Ted Cruz (R-TX) fear-mongers about bill codifying federal recognition of same-sex marriages.

[aubiefifty 18,248]

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) fear-mongers about bill codifying federal recognition of same-sex marriages.

The Recount

1-2 minutes

---

Senator Ted Cruz, a republican from Texas, had some choice words about the new bill codifying federal recognition of same-sex marriages on his podcast. The Senate Democrats are trying to codify same-sex marriages since the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court this past summer issued a shocking reminder to the fragility of rights in America, especially ones that are granted by the Supreme Court.

CRUZ: “This bill is about empowering, the Biden IRS to target every Church, and school, and university, and charity in America that refuses to knuckle under to their view of gay marriage. I think it's incredibly dangerous. And yet, Michael you asked me, is it going to pass? I don't know. Every Democrat is going to vote for it and there have been multiple Republican Senators who said they will too. I don't know if they’ll get to 60 or not. But given the threat to religious liberty, I think it would be profoundly dangerous if this passes.

[aubiefifty 18,248]

can someone explain to me how treating a person like a human being is a threat to religion? i am so interested in this.

[I_M4_AU 8,940]

1 hour ago, aubiefifty said:

can someone explain to me how treating a person like a human being is a threat to religion? i am so interested in this.

His fear is that is if gay marriage is codified into law, it then becomes unlawful when you still believe a marriage is between one man and one woman.  Therefore, if a Christian school, church or other devoutly religious institution promotes a traditional marriage without accepting gay marriage they could lose government funding.

There was a recent SCOTUS decision forcing an Orthodox Jewish school in NY to establish a LBGTQ club on campus.  If they have other clubs they must have a LBGTQ club also.   The school banned all clubs on campus. It getting ridiculous out there.

[CoffeeTiger 5,876]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

His fear is that is if gay marriage is codified into law, it then becomes unlawful when you still believe a marriage is between one man and one woman.

 

That may be his "fear" but its not reality. Racial equality is codified into law, but it's not "illegal" to believe that one race is inferior or superior to another. Gender equality is codified into law, but it's not illegal to be a misogynist or misandrist or believe one gender is inferior or better than the other. 

 

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

 Therefore, if a Christian school, church or other devoutly religious institution promotes a traditional marriage without accepting gay marriage they could lose government funding.

 

Ah, so there is the rub. "If This becomes law then Christians may not be able to discriminate against this group of people anymore and still benefit from government assistance/handouts." 

 

3 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

can someone explain to me how treating a person like a human being is a threat to religion? i am so interested in this.

As IM4AU said, A big part of Religious "Freedom" in America to many is to have the freedom to discriminate, refuse service, and treat differently people that you don't like due to your religion, while still being able to enjoy government benefits and handouts that only non-discriminatory organizations are supposed to have. America was built on religious persecution. With  the Church or Christian authorities targeting groups they don't like for discrimination and they are terrified of giving up that special privalidge legal loopholes they've enjoyed for so long. 

 

IMO Churches and religious organizations of certain sizes should be required to pay taxes anyway. 

Edited September 20, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[I_M4_AU 8,940]

9 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Ah, so there is the rub. "If This becomes law then Christians may not be able to discriminate against this group of people anymore and still benefit from government assistance/approval."

Why would you twist what I said?  Its about the freedom to practice your beliefs, not to discriminate.  Should the Church be forced to accept something that is not part of their religious beliefs and teach a marriage is not just between a man and a woman?  In the secular world there should be no discrimination and there isn’t without consequences.  What the fear is is the church is so dependent on funds from the government this law could affect the very existence of some churches.

23 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

America was built on religious persecution  and targeting those the Church or Christian authorities don't like for discrimination and they are terrified of giving up that special privalidge legal loopholes they've enjoyed for so long. 

Revisionist history?????  America was founded by people that wanted freedom from the Church of England.  The rest of you statement follows what you believe not reality.  JMHO.

[Leftfield 3,376]

9 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Why would you twist what I said?  Its about the freedom to practice your beliefs, not to discriminate. 

What if your beliefs.....discriminate?

 

11 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Should the Church be forced to accept something that is not part of their religious beliefs and teach a marriage is not just between a man and a woman? 

No, but don't expect the Church to suffer no consequences for it (just as you point out happens in the secular world).

