Will same sex marriage be codified in Congress?

[Doc Brown]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3566470-house-passes-bill-protecting-marriage-equality-with-47-gop-members-voting-yes/

 

The House passed a bill on Tuesday to protect marriage equality, a direct response to an opinion from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas last month that called for reversing multiple decisions that enshrined LGBTQ rights.

 

The legislation, titled the Respect for Marriage Act, passed in a 267-157 vote, with 47 Republicans joining all Democrats in supporting the measure. Seven Republicans did not vote.

 

Will be interesting to see if this gets pushed through the Senate with 22% of Republicans backing the bill in the House.  If that percentage holds for the Senate they'll have enough votes to get to that 60 vote threshold.  A recent gallup polled showed 71% of Americans support same sex marriage.  

 

Rising national support for legal same-sex marriage reflects steady increases among most subgroups of the population, even those who have traditionally been the most resistant to gay marriage. Adults aged 65 and older, for example, became mostly supportive in 2016 -- as did Protestants in 2017 and Republicans in 2021.

 

Americans who report that they attend church weekly remain the primary demographic holdout against gay marriage, with 40% in favor and 58% opposed.

[TH3]

No

 

[ALF]

I think the Senate will leave it to each state to decide like abortion.

 

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex marriages and recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states. The Court overruled its prior decision in Baker v. Nelson, which the Sixth Circuit had invoked as precedent.

 

With the present court it could be reversed like Roe/Wade

Edited July 20, 2022 by ALF

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3566470-house-passes-bill-protecting-marriage-equality-with-47-gop-members-voting-yes/

 

The House passed a bill on Tuesday to protect marriage equality, a direct response to an opinion from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas last month that called for reversing multiple decisions that enshrined LGBTQ rights.

 

The legislation, titled the Respect for Marriage Act, passed in a 267-157 vote, with 47 Republicans joining all Democrats in supporting the measure. Seven Republicans did not vote.

 

Will be interesting to see if this gets pushed through the Senate with 22% of Republicans backing the bill in the House.  If that percentage holds for the Senate they'll have enough votes to get to that 60 vote threshold.  A recent gallup polled showed 71% of Americans support same sex marriage.  

 

Rising national support for legal same-sex marriage reflects steady increases among most subgroups of the population, even those who have traditionally been the most resistant to gay marriage. Adults aged 65 and older, for example, became mostly supportive in 2016 -- as did Protestants in 2017 and Republicans in 2021.

 

Americans who report that they attend church weekly remain the primary demographic holdout against gay marriage, with 40% in favor and 58% opposed.

It would be nice, in an issue as important and impactful as this one, if the bill would be clear, concise and straightforward with no language designed as a poison pill for purely political purposes.  
 

I’m not confident, but I guess we’ll see.  

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

2 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3566470-house-passes-bill-protecting-marriage-equality-with-47-gop-members-voting-yes/

 

The House passed a bill on Tuesday to protect marriage equality, a direct response to an opinion from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas last month that called for reversing multiple decisions that enshrined LGBTQ rights.

 

The legislation, titled the Respect for Marriage Act, passed in a 267-157 vote, with 47 Republicans joining all Democrats in supporting the measure. Seven Republicans did not vote.

 

Will be interesting to see if this gets pushed through the Senate with 22% of Republicans backing the bill in the House.  If that percentage holds for the Senate they'll have enough votes to get to that 60 vote threshold.  A recent gallup polled showed 71% of Americans support same sex marriage.  

 

Rising national support for legal same-sex marriage reflects steady increases among most subgroups of the population, even those who have traditionally been the most resistant to gay marriage. Adults aged 65 and older, for example, became mostly supportive in 2016 -- as did Protestants in 2017 and Republicans in 2021.

 

Americans who report that they attend church weekly remain the primary demographic holdout against gay marriage, with 40% in favor and 58% opposed.

With house margins like that, we should expect the politicians to amend the constitution and call it a day.
 

I’d imagine the democrats wouldn’t want that though, I suspect this bill is intended to polarize voters, not codify something most people are in agreement with. 

[TH3]

23 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

With house margins like that, we should expect the politicians to amend the constitution and call it a day.
 

I’d imagine the democrats wouldn’t want that though, I suspect this bill is intended to polarize voters, not codify something most people are in agreement with. 

