How exactly does this impact religious liberty?
They aren’t making you marry a dude, they are saying same sex and interracial marriage has the same legal status as marriage between a man and a woman, and codifying reciprocity between the states.
It may not be necessary at this point, but it's smart politics and you can thank Justice Thomas. His comment in Dobbs made a threat to marriage equality a remote yet plausible possibility, opening the door for this bill to ensure that our current high Court can't yank away more rights. Now we get to force Republicans to take an uncomfortable vote - either displease the zealots in their base who want to force their moral choices on others, or displease the majority of voters.
(11-26-2022 11:10 AM)Gamenole Wrote: [ -> ]It may not be necessary at this point, but it's smart politics and you can thank Justice Thomas. His comment in Dobbs made a threat to marriage equality a remote yet plausible possibility, opening the door for this bill to ensure that our current high Court can't yank away more rights. Now we get to force Republicans to take an uncomfortable vote - either displease the zealots in their base who want to force their moral choices on others, or displease the majority of voters.
Does your husband agree with you?
(11-26-2022 11:20 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2022 11:10 AM)Gamenole Wrote: [ -> ]It may not be necessary at this point, but it's smart politics and you can thank Justice Thomas. His comment in Dobbs made a threat to marriage equality a remote yet plausible possibility, opening the door for this bill to ensure that our current high Court can't yank away more rights. Now we get to force Republicans to take an uncomfortable vote - either displease the zealots in their base who want to force their moral choices on others, or displease the majority of voters.
Does your husband agree with you?
He doth protest too much.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...mosexuals/
(11-26-2022 10:49 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote: [ -> ]How exactly does this impact religious liberty?
They aren’t making you marry a dude, they are saying same sex and interracial marriage has the same legal status as marriage between a man and a woman, and codifying reciprocity between the states.
It provides that a church that won’t marry gays will be stripped of their tax exemptions, and other penalties aimed at a church that does not marry gays.
(11-26-2022 11:20 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2022 11:10 AM)Gamenole Wrote: [ -> ]It may not be necessary at this point, but it's smart politics and you can thank Justice Thomas. His comment in Dobbs made a threat to marriage equality a remote yet plausible possibility, opening the door for this bill to ensure that our current high Court can't yank away more rights. Now we get to force Republicans to take an uncomfortable vote - either displease the zealots in their base who want to force their moral choices on others, or displease the majority of voters.
Does your husband agree with you?
I’m always humored by the Beavis and Butthead style replies like the above.
(11-26-2022 11:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2022 10:49 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote: [ -> ]How exactly does this impact religious liberty?
They aren’t making you marry a dude, they are saying same sex and interracial marriage has the same legal status as marriage between a man and a woman, and codifying reciprocity between the states.
It provides that a church that won’t marry gays will be stripped of their tax exemptions, and other penalties aimed at a church that does not marry gays.
If that's the case, then I support an amendment to forbid it. Threatening churches tax-exempt status for refusing to conduct same-sex marriages is imposing moral choices on others, just as the zealots seek to do. In both cases that is wrong, IMO. Same sex couples have ample venues to get married in either civil or religious ceremonies, without penalizing churches that do not endorse or perform those marriages due to their beliefs.
I'd like to see more scrutiny of the tax-exempt status of churches though, churches should be penalized when they refuse to follow public health guidelines. I'd like to see the churches who defied lockdowns to continue holding in-person services in 2020 stripped of their tax-exempt status for that year.
(11-26-2022 11:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2022 10:49 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote: [ -> ]How exactly does this impact religious liberty?
They aren’t making you marry a dude, they are saying same sex and interracial marriage has the same legal status as marriage between a man and a woman, and codifying reciprocity between the states.
It provides that a church that won’t marry gays will be stripped of their tax exemptions, and other penalties aimed at a church that does not marry gays.
Where does it codify that restriction on churches?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-cong.../8404/text
(11-26-2022 11:10 AM)Gamenole Wrote: [ -> ]It may not be necessary at this point, but it's smart politics and you can thank Justice Thomas. His comment in Dobbs made a threat to marriage equality a remote yet plausible possibility, opening the door for this bill to ensure that our current high Court can't yank away more rights. Now we get to force Republicans to take an uncomfortable vote - either displease the zealots in their base who want to force their moral choices on others, or displease the majority of voters.
