But Republicans had many concerns, and each one seemed different. The first wave of worry surrounded whether the legislation might be interpreted to mean the federal government recognizes polygamy....
Others wanted to know whether the bill would affect adoption agencies, or religiously affiliated colleges and universities.
And many wanted the legislation to be crystal clear that religious institutions that did not perform or support same-sex marriages would not be punished under the law....
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) called the bill a “stupid waste of time” to a reporter in July before walking into an elevator and finding himself squished next to Baldwin. She began making her case for why the bill was necessary.... Rubio voted no on the measure on Tuesday.
One of the original five Republican senators who said publicly they’d back the bill, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), later rescinded his support, saying its religious liberty protections did not go far enough....
Oh, Ron. But our other Wisconsin Senator led the way!
पोस्ट्स
११५ टिप्पण्या:
The government shouldn't be in the marriage business.
How does the federal government (not the Supreme Court) have the authority to regulate marriage? I thought that was a police power left to the states.
The Lincoln City Council thinks it has authority to regulate the practice of medicine when it banned conversion therapy.
Why can't these libs just stay in their own lane?
Political Congruence ("=") under the Pro-Choice ethical religion of Progressive [Liberal] sects. That said, civil unions for all consenting adults: couples, couplets, and other.
Lame duck crap. These assholes think this should be a priority?
Government is trying to formalize a religious sacrament. It was bad enough when they just recognized it.
Timmy from Southpark
The government shouldn't be in the marriage business.
There was once a reason: "our Posterity", but this was deprecated with the establishment of the Pro-Choice ethical religion and its queer precedents and aftermath (e.g. DIE). That said, civil unions for all consenting adults, and, with social progress, children, too, I suppose, will come out of the proverbial "closet" with their adult groomers.
"Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) called the bill a “stupid waste of time” to a reporter in July before walking into an elevator and finding himself squished next to Baldwin. She began making her case for why the bill was necessary.... Rubio voted no on the measure on Tuesday."
Tammy didn't make her case, then, did she?
"One of the original five Republican senators who said publicly they’d back the bill, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), later rescinded his support, saying its religious liberty protections did not go far enough..."
Yet another erosion of liberties, or at least that's what it sounds like. I'll have peruse the bill, but if Ron Johnson's take was that it didn't protect freedom of conscience, I'm inclined to agree with him. Will churches and mosques be required to perform same sex marriages or face prosecution?
"Oh, Ron. But our other Wisconsin Senator led the way!"
The way to what?
If the government passes a law that says I have to call a dog a cat, and treat it like a cat, the dog is still a dog, and the law is an ass.
I'm with Norm Macdonald. If Congress really wants to protect gay marriage, they should prohibit gay divorce.
This is exactly why we hate McConnell’s “gangs of X” that repeatedly band together to pass laws the Republican base sees as unnecessary at best and anti-Christian in its worst interpretation. The reporting is lousy and just uses DC-speak happy talk like the excerpt Althouse selected. When was the last time McConnell’s gangs herded Democrats into a deal to pass something— anything at all— that our side wanted done? Has he ever?
I refuse to celebrate a law that has not even been presented to the public clearly with CBO scoring.
Somebody in my Bible study asked about gay marriage, back when the subject came up.
My response was something like...
"I'm not gay, so I don't really have a dog in this fight. I think marriage is between a man and a woman. But it's like #3692 on my list of things that need fixing. Mostly I'm just focused on the pro-life thing, that's my thing, so I don't have a strong opinion on this one."
The issue kind of rocked my church. Because we're Episcopalians in the South. My priest -- I love our priest -- decided that every priest would decide the issue on their own. And my priest performed a gay marriage. That was his decision.
We have a huge congregation and maybe a handful of gay people. A lot of people left our church and went to another church instead. And we picked up more new people. I think our basic numbers stayed about the same.
In my church I'm on my lonely pro-life crusade. So I didn't get worked up about that one at all.
I was in a meeting with one of my priests, and I was trying to talk to her about abortion. And in the middle of our discussion she switched the subject to gay marriage.
I was like, "I'm not talking about gay marriage. Why are you switching the subject to gay marriage?" And she apologized and said that the church had had multiple, multiple discussions with people who were unhappy about our church performing gay marriages.
Anyway, one time at church, right after Sunday school, my mom said something about "gay marriage" and "love" and "how could love be against Christ?" And it wasn't a super-profound thought -- people can love stomping on baby penguins -- but her belief and her genuine compassion inspired a little thought that crossed my brain...
"I might be wrong about gay marriage."
thank you, joe.
What in the world is "Same Sex Marriage Protections"?
It seems like we solve this same problem every few years.
It's like climate change. An evergreen issue that will burnish any Senator's reputation while doing nothing.
This bill will go a long way toward solving the nation's problems. You know, like inflation, open borders, fentanyl deaths, energy dependence, murder. Thank the Lord for Tammy and the Republican crossovers for forwarding this apolitical, badly needed legislation. /s
BTW, Merriam-Webster's "new" word of the year is "gaslighting."
