Quote:Having seemingly learned nothing from their losses in the 2022 midterms, Senate Republicans are preparing to sell out their voters by working with their Democrat colleagues to alter the definition of marriage under federal law by the end of this week.

On Monday, a bipartisan group of senators announced they had reached an agreement on adding an amendment to the deceptively named, “Respect for Marriage Act,” which they claim would both codify same-sex marriage into federal law and protect “Americans’ religious liberties and diverse beliefs.”

Under the proposed legislation, states would be legally prevented from denying “full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding” with respect to marriages between individuals based on “sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin.” The Democrat-controlled House had previously passed an earlier version of the bill this year, with the help of 47 Republicans.

If Congress successfully passes it, the measure would allow left-wing activists to use the legal system to harass religious Americans and institutions for simply exercising their God-given rights. As the Family Heritage Alliance noted, the bill “would require federal recognition of any one state’s definition of marriage without any parameters,” including “open marriages [and] marriages involving a minor or relative,” and “any other new definition of marriage that a state chooses to adopt could be recognized federally.”

Organizations such as the Colson Center have also highlighted the dangers of the legislation, specifically the door it leaves open for Democrats to codify radical gender theory into federal law.

“It is the LGBTQ community that is referred to throughout this bill, which means that if this bill passes, marriage will become a genderless institution by force of law. This will harm children and further confuse reality,” the group said.

In essence, the passage of the “Respect for Marriage Act” would open the floodgates for leftists to wage an all-out legal assault against any American for obeying the Word of God and refusing to bow to their “rainbow everything” agenda.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which overturned marriage laws in numerous states and redefined the institution of marriage by judicial decree, LGBT activists have used the legal system to target religious Americans and institutions across the country over sexuality and so-called gender issues. One of the most prominent cases in recent years is that of Jack Phillips, a Colorado cake artist taken to court because “he refused to make a custom wedding cake for a same-sex wedding.”

Although the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Phillips in 2018, the Colorado baker has since found himself in court once again, this time for refusing to make a cake “celebrating transgenderism.” Other examples of targeted assaults against people and institutions of faith over LGBT matters include the Biden administration’s directing religious schools to allow individuals to use their preferred dormitories and shared shower spaces, multiple lawsuits against Christian wedding vendors, and attacks on faith-based adoption agencies.

The Republican senators partnering with Democrats on the amendment, however, are putting a different spin on it. “The Respect for Marriage Act is a needed step to provide millions of loving couples in same-sex and interracial marriages the certainty that they will continue to enjoy the freedoms, rights, and responsibilities afforded to all other marriages,” said retiring Ohio GOP Sen. Rob Portman in a joint statement. “We look forward to this legislation coming to the floor and are confident that this amendment has helped earn the broad, bipartisan support needed to pass our commonsense legislation into law.”

In addition to Portman, other senators involved in the negotiations included Democrats Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, as well as Republicans Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine.

Upon the announcement of the newly proposed amendment, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer filed a motion for the upper chamber to hold a procedural vote on the legislation this week, with it expected to take place on Wednesday, according to CBS News. If successful in clearing the 60-vote threshold, the measure would move to final passage and would then need to be passed by the House once again before going to President Joe Biden’s desk for signature.

Among the Republican senators that have previously indicated support for federally changing the definition of marriage are Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

Link

I seem to have heard someone on this board once say, the friend of my enemy is my friend, but my enemies need new friends, so I can have better enemies.

Or, something like that...

So churches will eventually stop performing state sanctioned services they will perform the religious ceremony after the couple gets the state issued license. I'm sure Mitt was at the head of the class for this deal, I can't imagine this will play well with the population in Utah. Thom Tillis is turning out to be a bigger RINO than Richard Burr.

(11-15-2022 06:04 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  So churches will eventually stop performing state sanctioned services they will perform the religious ceremony after the couple gets the state issued license. I'm sure Mitt was at the head of the class for this deal, I can't imagine this will play well with the population in Utah. Thom Tillis is turning out to be a bigger RINO than Richard Burr.

Actually, I think Mitt is going to be just fine -

https://www.axios.com/2022/11/16/mormon-...rriage-law

Im afraid I dont see where this changes much of anything---at least from whats in the article. We already have gay marriage protection nationwide per the Supreme Court. The amendment protects individuals seeking marriage from discriminating on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin by the STATES. So marriage to minors is NOT protected from state interference because age is not a protected category. Religions are not governed by this amendment at all----as it only applies to the States. It seems like this is basically what we have now under the SC decision---but simply laid out and codified so every state has a blue print on how to handle the 2015 decision. To me---this seems like the NCAA NIL rule that came out after the states had already pretty much determined that NIL was going to happen whether the NCAA liked it or not.

(11-15-2022 07:56 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(11-15-2022 06:04 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  So churches will eventually stop performing state sanctioned services they will perform the religious ceremony after the couple gets the state issued license. I'm sure Mitt was at the head of the class for this deal, I can't imagine this will play well with the population in Utah. Thom Tillis is turning out to be a bigger RINO than Richard Burr.

Actually, I think Mitt is going to be just fine -

https://www.axios.com/2022/11/16/mormon-...rriage-law

I guess they're setting things up for polygamy.

(11-15-2022 08:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im afraid I dont see where this changes much of anything---at least from whats in the article. We already have gay marriage protection nationwide per the Supreme Court. The amendment protects individuals seeking marriage from discriminating on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin by the STATES. So marriage to minors is NOT protected from state interference because age is not a protected category. Religions are not governed by this amendment at all----as it only applies to the States. It seems like this is basically what we have now under the SC decision---but simply laid out and codified so every state has a blue print on how to handle the 2015 decision. To me---this seems like the NCAA NIL rule that came out after the states had already pretty much determined that NIL was going to happen whether the NCAA liked it or not.

It doesn't and isn't intended to change anything, it is intended to stop Justice Thomas & friends from changing anything.