Why exactly is stripping religious freedom from Americans of faith "necessary"? Nationwide recognition by GOVERNMENTAL entities of gay marriage is a reasonable goal. Demanding that religions recognize gay marriage or they get punished by the government is NOT reasonable nor is it "American". Why do Democrats hate the Constitutional guarantee of freedom religion so much? Its irrational, divisive, extreme, and totally unnecessary. Why must Democrats always govern from the extreme left wing of their party? Its inexplicable.
(11-26-2022 02:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2022 11:10 AM)Gamenole Wrote: [ -> ]It may not be necessary at this point, but it's smart politics and you can thank Justice Thomas. His comment in Dobbs made a threat to marriage equality a remote yet plausible possibility, opening the door for this bill to ensure that our current high Court can't yank away more rights. Now we get to force Republicans to take an uncomfortable vote - either displease the zealots in their base who want to force their moral choices on others, or displease the majority of voters.
Why exactly is stripping religious freedom from Americans of faith "necessary"? Nationwide recognition by GOVERNMENTAL entities of gay marriage is a reasonable goal. Demanding that religions recognize gay marriage or they get punished by the government is NOT reasonable nor is it "American". Why do Democrats hate the Constitutional guarantee of freedom religion so much? Its irrational, divisive, extreme, and totally unnecessary. Why must Democrats always govern from the extreme left wing of their party? Its inexplicable.
I posted the text of the law, what part of it demands that religious organizations do anything? It removes a law from 1996 that is currently invalidated by the Supreme Court.
(11-26-2022 02:12 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2022 02:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2022 11:10 AM)Gamenole Wrote: [ -> ]It may not be necessary at this point, but it's smart politics and you can thank Justice Thomas. His comment in Dobbs made a threat to marriage equality a remote yet plausible possibility, opening the door for this bill to ensure that our current high Court can't yank away more rights. Now we get to force Republicans to take an uncomfortable vote - either displease the zealots in their base who want to force their moral choices on others, or displease the majority of voters.
Why exactly is stripping religious freedom from Americans of faith "necessary"? Nationwide recognition by GOVERNMENTAL entities of gay marriage is a reasonable goal. Demanding that religions recognize gay marriage or they get punished by the government is NOT reasonable nor is it "American". Why do Democrats hate the Constitutional guarantee of freedom religion so much? Its irrational, divisive, extreme, and totally unnecessary. Why must Democrats always govern from the extreme left wing of their party? Its inexplicable.
I posted the text of the law, what part of it demands that religious organizations do anything? It removes a law from 1996 that is currently invalidated by the Supreme Court.
Then there ya go. There should be no Democratic opposition to the Republican amendment that clearly provides protection for religions to remain free in practicing their faith as they see fit with no interference or punishment from government.
(11-26-2022 02:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2022 02:12 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2022 02:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2022 11:10 AM)Gamenole Wrote: [ -> ]It may not be necessary at this point, but it's smart politics and you can thank Justice Thomas. His comment in Dobbs made a threat to marriage equality a remote yet plausible possibility, opening the door for this bill to ensure that our current high Court can't yank away more rights. Now we get to force Republicans to take an uncomfortable vote - either displease the zealots in their base who want to force their moral choices on others, or displease the majority of voters.
Why exactly is stripping religious freedom from Americans of faith "necessary"? Nationwide recognition by GOVERNMENTAL entities of gay marriage is a reasonable goal. Demanding that religions recognize gay marriage or they get punished by the government is NOT reasonable nor is it "American". Why do Democrats hate the Constitutional guarantee of freedom religion so much? Its irrational, divisive, extreme, and totally unnecessary. Why must Democrats always govern from the extreme left wing of their party? Its inexplicable.
I posted the text of the law, what part of it demands that religious organizations do anything? It removes a law from 1996 that is currently invalidated by the Supreme Court.
Then there ya go. There should be no Democratic opposition to the Republican amendment that clearly provides protection for religions to remain free in practicing their faith as they see fit with no interference or punishment from government.
Why is this necessary in the first place. I thought the first amendment covers this.
Just get the government out of the marriage business. From now on, government issues civil union certification with all the tax breaks and the such you get now. Marriage is now a religious term if you can find a church to marry you.
Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk
(11-26-2022 02:56 PM)fsquid Wrote: [ -> ]Just get the government out of the marriage business. From now on, government issues civil union certification with all the tax breaks and the such you get now. Marriage is now a religious term if you can find a church to marry you.
Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk
That's been my stance for a long time. Why should same sex couples be exempt from the financial consequences of marriage..both good and bad.
(11-26-2022 03:25 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2022 02:56 PM)fsquid Wrote: [ -> ]Just get the government out of the marriage business. From now on, government issues civil union certification with all the tax breaks and the such you get now. Marriage is now a religious term if you can find a church to marry you.
Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk
That's been my stance for a long time. Why should same sex couples be exempt from the financial consequences of marriage..both good and bad.
Yup. One of many things the government shouldn't be involved with. I honestly don't care if one wants to marry a goat, so long as said goat isn't a minor. I don't really agree with gay marriage, but so long as they aren't pushing themselves on me it makes me no difference.
(11-26-2022 12:11 PM)Gamenole Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2022 11:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2022 10:49 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote: [ -> ]How exactly does this impact religious liberty?
They aren’t making you marry a dude, they are saying same sex and interracial marriage has the same legal status as marriage between a man and a woman, and codifying reciprocity between the states.
It provides that a church that won’t marry gays will be stripped of their tax exemptions, and other penalties aimed at a church that does not marry gays.
If that's the case, then I support an amendment to forbid it. Threatening churches tax-exempt status for refusing to conduct same-sex marriages is imposing moral choices on others, just as the zealots seek to do. In both cases that is wrong, IMO. Same sex couples have ample venues to get married in either civil or religious ceremonies, without penalizing churches that do not endorse or perform those marriages due to their beliefs.
I'd like to see more scrutiny of the tax-exempt status of churches though, churches should be penalized when they refuse to follow public health guidelines. I'd like to see the churches who defied lockdowns to continue holding in-person services in 2020 stripped of their tax-exempt status for that year.
So churches who proved to be correct and made Fauci look foolish should be punished?
(11-26-2022 02:56 PM)fsquid Wrote: [ -> ]Just get the government out of the marriage business. From now on, government issues civil union certification with all the tax breaks and the such you get now. Marriage is now a religious term if you can find a church to marry you.
Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk
Way too late for that. Government began defining marriage back when it began to establish the precedent of common law marriage---where a couple can be defined as "married" even though they never actually participated in a ceremony (and in some cases where at least one member of the couple never wanted to actually be married--which always seemed to be a bridge too far to me).
(11-26-2022 05:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2022 02:56 PM)fsquid Wrote: [ -> ]Just get the government out of the marriage business. From now on, government issues civil union certification with all the tax breaks and the such you get now. Marriage is now a religious term if you can find a church to marry you.
Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk
Way too late for that. Government began defining marriage back when it began to establish the precedent of common law marriage---where a couple can be defined as "married" even though they never actually participated in a ceremony (and in some cases where at least one member of the couple never wanted to actually be married--which always seemed to be a bridge too far to me).
And too many legal concepts are tied to marriage. Probate, medical decision making, spousal privilege, immigration benefits, social security, taxes, veterans survivor benefits.
Where we are now works. White, black, man, woman. Marriage is between two people as a legal concept.
If you want to get married in a church get married in a church. If you want to get married by a judge have at it. If you want to get married by your friend who got ordained on the internet via the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster have at it.
This bill simply puts a stake in the ground for what we have now to prevent the Supreme Court from rolling it back.
(11-26-2022 12:31 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2022 11:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2022 10:49 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote: [ -> ]How exactly does this impact religious liberty?
They aren’t making you marry a dude, they are saying same sex and interracial marriage has the same legal status as marriage between a man and a woman, and codifying reciprocity between the states.
It provides that a church that won’t marry gays will be stripped of their tax exemptions, and other penalties aimed at a church that does not marry gays.
Where does it codify that restriction on churches?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-cong.../8404/text
My error. There are fears that there would be secondary implications that a church that wont marry gays will be stripped of their tax exemptions based on a violation of civil rights basis. And potentially subject to suit for the same basis.
I shouldnt have said 'it provides', but should have said there are fears of those implications.
There is second rationale that is more vocally taken that it is useless based on Obergefell. This is that tact taken by Rubio and Cornyn.
Obergefell, although mentioned by Thomas in his Dodds concurrence, is on fundamentally more solid ground than Roe and Webster that got ko'ed by Dobbs (for various reasons).
Just like Loving is on strong grounds notwithstanding the left saying that it is in danger due to Thomas's concurrence.