Ted Cruz

**wickedsolo** · 10-30-2013, 10:46 AM

So, after discussing with HR and NCRAVEN, I decided to do a little reading on Cruz.

I've actually sat in on a few "Town Hall" conversations with Cruz during the gov shutdown (these were over the phone...I'm sure many folks had the same opportunity) and I agree with a lot of the things he says.

Clearly he has his sights set on the 2016 election as he is already campaigning in South Carolina, New Hampshire and Iowa. I like that he is for less "Big Government". As a Libertarian, the less the Federal Government has their hands in, the better. I also found it interesting that he is very influenced by free market ideologies like Friedman and Keynes.

I'd be interested to see if I can find some of his voting history.

**NCRAVEN** · 10-30-2013, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

So, after discussing with HR and NCRAVEN, I decided to do a little reading on Cruz.

I've actually sat in on a few "Town Hall" conversations with Cruz during the gov shutdown (these were over the phone...I'm sure many folks had the same opportunity) and I agree with a lot of the things he says.

Clearly he has his sights set on the 2016 election as he is already campaigning in South Carolina, New Hampshire and Iowa. I like that he is for less "Big Government". As a Libertarian, the less the Federal Government has their hands in, the better. I also found it interesting that he is very influenced by free market ideologies like Friedman and Keynes.

I'd be interested to see if I can find some of his voting history.

Voting histroy will be tough as I am almost certain this is his first real role as a politician. Check out his "record" if you will as an AG in Texas.

**HoustonRaven** · 10-30-2013, 11:18 AM

I don't think you're going to find much of a record in the Senate. He simply hasn't been there long enough.

He wasn't the AG of Texas, he was the Solicitor General of Texas, appointed by the AG.

I am on the fence right now with him. I was very much behind him during his campaign, but his filibuster soured me in that he ended up voting FOR the very thing he was trying to delay.

He also has a very unclear record on gay marriage. As solicitor, he defended traditional marriage laws but he doesn't have the liberty to pick the cases he has to defend. That's the AG's job. Since then, I cannot see any voting record or substantive speech. I am hoping he stays true to his Libertarian roots on the issue. It may be a deal breaker for me.

**wickedsolo** · 10-30-2013, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

I don't think you're going to find much of a record in the Senate. He simply hasn't been there long enough.

He wasn't the AG of Texas, he was the Solicitor General of Texas, appointed by the AG.

I am on the fence right now with him. I was very much behind him during his campaign, but his filibuster soured me in that he ended up voting FOR the very thing he was trying to delay.

He also has a very unclear record on gay marriage. As solicitor, he defended traditional marriage laws but he doesn't have the liberty to pick the cases he has to defend. That's the AG's job. Since then, I cannot see any voting record or substantive speech. I am hoping he stays true to his Libertarian roots on the issue. It may be a deal breaker for me.

Yea, his seeming "Republican duty" to pander to the Christian Right (which means disagreeing with same sex marriage, etc) is something that I am concerned about.

Christians can believe whatever they want...I just don't think any government has the right or authority to tell us who we can and cannot marry.

**HoustonRaven** · 10-31-2013, 08:41 AM

Funny. His web site used to have a line or two about defending traditional marriage.

Looks like it's been scrubbed.

**NCRAVEN** · 10-31-2013, 10:28 AM

He just needs to say it's a State issue...

**wickedsolo** · 10-31-2013, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

He just needs to say it's a State issue...

Agreed. They all do.

**Greg** · 10-31-2013, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

Yea, his seeming "Republican duty" to pander to the Christian Right (which means disagreeing with same sex marriage, etc) is something that I am concerned about.

Christians can believe whatever they want...I just don't think any government has the right or authority to tell us who we can and cannot marry.

LOL, so I should be able to marry 10 women then?

**HoustonRaven** · 10-31-2013, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by Greg

LOL, so I should be able to marry 10 women then?

Such a bogus argument that's been disproven hundreds of times over.

Other countries which allow gay marriage prove what a non-starter this debate point is. Opening the door to same sex marriage does not even come close to allowing polygamy or any other perversions of marriage.

Take a moment and go talk to a gay couple. They're just like you or I, looking for the same things you and I enjoy.

**NCRAVEN** · 10-31-2013, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Such a bogus argument that's been disproven hundreds of times over.

Other countries which allow gay marriage prove what a non-starter this debate point is. Opening the door to same sex marriage does not even come close to allowing polygamy or any other perversions of marriage.

Take a moment and go talk to a gay couple. They're just like you or I, looking for the same things you and I enjoy.

Two things. As a libertarian I would think the argue would/should be lets stop having the government define what marriage is. Why do we even allow them to have a say in what we do. That's my stance.

The second thing is, and I see where Greg is coming from, if they do define it, if the don't let everyone marry aren't then discriminating against someone?

**HoustonRaven** · 10-31-2013, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

Two things. As a libertarian I would think the argue would/should be lets stop having the government define what marriage is. Why do we even allow them to have a say in what we do. That's my stance.

Agreed. Though it's not going to go backward. It's part of law now so we have to work within the confines of the legal system now, unfortunately.

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

The second thing is, and I see where Greg is coming from, if they do define it, if the don't let everyone marry aren't then discriminating against someone?

It's an argument wrapped in a scare tactic that doesn't follow logic or legal history.

It comes from the position that gay marriage itself is an abomination, thus allowing it will open the door to other abominations -- like marrying multiple people, your dog, your toaster, etc.

Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. As you accurately point out, the government should not be involved in said contract but it's a contract nonetheless. That's it. No multiple people. No toaster. No dog. Each construct of marriage is judged on it's face, not as a whole.

To say that allowing same sex marriage opens pandora's box also flies in the face of history. That same argument was tossed out there in the 50's and 60's when mixed race marriage was being argued.

I have no issue with Greg or anyone from a religious perspective having those feelings, though I am encouraged by the Pope and his recent stances on the issue. I do, however, have an issue with meaningless debate points that are wrapped in old school thinking of scaring people.

**Greg** · 10-31-2013, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Such a bogus argument that's been disproven hundreds of times over.

Other countries which allow gay marriage prove what a non-starter this debate point is. Opening the door to same sex marriage does not even come close to allowing polygamy or any other perversions of marriage.

Take a moment and go talk to a gay couple. They're just like you or I, looking for the same things you and I enjoy.

This is what I was responding to: "Christians can believe whatever they want...I just don't think any government has the right or authority to tell us who we can and cannot marry."

So if government doesn't have the authority to tell us who we can and cannot marry then I can marry more than 1 woman, or man.

I know a few gay couples and take no issue with them. I believe marriage is a special institution for the purpose of forming families. Getting benefits and whatever is not a good reason to allow people to marry. We can change the nature of how benefits are supplied.