Republicans greased the way for same-sex marriage bill

In an email today, Chris Carmouche of GrassTopsUSA.com reports that the same sex marriage bill could have died in Senate Judiciary Committee, if not for the complicity of every Republican member. The Republicans on that committee are:

Chuck Grassley (Iowa) - Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (Utah) Jon Kyl (Arizona) Jeff Sessions (Alabama) Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) John Cornyn (Texas) Michael Lee (Utah) Tom Coburn (Oklahoma)

So-Called "Homosexual Marriage" May Now Become The Law Of The Land Because Republican Senators Voted For It BEFORE They Voted Against It.

You read that right. They voted FOR "homosexual marriage," BEFORE they voted against it. Of course, if you read the media reports, you probably heard that the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-8, strictly along party lines, for S. 598, a bill that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, and sent it on to the full Senate so Harry Reid can schedule a quickie-vote and make "homosexual marriage" the law of the land.

But, as the late-Paul Harvey would have said, "now, you're about to hear the rest of the story."

If you're familiar with Roberts Rules of Order, you already know how the shell game works. Before a vote is taken on any measure, a motion must first be considered to bring that matter to a vote and that motion must pass before a vote is ever taken.

And so it goes, with the Senate Judiciary Committee, but with one notable exception. Senate Judiciary Committee rules clearly state: "The Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a roll call vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority." [Emphasis Ours]

In plain English, that means that the 8 Republican Senators who eventually voted against S. 598 could have stopped S. 598 cold if they simply voted NOT to call a vote. They could have killed S. 598... they could have killed it easily... but they didn't! Instead of stopping "homosexual marriage" Republican Senators opted instead to take a vote they knew they would lose. And now, some of these Republican Senators will actually have the audacity to look you in the eye and tell you they voted against S. 598!

In Washington, such shenanigans are called "business as usual." We call it sick and outrageous and if you agree, then it's imperative that you send these eight Senators and the remaining Republicans in the Senate a clear message while we still have a chance to defeat S. 598. ... Let them know, in no uncertain terms, that you're on to the political games and chicanery and you want it to stop now. Tell them to mount a filibuster if necessary but make it clear that you will not tolerate any more political games. Demand that they defeat the "Disrespect For Marriage Act" at all costs.

Acceptance Is Not Enough. Your Affirmation Of The Radical Homosexual Agenda Is Required Under Penalty Of Law.

"We've seen charges brought by homosexuals against a video reproduction business in Virginia, a medical clinic in California, an adoption service in Arizona and a church in New Jersey. Colorado tops them all on the potential outrage meter, however, because in addition to civil fines and penalties, small-business owners can be prosecuted under the criminal laws of Colorado and spend up to one year in jail for trying to live according to their faith." -Tom Minnery, the senior vice president of government and public policy for Focus on the Family

In today's politically correct climate, far too many fear to speak the truth. But we don't fear the truth. For years, Hollywood and the media have preached that implementation of the radical homosexual agenda is about "acceptance," but the facts support the very unfortunate reality that acceptance is not enough.

The sad and unfortunate truth is that for those who push the radical homosexual agenda, ACCEPTANCE WILL NEVER BE ENOUGH. If you refuse to affirm and promote the radical homosexual agenda... YOU ARE A TARGET for punishment.

Remember Carrie Prejean? During the 2009 Miss USA Pageant, Perez Hilton, a rabid homosexual activist who was also a judge of the pageant, asked Prejean a question on the topic of so-called "same-sex marriage." Prejean'S dignified and diplomatic answer cost her the Miss USA crown, but depriving Prejean of the Miss USA crown WAS NOT ENOUGH for Hilton and those who push the radical homosexual agenda.

Hilton called her a "dumb b_____" and within hours, he lewdly defaced pictures of Prejean and published them on the Internet. But Hilton and company still weren't done. The lies, defamations and attacks continued for months until the producers of the California Miss USA pageant stripped Prejean of her crown.

Of course, the Miss USA-Prejean affair is not an isolated incident and others have suffered even more injury for holding deeply-held religious beliefs that run counter to the orthodoxy of the radical homosexual movement.

The University of Toledo summarily fired Crystal Dixon - a high-ranking administrator and an African-American - for writing a personal letter to the editor objecting to the comparison of so-called "gay rights" with the civil rights struggles of African Americans.

Specifically, here's what Dixon wrote: "As a Black woman... I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil rights victims.' Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a Black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended."

That personal letter and exercise of her First Amendment rights got Dixon fired!

Allstate Insurance Company fired Matt Barber for writing an article for a Christian publication on the medical risks of homosexual behavior during non-working hours.

A lesbian couple hauled Elaine Huguenin, the co-owner of Elane Photography, before the New Mexico Human Rights Division for simply refusing to photograph their civil commitment ceremony. As part of the complaint, the lesbian couple sought an injunction against Elane Photography that would have forbad them from ever again refusing to photograph a same-sex ceremony.

