Look at my arguments again. The first thing I established is the lack of Federal authority over marriage. Then I pointed out that the only reason States got involved in marriage licensing was to prevent interracial marriages (an unconstitutional move) and collect money in so doing. What I established is that in the first place neither the Federal nor State government have legitimate authority to police marriage. What would that mean if it were practiced? It would mean that homosexuals would be just as free as heterosexuals to declare their own unions - it would just mean that the arbiter of validity would no longer be government. Businesses would be free - as would religious organizations - to view marriage within the realm of their own beliefs as per the First Amendment. Government would not be forcing the majority of Americans to adopt a stance which directly contradicts their religious values.

The rest of your first paragraph is a misstatement of everything else I wrote. Please go back and read it again. I did not say that the Federal government has no business protecting Constitutional rights. You are inferring that there exists a right to marry which does not and never has existed. Rights are individual and inherent - never granted by contract or expressed as groups.

"The Supreme Court did not force Kentucky..."

They forced upon them the issuance of licenses which were illegal according to existing State law and popular vote. And they did it by asserting authority they did not have.

"Kentucky could have quit issuing marriage licenses altogether, but chose not to do so."

Yes, they could have. And to me that would have solved the entire problem right there. The Federal Government used an existing overreach to justify their own overreach. Neither was acceptable, but at least the State governments can fall back on the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to try to claim legitimacy. The Federal Government is specifically excluded on the basis of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and has no legitimacy whatsoever.

"Your “no equivalency” argument does not apply to same-sex marriage any more than it applies to interracial marriage"

You don't want it to, but it does nonetheless. The whole purpose behind marriage was a pairing of complementary (i.e. opposite) sexes for the purpose of procreation. It is not marriage without this complementary pairing. Skin color doesn't prevent procreation. Having non-complementary sexes does. The attempts by homosexual advocacy groups to make the issue of gay marriage equivalent to the civil rights movement is wholly fallacious. It is only the redefinition of marriage AFTER THE FACT which enables one to attempt to employ the equivalency of gay marriage to interracial marriage at all! That's a tremendous logical fallacy because it asserts an altered definition as its own proof!

"Furthermore, the bulk of the privileges conferred by states to married couples (such as tax status, inheritance rights, immunity from testifying against spouse) are unrelated to the gender of the participants..."

I won't go into the fact that you are arguing the supremacy of government vs the supremacy of the individual, but I will point out that you ignore the basic fact about why society cares about the formation of the family in the first place! Society does not continue without procreation first of all. Homosexuality is self-defeating and destructive to society in that regard. Next we deal with the quality of society and study after study affirms that children who grow up in a home comprised of their biological parents (mother and father) become the most productive citizens statistically. So society has a very vested self-interest in promulgating and encouraging traditional family formation in pursuance of its own prosperity!

First you say that state marriage licensing is “a usurpation of authority they never had,” that by (state) government "asserting the role of arbiter over which marriages are valid and which are invalid, they are in effect establishing a governmentally-sponsored and -imposed religion which tramples over the First Amendment rights of ALL Americans." Then you say the federal government has no business intervening to protect those Constitutional rights. These positions are mutually contradictory. Which one are you defending?

The Supreme Court did not force Kentucky or any other state to issue marriage licenses. They were already doing so, just as states were already providing public schools in the 1950s when the Supreme Court ruled that they could not be segregated by race. Kentucky could have quit issuing marriage licenses altogether, but chose not to do so.

Your “no equivalency” argument does not apply to same-sex marriage any more than it applies to interracial marriage, which the Supreme Court properly overturned state bans on decades ago. Going by your logic, states should have the power to ban interracial marriages because there is “no equivalency” between same-race and mixed-race marriage, because to say otherwise would deny that racial differences exist “in total violation of chromosomal and physiological reality” – ergo: there is no demonstration of equivalency and therefore it is entirely non-discriminatory to treat the two circumstances (actually at least three as a black man-white woman marriage is certainly different than a white man-black woman one) differently. Does this argument make any sense from a Constitution standpoint?

Furthermore, the bulk of the privileges conferred by states to married couples (such as tax status, inheritance rights, immunity from testifying against spouse) are unrelated to the gender of the participants, so the “no equivalency” argument is meaningless. It would be like saying there is “no equivalency” between a sales contract for a car and a sales contract for a truck, because cars and trucks are different from each other.

What is more important? Retaining one's loyalty to the Constitution or playing the party line? To me, that's a no-brainer. I've already layed out a dozen instances where Donald Trump has openly acted or proclaimed actions he would take in contravention to the Constitution. To me Donald Trump disqualified himself from Ted Cruz endorsement and gave as much support as he could (he could have chosen not to speak at the convention at all).

" how in the world can you defend Cruz’s siding with Kim Davis..."

If you agree that the Federal government has no business in marriage, then you void the Supreme Court ruling that started coercing States like Kentucky, forcing them to issue marriage licenses. It's that simple. And just in case you don't understand the legality of the case, I'll lay it out for you. Kim Davis was a duly elected representative of the State of Kentucky as a County Clerk. And in Kentucky, marriage licenses held the signature of the County Clerk at the bottom. Now to me and to her, if you put your signature on something it means that you agree with it. She didn't. So she refused to issue marriage licenses. And BTW - she was taken to the Supreme Court of Kentucky and they acquitted her - recognizing that she was obeying State law AND the law of her own conscience and that the voters could certainly petition for a recall election - something that never happened. The Kim Davis case is all about the heavy hand of the Federal Government intervening where it had no Constitutional authority solely to push an agenda. You may agree with the agenda, but the method should have been for Congress to pass a Constitutional Amendment - ratified by the States - granting explicit authority over the definition of marriage to the Federal Government and not to use the Courts to do an end-run around the will of the people.

Furthermore, as I have already shown, the Fourteenth Amendment is a red herring even if the Federal Government were to have jurisdiction. In order to show its applicability, you must demonstrate that there is no difference between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage. To do that, you must deny that sex/gender exists in total violation of chromosomal and physiological reality. Ergo: there is no demonstration of equivalency and therefore it is entirely non-discriminatory to treat the two circumstances (actually at least three as a gay marriage is certainly different than a lesbian one) differently.

And I beg to differ with you that the Fourteenth overrides the Tenth. That's nonsense. The Amendments work in conjunction with each other unless they explicitly cite otherwise as in the case of the Eighteenth and Twenty-First Amendments. Or would you claim that the Fourteenth overrides the First Amendment as well? Or the Second?

If he intended to keep his pledge, Cruz could have easily made a minimalist statement such as “I don’t like Donald Trump and I disagree with many of his policies, but I will vote for him because he will make a better President than Hillary Clinton.” This would be support, but would not constitute an endorsement of Trump’s behavior or his views. Cruz chose to go back on his word instead.

Regarding marriage, I agree with everything that you said in your last paragraph. I also agree with your earlier statement that state marriage licensing is “a usurpation of authority they never had.” Based on these statements, how in the world can you defend Cruz’s siding with Kim Davis “asserting the role of arbiter over which marriages are valid and which are invalid”?? What you’re saying is that her actions violate the First Amendment. What I’m saying is that they violate the 14th Amendment. Either way they violate the Constitution that Ted Cruz claims to uphold.

Then please quantify what you consider to be support vs what I have laid out as endorsement. Clearly there is a disagreement over what you envision to be "support" vs what I am including in the "endorsement" bucket.

Regarding the 14th Amendment, the problem is that there is no equality of condition between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual one in the first place. Without an equality of condition, there can be no violation of equality in the first place. And such an argument still presupposes the notion that even State governments have the ability to interfere in what was a religious event in the first place. As I pointed out, their intentions were those of interference and coercion - not the establishment of freedom.

I would further point out that marriage is a contract - not a right. The real sticking point with any contractual arrangement is enforcement. By government asserting the role of arbiter over which marriages are valid and which are invalid, they are in effect establishing a governmentally-sponsored and -imposed religion which tramples over the First Amendment rights of ALL Americans.

Re: “Cruz did support Trump, however - he just didn't endorse him. He congratulated him on winning.” That does not constitute support. A losing candidate congratulating the winner – say, Romney congratulating Obama in 2012 – does not imply any level of support for that candidate or his policies.

Re: “The issue of gay marriage never was about equal protection. If you believe that you believe one of the great lies of our times.” Maybe it wasn’t about equal protection at the time the 14th Amendment was enacted, but it certainly is about equal protection now. The Constitution and its amendments were not enacted simply to cover the political issues of their time – they also were intended to serve as a guide to resolving future political conflicts whose nature they could not foresee. The 9th Amendment is a good example of this, and is also very relevant to the gay marriage issue.

Awesome remarks, Foster.

I'm not in politics and these creatures deserve to be made fun of...they are made out to be the best when in fact they are the worst....now, if I was playing their stupid game...I'd be more specific and on point.
It's not about reason or logic...they obviously don't fit in that category.

Cruz did support Trump, however - he just didn't endorse him. He congratulated him on winning. But as I mentioned earlier, endorse in the political word is a much bigger thing. And what exactly did Cruz say? He DID say that having Hillary Clinton as President would be a disaster. And he told people to vote for Constitutionalists! The President's first and foremost duty is to uphold the Constitution. If Trump and his bots are more interested in popularity than the Constitution, I need no further justification than that.

Read the author's own statements on the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment: it was to cover the freed slaves and extend to them all the privileges they should have been able to exercise already. It, however, did not give the Federal Government power to regulate marriage in any form.

And even the States themselves only started "regulating" marriage when they instituted marriage licenses - which were an excuse to extort money and to give the government control to prevent interracial marriages - a usurpation of authority they never had. The issue of gay marriage never was about equal protection. If you believe that you believe one of the great lies of our times.

An out of tune trumpet too...you know, the banged up kind with a dirty mouth piece...

Void March 29? Cruz evidently didn't get the memo.
“Cruz: I Will Support GOP Nominee, Even If It's Trump”
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/ted-c...

This March 29 article says otherwise.
“Cruz: I Will Support GOP Nominee, Even If It's Trump”
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/ted-c...

There was no pledge...void mar 29th...besides I'd never stand with a creature that ditched my family...trumpet is a vial immature brat...

As far as I'm concerned. the Republican Party committed suicide nominating Trump. They were already living on life support from guys like Cruz and Lee. I used to be an R, but bailed out when the Progressives took over. Most call them RINO's but I see them for what they are.

damn spell check/auto correct

Volition, not violation. my bad.

DiLorenzo notes all the sources in the books. (From original sources and other scholars' books.)

I watched cnn the road to the White House. Episodes covered past elections. Kind of revealing that American elections are not so pristine as we are led to believe. They are nasty vicious endeavors and quite crooked. I don't know if trump will survive the attacks by hildebeast. We will see. There is so much money and influence and hatred wielded by Hillary and the establishment to maintain its power. I am in the process of preparing for $15/hr and plan on major reduction in hiring of American workers in favor of automation and Chinese workers. It's a replay of atlas shrugged coming to us all

A good reason to hang out in the Gulch.

Awareness is our vaccination for the "Negative" virus.

Maybe...But I have to tell you...just cause I am soooo obstinate...I made it my lucky day...Friday the 13th no less...you know, it always has been.

Otherwise you will touch something that is negatively contagious.