Type to search

WATCH: Ted Cruz’s Argument Against Same-Sex Marriage Is Offensively Ridiculous

Memo Pad Politics

WATCH: Ted Cruz’s Argument Against Same-Sex Marriage Is Offensively Ridiculous


Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is the Ivy League Tea Partier.

Texas’ junior senator graduated cum laude from Princeton University in 1992 and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1995, where he edited the Harvard Law Review. So when he makes an argument that’s insane or factually untrue, you know he’s doing so on purpose.

Recently Cruz made the argument that gay and lesbian couples should be denied equality because we must defend the freedom of the people who hate gay people.

“If you look at other nations that have gone down the road towards gay marriage, that’s the next step of where it gets enforced,” the senator told Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody in a very, very dark room.

“It gets enforced against Christian pastors who decline to perform gay marriages, who speak out and preach Biblical truths on marriage and that has been defined elsewhere as hate speech — as inconsistent with the enlightened view of government,” he added.

To make this argument, Cruz has to pretend that the First Amendment doesn’t exist. He also has to pretend that the civil rights movement has resulted in racists — who still exist in America, where they freely spout hate and post it on the Internet — being arrested by the truckload for hate speech.

Glenn Beck’s The Blaze picked up Cruz’s comment and was able to find one example of a pastor in Sweden who was held for 30 days for his anti-gay comments. The charges were dropped.

Cruz’s argument that churches would be forced to perform gay marriages might make sense if we didn’t have more than 200 years of American history where rabbis have never been forced to marry Christians and priests have never been required perform weddings for Muslims, the American Civil Liberties Union points out.

To argue against marriage equality, this Princeton- and Harvard-educated man has to pretend the Bill of Rights doesn’t exist. But we’re just talking about freedom and people’s rights — not something important, like being able to get a gun without a background check.

Screen Shot 2013-07-24 at 2.44.33 PM


  1. dtgraham July 24, 2013

    Cruz is not mentioning the unique legal treatment of free speech in America. The U.S. has no hate speech laws per se largely due to the imminent danger doctrine putting a very high bar on the likelihood of such speech placing the aggrieved group in real peril. It seeks to redress this kind of speech in criminal law through more of the so called fighting words doctrine and less through a more libellous and slanderous interpretation, as is done in most other countries. The SCOTUS has already ruled on this and that’s not likely to change.

    Section 7 (I believe) of the 1964 civil rights act has a provision for prosecution of employers who knowingly and willingly allow their employees to engage in hate speech against segments of society; and many Universities have campus speech laws, but those laws have faired very poorly in the courts, when challenged, due to being constantly trumped by the first Amendment. Cruz knows all of this.

    He also flat out lied about pastors having to perform gay marriage. Look at the 15 or more countries (and many more jurisdictions) who’ve legalized gay marriage. There always seems to be a provision for any church to opt out on the grounds of religious freedom. The Church of Sweden, the United Church of Canada, and the Lutheran Church of Canada made the choice to lead the way in both countries in performing same sex marriages. That has filtered down to other denominations as well but the Catholics and Muslims generally don’t, and they don’t have to. Cruz also knows that.

    Homosexuals are more and more being thought of as a people and not a practice. You’re gay for the same reasons that your eyes are blue or your earlobes are short. You just are, with no idea why and no option to choose The idea of using freedom as an excuse to openly advocate discriminatory policies and expressions of contempt towards gay Americans is a concept that increasingly has no basis in thought throughout the developed, advanced nations. To find similar approaches, you’re getting into the middle east and the third world.

    This is one of a handful of issues that the Republicans are going to have to somehow come to terms with in the years and decades that follow if they want to stay relevant as a party. You can’t re-district and vote suppress your way to majorities forever.

    1. The_Magic_M July 25, 2013

      > You can’t re-district and vote suppress your way to majorities forever.

      If I wanted to sound like a conspiracy theorist, I’d have to reply:
      They only need to get in power once more – then they can usher in their theocratic state which simply prevents anyone not following the (divine) party line from ever voting again.
      When Hitler won the elections in 1933, do you think he planned to continue holding elections for the next 100 years? (And yes, I realize that Godwin’s Law means I lose. ;))

      1. dtgraham July 25, 2013

        Not to worry. Today’s Republicans are enough to give anybody Nazi Tourette Syndrome. You have a point about getting in power once though. In these GOP controlled swing states, the Dems will have to wait for the 2020 census year to start making the electoral maps look like an actual democracy again. Problem is, they have to win these legislatures back in order to do that, and how do you do that when they’re cracked and packed in favour of the GOP? Does look kind of self perpetuating doesn’t it. Still, nothing lasts forever but for the foreseeable future they may have to rely on whatever reasonable, moderate Republicans there are that are left, becoming disgusted enough with their party to just stay home en mass on election day…or vote Democrat.

        1. ShhhImReading November 5, 2013

          ” I see more references to Hitler here than on the History channel.” hahahahahaha!!

  2. Lynda Groom July 24, 2013

    Of course what he says is asinine, it came from his mouth. Nuff said.

    1. dtgraham July 24, 2013

      I think you pretty much summarized in 14 words what took me 5 paragraphs to say. Well said.

  3. hollyhock July 25, 2013

    Isn’t the phrase ‘biblical truths’ a fallacy? There is no truth to any of the many stories in the bible.

    1. The_Magic_M July 25, 2013

      Might as well lead your life according to “Lord of the Rings” or “Chicken Little”. Would probably make you a better person, too. 😉

    2. latebloomingrandma July 25, 2013

      I think you’re confusing “facts” with “truths”. The bible is not, as many people think, about facts. It is, however, filled with truths, but you have to search for them. Kind of like Shakespeare. The stories are fiction, but boy, are there truths in there about human nature.

      1. hollyhock July 25, 2013

        Perhaps some truths, mostly ignored by current Christianity, but much more brainwashing!

  4. nrgins July 25, 2013

    In Canada, the Christian television broadcasters are forbidden from saying that homosexuality is a sin. They are fined (and risk losing their license) if they do.

    Also, the issue of churches having to marry gay couples aside, there is still the very real issue of Christian/Catholic adoption agencies being required to allow gay couples to adopt, even though it goes against their faith, and Christian marriage counselors having to counsel gay couples.

    Of course, those are “services,” not religious ceremonies. But they’re still Christian-based, and will be forced by the government to go against their faith or risk fines or losing their licenses.

    Of course no one’s going to go to jail. But losing one’s license to practice is still a punishment for not adhering to the new norm, even though it goes against one’s faith.

    So the issue goes well beyond the narrowly-discussed one here of churches having to perform gay marriages. There are many, many other areas of life where churches and Christian ministries will be forced to embrace gay marriage or risk fine or other punishment.

    And, by the way, while that pastor in Sweden who was held for 30 days for anti-gay remarks – even if it is just one example, it does support what Cruz is saying. Even though the article dismissively says, “The charges were dropped,” the reality is that a Christian pastor spent 30 DAYS in jail for anti-gay remarks. That should send a chill down anyone’s spine who is a lover of free speech.

    To ignore that and say that it’s “one example” and “the charges were dropped” is to completely ignore the reality of what it represents. True, they don’t have the Bill of Rights in Sweden; but they are a free society that has traditionally upheld free speech rights.

    And even though we have the First Amendment here in the U.S., we also have the Fourth Amendment, which seems to have been trampled in the ground in recent years – not to mention a long-established rule of Habeas Corpus, which doesn’t seem to apply if you’re suspected of being a terrorist, per the Patriot Act.

    The point is that, yes, we have the Bill of Rights. But the government has shown itself more than willing to trample all over the Bill of Rights (and get away with it). So I have no doubt that the First Amendment will be no protection.

    While I am no fan of Ted Cruz (and hate his policies in general) I have to say that calling what he’s saying ridiculous is, itself, ridiculous.There is enough evidence to indicate a validity in what he is saying.

    1. The_Magic_M July 25, 2013

      > Of course, those are “services,” not religious ceremonies. But they’re still Christian-based, and will be forced by the government to go against their faith or risk fines or losing their licenses.

      Well then, why don’t we allow people to say “I don’t serve blacks, it’s against my faith”? Why don’t we allow people to say “I don’t treat Jews, it’s against my faith”? That’s not freedom of religion, that’s institutionalized racism/intolerance.

      I say that if there is a profession that requires you to do things you don’t want to do, get a different job. If you hate women, don’t become a gynaecologist. If you don’t want to counsel gay couples, don’t become a marriage counselor. If you don’t want to serve black people, don’t become a waiter. It’s simple as that.
      There is no given right to work in a certain profession.

      1. nrgins July 25, 2013

        Right – and that’s the argument, that not wanting to embrace gay marriage with marriage counseling or whatever is akin to bigotry against someone for their race.

        And so we’ve gone from “gays just want equal rights and it has nothing to do with you so you have no reason to oppose it” to “now you have to embrace gay marriage whether your faith supports it or not and if you have a problem with it then just quit your job or close up your service that you may have had for decades.”

        So, thank you for confirming what I was saying. Christian ministries WILL be forced to embrace gay marriage or be fined or otherwise punished. Just as Ted Cruz was saying.

        1. The_Magic_M July 25, 2013

          We weren’t talking about ministries. I see what you did there and it doesn’t work with me.

          > now you have to embrace gay marriage

          Just like you have to embrace interracial marriage. You cannot just fund a new church and say “but my faith considers blacks abominations!”.

          1. nrgins July 25, 2013

            The article was about gay marriage being “enforced” against Christians. I was pointing out examples of where it will be the case.

            And, again, while your point of view is that gay marriage is the same as interracial marriage, and, therefore, it should be enforced, that doesn’t take away from the fact that that confirms what Ted Cruz is saying! The fact that you believe it’s a good idea and is the right thing do to doesn’t make him any less right. And it goes against what this article is saying, that he’s spouting lunacy. That’s the point.

          2. The_Magic_M July 25, 2013

            For the last time:

            Cruz claims that the clergy will be forced to marry gays, and that’s what constitutes the “lunacy”.

            Cruz did not simply say it will be “enforced against Christians”. You are trying to muddy the waters and change the subject, again, try this with somebody who has RWNJ level intelligence.

            Let me make it clear one last time:

            Cruz: “Christian pastors will be forced to marry gays.”
            Analogy: “Christian pastors will be forced to marry Jews.”

            Truth: “People with layman’s professions will not be allowed to discriminate against gays.”
            Analogy: “People with layman’s professions will not be allowed to discriminate against blacks/Jews/women/Christians”

            Seriously, if gays started treating Christians like Christians treat gays, we’d hear howls and screams about how unfair that is. Just imagine if no clothing company with gay designers sells stuff to Christians anymore. You can just walk around in trash bags.

          3. nrgins July 25, 2013

            I disagree that Christian counseling and adoption services are the same as clothing stores. I agree that gays shouldn’t be treated any differently than anyone else when it comes to retail services or employment, etc. However, for a Christian counselor to counsel a gay married couple he has to embrace gay marriage, which is something that goes against his faith.

            I realize that you believe his faith is wrong in that regard. And that’s fine. That’s your point of view.

            But the point of this article wasn’t just the narrow items of pastors being forced to marry gay couples (though that was the example given), it’s that gay marriage “gets enforced” in societies that have adopted gay marriage. That was the point of the article, and that’s the point I was making.

            Anyway, let’s just move on, OK? Thanks.

          4. Katherine Bryans March 10, 2015

            You do realize that there are many counselors that are not Christians. I do realize also that there are many homosexual Christians and they should be counseled by their church before marriage. I also believe that any one should be able to ask any one other than a member of clergy to marry them.

            That being said Ted Cruz is a problem to the US and should not be voted into any office. Our country was founded away from the Church and thus should not be turned into a theocracy.

          5. Allan Richardson July 25, 2013

            Besides, gay couples do not WANT to be married in a church, or by a clergyperson, who considers them abominations. There are many open minded congregations and clergy of many faiths who have already performed gay weddings that are considered valid by their church, even without legalization for civil purposes.

            I like the humor about gay designers not allowing clothing sales to people who consider gayness a sin. You can see from history that when gay people are persecuted, art, architecture, drama, and fashion gets boring and dehumanized, just look at Nazi Germany with the ugly buildings and uniforms!

        2. TheSkalawag929 July 25, 2013

          Your problem is that you are homophobic and you don’t understand why everyone doesn’t share your phobia. You also seem to be afraid that if you afford equal rights to people of the LGBT community that some how it will “infect” you and you will become one of “them”.
          Get over yourself.

          1. nrgins July 25, 2013

            1) I’m not homophobic. I love gay people. I just have a different point of view about homosexuality. 2) I have no problem understanding that other people have different points of view. That’s what happens in a free society, and I respect other peoples’ points of view. 3) You accuse me of having a “phobia,” though you know nothing about me except what I’ve written here. It’s funny how anyone who doesn’t support gay marriage is “homophobic” – like everyone is a licensed psychiatrist or something. This mass labelling of everyone who has a different opinion as having a “phobia” is itself a form of bigotry and the reducing of human beings to derogatory labels. It’s pretty pathetic.

          2. TheSkalawag929 July 25, 2013

            No you’re not homophobic and sure you love gay people. Those are the same kinds of things people say to prove that they aren’t racially biased.
            It is not a question of understanding. It’s a matter of rights. If a way can be found to justify denying one group of people their rights then it is plausible to justify another group of people their rights.
            If you are not phobic then why would you deny a loving gay couple the ability to adopt a child and have a family. What possible reason could you have other than fear.
            What’s funny is that you think gay marriage is dependent upon your acceptance. It’s not. Rights are not dependent upon a majority vote. If it was African Americans would still be waiting on their rights.
            Paint yourself however you wish. Just don’t be surprised when people see through your subterfuge and call you on it.

          3. nrgins July 25, 2013

            (part 2)

            Again, though you know nothing about me, you feel a liberty to state that I am afraid of being “infected” by homosexuality. Do you see how unintelligent you are being? You have these small little categories that anyone who has a different point of view from you fall into. That’s the very definition of bigotry. “Get over yourself” is indeed what I would say to you!

          4. TheSkalawag929 July 25, 2013

            I know about as much about you as you know about those you would deny rights to based on whatever criteria you use to justify your doing so.
            Because I rubbed your feathers the wrong way I’m unintelligent? You don’t seem to have a problem with piegon holing others so why shouldn’t you be? Is it because of some special privilege that you feel entitled to.
            As I said before, “Get over yourself”.

          5. Mimihaha July 28, 2013

            Here in Illinois the state no longer funds Catholic adoption services because they won’t allow gay couples to adopt.

      2. Allan Richardson July 25, 2013

        If you are a butcher, but do not want to slice and sell pork, then work for, or start your own, a Kosher or Halal deli. If you don’t want to sell medicines such as birth control, don’t be a pharmacist, or else open your own pharmacy and openly advertise that fact (so that customers who want those products will not waste their time or yours).

        We need another Amendment to clarify the First Amendment for religious freedom, especially since a future MORE conservative Supreme Court may go back on the 14th Amendment and say is does NOT extend religious freedom to the states:

        Neither Congress, nor any State or locality within any State, shall make an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof. Nevertheless, the free exercise of one religion shall not be understood to include the commission of acts harmful to others (such as, but not limited to, human sacrifice and arranged marriage of underage boys or girls), nor the use of civil or economic authority to prevent the free exercise of another religion by employees, agents or subordinate associates (such as, but not limited to, restricting access to medical procedures or other products to which the employer or other person in authority has a religious objection). Nevertheless, religious organizations are free to hire only members of their own faiths for WORSHIP related parts of their organization, not including those divisions which serve SECULAR purposes and provide goods and services to people of other faiths.

        In other words, there cannot be a state church of Georgia or Utah; Salt Lake City and Jackson, MS cannot treat members of one faith differently than other faiths, or mandate school prayers. No church can sacrifice human beings (sorry, Aztecs), carry out corporal or capital punishment for sectarian OR civil offenses (no Sharia law, y’all!), force 12 year olds to marry their already married spiritual leader, or the like (marry schmarry, it’s STILL child molestation). Chick-Fil-A’s owner can TALK against gay people but must not discriminate against them in hiring, nor can he restrict his employer-provided health care from covering birth control or abortions. A company owned by a devout Jehovah’s Witness can TALK about the evils of blood transfusion, but cannot exclude it from his company’s health plan. The Catholic and other churches can make membership in their faith mandatory for clerical and leadership positions, but a Catholic hospital, if run as a secular hospital, must obey the same laws as a non-religious one: no MANDATORY Mass for nursing personnel when working on Sunday, no restrictions on health plan coverage … UNLESS they openly advertise as a hospital treating ONLY Catholics for non-emergency illnesses.

        Who wants to join me in this 28th Amendment?

      3. Mike Maricle July 29, 2013

        But we do allow them to refuse to sell Birth Controll.:-(

    2. TheSkalawag929 July 25, 2013

      The United States is not Canada. So what effect do their laws have on us here other than none?
      You’re right adoption is a service and as such should not be allowed to use discriminatory practices, even those based on religious beliefs. If an agency has a problem with gay couples solely on the basis of the couples sexual orientation then they need to get out of the adoption services business.
      Churches and Christian ministries are not being forced to adopt gay marriage. If they are engaged in businesses they are like any other citizen or group bound to follow the laws of the land.
      Unless or until there is a similar case in the United States as in Sweden you are chasing “what ifs”. And we have more important real and pressing problems to address than a bunch of “what ifs”.
      You seem to be going off topic when you bring up the Fourth Amendment and Habeas Corpus. I don’t see the connection.
      You also seem to be slipping into the realm of the right-wing fringe when you start talking about “…the government has shown itself more than willing to trample all over the Bill of Rights…”.
      While you disavow Ted Cruz with one arm you embrace him with the other. You sound as though you are trying to be a reasonable fringer and that is not possible.

      1. nrgins July 25, 2013

        The Sweden case is significant because it’s a free society that upholds individual liberties. So if a person can be jailed there for 30 days for speaking out against homosexuality, then it can happen here. (And even if the charges were dropped, he still spent 30 days in jail!)

        The Fourth Amendment and Habeas Corpus are significant because they have traditionally been stalwarts of our system of justice and liberty. So if those two can be trampled underfoot as easily as they have since 9/11, then the First Amendment can be as well. That was my point.

        As for my statement about the government being willing to trample over the Bill of Rights: see previous paragraph.

        I do not embrace Ted Cruz. I am merely agreeing with what he said here. If we do not support a person, does that mean we have to disagree with everything they say, or else we’re contradicting ourselves? That kind of narrow-minded thinking shows a lack of willingness to grapple with things intelligently, but, rather, to embrace things emotionally based on whether we “like” the person or not.”

        “you are trying to be a reasonable fringer” – I’m not trying to be anything but a person with an opinion, which I am sharing here. You, on the other hand, seem desperate to try to fit me into some category (like Ted Cruz or don’t like Ted Cruz? Different view regarding gay marriage, so must have a “phobia.” Discuss how rights are being trampled, so must be a “fringer.” Etc.).

        That seems to be how you process the world: by putting things into neat little categories that make them easier for you to understand and/or cause you to not have to do any “heavy lifting” when it comes to actually thinking. But the world is a far more complicated place that your convenient little categories will allow for.

        My suggestion to you is to stop trying fit idea and people into little categories or assign labels to them, and just analyze things for what they are, rather than what other people told you to believe they are.

        1. TheSkalawag929 July 25, 2013

          The Sweden case is Sweden’s problem not ours. Unless or until a case of the same kind presents it’s self here in the United States I don’t care.
          I’m guessing that you are making a veiled reference to the Patriot Act when you talk about the Fourth Amendment and Habeas Corpus. If so where were you when it was brought up and passed and what are you doing now to get it repealed. Don’t be a Johnny Come Lately who sits on the sidelines after the fact wring his hands and complaining about how things are. Change them.

          The denial the denial of parenthood to a couple based simply on the grounds that they are gay is something you agree with Ted Cruz on? If that is the ONLY thing that you agree with the Senator on then I stand corrected. However I don’t think that to be the case.

          You say that I’m narrow minded because I accuse you of embracing Ted Cruz because you share a narrow minded point of view. Yet you don’t see yourself as narrow minded because you do in fact share a narrow minded point of view.
          You are trying to project on to me that which you are. It ain’t going to work.
          You are worse than a fringer. You’re a fringer in denial.

        2. ShhhImReading November 5, 2013

          THIS IS NOT SWEDEN. In many ways, I wish it were (I speak Swedish and adore Sweden and Scandinavia in general–my family comes from Norway). But alas, the United States of America is still. not. Sweden. Sweden has some very strict and unfortunate anti-discrimination laws that do, in my opinion, impinge on free speech. They do not have our same first amendment rights. “Hate speech” by itself is a crime there. Here, it’s only a crime when you yell “faggot” as you beat up a gay man and tie him to a fence. You simply cannot compare the two in this case.

          1. nrgins November 5, 2013

            I understand your point. Still, my point remains. Sweden is a free society that upholds individual rights, and it happened there. While Swedish laws and U.S. laws are different, this is an example of what a society can BECOME, not what the United States currently is. I mentioned habeas corpus and the 4th amendment being trampled underfoot as examples of changes in the U.S. So my point was not that the U.S. and Sweden were the same; but rather that Sweden, a free society, is an example of what the U.S. could become if we don’t continue to protect individual liberties.

          2. lynndalsing November 7, 2013

            YOUR POINT DOESN’T STAND AT ALL. Dude, an anecdote does not a trend make. Sweden is a nation that is different from the U.S. It’s a different country. It has different laws. It has a different government with different rules and different guiding principles. It is a different nation. It is not this nation. I can’t come up with any more ways to say that as Sweden is not the United States, this is one individual incident out of 7 BILLION people living on this planet, and that you don’t even know what else happened in this case, your point doesn’t stand. It just doesn’t.

            Yes, we have our own issues with not adhering 100% at all times to every right that we have pledged to uphold. But your analogy taken to its logical conclusion would be to suggest that we shouldn’t try to prosecute crimes because there were these times when, in trying to prosecute crimes, we didn’t follow the 4th Amendment. You don’t give up on a goal (particularly one that involves civil liberties) because one guy spent 30 days in jail that one time in a totally different f—ing country.

  5. The_Magic_M July 25, 2013

    Maybe we should reintroduce slavery so that racists aren’t offended by black people roaming the streets freely anymore.
    And what about misogynists, don’t they have a right to a Presidential election that doesn’t let women participate?

    1. disqus_fsqeoY3FsG July 25, 2013

      They are working on it.

  6. Dominick Vila July 25, 2013

    Thank Goodness for all the Cruz’s and King’s of this world. We need more people like them voicing their opinions as loudly as possible to ensure we can keep control of the Senate in the difficult midterm election that is coming up. Hurray for radicalism, let’s all donate to their campaigns!

    1. FT66 July 25, 2013

      What do you expect Dominick from a loose mouth like that one of Cruz? The man was sent to the Senate to click nerves of each and every individual. Thats what he knows. Nothing concrete.

    2. TheSkalawag929 July 25, 2013

      Dominick Vila I would not mock the Cruzs and the Kings of the world too much.
      They have a tendency to be able to rally their forces more effectively and get them to the polls better than the democrats.
      If we are going to dismiss them we need to be able to best them with our abilities to get our people out to vote in larger numbers than theirs. That plus the fact that republicans are doing everything they can to rig elections in their favor.

      No we can’t take them too lightly.

      1. Dominick Vila July 25, 2013

        I agree. The GOP is lousy at governance, but they are second to none when it comes to campaigning and persuading people to vote against their own interests.

      2. latebloomingrandma July 25, 2013

        You’re right. They have managed to gerrymander enough districts to take over the House, even though the Democrats garnered a million more votes! This is a really skewed representative House. Unfortunately, in off years, these radical fringe people are the ones who turn out to vote. Get out the vote efforts really have to be played up for the 2014 election. These are the votes that could make or break our country.

        1. TheSkalawag929 July 25, 2013

          Your’re right Grand. That means we have our work cut out for us.
          It may take more than just one election cycle. So Democrats should not be disheartened if we don’t take back the house in 2014. I’m sure we will have a better than even chance in 2016 to give the newly elected Democratic Madame President BOTH houses of congress.

    3. LotusJoan July 29, 2013

      Would it be possible for all of us whose
      votes and views have been marginalized by gerrymandering and disappropriate
      representative to form a class action civil suit?

      1. Dominick Vila July 29, 2013

        The most effective response to what has been going on in recent years, especially this specific issue, is to vote and to encourage friends and relatives to do the same. The next presidential term in going to be critical inasmuch as the is a high probability of more than one Supreme Court vacancies coming up. The last thing we need is more Scalias or Alitos…

        1. LotusJoan July 29, 2013

          Purple, my new favorite color. Thank you for your insight.

  7. MVH1 July 25, 2013

    Those “cum laudes” don’t mean the guy tells the truth or recognizes it and they don’t keep him from being a nut job. Despicable Ted.

  8. Bill Mohon July 25, 2013

    Once again, Cruz plays on the uninformed ignorance of his Tea Party Clowns

  9. JDavidS July 25, 2013

    Pretty much everything about Ted Cruz is “offensively ridiculous”…why would this be any different?

  10. Stars Pets July 25, 2013

    Ted Cruz, yet another in the long line of idiots that embarrass Texas by spouting “Christian” BS. My God is not so judgmental that He would oestricize a whole segment of the population because they were born different. My God says, “Judge not lest ye be judged.” He doesn’t appoint bigots to dictate how society should address personal lifestyle issues. My God says, “Let him among you who has no sin, cast the first stone.” These idiots certainly don’t qualify..

    1. ococoob July 25, 2013

      You mean Texas is the “Elmer Gantry” of all 50 states? LOL!

  11. ococoob July 25, 2013

    This guy looks like Joseph McCarthy from the 50’s!

  12. Lovefacts July 25, 2013

    Cruz wouldn’t know the truth if he fell over it. I wish we’d see action taken against this hate speech posing as free speech.

  13. Matthew Taylor July 27, 2013

    You know I have listened to this over and over until I have finally had enough. Since I know no other way to say this here goes: “How dare you be so full of yourself to feel anyone would want you as a guest at their wedding much less officiating it.” There it is said. My wedding would be to celebrate love and commitment and the LAST thing I would want is some wannabe ‘God’s right hand man’ preacher near it.

    You keep screaming somebody wanting to make you perform ‘gay marriages’ and you keep going on about your right to refuse; however, you first have to be ASKED. Most of the “ministers” I have met in the past ten years make me want to puke with their affected religious mannerisms without any of the works to go with their words. I would not want you there nor any of your other hate slinging minions either. Stay home, don’t send a gift, and keep your mouth shut; God the way you idiots go on makes me think you are jealous that NOBODY has asked you to perform their wedding.

  14. commserver July 31, 2013

    “Recently Cruz made the argument that gay and lesbian couples should be denied equality because we must defend the freedom of the people who hate gay people.”

    Based on that we can defend the freedom of people who hate others of any race, religion, creed,…….

  15. tax payer July 31, 2013

    In this country you have to watch what you say or get fired, when others complaint. If you are retired that’s a different story because you can say anything you want and who is going to fire you?

  16. Jacobb Chapman November 5, 2013

    if he became President, he would turn our Country into a theocracy.

  17. J. R. November 5, 2013

    Why on earth would I want to force any minister, or anyone else for that matter, to perform MY marriage ceremony to MY partner? What an incredibly stupid argument. Don’t want to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony? Not a problem. I don’t know of any sane couple that would sue to try to make you. Don’t like same-sex weddings? Don’t enter into one.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.