This doesn't amend the constitution....that's called an AMENDMENT

 

Polarize? This is the standard GOP reaction to a proposal that most people want ...but they pull the "polarize" card to futher brainwash people like you ...and it works

[The Frankish Reich]

2 hours ago, TH3 said:

Polarize? This is the standard GOP reaction to a proposal that most people want ...but they pull the "polarize" card to futher brainwash people like you ...and it works

True. There are some bills that are out there solely to make a political point. But this wouldn’t be one of them. There is value in making members of Congress stand and be counted. Yes or no. This is your chance. 

[Doc Brown]

2 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

 

I’d imagine the democrats wouldn’t want that though, I suspect this bill is intended to polarize voters, not codify something most people are in agreement with. 

No.  The bill as written will codify something most people are in agreement with.

[BillStime]

 

[ChiGoose]

3 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

It would be nice, in an issue as important and impactful as this one, if the bill would be clear, concise and straightforward with no language designed as a poison pill for purely political purposes.  
 

I’m not confident, but I guess we’ll see.  

 

Here's the text:

 

A BILL

To repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

     This Act may be cited as the “Respect for Marriage Act”.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SECTION ADDED TO TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, BY SECTION 2 OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT.

     Section 1738C of title 28, United States Code, is repealed.

SEC. 3. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN TO MARRIAGE EQUALITY.

     Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, as amended by this Act, is further amended by inserting after section 1738B the following:

“§ 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

     “(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.”.

SEC. 4. MARRIAGE RECOGNITION.

     Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

“§ 7. Marriage

     “(a) For the purposes of any Federal law, rule, or regulation in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.

      “(b) In this section, the term ‘State’ means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.

     “(c) For purposes of subsection (a), in determining whether a marriage is valid in a State or the place where entered into, if outside of any State, only the law of the jurisdiction applicable at the time the marriage was entered into may be considered.”.

SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.

     If any provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision to any person, entity, government, or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or any amendment made thereby, or the application of such provision to all other persons, entities, governments, or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

3 hours ago, TH3 said:

This doesn't amend the constitution....that's called an AMENDMENT

 

Polarize? This is the standard GOP reaction to a proposal that most people want ...but they pull the "polarize" card to futher brainwash people like you ...and it works

No too much TH3, I’m suggesting WITH margins like that they should execute a thing called an amendment. Sheesh.
 

Sorry not stating the obvious 3rd grade history inferred leads you to believe you have some epiphany. 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

No.  The bill as written will codify something most people are in agreement with.

I’m good with that but, but federal law can be changed back and forth more easily and states can also override federal laws more easily than constitutional rights, which is why roe v wade made it ubiquitous because it was an interpretation of a constitutional right as opposed to some federal law. 
 

that’s the real point. Make it a constitutional right to marry whatever adult you want, which likely has the support and it makes it almost impossible to ever go back. 
 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

28 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Here's the text:

 

A BILL

To repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

     This Act may be cited as the “Respect for Marriage Act”.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SECTION ADDED TO TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, BY SECTION 2 OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT.

     Section 1738C of title 28, United States Code, is repealed.

SEC. 3. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN TO MARRIAGE EQUALITY.

     Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, as amended by this Act, is further amended by inserting after section 1738B the following:

“§ 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

     “(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.”.

SEC. 4. MARRIAGE RECOGNITION.

     Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

“§ 7. Marriage

     “(a) For the purposes of any Federal law, rule, or regulation in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.

      “(b) In this section, the term ‘State’ means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.

     “(c) For purposes of subsection (a), in determining whether a marriage is valid in a State or the place where entered into, if outside of any State, only the law of the jurisdiction applicable at the time the marriage was entered into may be considered.”.

SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.

     If any provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision to any person, entity, government, or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or any amendment made thereby, or the application of such provision to all other persons, entities, governments, or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.

Thank you, Goose.  So, one has to wonder what the objection would be beyond the people who do not agree that same-sex or interracial couples should not be afforded protection under federal law.  That is, of course, beyond the people that clearly feel that they shouldn't.  I'm not one of those people, but they obviously exist.  I'd suggest more than a few democrat voters feel this way, and certainly acknowledge republicans, independents and agnostics do as well.  People are complicated.  

 

I decided to check the official record on which Republican's might have voted 'no'.  I was prepared to call a couple representatives as necessary, but here is the statement from the lone NY congressperson who voted 'no'.    I really don't know the rules on posting articles, so I'll just add the link.  

