Senators set to vote on bill to codify Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage protections

#101
#101
whodeycin85 said:
I think for most an I'm guessing here...it's that those lifestyles don't stay in the home...it shoved down our throat everyday..every commerical.. constantly.
Click to expand...
I’d argue that gay people are sick of having the religious right and the rights Fed up interpretation of sin shoved down their throats.
But I digress
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128, flint, EasternVol and 1 other person
#103
#103
whodeycin85 said:
Didn't the government essentially promote single Parenthood with giveaway programs that benefited single parents with more kids...thus creating a cycles of the same...it a huge voting block for Dems...see the black population for more details
Click to expand...

This is another issue. Gov't is actually promoting the opposite of healthy functioning male/female marriages. Media is largely doing the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#105
#105
volgr said:
You can't have a healthy functioning society when you have 2 cat ladies marrying their cats. A man and a man isn't a family. A woman and a woman isn't a family. 3 women and 1 man isn't a family. It is an inverted mimic of a family as nature (or Creator) intended. Society without strong male/female families that have children won't be a society for a long.
Click to expand...

Disagree
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128, flint and McDad
#107
#107
SamRebel35 said:
As I see it, the problem is when the government grants special privileges based on marriage status. In that context, it is unfair to deny the privileges to same sex couples. So, in the legal context, they should be allowed into the category.
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't gov't grant special privileges? It has done this since our founding.
 
#109
#109
volgr said:
Come on PJ, don't dodge. Put your cards on the table and make an honest debate.
Click to expand...
You asked
volgr said:
shouldn't gov'ts top priority be to promote and protect healthy well functioning male/female families?
Click to expand...

And that's my answer. I want us govt leaders nowhere near a social engineering experiment. It is nowhere in their job description to define family and force citizens to abide by that.

Where is that power granted to govt over its people?
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128 and flint
#110
#110
SamRebel35 said:
To the first bold, I agree that marriage as an institution is currently failing irrespective of the inclusion of same sex couples into the category. Many reasons, but ultimately, there isn't enough resistance (societal or legal) to prevent people from ending marriages. And in some ways, the ending of marriage is promoted and glorified.

To the second bold, Without the societal gatekeeping part, marriage as a category is essentially meaningless. Throughout ALL of human existence, there has been a specific category to distinguish the pair bonds which are capable of producing future generations of human existence in the form of family units. In terms of perpetuating the human race, these pair bonds are essential and should be protected and promoted. To protect them, there needs to be gatekeeping of the institution of marriage. Seems unfair on its face, but I don't see how the category can both keep its most essential purpose and also allow anyone and everyone into the category irrespective of their capability to exercise the primary function of the marriage.

As I see it, the problem is when the government grants special privileges based on marriage status. In that context, it is unfair to deny the privileges to same sex couples. So, in the legal context, they should be allowed into the category.
Click to expand...
I like your last paragraph and that's where I am. Either all or none (preferably none)

I don't agree that gatekeeping positively protects it. I don't need govt to tell me I've met their definition of married. My wife and my kids understand that commitment with or without govt.
 
#111
#111
utvolpj said:
I like your last paragraph and that's where I am. Either all or none (preferably none)

I don't agree that gatekeeping positively protects it. I don't need govt to tell me I've met their definition of married. My wife and my kids understand that commitment with or without govt.
Click to expand...

I don't think the government ought to have a say either, that's why I specifically referred to it as "societal gatekeeping", which is how I understood your use of it in the first post. It seemed like you were telling people to quit gatekeeping, not that the government should quit gatekeeping. Maybe I misunderstood.
 
#113
#113
SamRebel35 said:
I don't think the government ought to have a say either, that's why I specifically referred to it as "societal gatekeeping", which is how I understood your use of it in the first post. It seemed like you were telling people to quit gatekeeping, not that the government should quit gatekeeping. Maybe I misunderstood.
Click to expand...
No you're right I mixed the 2. I guess it's more of a religious gatekeeping than societal. If my church/institution/etc wants to marry 2 men and call them married then that should be their right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SamRebel35
#114
#114
allvol123 said:
I agree you with your point, it is a perfect opportunity to use for this. But I still do not prefer it. I prefer states to function more independently and be more closely aligned with what the citizens of that state want.
Click to expand...

