Respect for Marriage Act

[Grace]

The “Respect for Marriage Act” is designed by the Democrats and the Biden Administration to strip 501c3 status from religious universities, schools and churches. Any nonprofit organization that believes marriage is the union of one man and one woman or does not embrace same-sex marriage, could be the target of Biden’s IRS.

Democrats are claiming the “Respect for Marriage” bill is a means to protect the right to same-sex marriage and to protect the right to interracial marriage. Yet we know both of those are protected, by existing law the U.S Supreme Court has held in the past. So nothing has changed on those marriages.

So why this bill? The Democrats have pitched this entire Bill based on a false premise as they have suggested there's some chance the Supreme Court might revisit the gay marriage ruling

However the Supreme Court said three times they were NOT going to revisit that decision.

In fact the third time Justice Alito writing for the majority said, “I don't know how to say this more clearly, we are not going back to that decision”.

This whole bill is about the Biden Administration being able to go after people of faith, being able to persecute, churches, K-12 schools, universities, and charities that are religious based. It can be Christian, Jewish, Muslim,etc. any religious organization that believes marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

This bill will be voted on, on Monday and no amendments are allowed.

[Ken]

The “Respect for Marriage Act” is designed by the Democrats and the Biden Administration to strip 501c3 status from religious universities, schools and churches. Any nonprofit organization that believes marriage is the union of one man and one woman or does not embrace same-sex marriage, could be the target of Biden’s IRS.

It does no such thing. The full text of the bill is here if you wish to read it: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-con ... /8404/text

This bill will be voted on, on Monday and no amendments are allowed.

If you you look at the legislative history of the bill available on the congressional web site I cited above you will find that the bill has already been amended 11 times.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-con ... amendments

[temporal1]

The “Respect for Marriage Act” is designed by the Democrats and the Biden Administration to strip 501c3 status from religious universities, schools and churches. Any nonprofit organization that believes marriage is the union of one man and one woman or does not embrace same-sex marriage, could be the target of Biden’s IRS.

Democrats are claiming the “Respect for Marriage” bill is a means to protect the right to same-sex marriage and to protect the right to interracial marriage. Yet we know both of those are protected, by existing law the U.S Supreme Court has held in the past. So nothing has changed on those marriages.

So why this bill? The Democrats have pitched this entire Bill based on a false premise as they have suggested there's some chance the Supreme Court might revisit the gay marriage ruling

However the Supreme Court said three times they were NOT going to revisit that decision.

In fact the third time Justice Alito writing for the majority said, “I don't know how to say this more clearly, we are not going back to that decision”.

This whole bill is about the Biden Administration being able to go after people of faith, being able to persecute, churches, K-12 schools, universities, and charities that are religious based. It can be Christian, Jewish, Muslim,etc. any religious organization that believes marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

This bill will be voted on, on Monday and no amendments are allowed.

[media]https://www.

Good presentation. Hopefully, it will not pass.
Beyond debate, openly stated by both obama and hillary, they “support” (they were referring to Christianity) as long as Christianity supports their political agenda. The undercurrent has not changed. “One nation under” .. the untouchable gaudy pride flag.

[RZehr]

The “Respect for Marriage Act” is designed by the Democrats and the Biden Administration to strip 501c3 status from religious universities, schools and churches. Any nonprofit organization that believes marriage is the union of one man and one woman or does not embrace same-sex marriage, could be the target of Biden’s IRS.

It does no such thing. The full text of the bill is here if you wish to read it: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-con ... /8404/text

This bill will be voted on, on Monday and no amendments are allowed.

If you you look at the legislative history of the bill available on the congressional web site I cited above you will find that the bill has already been amended 11 times.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-con ... amendments

I’m very ignorant of this bill. And I’ll go with the claim that the text (I’ve not read it) contains no language specifically threatening anything. But since I don’t support nor trust the motivations of the bill, nor the people behind the bill - my concern is that there is foundational language being intentionally included, that will later be used to springboard into my dastardly laws, via the courts or future legislation. And since I am not a lawyer nor the son of a lawyer, I cannot read the bill and identify it, if this does exist.

[temporal1]

I’m very ignorant of this bill. And I’ll go with the claim that the text (I’ve not read it) contains no language specifically threatening anything.

But since I don’t support nor trust the motivations of the bill, nor the people behind the bill -
my concern is that there is foundational language being intentionally included, that will later be used to springboard into my dastardly laws, via the courts or future legislation. And since I am not a lawyer nor the son of a lawyer, I cannot read the bill and identify it, if this does exist.

After decades of witnessing one supposedly “innocuous” bill after another passed, routinely poo-pooing and dismissing any questions, only later to see those bills leveraged over+over for “the next unwanted step” it’s fair for citizens who will have to live with and pay for those “innocuous” bills to be seriously uneasy.

Everyone’s radar should flash when “the dismissive language” comes out!

IF the bill is “that innocuous,” THEN it’s not necessary, at all, is it?!
Why is taxpayer time+money wasted on “nothing” legislation?? Let me think.



Decades ago, as a young one, i could not think why or how, “consenting adults” would be a problem.
Well. Decades later, i’m really weary of THE GARDEN PATH. Beware.

IF the bill is “that innocuous,” THEN it’s not necessary, at all, is it?!
When bills are “so important” they MUST be passed - they are NOT innocuous. Anything-but. They are leverage for more+more.
It’s extremely calculated. The dead-opposite of innocuous. Law schools make fortunes teaching it. Basically, lies.

- - - - - - -

People who vote, should pay attention to the (?) 12 Senate Republicans who have said they would vote for this.

