"respect for marriage" act

2,428 Views | 80 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by Harrison Bergeron
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/respect-for-marriage-act-senate-vote-same-sex-marriage-bill/

The 62 to 37 vote was a crucial test of support for the bill, called the Respect for Marriage Act. With the backing of 12 Republican members, the Senate easily cleared the 60-vote procedural hurdle needed to move the legislation forward.

https://www.ncregister.com/news/respect-for-marriage-bill-would-undermine-religious-liberty-cardinal-dolan-says
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Congress really homing in on what matters. This definitely seems like the biggest issue facing the country.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bet I can guess which Republicans supported it...
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Bet I can guess which Republicans supported it...
  • Roy Blunt of Missouri
  • Richard Burr of North Carolina
  • Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia
  • Susan Collins of Maine
  • Joni Ernst of Iowa
  • Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming
  • Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
  • Rob Portman of Ohio
  • Mitt Romney of Utah
  • Dan Sullivan of Alaska
  • Thom Tillis of North Carolina
  • Todd Young of Indiana
BearN
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Lol Mitt ****ing Romney. I can't believe I had to vote for that clown
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
20 SEC. 6. NO IMPACT ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND 21 CONSCIENCE. 22 (a) IN GENERAL.Nothing in this Act, or any 23 amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to 24 diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection 25 otherwise available to an individual or organization under 26 the Constitution of the United States or Federal law.
BearN
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Every time some POS Democrat names a bill, it does the exact opposite of what the name says. They are incapable of honesty.

Equivocation is a prerequisite to joining that party
C. Jordan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

ttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/respect-for-marriage-act-senate-vote-same-sex-marriage-bill/

The 62 to 37 vote was a crucial test of support for the bill, called the Respect for Marriage Act. With the backing of 12 Republican members, the Senate easily cleared the 60-vote procedural hurdle needed to move the legislation forward.

https://www.ncregister.com/news/respect-for-marriage-bill-would-undermine-religious-liberty-cardinal-dolan-says
Hate to disagree with the good bishop, but he's wrong.

All the bill does is say that a gay and/or interracial marriage that takes place in one state must be respected in another, even if it doesn't allow such marriages.

I'm wondering if he thinks cake bakers and adoption agencies can deny service to an interracial couple on religious grounds to interracial couples as well.

This act doesn't take away any rights anyone currently has. It just limits the ability of people like him to take rights away from others.

I guess that's the real reason he's against it.
C. Jordan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Mothra said:

Bet I can guess which Republicans supported it...
  • Roy Blunt of Missouri
  • Richard Burr of North Carolina
  • Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia
  • Susan Collins of Maine
  • Joni Ernst of Iowa
  • Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming
  • Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
  • Rob Portman of Ohio
  • Mitt Romney of Utah
  • Dan Sullivan of Alaska
  • Thom Tillis of North Carolina
  • Todd Young of Indiana

Both my NC senators voted for it, and they're both conservative.
C. Jordan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Forest Bueller_bf said:

20 SEC. 6. NO IMPACT ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND 21 CONSCIENCE. 22 (a) IN GENERAL.Nothing in this Act, or any 23 amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to 24 diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection 25 otherwise available to an individual or organization under 26 the Constitution of the United States or Federal law.
There you go.

The good bishop still doesn't have to do gay or interracial marriages if he doesn't want to.
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You like to post a lot. Mirror not working these days?
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Mothra said:

Bet I can guess which Republicans supported it...
  • Roy Blunt of Missouri
  • Richard Burr of North Carolina
  • Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia
  • Susan Collins of Maine
  • Joni Ernst of Iowa
  • Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming
  • Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
  • Rob Portman of Ohio
  • Mitt Romney of Utah
  • Dan Sullivan of Alaska
  • Thom Tillis of North Carolina
  • Todd Young of Indiana

Batting 1.000.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
C. Jordan said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

20 SEC. 6. NO IMPACT ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND 21 CONSCIENCE. 22 (a) IN GENERAL.Nothing in this Act, or any 23 amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to 24 diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection 25 otherwise available to an individual or organization under 26 the Constitution of the United States or Federal law.
There you go.

The good bishop still doesn't have to do gay or interracial marriages if he doesn't want to.
You fond of marrying the gays, minister? Have a rainbow sign at the entrance of your temple? Is your church providing abortion services, yet?
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
C. Jordan said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

20 SEC. 6. NO IMPACT ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND 21 CONSCIENCE. 22 (a) IN GENERAL.Nothing in this Act, or any 23 amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to 24 diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection 25 otherwise available to an individual or organization under 26 the Constitution of the United States or Federal law.
There you go.

The good bishop still doesn't have to do gay or interracial marriages if he doesn't want to.
True,

But also just as true that his Church can lose its tax except status...and be sued into oblivion.

And the Church run schools and day cares can be sued and forcibly closed by the power of the State.

The RFMA:
Quote:

Quote:
omits ALL the relevant faith-based ministry categories that will be litigated this decade: adoption agencies, K-12 schools, colleges, religious employers, Title VI Religious Employer Exception, Title IX gender-specific facilities: dormitories, bathrooms, athletics.

Rep. Chip Roy and Ryan T. Anderson are also against the RFMA, saying in part:
Quote:

Quote:
The Senate bill pays lip service to religious liberty and conscience rights, but it does not offer any meaningful protections for those rights. Had the Senate sponsors wanted to, they could have explicitly stated that no individual or organization could be penalized by the government for operating according to the conviction that marriage unites husband and wife particularly that the IRS may not strip any such organization of its nonprofit status.
But the bill offers no such protections. It is not a compromise, not even a bad compromise. It enshrines a false definition of marriage in our law and then tells people they can have their day in court if and when they get sued. That's not public policy for the common good.
He Hate Me
How long do you want to ignore this user?
C. Jordan said:

Redbrickbear said:

ttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/respect-for-marriage-act-senate-vote-same-sex-marriage-bill/

The 62 to 37 vote was a crucial test of support for the bill, called the Respect for Marriage Act. With the backing of 12 Republican members, the Senate easily cleared the 60-vote procedural hurdle needed to move the legislation forward.

https://www.ncregister.com/news/respect-for-marriage-bill-would-undermine-religious-liberty-cardinal-dolan-says


All the bill does is say that a gay and/or interracial marriage that takes place in one state must be respected in another, even if it doesn't allow such marriages.


That is what Ogberfell (gay), Loving (different skin tone), in conjunction with the Full Faith and Credit Clause do. Assuming that Congress does not undertake meaningless acts, what does this Bill really do?
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He Hate Me said:

C. Jordan said:

Redbrickbear said:

ttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/respect-for-marriage-act-senate-vote-same-sex-marriage-bill/

The 62 to 37 vote was a crucial test of support for the bill, called the Respect for Marriage Act. With the backing of 12 Republican members, the Senate easily cleared the 60-vote procedural hurdle needed to move the legislation forward.

https://www.ncregister.com/news/respect-for-marriage-bill-would-undermine-religious-liberty-cardinal-dolan-says


All the bill does is say that a gay and/or interracial marriage that takes place in one state must be respected in another, even if it doesn't allow such marriages.


That is what Ogberfell (gay), Loving (different skin tone), in conjunction with the Full Faith and Credit Clause do. Assuming that Congress does not undertake meaningless acts, what does this Bill really do?
Whatever the later Federal Courts rule it does.

That is why is terrifying.

Imagine a future liberal majority SCOTUS with Sonia Sotomayor as Chief Justice interpreting this law 15 years from now.

[In any context in which conflicts between religious beliefs and same-sex civil marriage arise, the act will be used as evidence that religious believers must surrender to the state's interest in recognizing same-sex civil marriages."

"Wedding cake bakers, faith-based adoption and foster care providers, religious employers seeking to maintain their faith identity, faith-based housing agencies are all at greater risk of discrimination under this legislation,"]


[Sen. Lee tweeted Nov. 16: "I offered to support the bill if the sponsors would include my amendment to prohibit the government from removing tax-exempt status based on religious beliefs about same-sex marriage (for or against). The sponsors adamantly refused even to consider that. Why?"]
OsoCoreyell
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Is this the "Better Say Gay" law?
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OsoCoreyell said:

Is this the "Better Say Gay" law?


"Better Groom the Kids" law.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearN said:

Lol Mitt ****ing Romney. I can't believe I had to vote for that clown


+ 1
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He Hate Me said:

C. Jordan said:

Redbrickbear said:

ttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/respect-for-marriage-act-senate-vote-same-sex-marriage-bill/

The 62 to 37 vote was a crucial test of support for the bill, called the Respect for Marriage Act. With the backing of 12 Republican members, the Senate easily cleared the 60-vote procedural hurdle needed to move the legislation forward.

https://www.ncregister.com/news/respect-for-marriage-bill-would-undermine-religious-liberty-cardinal-dolan-says


All the bill does is say that a gay and/or interracial marriage that takes place in one state must be respected in another, even if it doesn't allow such marriages.


That is what Ogberfell (gay), Loving (different skin tone), in conjunction with the Full Faith and Credit Clause do. Assuming that Congress does not undertake meaningless acts, what does this Bill really do?

Members of the current Conservative SCOTUS majority have expressed skepticism at the correctness of those rulings, in the same way that they did for Roe. This bill is intended to pre-emptively resolve the issue by legislation if the Court decides to change their mind the way they've been signaling.
He Hate Me
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

He Hate Me said:

C. Jordan said:

Redbrickbear said:

ttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/respect-for-marriage-act-senate-vote-same-sex-marriage-bill/

The 62 to 37 vote was a crucial test of support for the bill, called the Respect for Marriage Act. With the backing of 12 Republican members, the Senate easily cleared the 60-vote procedural hurdle needed to move the legislation forward.

https://www.ncregister.com/news/respect-for-marriage-bill-would-undermine-religious-liberty-cardinal-dolan-says


All the bill does is say that a gay and/or interracial marriage that takes place in one state must be respected in another, even if it doesn't allow such marriages.


That is what Ogberfell (gay), Loving (different skin tone), in conjunction with the Full Faith and Credit Clause do. Assuming that Congress does not undertake meaningless acts, what does this Bill really do?

Members of the current Conservative SCOTUS majority have expressed skepticism at the correctness of those rulings, in the same way that they did for Roe. This bill is intended to pre-emptively resolve the issue by legislation if the Court decides to change their mind the way they've been signaling.


Then this will be struck down with it. I look forward to the day just like when Roe was struck down.
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Why would it be struck down? The constant refrain from the court for a while has been something like "if Congress cares about an issue, they should legislate it". Hence the push to get Sinema and Manchin on board with "codifying" Roe after SCOTUS invalidated it. Here they are codifying the legality of same-sex/interracial marriage in the event the Court overturns Obergfell or Loving (both of which Thomas has openly declared are next on the conservative agenda).
He Hate Me
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

Why would it be struck down? The constant refrain from the court for a while has been something like "if Congress cares about an issue, they should legislate it". Hence the push to get Sinema and Manchin on board with "codifying" Roe after SCOTUS invalidated it. Here they are codifying the legality of same-sex/interracial marriage in the event the Court overturns Obergfell or Loving (both of which Thomas has openly declared are next on the conservative agenda).


Regulation of marriage is the proper domaine of the States. Not every contentious issue should be resolved in Washington. The Court's jurisprudence on the Interstate Commerce Clause is in need of an overhaul.
OsoCoreyell
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

Why would it be struck down? The constant refrain from the court for a while has been something like "if Congress cares about an issue, they should legislate it". Hence the push to get Sinema and Manchin on board with "codifying" Roe after SCOTUS invalidated it. Here they are codifying the legality of same-sex/interracial marriage in the event the Court overturns Obergfell or Loving (both of which Thomas has openly declared are next on the conservative agenda).
Uh, no, the consistent refrain has been that many of these issues (abortion, marriage) are NOT part of the FEDERAL constitution, and are also NOT part of the enumerated powers of the FEDERAL government. Accordingly, neither the Supreme Court nor the US Congress, nor the Executive Branch have any power to make rules, laws or judgments for or against these issues - They are properly left to the various STATE legislatures.

Federalism, its a thing.

Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

Why would it be struck down? The constant refrain from the court for a while has been something like "if Congress cares about an issue, they should legislate it". Hence the push to get Sinema and Manchin on board with "codifying" Roe after SCOTUS invalidated it. Here they are codifying the legality of same-sex/interracial marriage in the event the Court overturns Obergfell or Loving (both of which Thomas has openly declared are next on the conservative agenda).
Thomas is a jurist. He is a principled jurist. His commentary on the Dobbs decision regarding the dubious concept of substantive due process, which is in his opinion is bad jurisprudence because it has been used to create via the judiciary all kinds of extra-Constitutional rights. The challenge with being a sophisticated, principled thinker is it demand complex analysis of diverse issues that does not play well in the environment of hysterical emotions that dominate twatter, regime media, etc.

The questions of abortion, marriage, and many others are rightfully state-level issues and do should not be decided at the federal level and definitely should not be decided by the courts.

I acknowledge marriage could be dicey because practically speaking it makes sense for each state to recognize the legal marriage of a couple married in another state. Given that, the first part of Section 3 of the bill makes sense:

  • (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

However, unless this is just cosplay, why even mention any qualifiers ... all that is needed is: (1) full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals. So obviously this is just political theater, and I'll be honest I was pretty sure marriage was recognized across state lines - so not sure there is a problem to be solved.

This second part could be problematic:
  • "(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.

This implies that if a right related to marriage in California does not existing in New York, then the Attorney General should intervene and enforce California's "rights" on New York, which is clearly unconstitutional.

Practically, again this is just political cosplay theater that is not solving actual problems and wasting our tax dollars. There is not a single movement in the United States to outlaw gay marriage, and the question of inter-racial legality is laughable. Only non-self-aware Democrats can talk about this with a straight face.

If we want to move toward returning to having a serious country with a serious legislative body then we need to start action serious and demanding our Congress act serious.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

He Hate Me said:

C. Jordan said:

Redbrickbear said:

ttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/respect-for-marriage-act-senate-vote-same-sex-marriage-bill/

The 62 to 37 vote was a crucial test of support for the bill, called the Respect for Marriage Act. With the backing of 12 Republican members, the Senate easily cleared the 60-vote procedural hurdle needed to move the legislation forward.

https://www.ncregister.com/news/respect-for-marriage-bill-would-undermine-religious-liberty-cardinal-dolan-says


All the bill does is say that a gay and/or interracial marriage that takes place in one state must be respected in another, even if it doesn't allow such marriages.


That is what Ogberfell (gay), Loving (different skin tone), in conjunction with the Full Faith and Credit Clause do. Assuming that Congress does not undertake meaningless acts, what does this Bill really do?
Whatever the later Federal Courts rule it does.

That is why is terrifying.

Imagine a future liberal majority SCOTUS with Sonia Sotomayor as Chief Justice interpreting this law 15 years from now.

[In any context in which conflicts between religious beliefs and same-sex civil marriage arise, the act will be used as evidence that religious believers must surrender to the state's interest in recognizing same-sex civil marriages."

"Wedding cake bakers, faith-based adoption and foster care providers, religious employers seeking to maintain their faith identity, faith-based housing agencies are all at greater risk of discrimination under this legislation,"]


[Sen. Lee tweeted Nov. 16: "I offered to support the bill if the sponsors would include my amendment to prohibit the government from removing tax-exempt status based on religious beliefs about same-sex marriage (for or against). The sponsors adamantly refused even to consider that. Why?"]
This is precisely why, despite all the misgivings about Trump, I am thankful he won the presidency when he did, having appointed THREE conservatives to the Supreme Court. Just imagine - had the dems won, what you're speaking of would be a reality NOW. We were literally that close. And that close to possibly a civil war, and I don't think that's overstating things.
Limited IQ Redneck in PU
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Will7 any of yall go to war to prevent hugo and jimenez from marrying?
I have found theres only two ways to go:
Living fast or dying slow.
I dont want to live forever.
But I will live while I'm here.
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

Will7 any of yall go to war to prevent hugo and jimenez from marrying?
To prevent my church from being attacked financially by the government at the end of the government men's gun barrels for not hosting gay weddings? Yes.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

Why would it be struck down? The constant refrain from the court for a while has been something like "if Congress cares about an issue, they should legislate it". Hence the push to get Sinema and Manchin on board with "codifying" Roe after SCOTUS invalidated it. Here they are codifying the legality of same-sex/interracial marriage in the event the Court overturns Obergfell or Loving (both of which Thomas has openly declared are next on the conservative agenda).
See Thomas' dissent in Obergefell. Overturning Loving isn't on his agenda.
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

HuMcK said:

Why would it be struck down? The constant refrain from the court for a while has been something like "if Congress cares about an issue, they should legislate it". Hence the push to get Sinema and Manchin on board with "codifying" Roe after SCOTUS invalidated it. Here they are codifying the legality of same-sex/interracial marriage in the event the Court overturns Obergfell or Loving (both of which Thomas has openly declared are next on the conservative agenda).
See Thomas' dissent in Obergefell. Overturning Loving isn't on his agenda.


Correct. That's why this is an unserious issue. Thomas questioned substantive due process but expressed no desire to overturn those rulings. Practically, literally no one is challenging gay marriage or interracial marriage. More political theater from a feckless Congress.
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Redbrickbear said:

He Hate Me said:

C. Jordan said:

Redbrickbear said:

ttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/respect-for-marriage-act-senate-vote-same-sex-marriage-bill/

The 62 to 37 vote was a crucial test of support for the bill, called the Respect for Marriage Act. With the backing of 12 Republican members, the Senate easily cleared the 60-vote procedural hurdle needed to move the legislation forward.

https://www.ncregister.com/news/respect-for-marriage-bill-would-undermine-religious-liberty-cardinal-dolan-says


All the bill does is say that a gay and/or interracial marriage that takes place in one state must be respected in another, even if it doesn't allow such marriages.


That is what Ogberfell (gay), Loving (different skin tone), in conjunction with the Full Faith and Credit Clause do. Assuming that Congress does not undertake meaningless acts, what does this Bill really do?
Whatever the later Federal Courts rule it does.

That is why is terrifying.

Imagine a future liberal majority SCOTUS with Sonia Sotomayor as Chief Justice interpreting this law 15 years from now.

[In any context in which conflicts between religious beliefs and same-sex civil marriage arise, the act will be used as evidence that religious believers must surrender to the state's interest in recognizing same-sex civil marriages."

"Wedding cake bakers, faith-based adoption and foster care providers, religious employers seeking to maintain their faith identity, faith-based housing agencies are all at greater risk of discrimination under this legislation,"]


[Sen. Lee tweeted Nov. 16: "I offered to support the bill if the sponsors would include my amendment to prohibit the government from removing tax-exempt status based on religious beliefs about same-sex marriage (for or against). The sponsors adamantly refused even to consider that. Why?"]
This is precisely why, despite all the misgivings about Trump, I am thankful he won the presidency when he did, having appointed THREE conservatives to the Supreme Court. Just imagine - had the dems won, what you're speaking of would be a reality NOW. We were literally that close. And that close to possibly a civil war, and I don't think that's overstating things.


Sadly Trump didn't appoint 3 conservatives. He appointed 1. The others are closer to Roberts who clearly is not conservative.

All are better than the tards completely unqualified that were pushed forward by Obama and Biden socialists that they are
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
C. Jordan said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

20 SEC. 6. NO IMPACT ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND 21 CONSCIENCE. 22 (a) IN GENERAL.Nothing in this Act, or any 23 amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to 24 diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection 25 otherwise available to an individual or organization under 26 the Constitution of the United States or Federal law.
There you go.

The good bishop still doesn't have to do gay or interracial marriages if he doesn't want to.
Do you and your church support sex with the lower intestine?
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"How will the mainstreaming of homosexuality ever effect you?"

Well this person got put through a re-education/indoctrination program and fined by the State.

ron.reagan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

C. Jordan said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

20 SEC. 6. NO IMPACT ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND 21 CONSCIENCE. 22 (a) IN GENERAL.Nothing in this Act, or any 23 amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to 24 diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection 25 otherwise available to an individual or organization under 26 the Constitution of the United States or Federal law.
There you go.

The good bishop still doesn't have to do gay or interracial marriages if he doesn't want to.
Do you and your church support sex with the lower intestine?
If your wife isn't getting anal from you she is getting it form somewhere
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

"How will the mainstreaming of homosexuality ever effect you?"

Well this person got out through a re-education/indoctrination program and fined by the State.


This is a tragic case. I would like to see some of these gaystapo activists target a Muslim small business, but we know that will never happen.
Last Page
Page 1 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.