Per the BORs certain things are not left up to the states and the right to bear arms is one of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvol123
#116
#116
LadyVolette said:
Exactly.. it’s a slippery slope, and for those of us who believe in the bible, this is just abhorrent.. even Muslims in Michigan are starting to get irritated with all of this.. I realize my beliefs are not other peoples beliefs as Christianity in the United States is waning, but this is disgusting, but there is not much we can do about it.. I have no problem with gay people ( I have an aunt is gay and a friend I grew up with who decided she was)…Do I love them? Yes. but do I think them getting married to other women is a marriage? Nope.
Click to expand...

Exactly, to say that thus bill will "protect" religious organizations is laughable. This immoral will pass then another bill will come forth to erode those religious protections and on and until pastors are locked up for their beliefs. Look what has happened since sodomy marriage, the trannie movement has been preying on kids amd now the gov supports this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#119
#119
zeppelin128 said:
The Senate is set to vote this week on a bill to codify the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage protections after a bipartisan group of senators unveiled a deal earlier Monday, signaling they believe they have the votes to get past a filibuster and move the measure to President Biden’s desk.

Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) filed cloture on the legislation on Monday, teeing up the first vote on the measure for Wednesday.

The New York Democrat’s move indicates that the updated bill has the support of 10 Senate Republicans needed. The new deal updates language from before the election, and includes provisions to assuage GOP members on religious liberty related issues.

A group of five senators — Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) — released the updated legislation, which protects nonprofit religious organizations from providing services in support of same-sex marriage.

It also would protect religious liberty and conscience protections under the Constitution and federal law.

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) told The Hill that provided the religious freedom amendment is part of the final bill, he will support it. That would make four Senate Republicans who publicly back the effort.

“I’d like to get onto the bill,” Romney said, calling the amendment a “positive step.” “If that amendment is attached to the bill, I’ll vote for it.”

“Through bipartisan collaboration, we’ve crafted commonsense language to confirm that this legislation fully respects and protects Americans’ religious liberties and diverse beliefs, while leaving intact the core mission of the legislation to protect marriage equality,” the five senators backing the new deal said in a statement.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...supreme-courts-same-sex-marriage-protections/
Click to expand...

I found it curious that the Mormon church was in support of this. My lawyer sister said:

They’re supporting the bill because it includes religious exemptions. A huge step. The reason the bill is necessary is because Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion in the Dobbs case (striking down Roe) said in passing “oh by the way we should also use this logic to reverse Obergefel”. In answer to a question no one asked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128 and flint
#120
#120
happy-go_vol said:
Exactly, to say that thus bill will "protect" religious organizations is laughable. This immoral will pass then another bill will come forth to erode those religious protections and on and until pastors are locked up for their beliefs. Look what has happened since sodomy marriage, the trannie movement has been preying on kids amd now the gov supports this.
Click to expand...
With all the boogeymen you see, I don't know how you leave your home everyday.
 
  • Like
Reactions: flint and EasternVol
#121
#121
Orangeslice13 said:
You want to put people back in the closet. My people were put on a closet once.
You don’t get to decide what is right and wrong for others in a free society. Who knows maybe one day someone will decide you need to be put in the closet.
Click to expand...

Govt does decide what is right and wrong. All people have been wronged throughout history, your being Jewish has nothing to do with this. Drop the victimhood.
 
#123
#123
n_huffhines said:
I found it curious that the Mormon church was in support of this. My lawyer sister said:

They’re supporting the bill because it includes religious exemptions. A huge step. The reason the bill is necessary is because Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion in the Dobbs case (striking down Roe) said in passing “oh by the way we should also use this logic to reverse Obergefel”. In answer to a question no one asked.
Click to expand...
Obergefel is a case about polygamy, I assume?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top