Posted on 07/20/2022 2:41:08 PM PDT by Republicans 2016 2020
CHARLESTON, W.Va. — The U.S. House of Representatives passed a measure Tuesday to codify the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings on same-sex and interracial marriages, in which none of West Virginia’s delegates voted for the legislation.
The chamber approved House Resolution 8404 — the Respect for Marriage Act — in a 267-157 vote; 47 Republicans joined 220 Democrats in backing the measure.
Rep. Alex Mooney, R-W.Va., voted against the bill, arguing marriage is a union “between a man and a woman.” Reps. David McKinley and Carol Miller were among the seven Republicans who did not vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at wvmetronews.com ...
George Orwell defined “freedom’ in 1984 as “the freedom to say 2 plus 2 equals 4”. That is to say that objective reality exists outside the control of the Party.
Well Gay Marriage isn’t real. The Party can give out a piece of paper saying that its real but it will never ever be real. Two men can not marry each other.
I thought protecting homosexual “marriage” was the job of the Homosexual Gay Liberation Front and Parade Troupe.
Imminent ruling from the International Court of Human Rights...
Based on the reasoning in the abortion case, where the court ruled that states should handle that issue thru legislation, attempts are being made to codify homosexual marriage thru legislation.
What is it about a marriage that’s a big deal. We’re not talking about the religious aspects, are we.
Married couples don’t have to testify against each other, they have a claim on their spouse’s property in case of a divorce, and things about kids.
Tell me why I should care if gays can “get married”. There are probably things I don’t know.
Oh, guess it sends another signal that gay is ok.
The title is curious, given W VA has only three House members. But give Senator Moore Capito a chance… she’ll take the bait and vote for this
It’s a state matter. Same reasoning as the reversal of Roe.
Exactly. It sends a message that homosexuality is normal.
Florida Rep. Michael Waltz (R?) was one of 47 republicans that voted for this. He brags about being the only serving Green Beret. Col Waltz also voted with Liz Cheney while Trump was president.
Rep. Michael Waltz is a certified RINO and will not get my vote.
For those here that are in Fl. District 6, Charles E. Davis is running against Waltz and he will be getting my family’s vote.
I am convinced the gender and idiotic pronoun nightmare we are enduring got launched with the Gay marriage ruling.
You notice the fancy sounding “Respect for Marriage Act”.
They NEVER cared about the Defense of Marriage Act (recognizing that marriage is a union between one man and one woman) passed by most of the states prior to the homosexual marriage edict. Now, the degenerate democrats think they are morally superior by putting out this piece of crap bill. I say, give them a taste of their own medicine.
Actually, it’s bigger than normalising homosexuality - a large part of it is atheists saying “why should we have to pay lip service to a bunch of anachronistic ceremonies linked to a god that we don’t even believe exists let alone worship, just to have a legal union?”
In the UK, we had “civil partnerships” which is exactly that - a totally non-religious civil union. But it was created ONLY for the gays. It has all the same property and claim aspects of traditional marriage but without ANY religious ties at all.
The gays argued that this was effectively making them second class citizens singled out as the only qualifying group, which is where the lobbying for gay marriage came in.
Some religious orders agreed, on the basis that in English law it’s only because of the Hardwicke Clandestine Marriages Act of 1753 that we ever had a civil legal requirement for a marriage to be solemnised in church and notarised by an Anglican minister. Under UK law, no new government can bind its successors. So, what was ruled in that Act, can be undone by another Act.
Democracy academics provide a third objection - as we’re moving steadily toward secular statehood (albeit with a religion linked to the head of state) it is very inconsistent to have a legal status defined in law as predicated on the approval of a religious rather than civil authority.
What’s even weirder is, while these agreements are all used to argue that marriage really should be religion-agnostic (but it has to be TWO people only - any more than that and unpicking a later divorce gets heinously complicated!)...
Atheists and peoples of minority religions who are in monogamous long term heterosexual coupling, have a profound objection to having their relationship status described in law as “marriage”.