Does the measure force churches to perform same sex marriages?
Nobody thinks you’re pushing this for political reasons.
Yeah, sure.
Thank goodness for Tammy Baldwin. No surprise from Ron Johnson.
Joni Ernst hasn't lost my vote, because (as the professor has pointed out, you'd have to be an 'idiot' to not vote straight party).. But she sure has lost All of my support (the senator, not the professor).
Listening to a divorced woman preach about marriage is Not my cup o' tea
Joe Smith wins the thread right out of the gate.
Note that once again, Republicans caved to Democrats.
When, exactly, do we get something the Conservatives want passed and Democrats cave in order to be bi-partisan?
Looks like my political donations will be ear marked to support whatever Republican runs against these twelve in their future primaries.
They got played.GOP stupid party.
A dozen GOPe-er moderate and respectable and altogether non-icky "hero" republicans just worked closely with their democratical allies to deliver another long term policy huge win to the dems that in the future absolutely will be used to target traditional churches and other faith-based organizations.
Another direct stab in the back to the republican base.
Meanwhile, Trump is the "real problem" (wink wink). If he would just go away, so many more fantastic McConnell-Schumer collaborations might be had to deliver ever more democratical wins!
Hooray for the GOPe! Darn that Trump for slowing down the McConnell/Schumer love fest for 4 years!
Get ready for a thousand Masterpiece Cake shop cases.
Never believe a Demoncrat.
I agree with Joe Smith.
"Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), later rescinded his support, saying its religious liberty protections did not go far enough....
Oh, Ron..."
Wait, that made sense, no? The religious liberty protections are important too. I'm assuming that every single one of the Democrats doesn't really support them, but might tolerate them to get the bill passed, but will try to get them watered down far enough so that they don't protect.
Professor, explain?
As the great Howie Carr says:"You can trust me. I'm not like the others."
"The government shouldn't be in the marriage business."
Fine, then don't use the courts for divorce, property settlements or child visitation.
The government is in the marriage business as long as the income tax isn't a flat tax. Because you can't do two things at once
1. Families with the same income should pay the same tax
2. Tax law should be indifferent to whether you're married or not
unless it's a flat tax, so it has to choose one.
Democrats want to change things. Republicans mostly just want to be left alone. Some conservatives complain about this, but it's the way things are, so some kind of bill was going to pass. The problem is all the things the Democrats may have loaded the bill down with. But I guess, as Pelosi says, they had to pass the bill to find out what's in it.
Where in the US Constitution is Congress authorized to pass legislation about marriage? And don't hand me that "general welfare" BS, unless you also think it OK that a future Congress could pass legislation authorizing the round up of all members of the minority party to go to reeducation camps.
Caving in to Democrats will not garner a single vote. Like abortion, this to, is a State Power.
This vote is why the 17th amendment needs to be repealed. It is not a big shock, that once Senators are no longer held to account for State sovereignty. They would sell out their responsibility, for more power concentrated in DC
"whether the legislation might be interpreted to mean the federal government recognizes polygamy"
Is there any piece of prog legislation that moved goal posts once and then no more? The income tax? Medicare and Medicaid? The child "tax credit"? Anything at all? It doesn't matter what legislation might be interpreted to mean. Prog policy is always: never enough. So the first African Muslim or Upper Westsider claiming the right to polygamy will find a welcoming penumbra. Never enough, is the prog motto.
"Others wanted to know whether the bill would affect adoption agencies, or religiously affiliated colleges and universities. And many wanted the legislation to be crystal clear that religious institutions that did not perform or support same-sex marriages would not be punished under the law"
Well, it will affect them negatively. And coercion is just around the corner--cuz why not?
"Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), later rescinded his support, saying its religious liberty protections did not go far enough"
Well, of course. That's because progs don't want religious liberty to be protected, since it's just a deplorable excuse for bigotry. But law or no law, conservative believers are in for hard times.
Did people get married during Covid?
The local governments were closed. How did people get marriage licenses?
People couldn’t go to funerals but they could get married? Tough to say marriage vows with a fucking mask over the face.
The federal government led the way with Covid closures.
Now these Earnest Public Servants like Baldwin are all about Protecting Freedom?
Baldwin doesn’t give a fuck about freedom.
Never forget.
The "religious protections" will turn out to be a joke, and this law will be used to attack Christians. And absolutely we're heading towards gov recognizing polygamous marriages.
You can now add 'Marry that thruple!' to the 'Bake that cake!' endless harassment litigation.
The LDS Church supported it. Interestingly, it split vote of the two Utah Senators.