 

https://tenney.house.gov/media/press-releases/congresswoman-tenneys-statement-houses-passage-respect-marriage-act

 

Summary:  She supports precedent, supports love is love, and feels the Democrats pulled a cheap stunt to create a narrative that doesn't exist, bypassed traditional rules of Congress, and represents 'fear-mongering' designed to distract from the serious and substantive issues of the day.  She seems quite unlikely and unwilling to cast people to the fiery pits of hell, and assuming she's correct on the established protocol for such things, she raises an interesting and unquestionably political point.  

 

Personally, I think people should have a right to marry in the eyes of the law, and I don't really think congress can be trusted blindly on any issue. I'm quite certain we can find similar objections to similar bills submitted by Rs.  

 

[ChiGoose]

Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Thank you, Goose.  So, one has to wonder what the objection would be beyond the people who do not agree that same-sex or interracial couples should not be afforded protection under federal law.  That is, of course, beyond the people that clearly feel that they shouldn't.  I'm not one of those people, but they obviously exist.  I'd suggest more than a few democrat voters feel this way, and certainly acknowledge republicans, independents and agnostics do as well.  People are complicated.  

 

I decided to check the official record on which Republican's might have voted 'no'.  I was prepared to call a couple representatives as necessary, but here is the statement from the lone NY congressperson who voted 'no'.    I really don't know the rules on posting articles, so I'll just add the link.  

 

https://tenney.house.gov/media/press-releases/congresswoman-tenneys-statement-houses-passage-respect-marriage-act

 

Summary:  She supports precedent, supports love is love, and feels the Democrats pulled a cheap stunt to create a narrative that doesn't exist, bypassed traditional rules of Congress, and represents 'fear-mongering' designed to distract from the serious and substantive issues of the day.  She seems quite unlikely and unwilling to cast people to the fiery pits of hell, and assuming she's correct on the established protocol for such things, she raises an interesting and unquestionably political point.  

 

Personally, I think people should have a right to marry in the eyes of the law, and I don't really think congress can be trusted blindly on any issue. I'm quite certain we can find similar objections to similar bills submitted by Rs.  

 

 

I think you've nailed what will be the most common objection to it: that it's not immediately necessary. I think Romney and Rubio just made similar statements.

 

It's not entirely wrong: SCOTUS's term has ended so there isn't a danger in the next couple of months. I have not read through all of the cases they granted cert to, so I do not know if there is a case on point for Obergefell in there. If there is, Obergefell might be gone by next summer. If not, it's probably safe for another year.

 

However, we know at least one justice who believes Obergefell should be overturned and the holding in Dobbs is that unenumerated rights only exist if they are deeply rooted in our history, which gay marriage (and interracial marriage) obviously is not.

 

Given the fact that the Dems are likely to lose control of Congress and that GOP congressmembers generally do not support gay marriage, there is a very real scenario where the GOP takes control of one or both houses of Congress, SCOTUS overturns Obergefell, but Congress does not act to ensure marriage rights. That is an utterly chaotic scenario in which millions of couples in many states will no longer know if their marriages are valid or if they will retain all of their rights (adoption, legal benefits, tax breaks, etc).

 

So a quick fix like this bill to just ensure that we're all set on this and avoid that very real potential scenario makes sense to me. It obviously is also beneficial for the Dems if the GOP largely votes against it, but ultimately I think it's more important that it passes and I'm glad that many GOP members of Congress seem to support it.

[TH3]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I think you've nailed what will be the most common objection to it: that it's not immediately necessary. I think Romney and Rubio just made similar statements.

 

It's not entirely wrong: SCOTUS's term has ended so there isn't a danger in the next couple of months. I have not read through all of the cases they granted cert to, so I do not know if there is a case on point for Obergefell in there. If there is, Obergefell might be gone by next summer. If not, it's probably safe for another year.

 

However, we know at least one justice who believes Obergefell should be overturned and the holding in Dobbs is that unenumerated rights only exist if they are deeply rooted in our history, which gay marriage (and interracial marriage) obviously is not.

 

Given the fact that the Dems are likely to lose control of Congress and that GOP congressmembers generally do not support gay marriage, there is a very real scenario where the GOP takes control of one or both houses of Congress, SCOTUS overturns Obergefell, but Congress does not act to ensure marriage rights. That is an utterly chaotic scenario in which millions of couples in many states will no longer know if their marriages are valid or if they will retain all of their rights (adoption, legal benefits, tax breaks, etc).

