Will same sex marriage be codified in Congress?

[T master]

This would not surprise me in the least in our what ever floats your boat world .

[B-Man]

Quick reminder: 

 

As of 2015, same-sex marriage is now federally legal in all 50 states 

 

This fake attempt to “codify” is an overreaction to the Supreme Court ruling, the democrat party is using this chance to give the federal government more power and attack religious freedom. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited November 28, 2022 by B-Man

[B-Man]

more:

 

While Democrats never seem to compromise when Republicans are in power, once the tables turn, the deals start getting made. It’s been a point of frustration for conservatives for decades. For example, under Donald Trump, an infrastructure deal was scoffed at by Democrats. With Joe Biden as president, though, a large contingent of Republicans rushed to sign onto one.

 

Now, another swift kick in the backside is on the way via the so-called “Respect for Marriage Act.” Despite there being absolutely no threat at all to gay marriage, Republicans have decided to play into the left’s narrative by pushing to codify it legislatively.

 

The issue isn’t whether one agrees or not that gay marriage should be protected federally. It already is via a Supreme Court decision that is in no danger of being overturned (there might be one vote, and that would be purely on legal grounds). Rather, the issue is what the “Respect for Marriage Act” would mean for religious liberty. What kinds of protections exist in the bill to allow people to live out their faith in their everyday lives?

 

That’s been the concern of Sen. Mike Lee, who has introduced an amendment to flesh out the language and provide basic protections for religious liberty. And with no time to spare, he may be making some headway according to The Daily Signal.

 

A Republican senator who voted for the so-called Respect for Marriage Act supports Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee’s and Republican Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford’s amendments to the legislation, The Daily Signal has learned.

 

Sullivan’s office confirmed to The Daily Signal on Friday afternoon that the senator does indeed support both Lankford’s and Lee’s amendments.

 

Sullivan is one of the Republicans who has pledged to give the Democrat-led bill the votes it needs to break a filibuster and pass. That margin is small, though, and any defections represent a snag. Sullivan being in favor of Lee’s amendment is important because it sets up a path to hold up the bill until it passes and is included. It would only take three Republicans to stand their ground. The question is whether they will do so.

 

This is an easy layup. If senators like Joni Ernst, Todd Young, and Cynthia Lummis aren’t willing to lead on this issue by joining Sullivan’s support for Lee’s amendment, then what good are they? Religious freedom is at the very core of the nation’s identity, and it should be protected at all costs. It’s bad enough that 12 Republican senators have defected on this bill, being willing to give Democrats yet another win when there is no reason to do so. The least they can do is ensure the unintended consequences are kept to a minimum.

 

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2022/11/25/respect-for-marriage-act-hits-a-snag-puts-republicans-on-the-hot-seat-n664117

 

 

[B-Man]

 

[Irv]

On 7/20/2022 at 5:50 AM, Doc Brown said:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3566470-house-passes-bill-protecting-marriage-equality-with-47-gop-members-voting-yes/

 

The House passed a bill on Tuesday to protect marriage equality, a direct response to an opinion from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas last month that called for reversing multiple decisions that enshrined LGBTQ rights.

 

The legislation, titled the Respect for Marriage Act, passed in a 267-157 vote, with 47 Republicans joining all Democrats in supporting the measure. Seven Republicans did not vote.

 

Will be interesting to see if this gets pushed through the Senate with 22% of Republicans backing the bill in the House.  If that percentage holds for the Senate they'll have enough votes to get to that 60 vote threshold.  A recent gallup polled showed 71% of Americans support same sex marriage.  

 

Rising national support for legal same-sex marriage reflects steady increases among most subgroups of the population, even those who have traditionally been the most resistant to gay marriage. Adults aged 65 and older, for example, became mostly supportive in 2016 -- as did Protestants in 2017 and Republicans in 2021.

 

Americans who report that they attend church weekly remain the primary demographic holdout against gay marriage, with 40% in favor and 58% opposed.

 

Honestly, I don't care about this.  Marry whoever as long as all (I don't even care about poligymy) parties are humans and of age.  Go crazy.  Codify whatever you want.    What a mess.  Dems using homosexuals as pawns for gain.  Disgusting.  

[BillStime]

1 hour ago, Irv said:

Dems using homosexuals as pawns for gain.  Disgusting.  

You’re a hack

 

Trumps Supreme Court already signaled it would go after gay marriage

 

Hell - Sen. Ted Cruz says Supreme Court 'clearly wrong' in decision legalizing same-sex marriage The Texas Republican's remarks came just weeks after Justice Clarence Thomas said the Supreme Court “should reconsider” past rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges.

 

Anyhow - you don’t matter.