Joe Smith;
The govt is not in the marriage business, Its in the buying votes business, and needs way to incentivize portions of the population. So back in the day, govt thought incentivizing families was a winner. Tax breaks to families, and the more children the more money. But children meant mom stayed at home. She did not have the same time span to pay into SS, so we need a law to let the spouse share their SS. And of course inheritance. Not working, no opportunity to amass wealth, so let the inheritance pass to surviving spouse without tax. Which is when this started. A lesbian couple, in their golden years, were told when one died, The govt was going to get a sizable portion of their savings and investments. That's what started it. Not love, but the govt taking the money you earned and paid taxes on once, but you still have to give it to the govt. The solution was marriage, not eliminate inheritance tax.
Joe Smith said...The government shouldn't be in the marriage business.
Especially not the federal government.
@Joe Smith, the government has always been in the marriage business.
Our "other" Republican Senator led the way in creating a weapon to crush religious dissent against the Marxist, autocracy-oriented social reorganization of society.
The Republic is screwed, and the elites rejoice.
It is not okay to be naive.
From The Briefing
But you'll notice that so many people who voted for this bill, including the 12 Republicans, they said they did so because they were assured of adequate protections for religious liberty. Senator James Lankford, Republican of Oklahoma, one of the senators who had offered an amendment, that would've offered greater protection for religious liberty, he pointed out that courts do not judge according to legislative intent but according to the text of a law. He rightly and responsibly was the adult in the room to say, "We are responsible for the words in this legislation, not just for what you say is your legislative intent."
Tammy Baldwin is a fucking liar. This was nothing but political posturing.
I heard that the Dems pushed this bill to protect gay marriage and interracial marriage from the courts. The liberal MSM are trumpeting this “fact”. None of these illiterate intellectuals in Congress or the MSM realize that the US Supreme Court can not only declare this specific bill unconstitutional (and thus doesn’t protect anything other than the US Constitution), but they could also reverse their previous rulings on interracial marriage (highly doubtful) and gay marriage (possibly, but probably not). I would certainly hope that if this law enables the federal government to go after religious institutions who refuse to acknowledge gay marriage (or polygamy or allowing one to marry their dog or whatever libs deem to be a legal marriage) under canon law, that the federal courts rule at least that part of the law unconstitutional as a violation of the 1st Amendment.
And the Republicans who acceded to this extortion are lying, too- they voted for it because voting against it put them on the spot, or so they believed. All this talking about how this bill was nothing but principle placed above politics is sickening in its mendacity.
But our other Wisconsin Senator led the way!
I think you are making a joke.
But given your inability to read the 9th and 10th amendments I am dubious.
The Democrats made a big mistake. They should have left this alone. Then in 2024 they could hope a supreme court case comes up on gay marriage and leak the verdict again.
Democrats know that congress should never cure any problem or the interested voters will move on and loose motivation. The only thing they can safely do is to spend more and more money on something, anything.
"...including the 12 Republicans, they said they did so because they were assured of adequate protections for religious liberty."
Lucy is once again holding the ball for Charlie McConnell to kick.
If it's not written in the bill, it'll not happen. There will be no protections other than those clearly enumerated in the bill. It's like our Tenth Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Oops.
“The government shouldn’t be in the marriage business.”
The government has an interest in the marriage business insofaras it proceeds from natural law. Marriage has been construed for millennia across cultures and societies as the means to bind children to the male and female who created them, in the interest of the common good. Meaning: the structure of a stable natural family— Mother Father Child— is the single best predictor for turning out good, productive citizens of the future. The state most definitely has a stake in that. It is a common good it should rightly promote. But we now live in an anti culture, that celebrates and subsidises sterility, abortion and sexual deviancy.
Suicide, drug abuse, criminality, poverty, promiscuity— correlate with family disintegration. Everybody knows that. It’s a tough problem to solve, so we’ve given up trying. We can’t even muster the courage to state the plain truth: that families matter. That every child has the right to grow up with the mother and father that made him. Because….Love is Love! Is an easier sell.
I thought the rail agreement coercion would supersede this. Oh well. That must not be that important.
Dobbs fall-out.
'Fine, then don't use the courts for divorce, property settlements or child visitation.'
I accept your proposal.
For those wondering what the bill actually does: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text
“(a) In general.—No person acting under color of State law may deny—
“(1) full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals; or
“(2) a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.
“(b) Enforcement by Attorney General.—The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against any person who violates subsection (a) for declaratory and injunctive relief.
“(c) Private right of action.—Any person who is harmed by a violation of subsection (a) may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against the person who violated such subsection for declaratory and injunctive relief.
“(d) State defined.—In this section, the term ‘State’ has the meaning given such term under section 7 of title 1.”.
Once again, the GOPe stabbed the base in the back. This will open up thousands of lawsuits and will legalize polygamy and any other weird leftist practice they can think up.
Drago said...
A dozen GOPe-er moderate and respectable and altogether non-icky "hero" republicans just worked closely with their democratical allies to deliver another long term policy huge win to the dems that in the future absolutely will be used to target traditional churches and other faith-based organizations.
Another direct stab in the back to the republican base.
Yup. "A republic if you can keep it." We didn't.
