Posted on 11/16/2022 2:34:47 PM PST by ebb tide
(LifeSiteNews) – In perhaps the greatest defeat conservatives have ever suffered at the hands of Republican Party, the Senate today advanced Democrats’ bill to enshrine same-sex “marriage” into federal law in a vote of 62 to 37.
Twelve Republican senators joined with all Democrats to pass the bill, the “Respect for Marriage Act,” including: Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Rob Portman of Ohio, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, and Todd Young of Indiana.
Democrats needed the support of 10 Republicans to clear the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster threshold.
Today’s vote came despite the objections of many of the most prominent conservative groups in the U.S., including the Heritage Foundation, Alliance Defending Freedom, the Family Research Council, thousands of Christian churches and institutions, and the overwhelming majority of Republican voters who oppose federal legislation to codify homosexual “marriage.”
The Respect of Marriage Act makes same-sex “marriage” the law of the land, ensuring that all 50 states must recognize such unions, regardless of state laws, in the event the Supreme Court overturns its 2015 decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, which mandates legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” nationwide.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
Every generation is more degenerate than the one before. Every generation's "conservatives" are (on average) further Left than the one before.
Thus do civilizations decline and fall.
yay!
this sets gay marriage on a collision course with USSC
obergefell was a weak precedent just like roe
roe was overturned because pro-abortion group challenged the MS 15 week ban
if USSC says gay marriage is states issue, obergefell will be overturned
And WHY is this The Federal government’s business??/
***********
It may or may not be legit but MONEY is a huge driving
force for what the gov’t does locally/nationally. jmo
FReepers were discussing the legal ramifications of “same sex marriage” years ago. One of the points made early on was the limit to just two people. The courts ruled homosexuals could marry, because we were depriving them of the right to marry whoever they loved.
If man and wife is a completely arbitrary thing, why the two-person limit? Who are we to say that someone can only love and form a lifetime union with only one other person?
And what about bisexuals? How can we say it’s OK for gays to marry someone they are sexually attracted to, but it’s not OK for a bisexual to do the same? Aren’t we depriving them of a fundamental human right?
The senior senator from South Carolina is not one of the 12. I guess he wants people to believe his denial of the allegations that he is homosexual.
BINGO if you want the party to back you go with it got it.
There are two political parties: DemonRat and Repugnant. The latter is the ‘R’ for which we voted.
Why not marriage among 13 people? Are they trisdekaphobiacs?
My momma has always said that if America keeps this up,
God will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah
“McConnell.”
That’s McNoballs.
What about Polygamy? Why leave that out?
You don’t even have to “reach” that far...marriage is not an enumerated right, thus Feds cannot constitutionally have jurisdiction over this issue. The bill will be utterly unenforceable.
I can’t wait for someone to maintain that some states, like Ohio, never changed their State Constitutions regarding the definition of marriage after the Obergefell decision and therefore may have no legal basis for marriage law in said states.
The USSC can declare State Constitution provisions and laws void under the US Constitution, but it can’t legislate new provisions and laws to replace them.
“The Respect of Marriage Act makes same-sex “marriage” the law of the land, ensuring that all 50 states must recognize such unions...”
Congress doesn’t have that power.
God defined defined Marriage when He created Adam and Eve. He WILL NOT be mocked! Gen.2:18 and 2:24.
Great quote, wise momma.
Absolutely. It is a violation of the 10th amendment. But the Constitution is nothing but toilet paper to these POS.
Momma’s right.
AND our minor attracted colleagues. They just can’t lay off the young ones.
“Why not have a dozen, a hundred, a thousand men all claim to be marriage partners?
Can’t force spouses to testify against each other in court.
Since they can have joint assets, there’s no death tax if one of them passes.”
In the sci fi series “The Expanse”, the main character is the result of a marriage between something like 8 parents, in an arrangement that was done purely for tax benefits and to make it possible for them to own a large enough plot of land to support themselves. Not the craziest prediction of the future that I’ve ever seen.
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.