Will same sex marriage be codified in Congress?

[B-Man]

 

 

Bumped, d/t bilge 

 

 

 

Back to the actual bill.

 

FTA:

 

Severino: That does not mean that there's any vehicle that would come back and say, people who are currently in same-sex marriages, their benefits are at risk. That's nonsense. So taking a very theoretical statement from one Justice on the court, the left has run with it to try to call some sort of alarmism about marriage and push this wedge issue for political purposes. Again, the practical effect if this becomes law, will have nothing to do with the benefits of same-sex couples. It'll have everything to do with excluding people of faith from their tax-exempt statuses for houses of worship, from adoption agencies that believe that the best most conducive place for a child in placement would be with a married mother and father, and for those who contract or receive grants from the government who want to live according to the beliefs with respect to marriage. Those are the groups who are going to be targeted. And this law would actually create this bludgeon, which is a private right of action, which means individuals could sue on their own in federal court to hound these groups. And that's really the object of this stunt.

 

Cordero: So to be clear, there's no risk currently present that legally married same-sex couples could lose any of their benefits or legal status?

 

Severino: Absolutely. There's no risk that they would lose any benefit. The federal government adopted and adapted to the Obergefell decision. All the state's governments did. That's now the status quo. That would not change by this law. And I see no case coming forward that would change that either. So this is really targeted at exclusion for political purposes.

 

Cordero: Yes. If the bill passes, it's just an assurance to the left.

 

Severino: No, it's not. Assurance is not needed. That's the thing. What it is a weapon for the left that will be used to go after people of faith. And this how it works. When you have an established national policy endorsed by Congress through the representatives, that carries a tremendous amount of weight for all sorts of other areas, especially when we're talking about civil rights laws.

 

 

 

 

 

[Warcodered]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Bumped, d/t bilge 

 

 

 

Back to the actual bill.

 

FTA:

 

Severino: That does not mean that there's any vehicle that would come back and say, people who are currently in same-sex marriages, their benefits are at risk. That's nonsense. So taking a very theoretical statement from one Justice on the court, the left has run with it to try to call some sort of alarmism about marriage and push this wedge issue for political purposes. Again, the practical effect if this becomes law, will have nothing to do with the benefits of same-sex couples. It'll have everything to do with excluding people of faith from their tax-exempt statuses for houses of worship, from adoption agencies that believe that the best most conducive place for a child in placement would be with a married mother and father, and for those who contract or receive grants from the government who want to live according to the beliefs with respect to marriage. Those are the groups who are going to be targeted. And this law would actually create this bludgeon, which is a private right of action, which means individuals could sue on their own in federal court to hound these groups. And that's really the object of this stunt.

 

Cordero: So to be clear, there's no risk currently present that legally married same-sex couples could lose any of their benefits or legal status?

 

Severino: Absolutely. There's no risk that they would lose any benefit. The federal government adopted and adapted to the Obergefell decision. All the state's governments did. That's now the status quo. That would not change by this law. And I see no case coming forward that would change that either. So this is really targeted at exclusion for political purposes.

 

Cordero: Yes. If the bill passes, it's just an assurance to the left.

 

Severino: No, it's not. Assurance is not needed. That's the thing. What it is a weapon for the left that will be used to go after people of faith. And this how it works. When you have an established national policy endorsed by Congress through the representatives, that carries a tremendous amount of weight for all sorts of other areas, especially when we're talking about civil rights laws.

 

 

 

 

 

If only there was some sort of recent event of a major court decision not being codified into law coming back to bite people, that'd make this argument look really ***** stupid.

[sherpa]

2 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

I understand but you do get my point how archaic the church’s beliefs are?  I guess as a non-believe I find it strange that people cling so tightly to what I consider a work of fiction. 

 

I fully get your point.

Everyone who has ever studied Scripture has considered this.

You judge as "archaic" something that you consider a work of fiction.

I don't, and I've spent many years considering and studying it.

 

It isn't an easy issue, but if one starts from the point of view that humans really don't have infinite wisdom, or anything even close, it is understandable.

 

Humans are to love one another, as all are products of a loving God who asks that we do in order to experience the true joy that was intended for us.

Read First John, not the Gospel of John, but First John. It's only five chapters or so.

Tough to understand without guidance and a bit of knowledge of Greek and how it was originally written, but clearly, we are to love one another.

Sanctioning any marriage, no matter who is involved,  is not the criteria for loving one another. 

 

[Chef Jim]

38 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

I fully get your point.

Everyone who has ever studied Scripture has considered this.

You judge as "archaic" something that you consider a work of fiction.

I don't, and I've spent many years considering and studying it.

 

It isn't an easy issue, but if one starts from the point of view that humans really don't have infinite wisdom, or anything even close, it is understandable.

 

Humans are to love one another, as all are products of a loving God who asks that we do in order to experience the true joy that was intended for us.

Read First John, not the Gospel of John, but First John. It's only five chapters or so.

Tough to understand without guidance and a bit of knowledge of Greek and how it was originally written, but clearly, we are to love one another.

