Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois

Why would 12 Republican senators v**e in favor of a bill which “provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages”? How could almost 25 percent of all Republican senators agree to back this?

The issue, of course, is not their backing of interracial marriages. No major leader with any credibility or respected platform is saying such marriages should not be recognized by law. In fact, it is misleading even to put interracial marriages, which contain the fundamental building blocks of marriage and family, namely a man and a woman, in the same category as same-sex “marriages,” which by definition omit either the man or the woman.

Rejection of interracial marriages is a matter of bigotry, not biology.

The issue is these Republican leaders offering their names in support of these same-sex unions. What could possibly motivate them?

In the words of Sen. Mitt Romney, one of the aforementioned 12 and himself a devout Mormon,

“This legislation provides important protections for religious liberty—measures which are particularly important to protect the religious freedoms of our faith-based institutions. I appreciate the efforts of Senators Baldwin, Collins, and others to address this concern, and heartily support their legislation.

“While I believe in traditional marriage, Obergefell is and has been the law of the land upon which L***Q individuals have relied. This legislation provides certainty to many L***Q Americans, and it signals that Congress—and I—esteem and love all of our fellow Americans equally.”

Put another way, since same-sex “marriage” is already the law of the land, we might as well put all our efforts into ensuring religious freedoms, which the Obergefell decision made quite tenuous.

Similarly, Sen. Joni Ernst said, “After hearing directly from Iowans and closely reviewing the amended language, I believe this bill protects religious freedoms and will simply maintain the status quo in Iowa.”

Other Republican backers echoed similar sentiments, with Sen. Lisa Murkowski stating that,

“I have long supported marriage e******y and believe all lawful marriages deserve respect. I thank my colleagues who improved the bill’s protections for religious liberty and continued prohibitions on polygamy, allowing it to move forward this week. All Americans deserve dignity, respect, and equal protection under the law.”

But it is one thing for Murkowski, who affirms the validity of same-sex “marriage,” to support this bill. It is another thing for a Mormon or a professing Christian conservative, such as Sen. Joni Ernst, to support this bill, since it more deeply enshrines these same-sex unions in our nation and, according to many, does not truly protect our religious liberties.

To quote from the bill directly,

“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...”

Read those words again and ask yourself: If you are a God-fearing Bible-believer, could you v**e yes to a statement like that?

“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…”

How on earth could any Bible-affirming individual put his or her name to that statement?

The NRB (National Religious Broadcasters) expressed its “grave disappointment in the decision of twelve Senate Republicans to v**e to advance the so-called ‘Respect for Marriage Act,’ which breaks with the traditional definition of marriage that has sustained the American family for generations and undermines religious groups, including our members, who dissent in speech or in practice.”

Said NRB President & CEO Troy A. Miller:

In America today, the ability to obtain a same-sex marriage is not in jeopardy. The ability to do business or speak to the culture while holding to traditional values about life, marriage, and family is very much under threat. These are part and parcel of the First Amendment freedoms that NRB exists to defend.

Less stridently, Patrick T. Brown wrote on Newsweek that the “Republicans and conservatives should offer a hearty ‘mazel tov’ when our L**T brothers and sisters opt for a lifetime of fidelity, commitment, and companionship...

But the institution of marriage itself—in law, custom, and tradition—is intimately bound up with the act of creating and raising children. Marriage, at its core, is the social institution most fundamentally oriented towards procreation. It is society's way of harnessing, binding, and supporting the relationship that creates a new life, and it gives the child produced from that union (and his or her parents) the best chance at a stable life.

Exactly so. And the reason that the government recognizes and conveys benefits on marriage is because marriage conveys benefits on the society, namely (and as a rule), the natural ability for a husband and wife to bring children into the world and to join them to their biological parents.

Otherwise, why does the government even get involved in the institution of marriage? Why are there tax benefits? It’s because of what marriage, as intended by God and biology, can do.

As for same-sex couples, I know my words sound awful and h**eful.

The reality is that I make no judgment on their love for each other, their faithfulness to each other, or their desire to be good parents. To the contrary, I’m sure that there are many same-sex couples who are models of love and fidelity and many same-sex parents who are models of devotion and sacrifice.

I’m simply saying their unions are not truly marriages in God’s sight, that they violate the intent of our biological design, that the best mother is not a father (and vice versa), and that our courts and our government have no business redefining marriage, let alone punishing those of us who cannot affirm these unions in good conscience before God and the world.

And even if this bill did protect religious liberties (which critics of the bill, like Sen. Mike Lee, categorically says it does not), it is wrong to do so at the expense of affirming that which cannot be affirmed. (Lee said that the bill “labels people of good faith as bigots and subjects them to endless harassing litigation and discrimination and threats by that same government that was founded to protect their religious liberty.”)

It is therefore a terrible shame that 12 Republican senators joined together with their Democratic counterparts in v****g to advance this bill for a v**e. As for the Democrats, it is further proof of how far they have come from the days when President Clinton said (in 1996), “I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or considered.”

Let history take note.

elledee

There is no such thing as a marriage consisting of anything other than a man and a woman and anything else is just anything else...great post Parky

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Good post. Traditional values are definitely at risk. Look up, our redemption draweth nigh!

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

I remember back over fifty years, how I soured on marriage. A married couple was given special privileges that us single people didn't have. Financial differences. As a Navy man, they were given spousal benefits. They could have a living unit ashore while we had to live in cramped spaces out of tiny lockers. I could go on.

Now we have same sex couples demanding these same benefits. The ones single people can't have. And they make a good point, even without kids. Not all married couples can have kids or want kids. And of course many are well beyond the kids stages of life. So, in that regard, they might have a valid point.

But then, what really is a marriage. A union between a man and a woman. Simple. Do we need more unions, and their benefits, that single people don't have? I say NO. Very definitely NO. No matter what they say and do, they will never be the same as my parents and the UNION they had. Same with all of your parents. Biological parents.

So, should these alternative unions have the same benefits, like protections while splitting up, protections in inheriting property, joint home ownership. Adopting your partners kids from some former straight relationship? Probably.

So, they have a Union or a partnership with benefits. But it is still not what my parents had and an insult to them. Just call your damn union or partnership something else and quit trying to appropriate the terms of another culture, real marriage.

I personally would never recognize a gay marriage as a real marriage. Nor attend any such ceremony. And anyone who feels that they are different, should have the permanent right to never be forced to support such activity in person or business. Especially religions.

Like I said, just call your damn union something else. And there is no such thing as wife and wife, or husband and husband, or dad and dad, or mother and mother. There is only husband and wife, Mom and Dad. And I don't give a damn what you think. But please, just think up so new names. You simply aren't the same, but may rate the equal laws.