 

So a quick fix like this bill to just ensure that we're all set on this and avoid that very real potential scenario makes sense to me. It obviously is also beneficial for the Dems if the GOP largely votes against it, but ultimately I think it's more important that it passes and I'm glad that many GOP members of Congress seem to support it.

Here is the REAL problem. If this passes it is a "win" for Democrats - and that is unacceptable for enough GOP to stop it. Damn the citizens. 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

5 hours ago, TH3 said:

Here is the REAL problem. If this passes it is a "win" for Democrats - and that is unacceptable for enough GOP to stop it. Damn the citizens. 

😂

 

See you are playing checkers while the politicians play chess. Dems are praying the Rs block this because if they don’t, they lose a topic to rally their moderates.
 

if republicans support the L’s G’s and B’s, then they must not hate them after all…

 

/narrative 😭 

[TH3]

1 hour ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

😂

 

See you are playing checkers while the politicians play chess. Dems are praying the Rs block this because if they don’t, they lose a topic to rally their moderates.
 

if republicans support the L’s G’s and B’s, then they must not hate them after all…

 

/narrative 😭 

Dude….take a break from the media and this board and go get some bearings back….if you are posting multiple times a day …everyday….here trying to flex your hot take nuances….you surely should have better things to do….

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

😂

 

See you are playing checkers while the politicians play chess. Dems are praying the Rs block this because if they don’t, they lose a topic to rally their moderates.
 

if republicans support the L’s G’s and B’s, then they must not hate them after all…

 

/narrative 😭 

One of my friends works for the local Dems. They have been texting me quotes from GOP senators supporting the legislation all day. They are hoping against hope that there are enough GOP votes to get this to pass.

 

I guarantee you that if you polled Dems, they would much rather the GOP helps them pass this than it tank. 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

3 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

One of my friends works for the local Dems. They have been texting me quotes from GOP senators supporting the legislation all day. They are hoping against hope that there are enough GOP votes to get this to pass.

 

I guarantee you that if you polled Dems, they would much rather the GOP helps them pass this than it tank. 

That would be refreshing. Let’s see

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

4 hours ago, TH3 said:

Dude….take a break from the media and this board and go get some bearings back….if you are posting multiple times a day …everyday….here trying to flex your hot take nuances….you surely should have better things to do….

Woah…. Dude….. yo chat board stop moving so fast…. 😂 

the world moves fast. Step out of the basement. I’ve done 78 better things than you today 

 

[Doc Brown]

11 hours ago, TH3 said:

Here is the REAL problem. If this passes it is a "win" for Democrats - and that is unacceptable for enough GOP to stop it. Damn the citizens. 

Exactly.  The mental gymnastics are entertaining though.

5 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

😂

 

See you are playing checkers while the politicians play chess. Dems are praying the Rs block this because if they don’t, they lose a topic to rally their moderates.
 

if republicans support the L’s G’s and B’s, then they must not hate them after all…

 

/narrative 😭 

The Dems can't even play chutes and ladders.  

[B-Man]

 

I have no problem with same sex couples getting married, pass that anytime you want.

 

BUT, the government will not leave it at just that (AS ALWAYS)

 

This is too big an opportunity to get more control.

 

Biden, Democrats Moving to Ban Traditional Marriage Advocates from the Public Square

BY MARK TAPSCOTT

 

FTA:

 

Buried in the laughably titled “Respect for Marriage Act” now before the Senate are provisions authorizing the IRS to jerk tax-exemption from any church or non-profit social service agency that refuses to support the LGBQT agenda regarding marriage.

 

What will come in the months following enactment will be a swarm of gay couples demanding that evangelical pastors perform wedding ceremonies that many of them will refuse, as a matter of faith, to do. There will similarly be gay couples demanding that religious-based adoption agencies that only match orphans with intact heterosexual couples abandon their beliefs.

 

In other words, the full force of the federal government is being prepared for the assault on tax-exempt churches and church-related social service agencies that liberals have dreamed of for decades.

 

 

https://pjmedia.com/culture/marktapscott/2022/11/18/biden-democrats-moving-to-ban-traditional-marriage-advocates-from-the-public-square-n1646900

 

[Chef Jim]

20 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

I have no problem with same sex couples getting married, pass that anytime you want.

 

BUT, the government will not leave it at just that (AS ALWAYS)

 

This is too big an opportunity to get more control.

 

Biden, Democrats Moving to Ban Traditional Marriage Advocates from the Public Square

BY MARK TAPSCOTT

 

FTA:

 

Buried in the laughably titled “Respect for Marriage Act” now before the Senate are provisions authorizing the IRS to jerk tax-exemption from any church or non-profit social service agency that refuses to support the LGBQT agenda regarding marriage.

 

What will come in the months following enactment will be a swarm of gay couples demanding that evangelical pastors perform wedding ceremonies that many of them will refuse, as a matter of faith, to do. There will similarly be gay couples demanding that religious-based adoption agencies that only match orphans with intact heterosexual couples abandon their beliefs.

 

In other words, the full force of the federal government is being prepared for the assault on tax-exempt churches and church-related social service agencies that liberals have dreamed of for decades.

 

 

https://pjmedia.com/culture/marktapscott/2022/11/18/biden-democrats-moving-to-ban-traditional-marriage-advocates-from-the-public-square-n1646900

 

What the hell does the church have against gay marriage?  Funny how you all make fun of how Islam is stuck in the 6th century while is some aspects so is Christianity. 

[BillStime]

48 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

I have no problem with same sex couples getting married, pass that anytime you want.

 

BUT, the government will not leave it at just that (AS ALWAYS)

 

This is too big an opportunity to get more control.

 

Biden, Democrats Moving to Ban Traditional Marriage Advocates from the Public Square

BY MARK TAPSCOTT

 

FTA:

 

Buried in the laughably titled “Respect for Marriage Act” now before the Senate are provisions authorizing the IRS to jerk tax-exemption from any church or non-profit social service agency that refuses to support the LGBQT agenda regarding marriage.

 

What will come in the months following enactment will be a swarm of gay couples demanding that evangelical pastors perform wedding ceremonies that many of them will refuse, as a matter of faith, to do. There will similarly be gay couples demanding that religious-based adoption agencies that only match orphans with intact heterosexual couples abandon their beliefs.

 

In other words, the full force of the federal government is being prepared for the assault on tax-exempt churches and church-related social service agencies that liberals have dreamed of for decades.

 

 

https://pjmedia.com/culture/marktapscott/2022/11/18/biden-democrats-moving-to-ban-traditional-marriage-advocates-from-the-public-square-n1646900

 

Two questions:

 

1) Did you take advantage of this opportunity and join pjmedia?

 

2) You do realize that the senate version includes an amendment that completely negates what you’re crying about?

 

The Senators’ bipartisan amendment:

 

Protects all religious liberty and conscience protections available under the Constitution or Federal law, including but not limited to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and prevents this bill from being used to diminish or repeal any such protection.

Confirms that non-profit religious organizations will not be required to provide any services, facilities, or goods for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.

Guarantees that this bill may not be used to deny or alter any benefit, right, or status of an otherwise eligible person or entity – including tax-exempt status, tax treatment, grants, contracts, agreements, guarantees, educational funding, loans, scholarships, licenses, certifications, accreditations, claims, or defenses – provided that the benefit, right, or status does not arise from a marriage. For instance, a church, university, or other nonprofit’s eligibility for tax-exempt status is unrelated to marriage, so its status would not be affected by this legislation.

Makes clear that the bill does not require or authorize the Federal government to recognize polygamous marriages.

 

Recognizes the importance of marriage, acknowledges that diverse beliefs and the people who hold them are due respect, and affirms that couples, including same-sex and interracial couples, deserve the dignity, stability, and ongoing protection of marriage.

 

[Chef Jim]

1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

What the hell does the church have against gay marriage?  Funny how you all make fun of how Islam is stuck in the 6th century while is some aspects so is Christianity. 

 

Is that all you got @B-Man?  An eye roll?  Educate this heathen.  

[ChiGoose]

One of the fascinating aspect of this is how traditional opponents of gay marriage seem to be pretty ok with this law, if not outright endorsing it.

 

From Christianity Today - "Everything You Need to Know About the Respect for Marriage Act"

"Rather than just say no to RMA, a small collective of faith groups moved quickly in the Senate to see if the act could be brought into balance. A few senators from both parties who were keen on doing just that helped. After adding in a measure of religious liberty protections, the Senate substitute of the House bill passed the higher chamber earlier this week, 62–37.

In order of significance, here’s what you need to know about the Respect for Marriage Act:

Section 6(b) of RMA recognizes that religious nonprofits and their personnel have a statutory right to decline any involvement with a marriage solemnization or celebration—including a same-sex one. This federal right would preempt any state or local law to the contrary. It means clergy can refuse to officiate a gay wedding. A church can decline to be the venue for these unions. A Christian college can deny use of its chapel for the same reason, and a Christian summer camp can refuse use of its lake and nearby pavilion, as well.