Serious question to any lawyers or law professors on this thread: How does the federal government have the authority to regulate marriage? Isn't that reserved to the states?
And I don't think the Commerce Clause is the answer.
Maybe the 14th Amendment? Equal protection of the laws. But still. What would be the limits on the federal government?
shhhhhh...same-sex marriage is a contradiction in terms. i'm a big fan of love so i'm with the intent 100%. but marriage is really the wrong word for it. words have meaning. the sky is not plaid and the senate or supreme court insisting it is won't make it so. sent from under my rock.
Christian cake bakeries hardest hit. There will be an exception for Sharia Law.
"Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article IV, Section 1
Fifth Amendment, Section 5
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18"
Above is the constitutional authority attached to the House bill.
In the text, it says marriage between more than two people is not allowed. Why not? My right to equal protection of the laws is infringed if I'm not allowed to marry two women!!
Normalize, tolerate, or reject? Meanwhile, Schumer laments the progressive loss of our civilization's viability through Choice, social divergence, and sexual dysfunction. Hakuna matata.
The govt is not in the marriage business, Its in the buying votes business, and needs way to incentivize portions of the population... But children meant mom stayed at home. She did not have the same time span to pay into SS
SS, even with secular adustments, is stable and mostly funded. The first-order forcing of catastrophic anthropogenic deficits/progressive prices/climate change is the mostly unfunded Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacares enabled through single/central/monopolistic solutions, sustained through democratic/dictatorial elections.
That said, keep women affordable, available, and taxable, and the "burden" of evidence aborted, perhaps cannibalized, then sequestered in darkness in the principal wicked solution of social progress. Whatever ever happened to the underage girl, raped by an illegal alien, then crossed the border under cover of Democrats' "girls' protection act" or something to that effect.
same-sex marriage is a contradiction in terms
couplets are politically congruent ("=") to couples, and everyone else is excluded, selectively, under the ethical religion.
Will the democrats make a law that states Christian cake bakers cannot be harassed, endlessly, by angry leftist gay men?
a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals
So, it restricts polygamy because #Judgment #Labels, but enables child marriage presumably coupled with their apology for human rites to abort, cannibalize, and sequester "burdens" in darkness. The modern model of bigotry and social progress, respectively, under State-established religious sanction. One step forward, two steps backward.
May a thousand Masterpiece Cakeshop state-backed harassment campaigns bloom!
Last week, a troglodyte elsewhere on the web assured me that he has no interest in how I conduct my personal life and went on to explain that his objection to my same-sex marriage is purely a matter of his distress at the "torture" being committed against "his" "beloved English language" (since, according to him, marriage has "always" meant the sexual union of one adult male and one adult female).
Two points.
First, in my experience, those who claim to have no interest in how I conduct my personal life often have rather too much interest of that kind, and for reasons that they don't begin to understand.
Second, even though forty years as a book editor taught me that a writer's resort to the dictionary is a sign of that writer's dull mind and weak argument, I will offer definition 1a(2) of "marriage" from Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary: "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage." (Definition 1a(1), of course, is the definition that is being so cruelly tortured by the second definition.)
Third, I see the absolute need for protection of First Amendment religious freedoms, but I also find that many on the right are confused about whether they should be imposing their personal religious beliefs on me. My prayer for those of you beset by such confusion is that in some future life you find yourselves gay and isolated in the middle of a red state, in the heart of Christian fundamentalist country. Amen.
1) most everyone on this board is at the extreme of American opinion on this issue. Including relative to people who used to hold your perspective but no longer do. Suggest you speak to some of them.
2) for those making constitutional claims -- maybe check in on what the courts have had to say?
3) 7 years after Obergefell and many more after state level chanhes, shouldn't we already be at the dog marries three baby ducks and a child stage of the slippery slope by now?
I've heard the recorded voice mail messages. Angry gay leftist men call in to the cake shop and offer pornographically charged rage and death threats. Because CO is run by the extreme left - the state of CO is OK with the harassment of this man based on his Christian faith. Including Polis. So much for tolerance.
After More Evidence Of Its Anti-Christian Animus, Colorado Commission Suspends Harassment Of Cake Baker
"We can’t even muster the courage to state the plain truth: that families matter."
One of the things that changed public opinion, such that a supermajority of Americans disagree with you, is watching how gay marriage has allowed loving wonderful families to be properly recognized and be able to realize the rights other families get.
Fed government is forcing each state to accept at face value whatever coin is issued by any other state. State A can ban gay marriage for *its* citizens, but citizens of States B, C, D…can still force State A to recognize *their* gay marriages.
Where I think it gets interesting is where private citizens of State A refuse to recognize those marriages. In a social setting, I don’t think a cause of action will lie for snubs and so on. But in a commercial setting? As we have seen with cake-makers and florists, some people will go looking for a fight. This law should be a shield, but if it is used as a sword, Katy bar the door.
Joe Smith said...