Boston public school teachers were threatened with termination if they failed to portray so-called "same-sex marriage" in a positive light.

Now just in case you're thinking we're taking the point a little too far, consider the following from a guest column by David Benkof which appeared in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer during the Proposition 8 battle in California:

"Although California marriage-equality leaders won't say what impact they expect the new decision to have on religious freedom, activists in other states haven't been so shy. Openly gay Washington state Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, and a representative of the largest Michigan gay-rights group, the Triangle Foundation, have both told me that people who continue to act as if marriage is a union between a man and a woman should face being fined, fired and even jailed until they relent. [Emphasis Ours]

"So if a traditionally religious business owner wants to extend his 'marriage discount' only to couples married in his eyes, the Triangle Foundation's Sean Kososky says, 'If you are a public accommodation and you are open to anyone on Main Street that means you must be open to everyone on Main Street. If they don't do it, that's contempt and they will go to jail.' [Emphasis Ours]

"Seattle's Michael Taylor-Judd, president of the statewide Legal Marriage Alliance, said if a newspaper writes that a given same-sex marriage wasn't really a marriage, 'it is certainly in the realm of possibility for someone to bring a (libel) suit, and quite possibly to be successful.' Kososky agreed: 'I would be sympathetic to some damages. They need to be slapped publicly.'

"Sharon Malheiro, a lawyer and LGBT activist from Des Moines, Iowa, affiliated with the state's gay-marriage lobby, ONE-IOWA, told me if a teacher in a marriage-equality state taught that marriage is between a man and a woman, 'then it becomes a job performance issue' and the school district should take appropriate action.

"Now, nobody gay in history has lost his assets, his job or his freedom for writing, teaching and running a business guided by his belief that marriage is a union of any two individuals who love each other. So why do gay activists support limitations on the freedom of speech, the media and religious expression for anyone who disagrees with them?"

And yes, just in case you're thinking that Benkof is some rabid, mouth-frothing right-wing fundamentalist, he's not. He's been a gay-activist for over a decade!

It's Not About So-Called Same-Sex Marriage. It's About The Eradication Of Your Firmly-Held Religious Beliefs.

Make no mistake, the passage of S. 598 is not an end. It's a means to an end... a tool to bludgeon anyone and everyone who believes that marriage is the union between a man and a woman into submission. Conservative activist James Hartline, a former homosexual, has some words of wisdom on the subject of so-called "same-sex" marriage:

"You see, this whole thing is not even about homosexuality. What this is about, is the covert, anti-Christian movement in America that despises anything to do with Christianity and will do anything and everything that the law provides to shut down the churches. They use the gay movement issue as a front for accomplishing their goal, which is to create a secular society where Christianity is pushed to a dusty bookshelf somewhere out of site and out of mind in America."

Of course, Hartline is just one man. His opinions can be discounted. But to discount him totally is to be unaware of what has been happening here in the United States and around the world for the past several years.

The American Family Association of Michigan gives a rather short laundry list of what is happening around us on its website:

Swedish Pastor Ake Green in 2004 was sentenced to 30 days in jail for preaching a sermon in which he defined homosexual behavior as sinful and harmful to society.

Baptist Press reported in 2005: 'A Catholic bishop in Canada is under investigation by a government agency for condemning 'gay marriage'... The bishop, Fred Henry of Calgary, is being investigated by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for comments he made about homosexuality in both a letter to parishioners and a Calgary Sun newspaper column. Two homosexuals filed the complaints.'

The Irish Times reported in 2003: 'Clergy and bishops who distribute the Vatican's latest publication describing homosexual activity as 'evil' could face prosecution under incitement to hatred legislation. ...Those convicted under the Act can face jail terms of up to six months.'

The London Daily Telegraph reported in 2006: 'New Government proposals on equality could require clergy to bless homosexual 'weddings' or face prosecution, the Church of England said yesterday. It said the proposed regulations could undermine official teaching and require Christians to act against their religious convictions.'

Catholic Charities in Boston was forced by a state "sexual orientation" law to either process the adoption of children to homosexual couples, a direct violation of Vatican policy, or abandon their century-old adoption referral services altogether. They chose the latter.

The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix newspaper was ordered by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal to pay three homosexual men $1,500 each after the newspaper agreed to run an ad that featured Bible verses critical of homosexual behavior. 'As the Star Phoenix lawyer said in his closing statement (before the Tribunal), 'A Human Rights ruling against the Star-Phoenix and Mr. Owens could limit freedom of speech in the media, in churches and in classrooms.''

A British couple were questioned by police on possible 'hate crime' charges after they wrote a letter-to-the-editor of their local newspaper criticizing city officials for distributing brochures at city hall promoting homosexual behavior.

The London Daily Telegraph reported...: 'A Christian couple who have taken in 28 children have been forced to give up being foster parents after they refused to promote homosexuality. Vincent Matherick, 65, and his 61-year-old wife Pauline were told by social services that they had to comply with legislation requiring them to treat homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality.' A British Anglican bishop in February was fined for refusing to hire an openly homosexual man as a church youth minister.