This section of the act only deals with nonprofits and therefore doesn’t address ongoing litigation over for-profit Christian wedding vendors—photographers, bakers, florists, dressmakers, and others. However, RMA doesn’t harm wedding vendors. It’s simply silent and leaves the matter for resolution in the courts. (One of these wedding vendor cases—303 Creative, LLC v. Elenis—is about to be argued before the US Supreme Court.)

Section 6(a) of RMA states that nothing in the act diminishes any existing federal right to freedom of religion or protection of conscience. For example, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 goes untouched by RMA, and so do many religious exemptions in civil rights legislation."

 

Even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism) endorsed it.

 

Of course, if you're looking for a reason to be mad, I'm sure you can find something at RedStateBreitbartCultureInfoWars(dot)grift that will get your ire up about some misinterpretation of it.

[B-Man]

 

 

More on the above:            (for those with actual interest)

 

FTA:

 

That understanding of the source of individual rights would shock and sadden the Founders, who declared in the Declaration of Independence in 1776 that:

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed …

 

See the difference? The American government was originally based on the understanding that the source of individual rights is the Creator and that government’s purpose is no more, but no less, than to protect those rights.

 

For liberals, government is the source of individual rights, and that means government defines those rights and has the power to redefine them as desired by whoever happens to be in control at any given time.

 

And since liberals are in control of the government, they intend to do precisely that—define the right of religious expression and practice so as to exclude from the public square all of those whose sincere faith requires them to reject same-sex marriage.

 

Simply put, the liberals are saying to millions of Americans that they have no right to disagree in the public square with same-sex marriage and the state can and indeed soon will take their property via taxes and use them to support the enforcement of same-sex marriage as a political right.

 

That enforcement is the second element here that commands attention. The bill includes provisions that authorize the IRS to jerk the tax exemption of any church or non-profit that opposes same-sex marriage. The bill also encourages litigation to be brought against those same institutions in the court system to enforce the right to same-sex marriage.

 

Here’s what that means: Soon after Biden signs the bill into law, there will begin to be same-sex couples demanding to be married in evangelical churches they know to be opposed to the practice.

If the pastor refuses to perform the ceremony, the church will be sued and it will lose in court. That litigation will then be used by the IRS as justification for ending the church’s tax-exempt status, as well as the tax-deductibility of congregants’ tithes and contributions.

 

But that’s not all. The IRS is being primed to be ready for action against evangelical and traditional Catholic social service institutions as well. As Heritage Action for America explains:

 

Just months after Democrats used the Inflation Reduction Act to fund 87,000 new IRS agents, the Respect for Marriage Act would be giving those new agents carte blanche to harass and target religious schools and other faith-based entities that oppose same-sex marriage and eventually strip them of their tax-exempt status.

Worse, it would create a roving license to sue anyone acting “under color of law” – a loosely defined term that would include those providing government-funded or -regulated services. As a result, adoption centers and foster care providers with religious objections to same-sex marriage would have to close down.

 

Talk about a slippery slope! Once government becomes the source and dispenser of individual rights, there is no such thing as a “safe space.” What follows, sooner or later, is official persecution of those who demand their right to practice their faith and then speak publicly and vote accordingly.

 

And don’t be fooled by claims the bill has been amended to include “protections of religious liberty.” As Roger Severino of the Heritage Foundation puts it, such amendments are little more than “fig leaf, smoke and mirrors, lip service, bait and switch.”

 

https://pjmedia.com/culture/marktapscott/2022/11/18/biden-democrats-moving-to-ban-traditional-marriage-advocates-from-the-public-square-n1646900

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[ChiGoose]

10 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

More on the above:            (for those with actual interest)

 

FTA:

 

That understanding of the source of individual rights would shock and sadden the Founders, who declared in the Declaration of Independence in 1776 that:

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed …

 

See the difference? The American government was originally based on the understanding that the source of individual rights is the Creator and that government’s purpose is no more, but no less, than to protect those rights.

 

For liberals, government is the source of individual rights, and that means government defines those rights and has the power to redefine them as desired by whoever happens to be in control at any given time.

 

And since liberals are in control of the government, they intend to do precisely that—define the right of religious expression and practice so as to exclude from the public square all of those whose sincere faith requires them to reject same-sex marriage.

 

Simply put, the liberals are saying to millions of Americans that they have no right to disagree in the public square with same-sex marriage and the state can and indeed soon will take their property via taxes and use them to support the enforcement of same-sex marriage as a political right.

 

That enforcement is the second element here that commands attention. The bill includes provisions that authorize the IRS to jerk the tax exemption of any church or non-profit that opposes same-sex marriage. The bill also encourages litigation to be brought against those same institutions in the court system to enforce the right to same-sex marriage.

 

Here’s what that means: Soon after Biden signs the bill into law, there will begin to be same-sex couples demanding to be married in evangelical churches they know to be opposed to the practice.

If the pastor refuses to perform the ceremony, the church will be sued and it will lose in court. That litigation will then be used by the IRS as justification for ending the church’s tax-exempt status, as well as the tax-deductibility of congregants’ tithes and contributions.

 

But that’s not all. The IRS is being primed to be ready for action against evangelical and traditional Catholic social service institutions as well. As Heritage Action for America explains:

 

Just months after Democrats used the Inflation Reduction Act to fund 87,000 new IRS agents, the Respect for Marriage Act would be giving those new agents carte blanche to harass and target religious schools and other faith-based entities that oppose same-sex marriage and eventually strip them of their tax-exempt status.

Worse, it would create a roving license to sue anyone acting “under color of law” – a loosely defined term that would include those providing government-funded or -regulated services. As a result, adoption centers and foster care providers with religious objections to same-sex marriage would have to close down.

 

Talk about a slippery slope! Once government becomes the source and dispenser of individual rights, there is no such thing as a “safe space.” What follows, sooner or later, is official persecution of those who demand their right to practice their faith and then speak publicly and vote accordingly.

 

And don’t be fooled by claims the bill has been amended to include “protections of religious liberty.” As Roger Severino of the Heritage Foundation puts it, such amendments are little more than “fig leaf, smoke and mirrors, lip service, bait and switch.”

 

https://pjmedia.com/culture/marktapscott/2022/11/18/biden-democrats-moving-to-ban-traditional-marriage-advocates-from-the-public-square-n1646900

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

Well this is all certainly nonsense.

[B-Man]

1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Is that all you got @B-Man?  An eye roll?  Educate this heathen.  

 

 

No Jim.

 

3 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

What the hell does the church have against gay marriage? 

 

When you make a broad over-reaching statement like that, I feel no obligation to join in your game.

 

4 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Well this is all certainly nonsense.

 

Need someone to explain it to you ?

 

 

 

You have a "Tell".

 

Whenever there is an argument that you disagree with, you simply dismiss it as "nonsense"

 

 

Thankfully, it also makes it all the easier to disregard your posts.

 

 

[Chef Jim]

27 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

No Jim.

 

 

When you make a broad over-reaching statement like that, I feel no obligation to join in your game.

 

 

What game?  What broad over-reaching statement? I’m just looking for clarification of this. 
 

Quote

What will come in the months following enactment will be a swarm of gay couples demanding that evangelical pastors perform wedding ceremonies that many of them will refuse, as a matter of faith, 

Explain the matter of faith.  You all still think homosexuality is a sin?  

[ChiGoose]

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

No Jim.

 

 

When you make a broad over-reaching statement like that, I feel no obligation to join in your game.

 

 

Need someone to explain it to you ?

 

 

 

You have a "Tell".

 

Whenever there is an argument that you disagree with, you simply dismiss it as "nonsense"

 

 

Thankfully, it also makes it all the easier to disregard your posts.

 

 

I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em. 
 

Are you arguing that dozens of religious organizations including the freaking Mormon Church have missed a big loophole that was discovered by a random, clearly biased website basically nobody has heard of?

 

Can you point to the text of the legislation that supports your point?

[Warcodered]

4 hours ago, B-Man said:

See the difference? The American government was originally based on the understanding that the source of individual rights is the Creator and that government’s purpose is no more, but no less, than to protect those rights.

This part is fairly ridiculous, I mean sure we can all agree that we all have innate rights, but this just comes off as some inane rhetoric that ignores the obvious thing that the government obviously has to enforce and define those rights. I mean I can get it if you don't like how they're defining them, I might not agree but I get that, but I mean what's the point being made here were they supposed to stop making adjustments after they founded the country, because there were some issues if you might recall.

