Government Watch / Home & Family / Politics

Buckle Up: The Respect for Marriage Act is Dangerous and Dangerously Close to Passage

AMAC Exclusive – David P. Deavel

marriage

The twelve Republican Senators and sometimes conservative figures such as David French say it’s now safe. But they are wrong. The so-called Respect for Marriage Act, now having passed the Senate and likely to pass the House sometime this week, is a bill that will provide an opportunity for potential lawsuits and legal penalties for religious and other Americans who do not think that two men or two women can contract a real marriage, whatever the government has decided.

That is not all, however. Ever since the issue started heating up almost two decades ago, those who opposed “same-sex marriage” warned that such a redefinition would certainly not be the end. While many of those who approved it knew this, they largely kept this aspect of the “battle for equality” in the shadows and often attacked those who spoke about how this change could result in government recognition of polygamous, polyamorous, incestuous, and who knows what other kinds of relationships as marriages.   

On November 29 the Senate passed Act 62-37. The bill, which repeals the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act recognizing only the union of one man and woman as a marriage, would also require those “acting under color of state law” to recognize same-sex marriages, allow for a right to sue for those who do not do so and command the federal government to recognize marriages as defined by one or more states.    

Republican Senators Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Shelley Capito of West Virginia, Susan Collins of Maine, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Rob Portman of Ohio, Mitt Romney of Utah, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Todd Young of Indiana all ended up voting for it while no Democrats voted against.

On what basis could these GOP Senators justify such a vote given the obvious danger to churches and religious organizations? Senator Mike Lee had spoken out vociferously about the danger this bill posed and had himself offered an amendment that would have prevented the federal government from taking any retaliatory action against individuals who speak or act on the basis of a “sincerely held religious belief, or moral conviction” that marriage should be recognized as either the union of one man and one woman or what federal law states it is. Lee’s amendment clarified that such retaliation included penalties or the taking away of tax-exempt status by the IRS as well as the withholding or removal of any federal grants, loans, employment, or benefits of any kind on the basis of such beliefs.

Despite the clarity of this amendment, it failed 49-48 earlier in the week in the Senate. While Texas GOP Representative Chip Roy has introduced an identical amendment in the House, what passed the Senate was instead an amendment authored by Wisconsin Democrat Tammy Baldwin that does not identify how the federal government may not punish those who hold sincere religious or moral convictions. It does provide a patina of support for religious freedom by asserting that: “nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such an organization, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.”

Writers such as David French and the Church of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormons) supported the passage of the act on the assumption that with Baldwin’s Amendment religious liberty claims would be strong. But, as ADF’s Kristen Waggoner wrote in reply to French’s contention that very few private organizations would really be forced to provide such services, accommodations, and so on lest they create a civil claim or cause for action, that phrase in Section 3 about “[n]o person acting under color of State law” has very often been interpreted to mean private organizations that work closely with the government. Not only have private adoption and foster agencies been deemed as acting “under color of state law,” but so have: “state high school athletic associations, bail bondsmen, state bar associations, cooperative extensions, redevelopment corporations, drug testing companies, private universities, foundations, housing contractors, housing providers, insurance companies, hospitals, mental health facilities, non-profit corporations, physicians, private security officers, racing associations, prison chaplains, prison ministries, and towing companies, among others.”

The danger is obvious. Simply saying that “entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion,” as Baldwin’s amendment puts it, will be under no obligation doesn’t cut it when all sorts of organizations run by Christians, Jews, and Muslims would be vulnerable given the broad array of organizations. Think about all the Christian colleges and universities that take federal funding and work with various federal agencies. As Waggoner observes, the very ambiguity of what any given court will rule is acting “under color of state law” means that it will be easy to punish such dissenting organizations by subjecting them to expensive litigation either by individuals or the government if this passes. Whether a given group holding to man-woman marriage wins or not, the ruinous fees from this lawfare will be devastating. There is a reason that not only religious liberty groups such as ADF but also many Evangelical groups and the U. S. Catholic Bishops Conference were imploring the Senate to reverse course before passage.

But this danger to religious organizations is not the only thing. While the current language of the bill specifies that this demand to recognize any union recognized by one or more states applies to only two people in a union and Baldwin’s amendment explicitly rules out polygamous unions, it is not clear that this is much of a barrier either to more radical redefinitions of marriage.

