Regardless of where you stand on religion and Christianity, it might be well to heed the words of one of our Founding Fathers:<\/p>\n
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.<\/strong><\/p>\n John Adams<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n This is the summary of the Respect for Marriage Act at Congress.gov:<\/a><\/p>\n Respect<\/mark> for<\/mark> Marriage<\/mark> Act<\/mark><\/strong><\/p>\n This bill provides statutory authority for<\/mark> same-sex and interracial marriage<\/mark>s.<\/strong><\/p>\n Specifically, the bill repeals and replaces provisions that define, for<\/mark> purposes of federal law, marriage<\/mark><\/i> as between a man and a woman and spouse<\/i> as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage<\/mark> that is valid under state law. (The Supreme Court held that the current provisions were unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor <\/em>in 2013.)<\/strong><\/p>\n The bill also repeals and replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriage<\/mark>s from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriage<\/mark>s on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. (The Supreme Court held that state laws barring same-sex marriage<\/mark>s were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges<\/em> in 2015; the Court held that state laws barring interracial marriage<\/mark>s were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia<\/i> in 1967.) The bill allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil act<\/mark>ion and establishes a private right of act<\/mark>ion for<\/mark> violations.<\/strong><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n We are on the slippery slope. A recent court case in New York State essentially codified polygamy (article here<\/a>). 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Please let your Senators know that you oppose this bill–it has already passed the house.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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 … Continue reading Passed House (07\/19\/2022)<\/strong><\/h3>\n