Edited November 19, 2022 by Warcodered

[ChiGoose]

Super fun to see people twist the words of fallible slave owners who opposed laws based on religion into the words of unassailable heroes who endorsed a very specific religious view.

 

I suppose that when you divide the country into “us vs them” you’ll need to find some reason to oppose the Them, even if it is completely fabricated. 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

7 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

What game?  What broad over-reaching statement? I’m just looking for clarification of this. 
 

Explain the matter of faith.  You all still think homosexuality is a sin?  

Are they not allowed to?  Hell they consider not believing their religion a sin. 
 

most religions are centered around family values and procreation. I guarantee if you send the most religious homosexuals out there to colonize mars, there is going to be a longevity problem.

 

people should believe what they choose also not have the right to force their beliefs on others. 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

7 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

Super fun to see people twist the words of fallible slave owners who opposed laws based on religion into the words of unassailable heroes who endorsed a very specific religious view.

 

I suppose that when you divide the country into “us vs them” you’ll need to find some reason to oppose the Them, even if it is completely fabricated. 

just as fun seeing neocons with a decade of or so of meaningful life experience at best that know better than billions of collective years of civilization evolution who turn morally and literally corrupt politicians into unassailable hero’s who endorse very specific views of how society (one that preeminently benefits themselves) should work. 

[JaCrispy]

15 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

What the hell does the church have against gay marriage?  Funny how you all make fun of how Islam is stuck in the 6th century while is some aspects so is Christianity. 

I could be wrong, but I believe that, according to the Bible, marriage is seen as a sacred union between man, woman and God- and that that union is supposedly a way of respecting and honoring God…So in contrast, a gay couple getting married is seen as blasphemy and disrespecting what God had created or intended (according to the Bible)…I think that’s why some churches are against it…

 

 

Edited November 19, 2022 by JaCrispy

[SoCal Deek]

16 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:

I could be wrong, but I believe that, according to the Bible, marriage is seen as a sacred union between man, woman and God- and that that union is supposedly a way of respecting and honoring God…So in contrast, a gay couple getting married is seen as blasphemy and disrespecting what God had created or intended (according to the Bible)…I think that’s why some churches are against it…

 

 

Correct. And as many on here know I have a slightly different, and often controversial or misunderstood take on this subject. The Christian church is not against gay people. The beef is with the hijacking of the word ‘marriage’ which has long meant something specific and set aside in the Church. I know certain folks don’t like it when I say it but would it REALLY have been all that difficult to come up with a unique word for this particular type of union? Not less, not more, but a more descriptive use of the language. It’s controversy for controversy sake. And in my opinion relegating gay people to a second class hyphenated label of marriage is just sad. 
 

My two cents.

[Chef Jim]

4 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Are they not allowed to?  Hell they consider not believing their religion a sin. 
 

most religions are centered around family values and procreation. I guarantee if you send the most religious homosexuals out there to colonize mars, there is going to be a longevity problem.

 

people should believe what they choose also not have the right to force their beliefs on others. 

So Jesus’s message of love everyone is a lie??  🤷🏻‍♂️

45 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:

I could be wrong, but I believe that, according to the Bible, marriage is seen as a sacred union between man, woman and God- and that that union is supposedly a way of respecting and honoring God…So in contrast, a gay couple getting married is seen as blasphemy and disrespecting what God had created or intended (according to the Bible)…I think that’s why some churches are against it…

 

 

Correct.  This is my point of Christianity being stuck in the dark ages like Islam. 
 

Question.  Is this all because gays can or procreate?  

[sherpa]

2 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

So Jesus’s message of love everyone is a lie??  🤷🏻‍♂️

Correct.  This is my point of Christianity being stuck in the dark ages like Islam. 
 

Question.  Is this all because gays can or procreate?  

 

I'm not sure this is a correct viewpoint.

Jesus' message to love is incontrovertible.

 

There is nothing preventing people from being loved or loving simply because Scripture interpretation causes various faiths to not recognize marriage between two people of the same sex.

They love and are loved regardless.

Those faiths have nothing to do with a secular gov's recognition.

 

[Chef Jim]

1 minute ago, sherpa said:

 

I'm not sure this is a correct viewpoint.

Jesus' message to love is incontrovertible.

 

There is nothing preventing people from being loved or loving simply because Scripture interpretation causes various faiths to not recognize marriage between two people of the same sex.

They love and are loved regardless.

Those faiths have nothing to do with a secular gov's recognition.

 

But they are not allowed to love each other in the same manner as heterosexuals?