Senator Ted Cruz proposed an amendment that would have specifically ruled out not only polygamous marriages but also incestuous and child marriages—but it was defeated. As for the supposed defense against forced recognition of polygamous unions, the Heritage Foundation’s Roger Severino noted that this isn’t clear either. While the current terms “cover unions where three or more persons are married to each other as one family unit,” he observes that “the bill leaves open the possibility that one person can be in multiple two-person marriages at the same time, which would trigger federal recognition if a state legally were to recognize such consensual, bigamous unions as separate family units.”

Given that in Massachusetts, which pioneered the recognition of same-sex unions as marriages, there have already been two cities that have recognized polyamorous unions, and in New York, a civil court judge has ruled that polyamorous relationships must be recognized as equal to two-person relationships, it is not hard to see that Severino’s hypothesis might very well be taken up.

While we can pray that the House takes up Representative Roy’s amendment, I think it is a long shot. If the Senate, where Republicans had more favorable numbers, could not figure out a way to at least protect religious liberty and ensure that further redefinitions of marriage are not enacted, it is hard to see how this will happen in the current House.

This bill is quite likely, if passed, to display the kind of severely distorting effects on society that those who objected to redefining marriage in the first place warned about. The ideas that marriage is constituted solely by an amorphous “love” and that “love is love” have no limiting principle. And, as we have seen, even the limits present are easily permeable with some clever lawyers. For Jews and Christians who believe that marriage is a divinely ordered institution that highlights the remarkable image of God, male and female, this is a deeply troubling barrier to finding our true humanity. For Muslims who believe marriage is a sacred bond, this will be troubling too. And for Christians, for whom marriage is a divine sign or sacrament representing Christ’s relationship with the Church, this will present another veil over the truth of salvation that we preach. 

And, as President Obama used to talk about “freedom of worship” as if it were all about private and public ceremonies rather than living out one’s faith in “freedom of religion,” we are likely to see that the solid protections for religious groups will likely be limited to not being required to perform marriage ceremonies. To keep their educational, charitable, and service organizations running according to their beliefs is going to require a lot of clever lawyers and a lot of fortitude.

Pray that the Roy Amendment somehow makes it in. And get ready to do a lot more praying and lawyering if the bill does pass the House.

David P. Deavel teaches at the University of St. Thomas in Houston, Texas, and is a Senior Contributor at The Imaginative Conservative.


We hope you've enjoyed this article. While you're here, we have a small favor to ask...

Support AMAC Action. Our 501 (C)(4) advances initiatives on Capitol Hill, in the state legislatures, and at the local level to protect American values, free speech, the exercise of religion, equality of opportunity, sanctity of life, and the rule of law.

Donate Now

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter
and Download the AMAC News App

Sign Up Today Download

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!


Subscribe
Notify of
97 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
CGH
1 month ago

OK BOOMERS LOL

spitfire?1940
1 month ago

More good news for all you lost souls Evidence that demands a verdict :” Further evidence that demands a verdict “Josh McDowell” who moved the stone?”Morris” Merry Christianity “C.S LewisAll three books written by atheist whose sole purpose in writing them was to prove that God was a myth and did not exist. Instead they found the opposite.

spitfire?1940
1 month ago

Should anybody disbelieve that Satan exists the comments made by the likes of “Freya” etc should be more than enough to convince them otherwise.

spitfire?1940 0
1 month ago

In closing, let us briefly consider Pascal’s famous great Wager. Pascal, one of the greatest mathematicians and physicists of all time, argued that either God is (exists) or he is not ( does jot exist). If you bet ( fhe wager being your life) that God is and you are right then you will win everything; if you are wrong then you would have lost nothing; a win-win situation. On the other hand, if you wager that God is not and you are right, then you will have won nothing; far worse still, if you are wrong, you will have lost everything- a lose-lose situation. So, Pascal asks, “what have you to lose?” Wager on God. For all you unbelievers I suggest reading ” The collapse of Evolution” by Scott M. Huse

Toni Geren
1 month ago

Whats nest Marry your dog?