The government shouldn't be in the marriage business.
I used to believe that. But then- the history of marriage speaks against that view. Some government in history habe regulated alcohol use, some haven't, some regulated drug use, some haven't, some required military service of all males, some didn't, some had slavery, some didn't.
Every single government in history since there was written or oral history has regulated marriage in one form or another. And only two types. One man to one woman, or one man to more than one woman. As time went on, it seems the one man-one woman societies have been much more successful in every way, but that's a totally different argument- all governments have regulated marriage.
They have regulated it in different ways. In some cases, they only avtually cared about the ruling class. Nobody important cared what the lower classes did. But the lower classes woiuld have theier own rules- and there were rules.
In some cases, the government ragulated it by offloading all marriage record keeping to the official church. France did that. Until- the French Revolition. One of the stated goals of the revolutionaries before they took over was to abolish marriage in it's entirety. After? They took the power away from the clergy and gave it to the state. A marriage license or permission, was required from the state and the marriage registered with the state. It could be subsequently performed by clergy, but the state was involved. They most pointedly did not do away with it. The same was true of most of the succssful Communist revolutipns. The goal before taking power was to abolish marriage, but none ever did. Almost as if marriage had some purpose in perpetuating the state, most likely, IMHO, by creating stability in relationships.
If liberals ever succeed in total control of the USA, one of the first things that's going to happen is- SSM is being thrown right out. It does nothing to perpetuate the state, and because of how males in SSM behave, does not establish stability in relationships. Monogamy is NOT a goal of males in SSM. Not at all.
The bill will be used to justify repression, hence the BS "Respect for Marriage" name.
“The "religious protections" will turn out to be a joke, and this law will be used to attack Christians. And absolutely we're heading towards gov recognizing polygamous marriages.”
Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin and bipartisan group made amendment to address religious concerns
Passage of the bill comes as Baldwin and a bipartisan group of colleagues earlier this month amended the measure to address concerns from some Republicans that the legislation would infringe on religious freedoms.
That amendment states that neither the bill nor the amendment “shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an individual or organization under the Constitution of the United States or Federal law.”
Nonprofit organizations like churches, temples, mission organizations and religious educational institutions, the amendment says, “shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.”
“Any refusal under this subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action,” the amendment reads. It also aims to clarify worries about polygamy by defining marriage as between two individuals. Polygamy is illegal in every U.S. state.”
Michael K's claims about polygamy suggest he never read the text of the bill (which discusses 2 people being involved).
That said, this sort of unresearched response is usual for old Dr. Mike.
Blogger Readering said...
Dobbs fall-out.
Everything is Dobbs fallout to you and your allies. Nothing is more important than abortion. Inflation, gas prices, fuel oil shortages, people freezing to death in winter. All are minor annoyances when abortion on demand is at stake. Most of your ignorant Democrats think Dobbs banned abortion.
J: "They got played.GOP stupid party."
No, they did not "get played".
The republican base got played...by the pro-dem GOPe-ers running the party...while the GOPe-ers/dems/media told the usual suspect McConnell-tards to focus on and complain about Trump.
And so the McConnell-tards did.
So yes, a broad legal attack across the board is heading towards traditional churches and faith-based organizations.
The only task left for McConnell and Romney and team is to get their GOPe minions to find a way to blame Trump for this bill passing.
If history is a guide, I'm guessing that will take approximately 72 hours to pull off.
Scratching my head that this is a Republican issue. It may be an old people's issue.
Poll shows in 2021 84% of people 18-34 believe same sex marriages should be recognized as valid by law. How many things get 84% support?
And if you dont think the McConnell/Romney team isn't working desperately behind the scenes with Schumer abd Pelosi right now to deliver a full DACA amnesty, you are an idiot.
Nice of Inga to provide the liberal media propaganda from the local Democrat propaganda rag.
Here's the problem - that amendment doesn't do what the Democrat propaganda rag says it does. All the Democrat propaganda rag did is repeat Baldwin's talking points. They didn't actually determine if the amendment actually addresses the religious freedom concerns.
People who actually read and debated the bill - Ron Johnson, Ted Cruz, people of whom Inga is not worthy to clean their toilet bowls - have determined that the propaganda given to the local Democrat rag by Baldwin's office is untrue.
Second, the amendment has to be passed by the Anti-American, Marxist-controlled House. Not likely to happen since America haters of the type supported by Inga and Mark control the House.
J said...
They got played.GOP stupid party.
Not stupid.
Traitors.
"That amendment states that neither the bill nor the amendment “shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an individual or organization under the Constitution of the United States or Federal law.”
LOL
Masterpiece Cake shop would like to share their legal bills as they are now on their 3rd wave lawsuit against them by Coorado state govt.
The process is the punishment and the religious organizations will have to "win" long-running lawfare lawsuit after lawfare lawsuit instead of those suits being immediately rejected by the courts and most will face bankruptcy, and thats the entire intent.
