…. but given the unpredictable nature of The Federalist Society’s Christian Taliban handpicked Justices, glad to hear the landmark legislation passed the Senate.
Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/29/respect-for-marriage-act-senate-vote/
What a joke. What killed Trump in 2020 was that honorable George Floyd and though the cop was a complete bully asshole, Trump got blamed for being racist. Up until that point he was respected for handling the pandemic crisis well. So GD Antifa comes in along with Black Lives Matter and makes their revolutionary bid to make us socialist and everyone had to fall in place and vote with the Democrats with the media help to come off as not being racist. I will never believe all of us Republicans are racist, but the media pushed and sold that narrative. I can't prove the vote count was cheated but it is easy to say that the media coverage killed Trump and the social media outlets hid what was going on with the family Biden.
(no message)
Looks like it worked.
There is a full continuum of belief within any religion, and Catholicism is not unique. That continuum of conformance (from 0% to 100%) does not define the beliefs of the religion.
There are Catholics who believe 100% of Catholic Doctrine. And, there are "Catholics" like you, who believe half of Doctrine (if that)...the part that is convenient to them.
Some are honest about this, and seek out a Protestant faith, or a secular community, that matches their personal views.
Some are honest about this, and seek to be closer to 100%.
Others are dishonest about this, and pretend to be Catholic, when they actually have no intention of conforming their beliefs to Catholic Doctrine. This last group hopes to lead others further astray from Catholic Doctrine through dishonesty. That is a shame.
There should be secular reasons to support laws. There is no secular reason for this.
First, it is not the proper topic for the Federal government. This is States issue.
Second, the only reason for government to endorse marriage in any way is because marriage encourages (i) procreation and (ii) stable environment for raising productive humans, both of which benefit the economy of the State.
The State should not care whether, and should not endorse me, just because I found a nice girl to spend my life with. There is no point in that. Same for other long term personal friendships. There is no point. But, if those long term relationships help society (e.g., by helping the economy), then the State should care.
Endorsing behavior that is counterproductive to procreation, at a time when we are experiencing a population crash, is counterproductive, and will punish future generations of America, and the world, since we are the last best hope for global freedom. Why not remain silent on such behaviors?
Do homosexuals have a right to engage in homosexual acts? Of course, because there is no victim in those acts. My religion can condemn those acts as being counter to an ordered life in relation to God. But, Congress/legislatures shouldn't care about that. And, I don't think a legislature should outright condemn a victimless act. However, why endorse a victimless act when that act is counterproductive to a long-term healthy society (e.g., by being counterproductive to the above two points, and therefore to economic growth)? Why not just remain silent on that act? Why waste government resources to try to encourage it? Seems weird.
It is just another example of the Left not caring about future generations. Want to do something now?...borrow from future generations, without any regard to the damage it does to those future generations. From this issue, to abortion, to deficit spending...that is the general policy of the Left to disregard the future generations in favor of the now.
"Reflecting the views of religious people."
BTW - Gay couples can procreate just like straight couples can through In Vitro and they can also adopt children.
For now, I will just say this: There are two issues here: (1) freedom/rights, and (2) state action. Different rules apply. But either way, religion need not enter into it.
Hetero-relationships (individual freedom) have always been supportive of a better future society by producing contributing members of society, so states have acted to encourage stable, creative families by establishing secular marriage (state action).
The Left sees no need for a stable family, since the state should provide for everyone in need. Given that approach, I'm not surprised things have slid to you supporting giving marital endorsement (state action) to homo-relationships (individual freedom)...all while the Left argues there is no slippery slope.
There is no reason for the state to endorse any relationship. Marriage has always been about the children, not about the couple. The Left's fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of secular marriage has led to them trying to redefine marriage.
1. "Different rules apply. But either way, religion need not enter into it."
I Agree.
2. "Hetero-relationships (individual freedom) have always been supportive of a better future society by producing contributing members of society, so states have acted to encourage stable, creative families by establishing secular marriage (state action)."
All relationships are indicative of individual freedom; marriage was never delineated in the constitution. Nor were friendships, we were given the right to live our lives openly and without fear of retribution.
Our society/culture decided what marriage should be and chose to restrict it to their view of the world, indifferent to the hopes and dreams of others. I believe your characterization of marriage is personal to your vision. That's fine, we should all have the same rights as you. The constitution doesn't give you or the states the right to define personal and family relationships. All relationships can produce contributing members of society. Gay couples have the means to procreate and be contributing members of society. Believe it or not gays have been contributing to our society since we became a nation. Quietly of course or they would have faced terrible retribution. It is well past the time for us to correct this notion that we can oppress others to our world/religious views.
