Every morning in public schools throughout the country, students begin their day with the Pledge of allegiance. I know this because I spent almost 40 years teaching in public schools at various levels and in different places on both coasts and in the middle.
Politicians begin official meetings reciting the pledge.
We do not pledge our loyalty to the piece of cloth but to the nation it stands for, the one that is indivisible, affording liberty and justice for all, and, because we needed protection from the godless Commies of the 1950s, a country that is under the ever watchful eye of God.
The pledge was composed a few decades after the Civil War when its author noted that some of what caused the divisions leading to that war were cropping up in isolated places if not whole states and were being passed off as “American”.
It was a pledge to keep the country united.
However, the Pledge is somewhat like the second amendment as it too, although being a single sentence, has people claiming a slavish devotion to it even as they ignore the parts that do not support their ideology.
Tne Second Amenment is okay as long as you ignore the “well regulated militia” business.
People like Texas Senator Ted Cruz might be one of those people claiming this is a Christian country under God’s reign because for one thing that is clearly in the pledge he swears on occasion and because there is onky one religion in the country, but, apparently when it comes to indivisibility the pledge is not a sacrosanct.
The indivisible part is an inconvenience and can merely be swept aside to promote a particular ideology.
This is the UNITED States.
People from any state should be able to live in any state without any rights being restricted resulting in some people having more rights, or less, than others because a state legislature does not agree with something other state legislators do.
People should be able to travel between any of the fifty states withut a diminution of their rights.
I should not have to move from one state to an other to exercise the rights ofc itizenship relevant to me.
Ted has stated that the US Supreme Court should have left the issue of same-sex marriage up to individual states.
That way we can, just as with the right to choose, prove that this country is not indivisibloe or at best some people say the pledge with no meaning.
Regarding Marriage Equalty, Cruz has opined,
“Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation’s history. Marriage was always an issue that was left to the states. If you succeeded in convincing your fellow citizens, then your state would change the laws. In Obergefell, the court said, ‘No, we know better than you.’”
Didn’t Utah have to do somethong about polygamy before it could enter the Union, somewhat of a stomping on religious beliefs?
“And now every state must sanction and permit Gay marriage. I think that decision was clearly wrong when it was decided. It was the court overreaching.”
Note the use of “Gay” as the buzzword as opposed Marriage Equality and his basically wanting to show the country is indeed divisble as the rights of people as noted in the Declaration of Independence and what the Constitution stands for as mentioned in the Preamble should be up to individual regions and not a national character.
Just a reminder, “States Rights” was the false excuse for the Civil War unless you believe individual states can determe which residents are human and which chattel.
He was a bit practical as some of us have noted the confusion that would be caused by disolution of existing marriages that involve shared legal document and contracts like health insurance, inheritance, banking etc, and a system where those who are married can continue while after a date certain no such arrangements would be allowed for those yet to come.
Two Americas.
“You’ve got a ton of people who have entered into gay marriages and it would be more than a little chaotic for the court to do something that somehow disrupted those marriages that have been entered into in accordance with the law.
“I think that would be a factor that would, would counsel restraint, that the court would be concerned about. But to be honest, I don’t think this Court has any appetite for overturning any of these decision.”
He will tolerate their existence because he knows that the legal and financial confusion would be real bad, but, if it weren’t for those considerations , Same Sex Marriage being just so ungodly should be ban because it is not Biblical.
The Dominionsists love to blend Patriotism to religion in some very bizarre iconography with Jesus, guns, flags, and Trump with the language of American imperialism and nationalism.
Cruz’s, father was a right-wing Christian preacher and Dominionist holding to the belief that anointed “Christian” leaders should take over the civil governent and makes laws based on the Bible. and brought up his son accordingly.
Ted himself was annointed at his father’s New Beginnings mega-church in Bedford Texas, being declared a Dominionist Messiah who would bring God’s law to rule the land designating him as “God’s choice to lead an evangelical coup d’etat.”
If it weren’t for the finacial intertwinings, Ted would be all over getting rid of Marriage Equality.
He refuses to suppprt an one indivisible nation under God.