Michael Leiws
1 month ago

Restaurant cancels Christian group’s event just before start time because eatery’s staffers — many of whom are LGBTQ+ — felt ‘uncomfortable,’ ‘unsafe’
theblaze.com/news/restaurant-cancels-christian-group-s-event-just-before-start-time-because-eatery-s-staffers-many-of-whom-are-lgbtq-felt-uncomfortable-unsafe?utm_source=theblaze-7DayTrendingTest&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The%20Blaze%20PM%20Trending%202022-12-05&utm_term=ACTIVE%20LIST%20-%207%20Day%20Engagement

If gays can deny service because Christians make them feel unsafe, shouldn’t Christians have the right to refuse to marry them because it makes them feel unsafe?

spitfire?1940
1 month ago
Reply to  Michael Leiws

Sexual deviants/Perverts always prefer a one way street!

Michael Leiws
1 month ago

1 Corinthians 7:2 – Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Mark 10:6 – 10:9
6But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

The Christian God grants men free will, even to be sinful. In my opinion, that is consistent with separation of church and state.

So, legally I believe marriage between men and men, women and women are constitutional. However, 1st Amendment freedom of religion denies government authority to require those who practice the Christian religion to approve of homosexual marriage or facilitate it!

It is worthy of note that those who fled Europe to practice their religions passed and recognized laws that would stone those who practiced such unions.

scrat
1 month ago

This country is out of control, and needs a major arce kicking. The hell with the liberals, and fanooks.

JR Fox
1 month ago

So, does that mean someone will be able to marry their pet? Where does it end?

Freya
1 month ago
Reply to  JR Fox

That is what educated people refer to as a “non sequitur.” No, people will never be able to marry non-human animals because animals cannot consent to enter into contracts such as marriage. Stop using brain-dead arguments like this and maybe people outside of your echo chamber could respect you.

Funnily enough, the only states that still have laws allowing children to marry adults are all red states. This is because conservative Christians subscribe to the legal theory that parents can consent on behalf of children for anything including marriage.

MarjoreeHeft
1 month ago
Reply to  Freya

nypost.com/2018/02/28/women-are-marrying-trees-to-help-save-them/

Ref
1 month ago

There is no such thing as a new definition of marriage. The definition of marriage was determined by God alone as a union between one man and one woman. Human beings cannot redefine marriage and humans cannot defend their redefinition of marriage. It may be a civil union or whatever else they choose to call it, but homosexual unions are not marriage so they can’t be defended.

Freya
1 month ago
Reply to  Ref

None of that matters if your god doesn’t exist. Please don’t force your religion on nonbelievers. I’m asking nicely.

Fingerlakes
1 month ago
Reply to  Freya

But you’re forcing your “religion” on us!

Toni Geren
1 month ago
Reply to  Freya

Then find a board that loves satan.

Ref
1 month ago
Reply to  Freya

Then don’t force your rebellion against the Creator of life on the rest of society. No matter what you think, God will not be mocked.

tika
1 month ago
Reply to  Freya

because YOU don’t BELIEVE He exists doesn’t disprove Him.

Alicia
1 month ago

What it shows is that those that are governing our country do not care about the religious standings of its people. We react to the few over the many. What baffles me is that there is so much emphasis on our sexuality and physical appearance negating that who we are is not the outside body. Who we are is the source of energy of what we are from within our spirit. Lost in the illusion of insanity to be what we are not. Why is it so hard to love ourselves as we are made, because we don’t know who and what we are, and our society will solve that too by AI and then we will cease to exist at all. All of this is to our destruction, blinded, eliminating our survival to exist. Was having more intelligence a benefit, or should we have remained more animalistic?

Dan Morgan
1 month ago
Reply to  Alicia

Why should the whole country bow to Christians thoughts and bigotry? Leave us and our rights alone and we’ll leave you and your right to shove your religious views on your kids alone. That is the crime here, not letting 2 adults who love each other get married.

anna hubert
1 month ago
Reply to  Dan Morgan

We see the results of progressive ideas all around us and it only is the beginning

Freya
1 month ago
Reply to  anna hubert

It’s a way better society as a result. We need even more progress. We don’t need to turn back the clock to more bigoted times.

tofbs
1 month ago
Reply to  Freya

LIKE MUTALATING CHILDREN ALLOWING SURGERY TO CHANGE THERE GIVIN GENDER

Sara
1 month ago
Reply to  Freya

THIS is a better society???? You scare me lady. So being a Christian is bigotry? It is the first time in my life that I have FREEDOM. You should not call something bigotry that you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT. FURTHERMORE….WHY ARE YOU ON THIS SITE WHEN YOU KNOW PERFECTLY WELL IT IS A CONSERVATIVE ONE????????????? Just trying to cause anger and hatred is what I see.

Toni Geren
1 month ago
Reply to  Dan Morgan

Well all I can say is at least you can’t procreate. Problem will eventually be solved.

Sara
1 month ago
Reply to  Dan Morgan

Who says the whole country HAS to bow down to Christian thoughts? What laws have been passed to force you to do so? But look at the laws that are being passed for everything we do not believe in. WHY are you trying to FORCE YOUR BELIEFS DOWN OUR THROATS????? AND why is that okay? Double standard is what I see. If a child just MENTIONS the Name of Jesus in school, they are expelled. But you can pray to Allah or whomever and all is well. Do what you want people but QUIT SHOVING IT DOWN OUR THROATS. I don’t shove my Jesus down yours.

JR Fox
1 month ago
Reply to  Alicia

It’s against science and nature.

Freya
1 month ago
Reply to  JR Fox

Apparently you know nothing of science or nature. Any credible biologist or zoologist will tell you that homosexual behavior has been observed in many species, especially our closest relatives, the bonobos, with whom we share over 98% of our DNA. Homosexuality is a standard part of bonobo society (not at all an aberration), as is sexual promiscuity. But apparently your science education never went beyond the Bible. Talk about leaving your brain at the door. If you think that a 2000+ year-old book has more to say about science than the people today who dedicate their lives to studying this stuff in the field, then you deserved to be laughed at.

Toni Geren
1 month ago
Reply to  Freya

Are you a troll? If not, why are you here? Might want to join your bonobo society.

Sara
1 month ago
Reply to  Freya

Trying to sound like you know what you are talking about. You sound like an idiot. MY DNA goes back to Adam and Eve not your bonobos. AND isn’t it very odd lady that the 2000 year old Book you make fun of is STILL the best selling Book of all? And as I said to you above….Why are you on this conservative sight…except to only cause anger and hatred?

Cam
1 month ago

“On what basis could these GOP Senators justify such a vote given the obvious danger to churches and religious organizations” Your entitlement is ASTOUNDING and can basically be summed up as

“Society should solely serve my alternative lifestyle and nonsense beliefs. I get to decide to is entitled to government legal & financial protections. Anything less is an attack on me”

Nate Redshill
1 month ago

So this is the AMAC that asks me to join every so often? Getting to hew the Gay Marriage Line just like AARP. Consider the six or seven states that allow brother-sister marriages when one or both a adopted. New Hampshire had that under a judge-created process requiring hearings and a court-appointed special master to help a judge make the final determination that such a particular marriage was NOT incestuous. I knew a brother-sister who got married in 1980–that process has since been outlawed by statute but they are grandfathered. In a majority of states it is illegal for first cousins to marry–Pennsylvania is the nearest. Anything can still be done by special legislative act–Massachusetts a few years ago allowed an aunt-nephew marriage by Special Act of the General Court our quaint legal name for our legislature; the aunt was the ex-wife of the man who was now married to the groom’s mother’s younger sister.
In short, this Bill is intended to cause a lot of lawsuit trouble. But when a gay coupe asks a mosque to let them stage their gay wedding in the mosque expect some violence–except I don’t expect a gay couple to ever do that! Which gives the game away–They’re all about destroying only the Christian religion. I doubt any gays will sue synagogues but they might–after all, they’re going after Yeshiva University.

Dan Morgan
1 month ago
Reply to  Nate Redshill

Dude. How in the hell does this have anything to do with destroying the Christian religion? Why do you feel so entitled to think it’s perfectly acceptable for the entire country to go along with what you think and feel is or is not ok? Absolutely no gay people are trying to convert straight people, outlaw straight marriage, or anything of the sort. If you don’t like gay marriage, THEN DONT MARRY A MAN! Quit crying like a baby about sh*t that doesn’t affect you in any way, shape or form.

JR Fox
1 month ago
Reply to  Dan Morgan

Homosexuality is against all religions and above all nature. How did the AIDS epidemic go for you? Monkey Pox?

Freya
1 month ago
Reply to  JR Fox

It’s funny that you claim to speak for ALL religions when you don’t even speak for your own. Unless you want to play the game of who is a “true Christian” and who isn’t. You know, pride is a sin according to your holy book.

Toni Geren
1 month ago
Reply to  Freya

Might want to actually READ that book. I know…you won’t. truth would rock you boat.

Sara
1 month ago
Reply to  Freya

Once again you know NOTHING about Christianity. There is NO DIFFERENCE between you and a Christian EXCEPT we believe God, who loves His creation, saw that we were doomed to die in our sins because no one could be perfect, so He sent His One and Only Son Jesus, who being Perfect, because He is God, took our place and died on that Cross for all of humanity. John 3:16 For God so Loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER BELIEVES in Him SHOULD not perish, but have everlasting life. Notice it says SHOULD, because not all will choose to believe. Christianity is NOT a religion, it is a belief in a Person and His Name is Jesus. I don’t know why, but those who know nothing about Christianity think that we are supposed to be Perfect which is totally ridiculous. If any one could be perfect, Jesus died in vain. But we Christians are SINNERS just like you, we are all in the same boat lady. The difference is Jesus and Him alone. We enter heaven by hanging onto Him.

Sara
1 month ago
Reply to  Dan Morgan

DUDE. Why do YOU feel so entitled to think it’s perfectly acceptable for the entire country to go along with what you think and feel is or is not ok? Absolutely no straight people are trying to convert gay people….we just don’t like it shoved down our throats. YOU say your not, but look what you are doing in our schools with our children…..where by the way, you have overstepped massively and expect us parents to stand by silently for it and wonder why we get a little hysterical. There is the limit dear….our children. AND WHY are you on this site when you know full well it is a conservative one???? YOU and those like you are the problem, always trying to stir up hatred and anger and keep us at each other. That makes you very disgusting Dan.

Kim
1 month ago

I remember reading the results of a research paper that stated same-sex unions, on average, last longer than heterosexual marriages. I’ve known gay couples who had stronger commitments to each other than many in traditional marriages. The federal government recognizes LGB issues and makes discrimination illegal. Other people’s choices for how they choose to live their lives have no bearing on how I live my life or how you live yours! You could even see the First Amendment addressing the freedom to express oneself being brought up to affirm same-sex marriages.

The author didn’t go into the ramifications of certain aspects when these unions are not legally recognized. When one spouse is hospitalized, his or her loved one might not even be allowed to visit. The hospital won’t allow the partner to request the course of treatment even if it has been stipulated in a living will. Instead, an estranged family member, who isn’t sympathetic to the wishes of the patient and the partner, can call the shots. If the patient dies, the courts can set up all sorts of obstacles to settle the will. And if there is no will, the partner might not get anything. Only a legal marriage would see the end to these tragedies.

When it comes to forcing a bakery to make a cake celebrating a gay marriage, that’s where I draw the line. In my business, I often turned down work from prospective clients requesting my services, and I didn’t need to offer a reason. No one sued me for that. So, a bakery should be able to decline work because…no reason need be given. These lawsuits that caused long-standing businesses to close their doors and possibly bankrupt the owners should have been thrown out of court. If a church refuses to perform a ceremony because it’s not sanctioned by that church, then the couple should look elsewhere. Those who choose to create a media sensation are doing so with other notions in mind (big $$$ lawsuit, notoriety, shaming an unsupportive family…).

Underage or incestuous unions and cultish behaviors among unconsenting adults are not acceptable.

It’s a sticky wicket, how far legislators are willing to go to respect the rights of individuals while at the same time respecting the obligations of the Constitution and society. For peace on earth, I think we have to be less punitive when it comes to same-sex unions.

spitfire?1940
1 month ago
Reply to  Kim

Dear sir or madam,try reading the Bible.

Kim
1 month ago
Reply to  spitfire?1940

I’m not religious, so that wouldn’t change my mind. And to all those who claim that being non-religious (for me, an atheist) is akin to being immoral, let me inform you that it is not. For me, morality comes instinctively; I don’t need to be guided by a book.

JR Fox
1 month ago
Reply to  Kim

Well said and my sentiments also.

Kim
1 month ago
Reply to  spitfire?1940

For clarification, I’m a woman, was married to a man for 20 years, was never in a same-sex relationship, have 2 kids, and took care of (lived with, putting all my ambitions on hold) my mother for the last 9 years of her life.

