Will same sex marriage be codified in Congress?

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

27 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

I have not read through the entire bill yet, but my understanding is yes. 
 

More than 40 religious institutions worked with Congress on the bill to ensure religious freedom and it ended up being endorsed by several faiths, including the Mormon Church. 

So maybe there is hope

[BillStime]

41 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

I’ve enjoyed reading your thoughts over the past few days, especially in light of some of the responses you’ve gotten.  It seemed as if a simple thumbs up emoji didn’t quite cover it.  

 

[B-Man]

 

12 Republicans voted for cloture on the Senate's same-sex marriage bill.

 

It included an amendment that supposedly protected religious freedom.

 

That amendment is insufficient.

 

Mike Lee's amendment is necessary.

 

[B-Man]

 

 

[ChiGoose]

3 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

It’s not, so they don’t. 
 

And that poorly reasoned drivel is exactly what I expected from The Federalist. 

[nedboy7]

41 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

Please explain. 

[BillStime]

13 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:

 

Please explain. 

 

You will have to wait until he receives his updated talking points.

 

[nedboy7]

Sean Davis’s tweet from couple days ago

 

Don’t Let The Left’s Smears Over The Colorado Club Shooting Derail Efforts To Protect Kids From Gender-Bending  
 

wowza. 

[B-Man]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

It’s not, so they don’t. 
 

And that poorly reasoned drivel is exactly what I expected from The Federalist. 

 

 

Sorry little guy, as I have explained to Billstime multiple times, that simplistic "I don't like your source" nonsense, doesn't work with adults.

 

Posters can read it and decide on their own, despite your view from the mountaintop.  😄

 

1 hour ago, nedboy7 said:

 

 

 

Don’t Let The Left’s Smears Over The Colorado Club Shooting Derail Efforts To Protect Kids From Gender-Bending  
 

wowza. 

 

Tell you what  Neddy, first you explain to the board what is possibly wrong with protecting children from unnecessary mutilation.

 

Jiminy Cricket !

.

[Chef Jim]

3 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Jiminy Cricket !

 

 

Mom?  Is that you??

 

Jeez and I get called old.  

[BillStime]

1 hour ago, nedboy7 said:

 

Please explain. 

Told ya 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

14 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Mom?  Is that you??

 

Jeez and I get called old.  

@B-Man was in the grade behind Old Man River in middle school. That changes nothing. 

[B-Man]

16 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Mom?  Is that you??

 

Jeez and I get called old.  

 

 

Well, it was in response to Neddy's "wowza".

 

It was all that I could think of.  😆

 

 

1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

@B-Man was in the grade behind Old Man River in middle school. That changes nothing. 

 

 

It's true.

 

I majored in History. . . . . . . . . . . there just wasn't that much.

 

😂

[Chef Jim]

2 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Well, it was in response to Neddy's "wowza".

 

It was all that I could think of.  😆

 

 

 

 

It's true.

 

I majored in History. . . . . . . . . . . there just wasn't that much.

 

😂

 

Oh yeah!!??  Well I'm so old I majored in theology.  It was a 30 minute class.  

[B-Man]

 

 

 No, the bill won’t provide religious institutions with meaningful protections.

 

Yes, the bill could certainly be used as a basis for the Internal Revenue Service to deny tax-exempt status to religious organizations that don’t toe the line on gay marriage.

 

Yes, it could also be used to deny grants, licenses, or contracts. No, weak language about preserving the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is not enough to prevent harm to religious liberty. And so on.

 

The justification for the bill is just as outlandish and offensive as the argument that it presents no danger to religious Americans. In the wake of the Dobbs decision this summer, we were warned that some future Supreme Court opinion, following Justice Clarence Thomas’s logic, could overturn Obergefell and other substantive due process rulings such as Loving v. Virginia, which struck down state laws banning interracial marriage.

 

The purpose of this claim, in case it isn’t bone-crushingly obvious, is to lump opponents of gay marriage in with opponents of interracial marriage, to smear them as bigots who aren’t just on the wrong side of history, but who are about to be on the receiving end of a federal government empowered to go after them.

 

And if you think that can’t really be how proponents of the Respect for Marriage Act think about traditional-minded Americans, go ask Jack Phillips how he’s faring after winning his Supreme Court case in 2018.

 

 

[BillStime]

19 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 No, the bill won’t provide religious institutions with meaningful protections.

 

Yes, the bill could certainly be used as a basis for the Internal Revenue Service to deny tax-exempt status to religious organizations that don’t toe the line on gay marriage.

 

Yes, it could also be used to deny grants, licenses, or contracts. No, weak language about preserving the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is not enough to prevent harm to religious liberty. And so on.

 

The justification for the bill is just as outlandish and offensive as the argument that it presents no danger to religious Americans. In the wake of the Dobbs decision this summer, we were warned that some future Supreme Court opinion, following Justice Clarence Thomas’s logic, could overturn Obergefell and other substantive due process rulings such as Loving v. Virginia, which struck down state laws banning interracial marriage.

 

The purpose of this claim, in case it isn’t bone-crushingly obvious, is to lump opponents of gay marriage in with opponents of interracial marriage, to smear them as bigots who aren’t just on the wrong side of history, but who are about to be on the receiving end of a federal government empowered to go after them.

 

And if you think that can’t really be how proponents of the Respect for Marriage Act think about traditional-minded Americans, go ask Jack Phillips how he’s faring after winning his Supreme Court case in 2018.

 

 

New talking points downloaded without a source.

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

2 hours ago, BillStime said:

New talking points downloaded without a source.

 

Thanks for demonstrating that you comment without reading the articles. 
 

The clip is from the same Federalist article that we have been discussing this page. 
 

You know, the one that Goose claims is unreasoned. 
 

Hahahahahahaha. 
 

 

 

.

[BillStime]

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

Thanks for demonstrating that you comment without reading the articles. 
 

The clip is from the same Federalist article that we have been discussing this page. 
 

You know, the one that Goose claims is unreasoned. 
 

Hahahahahahaha. 
 

 

 

.

 

Laughable - coming from the guy who over and over again gets caught only reads the headline.

 

#winning

[gobills404]

14 hours ago, B-Man said:

Thanks for demonstrating that you comment without reading the articles. 
 

The clip is from the same Federalist article that we have been discussing this page. 
 

You know, the one that Goose claims is unreasoned. 
 

Hahahahahahaha. 
 

 

 

.

All they do is post tweets, sh*tty facebook memes, and hurl personal insults. Literally never seen them post an original political opinion before. I put them on ignore and my experience on this board improved exponentially.

 

Edit: “You’ve chosen to ignore content by BillStime” lol there they are right on cue screaming into the void, effing loser

Edited November 23, 2022 by gobills404

[BillStime]

3 minutes ago, gobills404 said:

All they do is post tweets, sh*tty facebook memes, and hurl personal insults. Literally never seen them post an original political opinion before. I put them on ignore and my experience on this board improved exponentially.

 

lmao