Ahhhh...such uncanny nonsense from someone of the gay persuasion in the guise of Malaise.
"Supermajority"? Hardly. Majority, yes, but only after the poorly reasoned and highly activist Obergefell decision. Maybe a majority of Americans support gay marriage, but that number went up when the Supremes issued their poorly thought decision on political lines because many Americans decided the question had been settled. So they don't "support" gay marriage, they are resigned to the fate of a question settled by the liberals on the Court at the time.
Merriam-Webster? That's a joke, right? They're not a dictionary of the American English language, they're a dictionary of newspeak, changing "definitions" to suit their political masters.
Family stability? Again, nothing there in support of Malaise's wish fulfillment. Gay "marriages" are less stable and - when controlled for economic status - less likely to have good outcomes for kids. Of course, much of the possible research in this area is not permitted as it will uncover uncomfortable truths that gays such as Malaise do not approve.
The "stability" and "positive outcomes" of gay marriage are solely factors of the economic status of said couplings. Gays who get married (as well as normal people who get married) are primarily upper-middle to upper class. Gay marriage is an elite good, practiced primarily by those who can afford to cover with cash the dysfunctions of children caused by raising them in a sub-optimal arrangement. A gay marriage with kids is by definition a broken home, with all of the dysfunctions that attend.
It's better than a single-parent home, but not by much. And most gay "marriages" with kids will eventually become single-parent homes if the parents are male. Lesbians have a different track record.
Last thing: Keep in mind that the same people who said all sorts of wonderful things would come from gay marriage are the same people who said no-fault divorce was good for kids. And the same ones who push normalization of pedophilia.
This seems entirely about political posturing:
Why do I think so? We've been here before, remember the Defense of Marriage Act? Did it defend marriage?
Dobbs fall-out.
The modern model of 1-2 social distancing with the compelling precedent of the 3/5 compromise to appease proponents of slavery and diversity.
“My prayer for those of you beset by such confusion is that in some future life you find yourselves gay and isolated in the middle of a red state, in the heart of Christian fundamentalist country. Amen.”
Or their children, maybe they have already been estranged from their gay child or their gay child hasn’t come out to them because they know that their parents would reject them.
In my circle of in-law relatives, one of the aunts has a beautiful 22 year old daughter that was always a tomboy. Her mom tried very hard to make a little girl out of her, but it didn’t work. That was not natural to her. Some tomboys outgrow that stage and become feminine straight women, not this young lady. She is a college graduate with a good job, a sweet loving personality and… a female significant other. This was the first year the young lady wasn’t at our Thanksgiving dinner. Her mom and dad and siblings have cut her out of their lives, rejecting her sexuality and her choice to express it with a woman she loves. They are insisting she go to a “Christian” therapist. The grandparents and the parents of this young lady aren’t speaking to each other now too. How terribly sad for all involved.
In this Holiday season, can’t people put down their bigotry, even toward their own flesh and blood?
You don't get to sit around with your ass when Trump bans evictions nationwide and then pretend like you are a "federalist" when the subject is gay marriage. Trump has turned the GOP into the big government authoritarian party. Enjoy it, losers!
Last week, a troglodyte elsewhere on the web....
Blah, blah, blah.
My prayer for those of you beset by such confusion is that in some future life you find yourselves gay and isolated in the middle of a red state, in the heart of Christian fundamentalist country. Amen.
It's a total mystery why you're such a condescending, miserable fuck when the first thing you do is look down upon people who have different opinions.
Nope. Can't quite figure it out.
How does the federal government have the authority to regulate marriage? Isn't that reserved to the states?
Congress has authority to regulate interstate commerce.
Commerce is a super-tricky word that can mean both "money" and "movement."
So, for instance, if South Carolina tried to close off the border with North Carolina, the feds could (and would) intercede.
The Supreme Court's commerce clause litigation is kind of a clusterfuck. Basically at this point (if I were on the Court), I would say that anything involving money (which the federal government prints and controls) is enough for the commerce clause. But I would start kicking out the bullshit that is non-commercial in nature.
For instance, buying a gun is commerce, buying an abortion is commerce. Smacking your neighbor because he's a cis male is not commerce.
So I'd be inclined to say that Congress could regulate commercial marriages (and the wedding industry is, what, a billion dollar industry?). But they can't regulate free weddings and non-commercial weddings done by spiritual churches that don't worship money.
(Supreme Court caselaw is a clusterfuck because of shit like "the effects of commerce" and blah blah blah). Hugo Black was a famous textualist but his silence on commerce clause horseshit is vulnerable to right-wing pushback. It's obvious that the commerce clause is not a blank check provision giving Congress a police power. Any federal official who says otherwise is a liar.
This cat has been out of the bag for a long time. It's the same vibe as those who want their vegetable patty to taste like meat and everyone else to eat it. Another attempt to hijack the meaning of a word.
My prayer for those of you beset by such confusion is that in some future life you find yourselves gay and isolated in the middle of a red state, in the heart of Christian fundamentalist country. Amen.