The London Daily Telegraph reported in 2003: 'A bishop who angered homosexuals by suggesting they seek a psychiatric cure is to be investigated by police to see if his outspoken views amount to a criminal offence, it emerged yesterday.'

Eleven Christians in Philadelphia -- including two grandmothers in their 70's, one white and one African-American -- were arrested and charged with 'ethnic intimidation' under Pennsylvania's 'hate crimes' law when they tried to read Bible verses out loud during a homosexual street festival. They faced a cumulative 47 years in prison had they been convicted.

A New Mexico Christian photographer was fined $6,600 for refusing on religious grounds to photograph a homosexual marriage -like 'commitment' ceremony.

Catholic bishops in Belgium and Spain were sued in 2004 by homosexual activist groups for making public statements in opposition to homosexual behavior and homosexual 'marriage.'

Boston public school teachers were threatened with termination if they failed to portray so-called homosexual "marriage" in a positive light.

Just more evidence of what we already knew. Many Republicnas are just Democrats in drag.

A third party without sycophants is what is needed.

What we have now is one party with two names.

This will not become law and this story is making a big deal out of nothing. They allowed it to come to a vote so they could indeed GO ON RECORD as voting against it. They also know the House will NEVER pass it and likely the full senate will not either. In fact, a vote in the full senate will be great politics for conservatives.

Misleading headline and non story.

Read what happened. Misleading story. They wanted to be on record of voting AGAINST it which is what we all want. They allowed the vote to happen so they could vote against it.

Accepting that homosexuals can get in front of their families, friends and an official to declare their undying lust is not the problem. By ‘six degrees of separation’ we are all working with them or have friends and relatives who are gay. That’s the reality.

Such ‘coupling’ does not result in offspring or progeny and accordingly should fade away.

The most heinous result of legitimizing these partnerships is the de facto qualification to adopt, foster or IVF children. That is the real travesty.

“They also know the House will NEVER pass it and likely the full senate will not either.”

This is what everyone said about DADT. It was passed. I don’t trust this at all. MANY Repubs are really Dems! Sad. Very sad.

You tell a lot about yourself with your hearty approval of putting meaningless election year theatrics ahead of protecting marriage and preserving the foundational institution of our society.

And folks wonder why the country is so screwed up.

>> This is what everyone said about DADT. It was passed. I don’t trust this at all. MANY Repubs are really Dems! Sad. Very sad.>>

Apples and oranges. No Republican voted FOR this measure. NONE. And I don’t think many if any will. This article is misleading in how it described what happened. If anything, the Republicans wanted to make sure they were on record as voting AGAINST it and the Dims were on record as voting FOR it.

It was - for a change - good politics. Now I don’t like many of the Republicans on that committee, but they did the right thing in this instance and the article is trying to stir up trouble where none exists.

>> You tell a lot about yourself with your hearty approval of putting meaningless election year theatrics ahead of protecting marriage and preserving the foundational institution of our society. >>

That is a crass and totally ignorance based charge. They did not put “theatrics” ahead of marriage - they used them to DEFEND marriage by having the chance to publicly show their defense of it.

Look, these Senators mentioned do plenty to get our ire up, especially Graham. And Graham may support in his heart gay marriage for all I know. But in this case, they SUPPORTED marriage publicly and forced the Dems to come out against it.

It will never pass the full Senate - and certainly not the House. Learn how the system works, because we do govern ourselves by a system.

>> It’s those who think like you do that have screwed “the system” up almost to the point of no return. >>

Go ahead and feed your delusions of your own moral superiority and just continue to luxuriate in the purity of your own irrelevance. Please, go ahead since it makes you feel better.

For me, I’ll THINK instead of FEEL - and a thinking person realizes that there is nothing wrong here. There are plenty of times the system is screwed up and plenty of times that folks like Cornyn and Graham and Grassley are part of that screw job.

BUT I’M SORRY - THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE TIMES AND YOU MAKE YOURSELF LOOK IGNORANT BY TRYING TO MAKE IT SO. Save your indignation for a time when it’s needed. This is not one of those times.

It is good practice to allow the opposition to hang themselves with their own rope - to put their votes on record. It is bad practice, with repercussions in future business, to vote against voting, even in Committee.

Your problem is the same problem these Senators have. You think this matter, like all deeply moral matters, is some kind of political toy. It’s not. It’s the equivalent of a rag soaked in a deadly pathogen. You don’t mess around with it. You incinerate it immediately. Which they could have easily done.

But frankly, I wouldn’t expect anything else from you.

When I read that a Republican voted on a bill like this...I knew... Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) couldn’t be FAR BEHIND! LOL... Seriously this guy has got to go in 2014!!!!

It is bad practice, with repercussions in future business, to vote against voting, even in Committee.

For the pantywaist Republicans, sure. Of course, the Democrats have no such phony qualms.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.