One woman I know has been in a committed long term relationship with the same man since they were in high school, they’re both in their fifties now, they’ve got grandkids, they’re agnostics, and they refuse to marry on the basis that “our relationship has got f*** all to do with any church.” When civil partnerships came in, they said “Brilliant, that’s exactly what we want INSTEAD of marriage... whaddya mean, we can’t have it because we’re not gays?”
It’s all fall out from the AIDS “epidemic” of the 80s.
I am convinced the gender and idiotic pronoun nightmare we are enduring got launched with the Gay marriage ruling.
I agree. It’s been since the ruling for homosexual marriage, that we have seen all this “transsexual” business coming to the forefront.
I think what happened is, that when the Supreme Court imposed same-sex marriage, that the “LGBT” activists moved the goal posts.
Having achieved that major goal of homosexual marriage, did they feel euphoria and celebrate that now their lives were complete now that they could get married?
Not for long. Instead, they moved onto other aspects of the “LGBT etc” agenda. All the transgender issues which were barely discussed prior to the same-sex marriage ruling, now occupied the time and attention of the LGBT activists. I think they were waiting to see homosexual marriage imposed, and then the plan was to move onto other aspects of this LGBT agenda. There may even be other aspects of their agenda we don’t know about yet. Perhaps now they are attempting to normalize pronouns and surgeries on underage children first, and then move on to God knows what else.
“The gays argued that [a civil union] was effectively making them second class citizens singled out as the only qualifying group, which is where the lobbying for gay marriage came in.”
Is the “only for gay” a UK thing? You mention “... a civil legal requirement for a marriage to be solemnised in church and notarised by an Anglican minister.” We don’t have that requirement here in the US, correct?
Do gays want more from being married than “property and claim aspects”?
Would the gays’ complaint be solved here in the US simply by changing the legal definition of the word “marriage”?
Thanks for the informative post.
Yes, it is a UK thing, but remember your marriage laws are based in effect on the same underlying principles as the Hardwicke Clandestine Marriage Act in the UK were.
15 Supreme Court cases since 1888 have confirmed that marriage is a fundamental right. However, it is a fundamental right that is predicated on a religious and social definition of what marriage should be - a monogamous heterosexual coupling. That’s reflected in 1 U.S. Code § 7 - Definition of “marriage” and “spouse” which says, “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”
The use of the words “Husband” and “Wife” is intrinsically tied into social constraints, property / inheritance rights and expectations. It was implied that a husband had, and legitimately exercised, controlled and disciplined his wife. The law additionally assumed that wives couldn’t act legally, financially or socially without their husband’s influence and direction.
Hence this famous passage from Oliver Twist:
“That is no excuse,” returned Mr. Brownlow. “You were present on the occasion of the destruction of these trinkets, and, indeed, are the more guilty of the two, in the eye of the law; for the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction.”
“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass — a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience — by experience!”
The modern UK situation is an attempt to decouple religious marriage AND that inequal status within a religious marriage, from a civil partnership between two persons who have equal power, agency and autonomy. In a civil partnership neither is assumed to be subordinate to the other. In a marriage, it’s ingrained into our society that the man is in charge.
The petition was set up by a heterosexual couple in a long term relationship.
In June 2018, the UK’s Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the mutually exclusive arrangement created a different kind of marriage for non-religious reasons. But it had an inherent equality principle inside it that normal marriage does not.
By denying the equality presented in Civil Partnerships to heterosexual couples, the state discriminated against heterosexual couples.
Since such a discrimination in CIVIL contracts cannot be justified on practical, legal or moral grounds, it was ruled unlawful.
The flip side argument is, civil MARRIAGE and religious marriage ought to be two different things, therefore why can gays not marry. And again, the conclusion was that while any church has the right to refuse to recognize, officiate or solemnnize a same sex marriage, the state is not obliged to enforce Church Law.
“1 U.S. Code § 7 ... [marriage is] a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, [of two people of opposite sex].”
Is that our current Federal law in the US?
Does our federal law distinguish between marriage (as defined by it) and a legal definition of a civil union?
David McKinley is a Swampocrat who lost in the primaries this year.
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.