 

 

[Chef Jim]

50 minutes ago, BillStime said:

You’re a hack

 

Trumps Supreme Court already signaled it would go after gay marriage

 

Hell - Sen. Ted Cruz says Supreme Court 'clearly wrong' in decision legalizing same-sex marriage The Texas Republican's remarks came just weeks after Justice Clarence Thomas said the Supreme Court “should reconsider” past rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges.

 

Anyhow - you don’t matter.

 

 

Ha!  Calls someone a hack then proceeds to calls it Trump’s Supreme Court.   🤦🏻‍♂️

[BillStime]

Will same sex marriage be codified in Congress?

 

Why yes, yes, they will

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

Or maybe, just maybe....they could come up with a different word for the union of a man and man....and the entire issue goes away.  Just saying.

[BillStime]

20 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Or maybe, just maybe....they could come up with a different word for the union of a man and man....and the entire issue goes away.  Just saying.

You know what is going away?

 

People like you are being rapidly replaced by a much younger, thoughtful generation.

 

Enjoy your sunset. 

 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2022 by BillStime

[Chef Jim]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

Will same sex marriage be codified in Congress?

 

Why yes, yes, they will

 

 

Why roll your eyes Billy Boy?  Why did you call it Trump’s Supreme Court?
 

 I don’t think it’s rent free.  I think he’s paying rent and a premium at that. 

4 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Or maybe, just maybe....they could come up with a different word for the union of a man and man....and the entire issue goes away.  Just saying.

Why?  It thought only the left wing kooks have an issue with words.  

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, BillStime said:

You know what’ is going away?

 

People like you are being rapidly replaced by a much younger, thoughtful  generation.

 

Enjoy your sunset. 

 

Sure...it's going to be great when every single word in the English language is properly hyphenated so as not to offend anyone. Yep....that'll be FANTASTIC.

2 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Why?  It thought only the left wing kooks have an issue with words.  

Because using two words to define something is just a lazy use of the English language.

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

Sure...it's going to be great when every single word in the English language is properly hyphenated so as not to offend anyone. Yep....that'll be FANTASTIC.

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, BillStime said:

I have no idea what that means. Please reboot your meme machine.

[Chef Jim]

5 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

 

Because using two words to define something is just a lazy use of the English language.

Using two words to define the same thing sounds a bit bigoted to me?  

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, Chef Jim said:

Using two words to define the same thing sounds a bit bigoted to me?  

Not at all. I don't mention it out of hate. That's not where I'm coming from. I actually think it's worse that gay men are forced to be labeled as a hyphenated form of marriage.  So, not a real marriage, but a "gay-marriage". I think it's a shame.

[Chef Jim]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

Not at all. I don't mention it out of hate. That's not where I'm coming from. I actually think it's worse that gay men are forced to be labeled as a hyphenated form of marriage.  So, not a real marriage, but a "gay-marriage". I think it's a shame.

Bigotry does not always come from a place of hate.  I’m not accusing you of hatred.
 

Think about it.  “You two men can be wed but don’t you dare call it a marriage!”   And who is forcing the hyphenation upon them?  

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, Chef Jim said:

Bigotry does not always come from a place of hate.  I’m not accusing you of hatred.
 

Think about it.  “You two men can be wed but don’t you dare call it a marriage!”   And who is forcing the hyphenation upon them?  

With much respect...That's the wrong way to look at it. Civilization didn't invent language to make communication more complicated or less definitive. It's actually just the opposite. We use words to BETTER define things...not to make things more vague. I know you are not religious but the Greeks had multiple words for what we use universally as "love". In English, we have new words that enter our language all the time. Did you ever think you'd be saying someone "tweeted" out a response? 

[Chef Jim]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

With much respect...That's the wrong way to look at it. Civilization didn't invent language to make communication more complicated or less definitive. It's actually just the opposite. We use words to BETTER define things...not to make things more vague. I know you are not religious but the Greeks had multiple words for what we use universally as "love". In English, we have new words that enter our language all the time. Did you ever think you'd be saying someone "tweeted" out a response? 

What’s wrong with me saying my two friends are married? Why does a union between two same sex people need a different word to describe it.  And not only a different word but to use your word a BETTER word. What makes it better?  Because they are trampling on your religion?  I have no religion. So if I wanted to marry a guy I’d have to bow to your religious beliefs?  Why do Christians get to make this definition?  It’s a word for Christ’s (no pun intended) sake.  

[Andy1]

Personally, I think marriage is marriage, regardless of the sex of the two people. Marriage is a term with legal meaning and implications for the two people involved. No one should deny other people the pursuit of happiness and the benefits of such union.