Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Or, homosexual unions don't meet the definition of marriage, and therefore aren't protected to begin with.
Ted Cruz Tells Reporters "I'm a Christian First, American Second"
- Thread starter christiefan915
- Start date
Or, homosexual unions don't meet the definition of marriage, and therefore aren't protected to begin with.
Well, first, it appears that you don't understand what "relevant" means.
If you are going to paint someone as one thing when his own comments paint him as something else, then yes, the comments you omitted are in fact relevant.
Jefferson really liked the moral ideas presented in the bible, and he believed that god did indeed meddle directly in the affairs of humans. But he did not believe that Jesus was divine or that he was the Messiah.
And even in the bible itself he found that while it contains "diamonds," it also contains the (to use his word) "drug" of the agendas of various political sects from the biblical period. You know... HUMAN things added in.
Whether or not Jefferson was a Christian isn't really as important as the fact that he saw and understood why mixing religion and government is a bad idea.
Perhaps you are not familiar with his letter to the Baptists in Danbury, CT. They sent him a letter in order to express their concerns about religious freedom (theirs, of course) in Connecticut. Here is his response:
Yes, this is where the oft-touted "separation of church and state" comes from (not the Constitution, as some people erroneously believe).
Jefferson never let his religion overshadow his duty as President, and ensured that while he was in office he executed that duty secularly and without preference to religion.
And that's why it's relevant.
It's also why Ted Cruz, if he really believes it appropriate to lead this country first by the bible, is unfit for any governmental office, especially President.
evince
Truthmatters
and his are only comparable with a few Americans so hes not getting it
Your tea tard clowns will never win the general election
YOU are a tiny minority in this country
They don't meet with the BIBLICAL definition of being wed.
What most people don't seem to understand is that the civil institution of marriage - which is in fact protected under the Constitution and 14th Amendment thereto - does not require any religious involvement at all.
A religious marriage, however, in order to be recognized legally, does require civil involvement.
Now, there's "Common Law" marriage, which doesn't require civil involvement, but that only exists in 15 states (and the District of Columbia), but even some of those have limitations.
Alabama, Colorado, District of Columbia, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas & Utah all still have Common Law marriage that can take effect today. So if you want to get married without having to enter into a civil ceremony and get a marriage license, you'll have to move to one of those states.
In Georgia, Idaho, Ohio, and Pennsylvania Common Law Marriage exists provided it took effect prior to certain dates (the earliest being prior to 1991 and the latest being prior to September of 2003. Which means these are out, because you'll need a civil ceremony to get married in these states today.
And in New Hampshire it exists only for the purposes of inheritance (THAT must be interesting when there's squabbling families).
But "Common Law Marriage" aside, your assertion that same-sex unions don't qualify as "marriage" is simply wrong.
Times have changed, and so have societal norms. It's just the old hangers-on that haven't caught up with the reality of a modern world.
Last edited:
If a law defines marriage, it must provide equal access to all within the jurisdiction of the United States, so the legal definition must change.
That does not mean your personal definition must change, but the legal one must if marriage is to remain constitutional in a legal sense.
Your religion hat? A mans convictions are not accessories. Church doctrines are not the same as convictions. Presidents, who are also men do faith, have not, and should not, set aside their convictions.
When they conflict with the constitution they should.
Yes, they absolutely should - when they are acting as President.
Once more (sigh, why is this concept so very hard for people to understand?), the government does not have a religion and when acting as an agent of the State, neither does its agents.
When the President (or other official of the government) is NOT acting within the capacity of their duties, they can be religious as they want.
The last time we allowed religion to rule government in this country we had "spectral evidence" and innocent people hanged or pressed to death (yeah, I'm referencing the witch trials in Salem).
Or, if you'd really like to see full-blown examples of religion ruling, just cast your eyes toward ISIS. THAT is governmental religion at its best and brightest.
Yes, the Constitution should prevent a president from acting unilaterally. Apart from Obama's use of his pen and phone- I can't recall any president of faith acting against the constitution because of his faith.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Everyone had access to marriage before. Naturally, for people whose lifestyle wasn't conducive to what marriage actually is, it was something they chose not to participate in. That is why civil unions sprung up, so that such people could be accommodated to a large extent.
Sigh... There is no religious test for elected office. No man CAN set aside his earnestly held convictions- and he should not be expected to. The question is not can a president set them aside, but can he faithfully carry out his duties as president while holding to them.
Cruze never stated he was going to "rule" as some sort of pope. He said his God is first. Any man of faith would likewise say the same.
You begin, as seems what is in vogue with so many liberals, a false idea, and then attack it. Try starting with the facts and truth and then the discussion has a chance for rational debate.
Here's the problem with making the assumption that Ted Cruz would not stand on his faith when executing government office: He already has.
- Ted Cruz
Cruz said this when asked about same-sex marriage and what he intends to do about the Supreme Court's ruling. He believes that the bible trumps the law.
He has also said that he has “...been proud to fight and stand for religious liberty, to stand against Planned Parenthood, to defend life for my entire career.”
Now, of course, that's about Planned Parenthood, but he references "religious liberty," and he said it after it was proven that the tapes in question were all edited and manipulated. He was allowing his faith to color his perceptions of a case that had already been proven baseless, and yet he still went on, as with so many others, talking about how their "religious liberty" was what was important.
Don't you see where the danger is? Cruz is a religious ideologue, and that is exactly the kind of person that Thomas Jefferson believed it was important to erect that "wall of separation between church and state" to defend against.
You are correct that there is no religious test for elected office - because no branch of government has a religion.
The entire point of not having a religious test for elected office is so that anyone of any religion (yep, Muslims, too) can be an elected official. But when acting in an official capacity, they follow the law, not the religion. That is what is expected and required.
That is what is sadly lacking.
evince
Truthmatters
You mean like Obama ignoring violations of federal law? Or his lauding his power to by-pass congress for his own personal convictions? Let's discuss the man whose actually doing these things you fear Tec Cruz may do. I'm sure such a concerned person such as yourself wishes to discuss these numerous violations of law- yes? Or perhaps it's just more comfortable talking about bogey men under the bed?
https://www.committeeforjustice.org/content/25-violations-law-president-obama-and-his-administration
What faith are you claiming Obama acted against?
The Supreme Court has previous ruled that separate is not equal.
IMT
New member
Dear JPP Reader:
The church/mosque/temple/etc. has no place forming a constitution or government for the state, and a government has no place forming a creed or polity for the church. They are as planets in concentric orbit.
Presidents can divide themselves in two no more than anyone else; but I would hope that a President could at least know whetherhe is in the White House or in church/mosque/temple/etc.
IMT
The church/mosque/temple/etc. has no place forming a constitution or government for the state, and a government has no place forming a creed or polity for the church. They are as planets in concentric orbit.
Presidents can divide themselves in two no more than anyone else; but I would hope that a President could at least know whether
IMT
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Separate is the truth. Marriage and civil unions are not the same thing, although one could acquire a civil union in conjunction with a ceremonial marriage.