You do know millions of heterosexual couples are living perfectly sublime lives without a marriage certificate. If you believe govt license = happiness, you're not close to doing your faith right.
Is Mark this blogs pedantic scold? Yesterday was grammar, today its, just weak trolling effort.
Saint Croix:
Under that reasoning, the federal government could regulate the professions. One national Code of Professional Responsibility for lawyers. One central Counsel for Discipline. Same deal with zoning codes. The states’ police powers just vanish.
SCOTUS gave us same-sex marriage. Redundant for Congress and POTUS to act. Political showmanship.
iowan2: "Is Mark this blogs pedantic scold? Yesterday was grammar, today its, just weak trolling effort."
Dumb Lefty Mark is also quite entertaining with his "insider" hot takes on what is happening at Twitter! Apparently Twitter is already dead and the only one who doesn't know it is that big old schmuck Elon Musk, who also apparently has no business aptitude!
D.D. Driver: "You don't get to sit around with your ass when Trump bans evictions nationwide and then pretend like you are a "federalist" when the subject is gay marriage. Trump has turned the GOP into the big government authoritarian party. Enjoy it, losers!"
Another fascinating gaslighting failure from D.D. Driver.
D.D., are you and Howard related? And, if so, which of you is the biggest gaslighter?
Trick question! It's clearly a tie!
Russia Collusion Truther and Hillary/FBI Hoax Dossier Dead Ender Inga: "In my circle of in-law relatives, one of the aunts has a beautiful 22 year old daughter that was always a tomboy."
Did the daughter's father shower with her as apparently, according to Inga/gadfly/victoria from pasadena, that's a "perfectly normal" thing in democratical families.
And if so, I wonder if that might have impacted her as negatively as Ashley Biden's experience where Joe showered with her?
Saint Croix- there can be wrong kinds of love.
As a practicing Catholic, I try so hard to adhere to the teachings of the Church. The whole “if it feels right, do it” philosophy is something I’m trying to outgrow. My life’s goal.
That doesn’t mean I’m against acknowledging the commitments of others: not my business.
Also, not a Sacrament.
The Breakdown of the 12 GOP Traitors:
2 votes - The RINO sisters. Collins/Lisa Murky out and proud social liberals
3 Lame Ducks - No longer have to lie to the voters - Portman, Burr, Blount
1 Mitt Romney - A social liberal who lies about his beliefs when he needs R Votes
1 Dan SulliVAN - Moving left because of Alaska Ranked voting. No longer fears the base.
1 Shelley Moore Capito - Brings home the graft so she's OK in WV
1 Tillis - No surprise
1 Young - No idea why
1 Enszi (or whatever) - No idea why
“Did the daughter's father shower with her as apparently, according to Inga/gadfly/victoria from pasadena, that's a "perfectly normal" thing in democratical families.”
I don’t know. The mother and the father are huge Trump supporters, so anything is possible.
>> 7 years after Obergefell and many more after state level chanhes, shouldn't we already be at the dog marries three baby ducks and a child stage of the slippery slope by now?
I don't recall anyone really worried about dogs marrying ducks. But....
Kindergartners take field trips to see drag queen strip shows.
Trans schoolteachers talk about their sex lives to first graders.
Men can get pregnant and have periods is now an accepted fact.
Boys can expose themselves to girls in the girls locker room, and the girls who object get expelled.
Damn, that slope was very slippery indeed.
"Scratching my head that this is a Republican issue. It may be an old people's issue."
This. And some of you people sound really . . . old.
"That doesn’t mean I’m against acknowledging the commitments of others: not my business. Also, not a Sacrament."
Exactly.
"SCOTUS gave us same-sex marriage. Redundant for Congress and POTUS to act."
Maybe. But then there's Justice Thomas, who carefully omitted any allusion to interracial marriage while speculating on the possibility of reversing Obergefell.
"It's a total mystery why you're such a condescending, miserable fuck when the first thing you do is look down upon people who have different opinions."
"Different opinions." LOL. You don't know shit. But it does sound as if you know your way around a miserable fuck.
So I'd be inclined to say that Congress could regulate commercial marriages (and the wedding industry is, what, a billion dollar industry?). But they can't regulate free weddings and non-commercial weddings done by spiritual churches that don't worship money.
You are way overthinking this
The govt has zero affect on weddings. The only govt(State govt) touch is a license. Period.
You are right, repeated SCOTUS rulings have made the commerce clause a constitutional mess. The early case about the commerce clause connection for a farmer not selling wheat triggered the commerce clause. Ever since then the fed have used the commerce clause as their magic carpet to penetrate States Rights.
Another fascinating gaslighting failure from D.D. Driver.
Like a five year old who just learned a swear word, Drago learned a new word and just had to try out as soon as possible.🤣 You guys are the best.