Dan Morgan
1 month ago
Reply to  spitfire?1940

What does reading the Bible have to do with anything? Who cares what it says? It has absolutely nothing to do with legal government proceedings and equal rights. You read your Bible all day long, more power to you. No one is trying to take your right to read that stupidity, so leave us alone.

Freya
1 month ago
Reply to  spitfire?1940

America is not a theocracy. Apparently you don’t care about anyone else’s religious freedom but your own.

Claire
1 month ago
Reply to  Kim

Why do you adduce the (weakly supported and sourced, highly dubious) research paper that homosexual marriages last longer than heterosexual ones in support of gay marriage? Are you saying that homosexual “love” is more constant than heterosexual love? But what has “love” got to do with marriage as an institution sustaining the continuance of civil society? The longevity of a marriage – the commitment of the man and woman to staying married – contained in the ceremonial phrases “til death us do part” and “forswearing all others” has social value resting on the man and woman continuing to perform, during their life-time, the duties that the marriage status conferred. Fulfillment of those duties – most importantly, the obligations of fatherhood – sustained civil order. All that – those old notions of fundamental male and female social function in fatherhood and motherhood, with those functions governing property arrangements and morality – is being thrown on the dust-heap of history. The elimination of the family, property, and the “norm” has gone so far now, and civil order is so emptied of meaning, that it really makes no difference to anything if marriage is now available to anyone (any combination of persons) who thinks that a ceremony and a license validates “love”. We live in parody.

Sharon Ormsby
1 month ago
Reply to  Claire

True, the divorce rate is actually about the same in homosexual couples as it is in heterosexual couples. It’s actually a little higher in rates. Just slightly however.

Dan Morgan
1 month ago
Reply to  Claire

Why do you put love in quotes when referring to same sex marriages but not for opposite sex marriages? Is your little brain incapable of comprehending that 2 men or 2 women can truly love each other? I love my same sex spouse way more than your husband loves you or his mistress.

irene
1 month ago
Reply to  Claire

I have a nephew that just got divorced from his male spouse who was cheating on him and trying to take him for all that he was worth. I know my nephew was always an idiot when it came to this jack*ss. he forgave and forgave and it was an off and on relationship and it seemed we all could see that he was full of himself so much so that he could never really love another but my nephew was deaf dumb and blind. BS to all this crap that marriage with a same sex partner is better. it is not and people will be people and most people can only take and take and never give.

JR Fox
1 month ago
Reply to  Kim

It’s forbidden by all major religions and above all nature. Have you forgotten the AIDS epidemic? Monkey Pox?

spitfire?1940
1 month ago

My border collie is so disappointed that AMAC didn’t post my comment!

Fed Up
1 month ago

How about “Republicans” actually representing their constituents. Now that’s a novel idea.

David Millikan
1 month ago

Another Communist liberal bill rammed through Congress and Senate with no regard the damage it does to our country.

Dan Morgan
1 month ago
Reply to  David Millikan

Do you even know what communism is? How does allowing 2 men or 2 women to get married damage a country? If you don’t like same sex marriage I have the perfect option for you. DONT MARRY A MAN. And leave me and my rights the hell alone.

Jim
1 month ago
Reply to  Dan Morgan

You simply need to do a study on the fall of the great empires of history and gain understanding of of the types of attitudes and behaviors that they embraced to see what is coming to the world around us. Forget all the stuff you lay claim to as your right and realize there are consequences for all of this. I don’t have to defend God or his instruction manual, He is able and will defend the truth. It may not happen today, next week or next year but it is going to happen. Someday you will pass from this life and then you can attempt all the justifying arguments you want to give us for your deviant behavior, with great sadness the judge of all time will give you the final verdict for rebellion and disbelief.

Sara
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Amen! Well said!

Sara
1 month ago
Reply to  Dan Morgan

So WHY ARE YOU ON THIS CONSERVATIVE SITE????????????????????

Peter
1 month ago

Stolen elections have consequences!

irene
1 month ago
Reply to  Peter

electing and supporting and running on the demon rats ticket is, was and will always be the devil’s demonic jacka**es. they seem more ponds of evil than anything else.

Freya
1 month ago
Reply to  Peter

I would love to watch you storm the Capitol all by yourself on my TV. It would be some of the best entertainment of the year. But I’m sure that you don’t have the guts. You’re just a little man acting big on the internet.

Sara
1 month ago
Reply to  Freya

You are acting and looking like an idiot for being on this site in the first place.

Michael J
1 month ago

This issue never seems to die, those that push this agenda draws us closer to a government that will decide what marriage is. Unanimous democrat support and some republican cross over has shown that demonizing traditional views will become mainstream. In California, man and woman marriage definition (prop 8) was passed by the people only to be challenged by the state and the will of the people was overturned. Family law will be redefined, unintended consequences will reveal themselves and the institution of holy matrimony will be but a memory.

Freya
1 month ago
Reply to  Michael J

Um, when you want Republicans to (A.) win control of Congress and the White House and (B.) use that power to legislatively prohibit same-sex marriage, that is you wanting the government to “decide what marriage is!” Your hypocrisy is truly next level. The old Defense of Marriage Act that Bill Clinton signed in the ’90s was in fact the government deciding that marriage was only between one man and one woman. Why can’t you people form coherent thoughts that don’t self-vontradict?

Smike
1 month ago

Where as I believe two guys getting together is discussing I feel it’s OK for two women. I guess it’s due to women having been doing this openly for years and I’ve gotten use to it. It wasn’t officially sanctioned but tolerated. Men never enjoyed the same acceptance and never will. They will forever be tainted with the stigma of being gay. You can forbid the word, change the laws but the stigma will always remain, it won’t go away. I have gay friends, I don’t pass judgement on them. I feel there’s a line, I stay on my side and they stay on theirs. Works for me….

spitfire?1940
1 month ago
Reply to  Smike

Homosexuals will never be ‘gay’.Fact is they are sad and they are Satan’s pawns.

Kim
1 month ago
Reply to  spitfire?1940

For many of us grounded on this earth, there is no Satan. Besides, if you believe in God, don’t you also believe all people, including gays, were created in His image? How will He judge you when you dishonor any of His creations?

irene
1 month ago
Reply to  Kim

funny that you do not see evil/satan on this earth. so what do you see when a child is rape. sold into the sex slavery, the millions of babies are being killed throughout this world and in a year so two bloody ahole can have sex and not be punished or a person can rape another person and not be punished but the baby in the womb is the one who is punished and feel being put to death. and do not give me that BS about the being not feeling anything. they are human beings. and I guess you are deaf dumb and blind to people in the past and present being throw into concentration camps and worked to death or killed because some psycho thinks they are not worth to live because they are disabled. I rather not have hearing, legs or arms than not to have a heart that feels or not have a conscious like you seem not to have.

Kim
1 month ago
Reply to  irene

Obviously, you don’t know me at all. What makes you think atheists don’t have a conscience?

Why do you equate child rape, sex slavery, abortion, concentration camps, and the disabled with my question…which you neglected to answer, by the way? And, you want to punish gay people?! You mean, as they do in the Middle East by throwing them off tall buildings? Please, irene, evolve a little.

Sara
1 month ago
Reply to  Kim

Where do you think that conscience comes from? The Bible says that God has instilled that in all his creation so they have a knowledge of when they do wrong. And Irene is equating all that with EVIL in this world. You have to be blind to not see how evil is progressing. is what Irene is trying to say.

Sara
1 month ago
Reply to  Kim

You are wrong. It is not dishonoring His creation. IF you read the Bible you will find that when we do WRONG, we will pay the consequences with God. GAYS were NOT created in His image. The PERSON is created in His image. What we decide to do, whether good or bad is up to us because God gives us free will. But we will answer to Him when we stand before Him for the wrong we chose to do.

Dan Morgan
1 month ago
Reply to  spitfire?1940

What are you basing this insane comment on? Because you’re gay and sad? And while there is no god or satan, if there was I’d be proud to be satans pawn cuz you “Christians” are crazy.

Sara
1 month ago
Reply to  Dan Morgan

I have relatives who are gay and I love them dearly and they love me. They know I believe that homosexuality is wrong, but that is where it ends. I don’t shove Jesus down their throats or constantly tell them they are wrong, and they do not flaunt their lifestyle at me. We RESPECT one another and therefore makes it very easy to love one another.

Dan Morgan
1 month ago
Reply to  Smike

Do these gay friends consider you a friend? Something tells me no.

97
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x