The Respect for Marriage Act:
Republicans who v**ed for the Respect for Marriage Act on Wednesday still have time to reverse course and take a stand against the radical legislation. Many of these lawmakers claim that the much-discussed legislation protects religious liberty. But opponents of the bill warn that it “puts a giant target on people of faith.”
The legislation repeals the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, obliges those “acting under color of state law” to recognize same-sex marriages, and orders the federal government to recognize marriages that are deemed valid by one or more states.
Fox News: But the bill offers no such protections. It is not a compromise, not even a bad compromise. It enshrines a false definition of marriage in our law and then tells people they can have their day in court if and when they get sued. That’s not public policy for the common good. Republican senators must hold strong and defend what is true and good. Marriage is a natural and supernatural institution before it is a political institution.
I don't know that I can agree with any of that. Like a******n, is Marriage even mentioned in the Constitution??
"Marriage" is an institution of life. "A******n" is an act of destroying it. The American Constitution is a document of the pursuit and protection of life.
currahee506 wrote:
"Marriage" is an institution of life. "A******n" is an act of destroying it. The American Constitution is a document of the pursuit and protection of life.
That might be all true, but if the constitution doesn't mention marriage like it doesn't mention a******n, then isn't it a state's issue??
nwtk2007 wrote:
The Respect for Marriage Act:
Republicans who v**ed for the Respect for Marriage Act on Wednesday still have time to reverse course and take a stand against the radical legislation. Many of these lawmakers claim that the much-discussed legislation protects religious liberty. But opponents of the bill warn that it “puts a giant target on people of faith.”
The legislation repeals the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, obliges those “acting under color of state law” to recognize same-sex marriages, and orders the federal government to recognize marriages that are deemed valid by one or more states.
Fox News: But the bill offers no such protections. It is not a compromise, not even a bad compromise. It enshrines a false definition of marriage in our law and then tells people they can have their day in court if and when they get sued. That’s not public policy for the common good. