Tag Archives: Respect for Marriage Act

This Is Not Good For America

Posted on by

On Monday, Breitbart posted an article about the signing ceremony for the so-called “Respect for Marriage Act,” which enshrines gay marriage and mixed-race marriage into federal law. The only reason mixed-race marriage was added to the bill was to make it look like a civil rights bill–it’s not. One of the people invited to the signing was a non binary drag artist named Jean-Pierre. How does that illustrate respect for marriage?

According to an article posted in The Hill:

The Republicans in the upper chamber who backed the bill were Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Rob Portman (Ohio), Thom Tillis (N.C.), Mitt Romney (Utah), Roy Blunt (Mo.), Cynthia Lummis (Wyo.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), Dan Sullivan (Alaska), Joni Ernst (Iowa) and Todd Young (Ind.).

Breitbart notes:

The White House previewed a massive signing celebration at the White House on Tuesday for a bill making gay marriage federally legal.

“Tomorrow is going to be a really important day for many Americans, millions of Americans across the country,” Karine Jean-Pierre said at the daily briefing on Monday. “And I think we cannot forget that.”

She said that the White House expected “thousands” of invited guests for President Joe Biden’s signing ceremony of the bill, including prominent gay and lesbian couples and “musical guests.”

“There will be musical guests and performances to celebrate this historic bill,” she said.

Marriage between one man and one woman has been the foundation of our society since Colonial times. This bill tears away at that foundation. The Republicans who voted for this bill need to face primary challenges in their next elections.

Never Believe The Title Of A Bill In Congress

Posted on by

Regardless of where you stand on religion and Christianity, it might be well to heed the words of one of our Founding Fathers:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

The religious people of John Adams’ time based their beliefs on the Christian Bible. The Biblical view of marriage is that it is between a man and a woman. Our Founding Fathers would not have considered any alternative to that view as they wrote the documents founding our country. Today’s Congress is not necessarily made up of moral or religious people, and they are creating laws that go against the beliefs of our Founding Fathers. Although the new laws coming out of Congress may line up with a small percentage of Americans, they are not laws that will unite the country or encourage morality. One such law, seriously misnamed, is the Respect for Marriage Act. The Respect for Marriage Act pretty much does everything except respect traditional marriage.

This is the summary of the Respect for Marriage Act at Congress.gov:

Passed House (07/19/2022)

Respect for Marriage Act

This bill provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages.

Specifically, the bill repeals and replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage that is valid under state law. (The Supreme Court held that the current provisions were unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor in 2013.)

The bill also repeals and replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. (The Supreme Court held that state laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015; the Court held that state laws barring interracial marriages were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.) The bill allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations.

Bringing in interracial marriages is simply a red herring. By doing this, the sponsor of the bill (Jerry Nadler, a Democrat from New York) hoped to introduce a racial element that would distract from exactly what is going on here.

We are on the slippery slope. A recent court case in New York State essentially codified polygamy (article here). You may not accept a Biblical standard of morality, but before you decide to abandon it, look at the practical consequences of discounting it. The rules of the Bible (The Ten Commandments) are the basis for the laws of America. They provide a plan for an orderly society. It is when we abandon those rules that we have chaos and division.

The next step on the current slippery slope will be the transgender movement that is currently impacting our children. Parents’ rights will be limited in their fight to stop life-altering drugs or surgery on their children. That is already happening in some states.

Please let your Senators know that you oppose this bill–it has already passed the house.

What Seems Good Isn’t Always Good

Posted on by

We need to think about the things Congress is codifying into federal law. The Tenth Amendment says:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Theoretically the states are the government laboratories–the places where policies can be tried and if they are successful, copied by other states. Unfortunately, we seem to have lost that concept. When Florida led the country in prosperity and in success in handling Covid, most other states ignored their example. While California is experiencing major energy problems due to rushing too quickly into green energy, some states are considering following suit. While some states with high taxes and bloated governments are losing population to states with more sane fiscal policies. the high tax states are making no effort to rein in their governments. Those high tax states will continue to suffer the consequences of their policies (unless the federal government steps in to help them, which would be a mistake). You don’t give an alcoholic beer money–you let him suffer the consequences of his actions. Subsidizing states that overspend does nothing to solve the problem. The federal government has become expert at overstepping its legal bounds.

Recently, the House of Representatives passed HR 8404. This bill is called the Respect for Marriage Act. It federalizes approval of gay marriage. It also has some language in it about bi-racial marriage, but that it not what it is about. The language about bi-racial marriage is an attempt to link the gay rights movement with the civil rights movement. They are not the same. I really don’t care what someone does in the privacy of their own home. I also don’t want to see anyone denied their rights because of their sexual orientation. Actually, I don’t need to know anyone’s sexual orientation. However, traditionally, marriage is between a man and a woman, whatever race or races are involved. There is a danger here of churches being forced to perform ceremonies that go against Biblical teaching. That infringes on the First Amendment. It would be much simpler for the federal government to stay out of marriage (except for tax purposes) and leave the matter up to the states. If you are gay and choose to get married, move to a state that allows gay marriage.

There is no reason for the federal government to get involved in the issue of marriage. Marriage is a church sacrament. If the federal government wants to establish civil unions for tax purposed only, I believe they have that authority under tax laws, but they do not have any authority to interfere in a church sacrament.