These votes are what makes a laughingstock out of Republican “majorities.” Over+over.
They may not represent the majority voting for them! But their numbers are sufficient to throw votes, betraying those who voted for them.

It’s a CAREER POLITICIAN problem, not R or D.
CAREER POLITICIANS are one elitist party that views itself greater-than the electorate. That’s a sad problem.

It may have been the natural outcome of no term limits in Congress. Some are there so long, ‘way beyond shelf life.

[Ken]

The “Respect for Marriage Act” is designed by the Democrats and the Biden Administration to strip 501c3 status from religious universities, schools and churches. Any nonprofit organization that believes marriage is the union of one man and one woman or does not embrace same-sex marriage, could be the target of Biden’s IRS.

It does no such thing. The full text of the bill is here if you wish to read it: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-con ... /8404/text

This bill will be voted on, on Monday and no amendments are allowed.

If you you look at the legislative history of the bill available on the congressional web site I cited above you will find that the bill has already been amended 11 times.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-con ... amendments

I’m very ignorant of this bill. And I’ll go with the claim that the text (I’ve not read it) contains no language specifically threatening anything. But since I don’t support nor trust the motivations of the bill, nor the people behind the bill - my concern is that there is foundational language being intentionally included, that will later be used to springboard into my dastardly laws, via the courts or future legislation. And since I am not a lawyer nor the son of a lawyer, I cannot read the bill and identify it, if this does exist.

What this act requires is that all states recognize marriages performed in any other state. So that say Texas cannot refuse to recognize a marriage (gay or otherwise) that was performed in Oregon and vice versa.

None of this act has any real effect as long as Obergefell remains in place since the Supreme Court has already ruled that states have to recognize gay marriages. This act would only take effect if a future Supreme Court chose to overturn Obergefell like they did Roe.

Nowhere does it say that churches have to perform gay marriages or any other kind of marriage which is apparently the fear that is being ginned up.

[Grace]

Nowhere does it say that churches have to perform gay marriages or any other kind of marriage which is apparently the fear that is being ginned up.

This isn't about churches performing gay marriage as much, as it is about organizations, universities, schools, loosing their 501c3 status, or any other persecution because of their deeply held religious beliefs on marriage.

A prime example was when the City of Philadelphia refused to work with Catholic Social Services to find homes for children in foster care, because of the organization’s religious belief that marriage is between one woman and one man. The City didn’t allow any foster children to be placed with families who used Catholic Social Services. The Supreme Court did rule in favor of the Catholic Social Services in the end.

[temporal1]

This isn't about churches performing gay marriage as much, as it is about organizations, universities, schools, [losing] their 501c3 status, or any other persecution because of their deeply held religious beliefs on marriage.

A prime example was when the City of Philadelphia refused to work with Catholic Social Services to find homes for children in foster care, because of the organization’s religious belief that marriage is between one woman and one man.

The City didn’t allow any foster children to be placed with families who used Catholic Social Services.

The Supreme Court did rule in favor of the Catholic Social Services in the end.

^^Not before damage was done.

.. as long as Obergefell remains in place ..

How about waiting to respond until the situation unfolds, rather than attempting preemptive measures “in anticipation of” legal action that may never occur?? It’s not possible to respond to something that does not exist. Bullying. Jumping the gun.

This is the exact pattern libs in my state (and others) followed with RvW.
Huge preemptive taxpayer investment in all-things-abortion and sex ed, “IN THE EVENT” of overturn.
It’s about deliberately skirting law. Bad form.

This goes beyond “we have to pass the law in order to see what’s in it.” pelosi.

i’m uneasy with this, it doesn’t follow the pattern of “innocent until proven guilty,” and, it tempts over reaction, ‘cause, after all, there is nothing concrete to respond to - only guesswork, fear, hyperbole, etc. More ugly.

Police do not respond to calls of, “i think he’s going to hurt me.” They respond after there’s been a violation.

It’s a bad precedent.

As well, i see it as extremely patronizing to interracial marriages to be “tagged along” - as if there is some connection.
Cheap shots - and very common legal manipulation. For those with no moral compass, no problem. “Say anything.”

THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS .. is not of Jesus Christ.

[Ken]

] How about waiting to respond until the situation unfolds, rather than attempting preemptive measures “in anticipation of” legal action that may never occur?? It’s not possible to respond to something that does not exist. Bullying. Jumping the gun.

This is the exact pattern libs in my state (and others) followed with RvW.
Huge investment in all-things-abortion and sex ed, “IN THE EVENT” of overturn.

"bullying?" "Jumping the gun?" Who exactly is being bullied?

You do realize that it was republicans who invented the concept of "trigger laws" with respect to Roe v. Wade, not liberals.

It demeans your argument to pretend to be upset when liberals copy their tactics.

[temporal1]

7 days ago

Ben Shapiro / This Is NOT Respect For Marriage / 40 seconds

^^This is from a longer podcast, i can’t locate at the moment.

Found in Comments:

The Metalhead WROTE:
7 days ago

The wording democrats use for their legislation is laughable.

The Inflation Reduction Act will increase inflation but the name of it will dupe about half of the population.
It’s actually counter intuitive to think that it will decrease inflation.

It’s like saying that getting more snow will result in less snow.

He could add, “abortion is healthcare.”

Contorting language is so common, so “perfected,” i honestly suspect law schools offer it as required coursework. The theatrics!
They present it with straight faces! No pun intended.

Literally, “the wording dems use for their legislation” has become so cattywampus, it’s imperative to read as tho everyday is
BACKWARD DAY.