation or deny interracial marriage.

 

[jj-]

No they can't. There are fundamental rights every individual has. The right to contract is fundamental.

There is no right to have your contract called 'marriage' if it's something else.

 

[Krugminator2]

There is no right to have your contract called 'marriage' if it's something else.

That is just a weasel argument people make because they don't want to face to voters of Kentucky or South Texas. If you are going to have a contract called marriage that confers certain benefits, you can't deny that right to certain groups. You can't deny blacks, gays, polygamists or any other group.

 

[jj-]

The whole purpose to having a government is protect individual liberty. If a local jurisdiction oversteps, then it is the responsibility of the federal government to overturn the local government.

Utter nonsense. It's like saying that if the U.S. government violates rights, the United Nations should intervene.

 

[jj-]

That is just a weasel argument people make because they don't want to face to voters of Kentucky or South Texas. If you are going to have a contract called marriage that confers certain benefits, you can't deny that right to certain groups. You can't deny blacks, gays, polygamists or any other group.

If the definition of marriage is as between one man and a woman, that word can't be used in a gay contract. Who has the authority to define marriage in a given jurisdiction and the words to name specific contracts?

You're asking for something more than freedom of contract. You're asking that a contract be given a specific name. This is not part of freedom of contract.