 

13 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

What the fear is is the church is so dependent on funds from the government this law could affect the very existence of some churches.

Can you tell me why the government should fund a Church? There's a big difference between giving tax breaks to an organization that brings benefits and charity to their society, and one whose very existence depends on government money.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Therefore, if a Christian school, church or other devoutly religious institution promotes a traditional marriage without accepting gay marriage they could lose government funding.

Good.  If Christians want to be hostile towards gay people,,, good, not government funding.  Jesus never once said homosexuality is any sort of sin. 

[icanthearyou 4,468]

If there were greater equality in our country, churches would not need government funding.

[I_M4_AU 8,940]

10 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

What if your beliefs.....discriminate?

I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman and I don’t discriminate against any gay couple.  There is a fine line between holding a belief and forcing that belief on someone else.  

 

10 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

No, but don't expect the Church to suffer no consequences for it (just as you point out happens in the secular world).

If a Church School teaches its students, that are there because it is a Church School, what consequences should there be?  If those student, then discriminate against a gay couple, they have broken the law and can be prosecuted.  Teaching your religion should not be against the law.  If you teach to discriminate, that is a different story.

 

10 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Can you tell me why the government should fund a Church? There's a big difference between giving tax breaks to an organization that brings benefits and charity to their society, and one whose very existence depends on government money.

No, I can’t.  Those funds were established over decades and I don’t know how they were enacted.  It is a shame the Churches allowed the government to control them the way they have.  Its coming back to roost.

[I_M4_AU 8,940]

11 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Good.  If Christians want to be hostile towards gay people,,, good, not government funding.  Jesus never once said homosexuality is any sort of sin. 

Is teaching a marriage is between a man and a woman being hostile towards gay people?  Jesus taught marriage was such and wasn’t hostile toward gay people.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

Is teaching a marriage is between a man and a woman being hostile towards gay people?  Jesus taught marriage was such and wasn’t hostile toward gay people.

Is marriage today a religious institution or, a legal institution?

[I_M4_AU 8,940]

4 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Is marriage today a religious institution or, a legal institution?

Answering a question with a question?  Answer mine first.

[Leftfield 3,376]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman and I don’t discriminate against any gay couple.  There is a fine line between holding a belief and forcing that belief on someone else.  

Wasn't referring to you specifically. You may believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but if you don't feel a gay couple should be treated any differently in the eyes of the law, then that's fine. The problem, as you're aware, is that many who believe marriage is only between a man and a woman also think a gay couple should not be allowed to be married by law, should not be able to receive some of the benefits that straight couples do, and that businesses should be able to turn them away.

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

If a Church School teaches its students, that are there because it is a Church School, what consequences should there be?  If those student, then discriminate against a gay couple, they have broken the law and can be prosecuted.  Teaching your religion should not be against the law.  If you teach to discriminate, that is a different story.

The consequences I was referring to are the loss of tax exempt status and any other government support they receive.

It depends on exactly what beliefs are taught. Just because you are teaching beliefs that you feel are right does not mean you aren't teaching discrimination. As long as it stops at "Our Church does not recognize same-sex marriage, but we believe gay couples should have all the same legal rights as any other citizen," you're good.

[CoffeeTiger 5,876]

51 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Why would you twist what I said?  Its about the freedom to practice your beliefs, not to discriminate.  Should the Church be forced to accept something that is not part of their religious beliefs and teach a marriage is not just between a man and a woman?  In the secular world there should be no discrimination and there isn’t without consequences.  What the fear is is the church is so dependent on funds from the government this law could affect the very existence of some churches.

 

 

What People like Cruz are worried about isn't that Christians can't believe or teach that gay marriage is against the bible/god. What hes worried about is that Christian organizations not being allowed to fire/refuse to hire non-straight people, or Christian schools not being able to teach that gay people are abominations who need to be shunned while still receiving government funding, etc. That's more than teaching a belief that's discrimination and shouldn't be advocated or supported by the government. 

Nobody is trying to "prevent" anyone or any church from believing or teaching that gay marriage is a sin. They are trying to prevent people from discriminating and mistreating gay or transgendered people in everyday life outside of their church, claiming its what their religion/faith wants them to do. 