Sanctioning any marriage, no matter who is involved,  is not the criteria for loving one another. 

 

Ok this may be a really bad analogy but here goes.  I’m a classically trained Chef.  In French cruise our “Bible” is the Escoffier Cookbook”.   It was the way everyone who cooked French food cooked.  You deviated from that it was not French.  But over time things changed.  And we realized that the old way of doings things could be improved upon.  Done differently….modernized.  The Scriptures are very old.  People and society have changed many times over but the way you @SoCal Deek @B-Man look at the Scriptures has not.  It’s weird.  Just because it’s the word of God (whatever he/she/it is) does not mean it’s right.  

[B-Man]

5 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

.  It’s weird.  Just because it’s the word of God (whatever he/she/it is) does not mean it’s right.  

 

 

And right there Jim, is why there is no use discussing religion with you.

 

I wish you would be as interested in the political consequences of this government attack as you are at trying to question your fellow posters feelings.

 

Oh well.

 

 

.

[sherpa]

7 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 Just because it’s the word of God (whatever he/she/it is) does not mean it’s right.  

 

Think about that for a second.

 

[ChiGoose]

Well this certainly turned into a scripture debate, but thankfully the law has enough carve outs for religions that more than 40 religious institutions including freaking LDS endorse it.

 

It’s a good law. Glad it passed. 

[Chef Jim]

17 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Think about that for a second.

 

I’ve thought about that for years.  Why I reject religion.  

19 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

And right there Jim, is why there is no use discussing religion with you.

 

I wish you would be as interested in the political consequences of this government attack as you are at trying to question your fellow posters feelings.

 

Oh well.

 

 

.

And please pray (no pun intended) tell what would be the political consequences of the government attack. 
 

Edited November 19, 2022 by Chef Jim

[sherpa]

23 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

I’ve thought about that for years.  Why I reject religion.  

 

So have I, and studied the issue for years, far more time than I spent on my undergraduate degree.

I'm quite comfortable with my conclusions, and I continue study the issue.

[BillStime]

OK - to appease those incredibly insecure people who rely on religion to guide their moral compass - the "state" should drop the term marriage and adopt CIVIL UNIONS for all marriages (straight/gay) and leave the term marriage with church.

 

Problem solved...

 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

2 minutes ago, BillStime said:

OK - to appease those incredibly insecure people who rely on religion to guide their moral compass - the "state" should drop the term marriage and adopt CIVIL UNIONS for all marriages (straight/gay) and leave the term marriage with church.

 

Problem solved...

 

 

 

Eh, marriage isn’t a word beholden to a specific religion. Catholics get married, Protestants get married, Jews get married, Hindus get married, Muslims get married, atheists get married, etc. 

 

In Catholicism, there is the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. The government should not use that term, but to claim that “marriage” belongs to a particular religion is a big stretch. 

[sherpa]

26 minutes ago, BillStime said:

OK - to appease those incredibly insecure people who rely on religion to guide their moral compass .

 

 

An absolutely asinine claim.

There is no insecurity.

Not even remotely close.

Just a completely stupid assertion.

 

[Chef Jim]

1 hour ago, sherpa said:

 

So have I, and studied the issue for years, far more time than I spent on my undergraduate degree.

I'm quite comfortable with my conclusions, and I continue study the issue.

Well here’s the difference between my “religion” and yours.  There is incontrovertible proof the Auguste Escoffier was an actual person.  Jesus Christ?   Not so much.  😁

[sherpa]

14 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Well here’s the difference between my “religion” and yours.  There is incontrovertible proof the Auguste Escoffier was an actual person.  Jesus Christ?   Not so much.  😁

 

There's pretty solid proof.

[BillStime]

55 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

An absolutely asinine claim.

There is no insecurity.

Not even remotely close.

Just a completely stupid assertion.

 

What’s asinine about it?

 

 

 

 

[Chef Jim]

40 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

There's pretty solid proof.

 

This solid?

 

https://www.escoffieronline.com/the-man-behind-modern-cuisine-auguste-escoffier/

 

And I'm just goofin at this point Sherpa......sort of.    

 

 

35 minutes ago, BillStime said:

What’s asinine about it?

It came from you? 🤷🏻‍♂️

[BillStime]

4 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

Think about that for a second.

 

Why does your religion trump any other religion or atheists when it comes to US law and policy?

 

Why should you impose your beliefs on what is legal and not legal?

 

 

 

 

 

[sherpa]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

What’s asinine about it?

 

It isn't obvious to you?

There is no claim by anybody, anywhere, that those people rely on religion to guide their moral compass.

 

 

Edited November 19, 2022 by sherpa

[sherpa]

1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

 

This solid?

 

https://www.escoffieronline.com/the-man-behind-modern-cuisine-auguste-escoffier/

 

And I'm just goofin at this point Sherpa......sort of.    

 

Good that your "goofin,"  'cause it saves me time from posting numerous extrabiblical references.

[BillStime]

11 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

It isn't obvious to you?

There is no claim by anybody, anywhere, that those people rely on religion to guide their moral compass.

 

 

Do you believe in gay marriage?