The bottomline is that the majority of *republicans* support gay marriage. You lost the culture war on this one. The hearts and minds are not behind you. And, under Trump, the GOP ceded all credibility on being "small government" and "federalist." I hope your $2,000 Trump Welfare Checks were worth it because am I laughing my ass off at you right now.
can’t people put down their bigotry, even toward their own flesh and blood?
Let me meet anecdote with anecdote.
My extended family, in the 1980s in non-Madison Wisconsin, attended the commitment ceremony of my aunt and her partner (now wife). They were all devout Catholics and struggled with the tenets of their faith in order to attend. My aunt, now the wife of my birth aunt, is very dear to us. None of us asked for this to be the way our family member's life worked out, but my aunt-in-law is a member of our family and we love her.
Next?
IOW, you generalize at your peril.
"You do know millions of heterosexual couples are living perfectly sublime lives without a marriage certificate. If you believe govt license = happiness, you're not close to doing your faith right."
That some choose not to exercise a right is not a reason to deny that right to others.
‘My extended family, in the 1980s in non-Madison Wisconsin, attended the commitment ceremony of my aunt and her partner (now wife). They were all devout Catholics and struggled with the tenets of their faith in order to attend. My aunt, now the wife of my birth aunt, is very dear to us. None of us asked for this to be the way our family member's life worked out, but my aunt-in-law is a member of our family and we love her.”
That’s wonderful! But my comment isn’t directed to people and families like yours. Me relating the sad situation in my extended family is directed to conservatives who believe that being gay is so unacceptable that they would estrange themselves from their own flesh and blood.
Pedophilia Protection Act. Ok. Well, social progress.
Extraordinary bigotry. They need to lose their Pro-Choice ethical religion, their politically congruent ("=") constructs, their rainbow hate symbol, and be inclusive of everyone in the transgender spectrum from homosexual to simulated genders, first, and everyone else, too. That said, civil unions for all consenting adults. Why stop with transgender/homosexual couplets?
I don't recall anyone really worried about dogs marrying ducks. But....
First, they came for the babies... Fetal-Babies in human rites performed for social, redistributive, clinical, political, and fair weather causes in "sanctuary" states.
Progressive (i.e. monotonic) liberalism (i.e. divergence). Children, girls and boys, are in play, thus the demand to secure reproductive rites (e.g. underage girls raped in darkness), and mainstreaming grooming in churches, schools, etc. Animals are less politically congruent ("=") (i.e. reference to leverage), and will have to wait their turn.
They lost me with the title "Respect for Maariage Act" What gives the government the right to legislate my respect for it anything?
D. D. Driver: "I hope your $2,000 Trump Welfare Checks were worth it because am I laughing my ass off at you right now."
No, you're not.
You are instead desperate to change the subject of the thread to avoid the real intent of this legislation: lawfare harrassment against traditional churches and faith-based organizations.
The reason you are doing that is transparent.
“Did the daughter's father shower with her as apparently, according to Inga/gadfly/victoria from pasadena, that's a "perfectly normal" thing in democratical families.”
Russia Collusion Truther and Hillary/FBI Hoax Dossier Dead Ender Inga: "I don’t know. The mother and the father are huge Trump supporters, so anything is possible."
Hmmm, I've only seen you, gadfly and victoria of pasadena claiming fathers showering with daughters was "perfectly normal" so its pretty clear if the parents are Trump supporters they would not think that is normal.
Thanks for the clarification from Team Groomer.
You are instead desperate to change the subject of the thread to avoid the real intent of this legislation: lawfare harassment against traditional churches and faith-based organizations.
LOL. Maybe your church is gaslighting you. 🤷♂️🤣 If your traditional church feels its too icky when boys kiss each other they should have done a better job at evangelism. You lost the hearts and minds on this issue.
I don't like the law because I don't think the federal government should play a role in marriage (or anything other that the enumerated powers in the Constitution). I lost the hearts and minds on that issue when the GOP went Full Foxconn under Trump.
Congressional authority to pass this bill comes not from Article I and the Commerce Clause, but from Article IV:
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
That portion of the bill provides that no state can refuse to recognize a gay marriage that was valid in the state in which it was entered. Note that it does not REQUIRE any state to allow gay marriages within that state, except for those gay marriages that are entered into in other states.
Other portions of the bill rely on the authority of Congress to decide what constitutes a marriage for federal purposes. The tax code, Social Security, and other provisions of federal law, treat married couples differently from other people. Congress has the authority to decide how to define marriage for those purposes, and this bill does that.
Me relating the sad situation in my extended family is directed to leftists who believe that being conservative is so unacceptable that they would estrange themselves from their own flesh and blood.
There's a helluva a lot more of that crap going on than the situation you describe.
A LOT more.
But it does sound as if you know your way around a miserable fuck.
I know to avoid them at all costs. Especially those who consider themselves victims in every situation. Poor, poor pitiful you.
why does marriage protection entail / entitle cakes to be baked? by one and all?
I don't get this
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा