Right off the bat, voting for it is politically smart. Sure, you might annoy Conservatives and Conservative groups, but, come on, they’ll still vote GOP. But, as a sense of the nation, you’ll be showing those squishy Republicans, Democrats, and those in the Independent group that the GOP is not stuck in the 1940’s. However, should there even be a vote? This is not a power assigned to the federal government by the Constitution. It is up to the States. And any legislation passed by the federal Congress has the potential to force states, via the 14th Amendment
Same-sex marriage legislation divides conservatives ahead of vote next week
The Senate has advanced the Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) past a key obstacle, overcoming the filibuster with 62 votes last week, including from 12 Republicans. The legislation is expected to receive a final vote next week.
There is some complaining on the left about the bill from voices with large audiences on social media. But by and large, the major LGBTQ advocacy groups back the bill.
And even among those who have criticized the RFMA, there is general agreement that they want the legislation to become law.
A big problem with the legislation is that it would allow the federal government to discriminate against those groups, such as churches and religious schools, who are against same sex marriage.
But on the right, opinions of the legislation are split. There is a coalition of religious groups that back the bill, or that back the religious liberty provisions and want the bill to pass despite their belief that their faith teachings do not allow them to support gay marriage.
This group includes the National Association of Evangelicals, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, the And Campaign and the 1st Amendment Partnership.
Really, this is America, and if 2 adults want to get married, I do not care what their sexual orientation. Why do I care? Doesn’t harm my life
And in fact there is vociferous resistance to the marriage legislation from a number of prominent social conservatives, and the opposition of many is absolute. This group includes the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Franklin Graham of Samaritan’s Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Al Mohler of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Ryan T. Anderson at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Missouri Baptist Convention and other figures who work for institutions like the Heritage Foundation, Alliance Defending Freedom and World magazine, an evangelical publication.
Anderson outlined the absolutist case against the Senate bill last week.
“Marriage is a natural and supernatural institution before it is a political institution. Human law should reflect the natural law and eternal law. No Senator should vote to allow the government to redefine what marriage is,” Anderson tweeted.
Good point. Marriage is a religious institution. Now, there is civil unions, which is a government institution, and government should allow it.
When Anderson was asked on Twitter if he would support a bill with even more expansive protections for religious freedom along the lines of an amendment proposed by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, he said he would not, even though he favored the Lee amendment and said it offered “meaningful religious liberty protections.”
The Lee amendment, actually called the First Amendment Defense Act, which notes
What is FADA?
The First Amendment Defense Act would prevent the federal government from discriminating against individuals and institutions based on their definition of marriage or beliefs about premarital sex.Why is FADA needed?
Without FADA, federal bureaucrats are free to punish individuals or institutions that have a different definition of marriage than they do. For example, during oral argument in Obergefell v. Hodges, President Obama’s Solicitor General admitted that, if the Court found a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, the IRS might subsequently deny tax-exempt status to any religious school that wanted to continue operating in accordance with their belief in the traditional definition of marriage. Just as Congress protected people from being punished for declining to participate in abortions after Roe v Wade, the First Amendment Defense Act prevents people from being punished for their beliefs about marriage.
In other words, it supports the federal government recognizing same sex marriage, but, will not allow the federal government to punish those who do not agree. Also, the text seems to focus on this all only applying to the federal government operations, not those of the States. Of course Democrats do not like this.
Anyhow, it is a very long piece, worth the read. It should be noted that
Polls show more than 70% of Americans now support marriage equality — an inverse from the 70% who opposed when the Defense of Marriage Act first passed.
So, should Republicans vote for this? Interestingly, Democrats were freaked out and started pushing this legislation again over what Justice Thomas wrote about revisiting the previous Court ruling on gay marriage, unwinding previous over-reaches of the 14th Amendment, and, come on, the chances of seeing it argued and overturning that ruling are slim. But, by passing the RFMA, it could lead to lawsuits that actually make it to the Court since it would violate the 1st Amendment religious beliefs of many Americans and groups.
[…] Pirates Cove discusses a conundrum […]
Obergefell v Hodges, the odious Supreme Court ruling which forced the legalization of same-sex ‘marriages,’ included this protection for religion:
If this bill is passed without explicit protections for people of conscience, then you’ll see another flurry of lawsuits trying to force moral people to provide services in conflict with their beliefs to same-sex ‘marriages’ even more that they are now. Places like parochial schools will be prevented from discharging openly homosexual teachers or staff, and businesses will be required to recognize same-sex ‘spouses’ as legal spouses for the purpose of insurance and benefits.
If homosexual couples really had a live and let live attitude, this wouldn’t be a problem, but the activists want to force other people to accept same-sex marriage, in every way possible. Without explicit protection for sensible people, this bill should be rejected.
So, libertarians don’t feel that Americans have a right to choose who to marry.
Mr Dana fantasizes that same-sex couples are trying to force others to accept same-sex marriage. He insists that “teh state” step in a protect his hurt feelings, LOL.
We get it. Connies dislike LGBTQ people for religious or other reasons. Connies want “teh state” to punish LGBTQ people. Yay, libertarianism, LOL.
The distinguished Mr Dowd wrote:
This libertarian believes that changing the very definition of an institution which has existed for as long as we have any social knowledge of human beings is a bad idea. And I very much support the right of Americans to marry anyone of the opposite sex they choose, as long as that other person is of age and consents.
That said, there was nothing in my comment to which you responded which stated what you claim. Rather, it notes the legal mischief and outright warfare we can expect from the homosexual lobby if this bill passes. Given Obergefell v Hodges, it isn’t even needed anyway, not to allow homosexual ‘marriages.’
I insist that the state protect our freedom of religion; do you somehow not?
And, of course, homosexual couples are trying to force others to accept same-sex ‘marriage,’ as has been noted many times in the past. I’m pretty sure that you remember the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, in which two homosexuals tried to punish a Christian baker to bake them a wedding cake, despite his religious faith.
Perhaps Mr Dowd simply missed my statement, “If homosexual couples really had a live and let live attitude, this wouldn’t be a problem.” That isn’t a statement which says I want to “punish” homosexuals, but that I do not approve of them trying to force acceptance on other people. Let them do what they please; that ought to be punishment enough for them.
Mr Dana considers the existence of gay people and same-sex marriage to be an affront to his religious practices and that gays should hide their gay and “live and let live”. LOL.
So how would gay Americans have to act to qualify for your “live and let live attitude”?
The distinguished Mr Dowd wrote:
I did not say that they should “hide” their homosexuality, but I did say “live and let live.”
It’s pretty simple: if they want to get ‘married’ and the first bakery declines to provide them with a ‘wedding’ cake, simply move on to the next bakery, rather than trying to get the first baker fined or imprisoned. Is that really such a difficult concept for you to understand?
In the old days you would get hitched and the union would be recorded in the county record. Marraiage should be left to the religious institutions. If the Catholic Curch says one man, one woman one time, that is their rules. If the Mormons allow a follower to have several wives, that is their rules.
Government needs to get out of who should be allowed to marry other than setting a minimum age of consent. Let the institutions determine who they will marry and businesses what benefits they will cover.
In France, all marriages are civil marriages; even if they marry in the Church, the couple still has to go down to the courthouse and register their marriage civilly for it to be a legal marriage. Thus, the priest has no function as an agent of the state, as he does in the United States.
I have no problem with that kind of arrangement, and it may need to become necessary in the United States due to the stupidity of the left. If a couple then married in the Church, they would still need to go to the courthouse and register than marriage to receive the legal benefits for it. Considering that there are significant tax benefits to being married, such would be a natural incentive.
But it is, in the end, stupid: the system we had worked just fine, but, as is so often the case, the left sees something that isn’t broken, and insists on fixing it.
Mr Dana, a Catholic “libertarian”, doesn’t believe in freedom for gay Americans.
Mr Dana has also expressed his admiration for the America of couple hundred years ago.
Mr Dana has also expressed his support for letting poor children die if they can’t afford health care.
The system had worked just fine, but as is so often the case, liberals insisted on giving women and Negroes the right to vote.
The system had worked just fine, but as is so often the case, liberals insisted on giving seniors and the poor Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
The system had worked just fine, but as is so often the case, liberals insisted on cleaning the air and the water.
The system had worked just fine, but as is so often the case, liberals insisted on getting children out of factories.
The system had worked just fine, but as is so often the case, liberals insisted on forming NATO, public universities, the space program, rural electrification, public education, labor unions, unemployment insurance…
The system was working just fine; America was perfect before the libs messed with it. Only white property-owning men could vote. Negroes knew their place. Homo Homo sapiens performed their perversions in secret until they were either arrested or murdered. Women, atheists, weird religions all knew THEIR places as well! Yep, it was the land of milk and honey for white Christian men.
Re “homo sapiens”
At the core of homo sapiens is unwisdom (ie, madness) and so the human label of “wise” (ie, sapiens) is a complete collective delusion — study the free scholarly essay “The 2 Married Pink Elephants In The Historical Room”
Once you understand that humans are “invisibly” insane you’ll UNDERSTAND (well, perhaps) why they, especially their alleged experts, perpetually come up with myths and lies about everything … including about themselves (their nature, their intelligence, their origins, etc).
The 12 Republican lawmakers who voted for advancing the Respect for Marriage Act are Sens. Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Shelley Capito of West Virginia, Susan Collins of Maine, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Rob Portman of Ohio, Mitt Romney of Utah, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Todd Young of Indiana.
Five of the eight female Republicans in the Senate voted to advance the act.
Blunt, Burr and Portman are retiring as of Jan 2023.
Mr Teach typed: Really, this is America, and if 2 adults want to get married, I do not care what their sexual orientation. Why do I care? Doesn’t harm my life
While we find Mr Teach’s position laudable, many Christian conservatives vehemently disagree with the state sanction of same-sex marriage.
While this urinating match is interesting to follow, I would suggest that some of the contestants might want to read the background on this as a way of understanding how this issue got this far. After the recent dust-up with ‘Roe v. Wade’, I’ve been updating my reading on some notable SCOTUS topics. The entire ‘gay “marriage” issue’ is based on some rather questionable decisions and rulings and quite possibly would not survive a thorough examination based on the Constitution. Justice Thomas is probably correct that the issue merits a thorough review of previous decisions.
UncleC, you must excuse dowd. He is a brainwashed partisan of the worst kind. He seems to believe cleverness, sarcasm and derision counters logic, honesty and truth. Fact is the guy has no morals and is a communist America/White/Christian hater and always will be.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
LGB, I seldom read much of what Elwood posts, I’m aware he’s merely another left-wingnut and parrots the party line without much understanding. Actually entering into ‘debate’ with him could violate my personal ‘arguing with idiots policy’, so I usually avoid it.
On the other hand, this issue could bring grief to the lefties if they get too worked up over it and the Supremes decide to review it under actual Constitutional scrutiny.
Thanks for the thought.