3. "The Left sees no need for a stable family, since the state should provide for everyone in need. Given that approach, I'm not surprised things have slid to you supporting giving marital endorsement (state action) to homo-relationships (individual freedom)...all while the Left argues there is no slippery slope"
I would like to ignore your first sentence, it's arbitrary and can be debated on another day. At any rate it is what it is. Marriage has evolved socio-culturally for centuries in our land. In the early nineteenth century, married women in the US were legally subordinate to their husbands. Wives could not own their own property, keep their own wages, or enter into contracts. On the death of their spouse wives did not exist legally, they could not own property, whether earned or brought in to marriage or have any rights to their children. As a society we have evolved away from this persecution of American citizens. Has it been a slippery slope? I would suggest not, it is an evolution of attitudes to all of our people not just some of them. We have grudgingly given equal rights to all of our citizens for almost 250 years. I believe that is healthy for a society and nation.
4. "There is no reason for the state to endorse any relationship. Marriage has always been about the children, not about the couple. The Left's fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of secular marriage has led to them trying to redefine marriage."
Your first sentence makes no sense. Are you suggesting states should stop endorsing all relationships? What would we call them? Partnerships?
As for "Marriage always being about the children", I disagree. Marriage defines a unique relationship between two individuals, which will grow and determine what their future will be as a couple not by the state. I was remarried after my wife died and well past the expectation of children. I was blessed with another wonderful bride. Our marriage allows us to share our wealth and our health legally. If we weren't married her children or mine could determine our decisions at end of life. These are vital life choices and every relationship deserves the exact same rights as everyone else.
Marriage has always been about marriage children were never a prerequisite. In fact the main goal of marriage, early on, was to act as an alliance between families. Our constitution is very keen on liberty and freedom. Marriage was never mentioned in the constitution. I have a fundamental understanding of marriage and it has not led me to the re-definition of marriage it has led me and a growing majority of society to understand that all of us should have equal access to it's blessings.
You know when you pretend to actually believe in things, like morality? Upon what do you base those principles? Why is something "wrong," conor? Can you articulate that? Why is it wrong to murder someone, for example? Why is it wrong to deliberately harm someone? Do you actually believe those things? If so, why?
My view is that the Equal Protection Clause should be ample enough to protect same sex and interracial marriages, especially in this day and age.
Then along came Dobbs, which forecasts that it might be OK for Crazytown state legislatures (i.e. GOP controlled state legislatures) to enact laws prohibiting same sex or interracial marriages. Such jurisprudence by SCOTUS scared the shit out of an overwhelming portion of the electorate.
The bipartisan Respect for Marriage Act —which still needs to go back to the House, — is the result.
The landmark legislation reflects the “will of the people.” It is preemptive.
Link: Text of bill — presumably modified in Senate
Thank God for Joe Biden and the Democrats.
How terrible is that?
Because this one never said that.
I used to listen to Rush on occasion. My mom never did.
...sincerely thought I remembered that. I'm sorry if not. Doesn't matter either way...I am sure she is a great person. Just trying to poke at Nocal...not you.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
His message is honest and efficient. It's so much better than filling up the board with lines and lines of dog shit. Norcal gives us two lines of dog shit and he isn't pretending to be something that he's not. Be more like Norcal.
(no message)
Obviously mentioning "interracial marriage" is meant to distract from same sex marriage.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
majority opinion writer of Dobbs specifically said that it would not be applied to gay marriage.
The inclusion of interracial marriage by conor is particularly deceitful. But, we know him well, so this is to be expected.
You have all the answers in your FOX TV playbook.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Roy Blunt, Richard Burr, Shelley Capito, Susan Collins, Joni Ernst, Cynthia Lummis, Lisa Murkowski, Romney, Rob Portman, Dan Sullivan, Thom Tillis, and Todd Young.
(no message)
(no message)
The Left thinks marriage is a pat on the back for finding a partner. That is not what it is. Indeed, why should the state pat you on the back for finding a partner?
Marriage has always been about producing contributing members of society, not the couple who get married.
Powers of the State should not be used in the culture wars, by either side.
Now they are allowed to do so with all the benefits of every other married couple.
BTW - What does any of this have to do with any one's sex life?
(no message)
(no message)
You want a cake? There's another bakery down the street. I thought this was all about "civil unions"? At least that's what we were told.
(no message)
(no message)