Senator Cruz Rips Democrat Bill for Undermining Hobby Lobby Decision

By Elizabeth Nelson

Sens. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Mark Udall, D-Colo. Introduced a bill that will force all religious companies, regardless of their stand on the “oops we forgot to pull out, “ “advanced birth control” methods, to provide Plan B to their employees. So, Senate Democrats want to force a “fix,” and go around the SCOTUS, and Senator Cruz had some tough words for these DemonRats.

  

Thursday on Capitol Hill, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, had a message for President Obama and Senate Democrats voting to undermine the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision: “If you’re litigating against nuns, you have probably done something wrong.”

Sixty votes were needed to debate the bill, which was sponsored by Sens. Patty Murray, D-Wash.,  and Mark Udall, D-Colo. However, the Senate voted 56 to 43, largely on party lines, in favor of upholding religious freedom of employers. In his prepared speech, Cruz added, “Mr. President, it saddens me that there are not 100 senators here unified, regardless of our faith, standing together protecting the religious liberty rights of everyone.” Watch the video above for his full statement.

So, Hobby Lobby won their case, in Supreme Court, and now the Demonrats want to force American citizens, to go against their faith? Is this America or Russia? No Christian Persecution in ObamaNation, huh? Explain to me how Hobby Lobby agrees with liberal free thinkers, that “a woman’s body is her own” and employers and taxpayers should “stay out of a woman’s bedroom.”

Therefore it should be her responsibility and not her employer’s, if what she wants to put in her body goes against their beliefs, because it surmounts to a chemical spontaneous abortion, as the fertilized egg is not allowed to become what God intended it to be, unlike the regular pills that put the egg to sleep. No ovulation, no pregnancy, and Hobby Lobby was more than willing to provide those numerous forms of BC, in an insurance plan.

 Moral of this story:

Today’s overly-LIBerated woman wants to live as a man does; equal pay for doing the same job at the same hours, and free to have sex with whomever and how many she pleases, with no reproductions or repercussions socially or morally. Well, if women want to play like a man, they should pay like man.

Scalia goes there: 'When Did It Become Unconstitutional To Exclude Homosexual Couples From Marriage?'

By Correctamundo

The gay marriage question has made it to SCOTUS for the state of California, specially as regards Prop 8. 

During oral arguments today at the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia and attorney Ted Olson had a pointed exchange over whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Scalia's argument, which was advanced by Chief Justice John Roberts before him, was that when the institution of marriage developed historically, it was not done with the explicit intent of excluding gay and lesbian couples.

"We don't prescribe law for the future," Scalia said. "We decide what the law is. I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868? When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?"

For me this gets to the heart of the issue: We don't prescribe law, we decide what the law is. Unfortunately, as seen with Obamacare, we have activist judges who do just that. And the part about it being unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? Brilliant.

Olson countered that with a question of his own, bringing up two past high-profile cases involving discrimination.

"When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools?" Olson asked.

As to the first point, interracial marriage was still between a man and woman, which has been the foundation of marriage since the beginning of time. The second violated the 14th Amendment based on the equal protection clause. Gay marriage, however, has to do with overturning what the definition of marriage is - one man and one woman. That's a bit different in my opinion.

"Well, how am I supposed to how to decide a case, then, if you can't give me a date when the Constitution changes?" Scalia said.

"Because in the case that's before you today, the citizens of California decide — after the California Supreme Court decided that individuals had a right to get married irrespective of their sexual orientation in California — then the Californians decided in Proposition 8, wait a minute, we don't want those people to be able to get married."

Oopsy - that didn't sound very persuasive. Sounded like the people of CA wants to keep marriage between a man and a woman.

This case is the poster child for how this country is degrading slowly but surely. And it's a big can of worms. What will be next: marriage between a human and a cat? Why not. What business is it of yours who someone loves? Why shouldn't they be able to proclaim that openly and in public by marrying? 

Society needs to have boundaries. It is harmful to change time-honored, traditional, and/or correct definitions to be politically expedient. The "fundamental right to marry" (as recognized by the U. S. Supreme Court) is one that belongs to every individual, NOT to every couple or group. You don't have a right to marry a child (pedophilia), a blood relative (incest), or a person who is already married (polygamy). These are not restrictions on the right to marry; they are part of the definition of what marriage is.