 

My Church I grew up in didn't/doesn't allow women to be preachers or leaders of the Church. Strictly forbidden.... If you're are born with a vagina  it's believed that God mandates that you never be allowed to be a Church leader no matter what. We're free to believe that and practice that in our church, but we couldn't go out in society and declare that businesses run by our members couldn't allow women in leadership. That'd be illegal and not in line with religious freedom...or that we cant allow women in leadership of our affiliated schools or Universities....or that women are mandated to be subservient to their husbands in all legal senses in private marriages...all of that would have been illegal discrimination and would not have been covered under religious freedom.  

 

That's the big difference here between practicing and teaching your beliefs inside your church walls and private life, and trying to take your beliefs and impose them on society at large to target or discriminate in different areas of society like Christians want to do against Gay people. 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[I_M4_AU 8,940]

4 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

It depends on exactly what beliefs are taught. Just because you are teaching beliefs that you feel are right does not mean you aren't teaching discrimination. As long as it stops at "Our Church does not recognize same-sex marriage, but we believe gay couples should have all the same legal rights as any other citizen," you're good

That’s where we are now without the bill in front of congress, so what is the need for congress to pass what is law now?  Ted Cruz is pointing out a down side of passing it.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

9 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Answering a question with a question?  Answer mine first.

Okay.  First, I assume you are talking about the book of Matthew.  Jesus was not asked about marriage.  He was asked about divorce.  Same sex marriage was not a part of life then so,,, I would not draw any conclusions from his answer to the Pharisees. 

[icanthearyou 4,468]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

That’s where we are now without the bill in front of congress, so what is the need for congress to pass what is law now?  Ted Cruz is pointing out a down side of passing it.

What is the downside again?

[CoffeeTiger 5,876]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

That’s where we are now without the bill in front of congress, so what is the need for congress to pass what is law now?  Ted Cruz is pointing out a down side of passing it.

Yes, and this SCOTUS is more than capable (and would likely love to) overturn that ruling that guaranteed the right to gay marriage protection. 

 

The smart and prudent thing for congress to do would be to enshrine the right into federal law and take the matter out of the Supreme courts hands entirely like they should have done long ago with abortion. 

[icanthearyou 4,468]

I do not recall Jesus ever calling out any group of sinners other than,,, the self righteous and the hypocrites.

 

[I_M4_AU 8,940]

6 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

That's the big difference here between practicing and teaching your beliefs inside your church walls and private life, and trying to take your beliefs and impose them on society at large to target or discriminate in different areas of society like Christians want to do against Gay people

This sounds vaguely familiar.  I am being forced to believe its normal to give *gender affirming care* (chopping off fully functional organs) to minor children and telling me it is life saving surgery.  To me this is imposing beliefs on society that is backed by governmental policy.  It is an ideology not a religion, but for some reason is considered OK.

Is there a difference here?  If you disagree with this ideology your are discriminated against whether you are religious or not.

[I_M4_AU 8,940]

1 minute ago, icanthearyou said:

I do not recall Jesus ever calling out any group of sinners other than,,, the self righteous and the hypocrites.

 

You’re in trouble, but we all are sinners.

[I_M4_AU 8,940]

7 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Yes, and this SCOTUS is more than capable (and would likely love to) overturn that ruling that guaranteed the right to gay marriage protection. 

 

The smart and prudent thing for congress to do would be to enshrine the right into federal law and take the matter out of the Supreme courts hands entirely like they should have done long ago with abortion. 

That was brought up only by Clarence Thomas and the other Justices said (no less than 3 times) that it will never happen.

[CoffeeTiger 5,876]

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

That was brought up only by Clarence Thomas and the other Justices said (no less than 3 times) that it will never happen.

So? 

Supreme Court justices are allowed to lie or change their minds. And there are more than a few people out there who believe those same justices misled people about their views on Roe. 

 

The supreme Court of 10 years ago would have told you Roe would likely never be overturned as well. 

As I said, smart and prudent thing for congress is to enshrine it in law and take it out of judges hands. 

Edited September 20, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[I_M4_AU 8,940]

16 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

What is the downside again?

Using the IRS as a cudgel against Churches.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

11 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

(chopping off fully functional organs) to minor children and telling me it is life saving surgery

This is an outright lie.  It is simply not happening.