GOP Senators Helped Push Gay ‘Marriage’ Bill
The Republican Party once again shows its willingness to push forward the big government agenda
The Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate needed 10 Republicans to push a bill to appease their sodomite base, and they got 12.
Last week, the Senate passed the “Respect for Marriage Act” by a 67-32 vote which everyone, from the “left” to the “right,” is falsely saying (more on that later) it codifies gay mirage (often called marriage by the world) into law. The Democrats needed 60 votes to end debate.
“This bill provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages.”
“Specifically, the bill repeals and replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage that is valid under state law. (The Supreme Court held that the current provisions were unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor in 2013.)”
“The bill also repeals and replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, or national origin. (The Supreme Court held that state laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015; the Court held that state laws barring interracial marriages were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.) The bill allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations.”
The House voted 267-157 in July for the act with 47 Republicans supporting the sodomite agenda. The House version was exactly the same, but The Hill reported that the Senate version will have to be approved by the House because of a “religious freedom” amendment place by one of the GOP sellouts looking to save face. Will that false protection work for you?
Who are the Republican Senators who voted for this? Here’s the list, with contact pages for them, grouped by state:
· Alaska: Sens. Lisa Murkowski (contact) and Dan Sullivan (contact)
· Indiana: Sen. Todd Young (contact)
· Iowa: Sen. Joni Ernst (contact)
· Maine: Sen. Susan Collins (contact)
· Missouri: Sens. Richard Burr (contact) and Roy Blunt (contact)
· North Carolina: Sen. Thom Tillis (contact)
· Ohio: Sen. Rob Portman (contact)
· Utah: Sen. Mitt Romney (contact)
· West Virginia: Shelley Moore Capito (contact)
· Wyoming: Sen. Cynthia Lummis (contact)
I’m not saying anything by providing contact links. But I’ll leave this little excerpt from a previous piece I wrote:
If you care about free speech, conservatives, then go to your local school board meeting, city council meeting, county board meeting, etc. Go to your Congressman’s office, regardless if you voted for them or not. Speak to them, and speak freely. Don’t stroke their egos. Remind them that they work for you.
What do we expect?
“Let’s get this out of the way. Whatever you think about gay rights, Obergefell v. Hodges was legally illegitimate in much the same way as Roe v. Wade. It was another case of a Supreme Court majority dictating its cultural preferences under the color of law. Unlike Roe v. Wade, there’s no significant pressure campaign to roll it back worth mentioning. Abortion opponents kept their fight going for generations. There’s zero evidence of gay marriage opponents having that kind of political stamina, organization or movement. Simply put, there’s zero reason for the push to abolish the Defense of Marriage Act which is what HR 8404, misleadingly named the Respect for Marriage Act, does.”
“The Left is claiming that after the Dobbs decision, there’s an urgent need to codify Obergefell into law left the Supreme Court wake up tomorrow and wipe it off the map. That’s nonsense.”
“So, HR 8404 is not out to codify Obergefell and there’s no reason to think that everyone is going to all this trouble just to nail down something that already exists and isn’t going away.”
Greenfield is absolutely right. There is no effort to end gay mirage. Just look at the GOP Pride Coalition, championed by the conservatives’ idol Donald Trump.
And conservatives, who will be upset with this in the moment, will move along. They won’t remember this in a few weeks. In fact, I have heard much from conservatives since this vote was taken to begin with. Why? Because they’re lazy. As much as they will not admit it, they agree with the GOP consultant class that will tell them they need to moderate. That’s nothing but laziness. They are unwilling to do the hard work which requires changing hearts and minds.
“To be clear, there is no risk of any legally married same-sex couple losing any of their benefits or legal status. So, the only reason to add Congress’ explicit blessing for such unions now is to cement same-sex marriage as national policy that can be used as a club by government agencies, such as the IRS, to deny traditional religious institutions tax-exempt status, licenses to assist in adoptions, and government funding and contracts.”
And the phony protection place by the GOP Senators is meaningless.
What does this mean?
Life Site News (LSN) described the Republican support of the bill as “perhaps the greatest defeat conservatives have ever suffered at the hands of Republicans.”
Honestly, that’s stretching things just a little bit. Afterall, Donald Trump locked us down over two years ago allowing us to be called “nonessential,” but let’s move on.
LSN went on to say the bill “makes the redefinition of marriage the law of the land, even in the event that the Supreme Court overturns its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision that mandates legal recognition of same-sex ‘marriage’ nationwide.”
Well, again, this is the problem with conservatives. There is absolutely no mention of marriage in the Constitution. It is not there. That means the federal government has no authority to write any laws related to marriage. They do not have authority to legalize gay “marriage,” nor do they have authority to make it illegal. It simply is not in their domain to do anything regarding marriage.
But, like baby murder (called abortion), the conservatives submit to the world’s language that something is legal simply because a court says so. Abortion has always been illegal. Marriage has never been the domain of the government. It’s just we do not accept the truth; we submit to the lies.
Richard Kelsey, then a professor at George Mason University’s School of Law, wrote in 2014:
“The Constitution provides no citizen of any gender or orientation a Constitutional right to marriage. The Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage. It is not mentioned, and therefore it is not a power delegated to the federal government to regulate. For lawyers, judges and in particular, Supreme Court justices, the inquiry on this issue should end there—right where silence demands judicial inaction.”
“The Constitution is an elegant document that is rigid in its respect for federalism. Its framework of powers is encased in a document designed to require overwhelming support to change. So hard is it to amend the Constitution, it has only been done 27 times in our history. Since 1971, it has been amended properly only once, and inconsequentially. Mostly, the Constitution has been amended repeatedly and improperly by the Supreme Court … a job to which it is not tasked and for which it is ill-equipped.”
“The Supreme Court’s mandate is determining the Constitutionality of laws. It is not charged with creating new rights in the Constitution. The difference is stark. In Roe v. Wade, it took over 65 pages for the court to create a right to abortion where the Constitution is silent on the issue. The Constitution is only six pages long. A competent jurist could read it and find no mention of abortion. In Plyler v. Doe, the court found a Constitutional right for illegal aliens to receive a K-12 free public education. The right does not exist. This begs the question of whether or not the Supreme Court is competent or merely rogue. Justice Robert Jackson once famously wrote, ‘[w]e are not final because we are infallible, we are infallible only because we are final.’”