Skip to main content

Ted Cruz and Mike Lee celebrate anti-Valentine's Day

On Valentine's Day of all days, news broke that Republican Senators Ted Cruz (Texas) and Mike Lee (Utah) have introduced a bill, entitled, the "State Marriage Defense Act," which would prohibit the federal government from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples if a particular state doesn't recognize them. This would also be the case for same-sex couples whom have been wed in states which recognize such marriages, but then move to a state which doesn't. Yes, love is certainly in the air! Can you feel it? Ted Cruz can - as he said the following with regard to the bill:

"I support traditional marriage. Under President Obama, the federal government has tried to re-define marriage, and to undermine the constitutional authority of each state to define marriage consistent with the values of its citizens. The Obama Administration should not be trying to force gay marriage on all 50 states. We should respect states, and the definition of marriage should be left to democratically elected legislatures, not dictated from Washington. This bill will safeguard the ability of states to preserve traditional marriage for its residents."

This quote made me chuckle, because Cruz seems to insinuate that while state representatives were democratically elected, federal ones weren't. Perhaps Ted needs a bit of a reminder. Psst... Mr. Cruz... Yeah - you... So, I just wanted to run something by you really quickly. You know those elections we had in 2012? Where people voted in a democracy-like fashion? Yeah? Okay... Well, you do realize then that the people democratically elected a Democrat for president that year, and Democrats picked up seats in both the House and the Senate, right? Okay then... Just checking... 

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/02/14/3293191/cruz-lee-marriage/

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...
2 comments
Read more

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...
2 comments
Read more