Posted on 07/23/2022 5:45:33 PM PDT by Coronal
Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson says he will not oppose legislation to codify federal protection for same-sex and interracial marriage.
The House passed the Respect for Marriage Act this week in response to the U.S. Supreme Court‘s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. The court used the finding of a right to privacy in its 1972 abortion decision to support future decisions, including Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 case that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, one of the new bill’s Senate sponsors, says the legislation is needed after Justice Clarence Thomas suggested in his own written Supreme Court opinion that overturning Roe meant that other landmark court decisions including Obergefell v. Hodges should also be reconsidered. If passed, the new law would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. That law defined marriage as being between one man and one woman, and was enacted in 1996 in response to growing push at the time for marriage equality from gay rights activists.
The court’s decision in Obergefell invalidated DOMA, establishing the right for same-sex couples to marry.
The law will need to overcome a potential Republican filibuster to pass in the Senate, which means it will need at least 60 votes to proceed. Democrats hold 50 seats in the U.S. Senate. Johnson, a conservative who is seeking reelection in the fall, had declined to give reporters his position earlier this week.
In a new statement, he said he would not block the legislation.
“Prior to the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision on gay marriage I supported civil unions,” Johnson stated. “After Obergefell, I considered the issue settled.”
(Excerpt) Read more at urbanmilwaukee.com ...
It’s ok. Keep the seat. Too many purists here.
Mistake, may cost him his seat.
Honestly wish Thomas had kept that to himself as it was not related to the case at hand in order to "inspire" garbage legislation like this.
Its sad he feels he has to pander to the alphabet perverts.
Its not something that makes me want to vote for him. I prefer to have reasons to vote for rather than vote for the lesser of two evils.
We could certainly use a good personal Privacy Amendment to the Constitution..
You know, something that would preclude vaccine passports and social credit scores and government digital money.
I like Johnson, but he doesn’t do anything. He just talks about Hunter’s laptop etc.
Marriage is not a federal issue. Leave it to the states.
Marriage is not a federal issue. Leave it to the states.
A civil union is a civil act. Marriage is a religious act. There’s a difference, or at least there should be.
It is the historical blurring of the two that gave gays the wedge to attack Christians and the Bible.
This is disappointing, to say the least. Most Republicans want to appear as “nice” and so you end up with anything-goes and more culture rot.
If he does not oppose the sham/ scam/descration of God Ordained marriage between one man one woman her is not a Consertavive.
Consider me a purist.
Too bad he felt the need to conform…..meh
Throughout ALL of human history, the sacred covenant of “marriage” was ALWAYS between one man and one woman.
All of a sudden in 2018, 5 judges on the court decided that filthy degenerate homosexuals have a right to enter into the same covenant called marriage because they love each other. Well why can’t a mother marry her son? Why can’t groups of people combine into a group marriage? On and on, soon the entire point of marriage becomes moot.
The real reason homosexuals want the right to “marriage” is that they eventually want to remove ALL barriers to the definition. The ultimate goal for them is to be able to have sex with children, at any age, at any time, at any place. That’s where this is headed.
It was rather stupid of him.
“Conservative” supporting blasphemous Sodomite agenda.
Marriage was defined as it was because of biology, not because of “love” - that wasn’t a requirement of getting a marriage license in any statute...yet was used as the rationale for why such statutes were supposedly prohibited by the US Constitution, which says absolutely nothing about “love” or the standards by which a state can set requirements for a marriage license.
“Too many purists here.”
Purists???
No, the emphasis should be on gutless Republicans who refuse to honor the institution of marriage as it has existed from the beginning of recorded history.
It’s a shame. I guess he knows his electoral chances best, but it is a disappointment to hear this.
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.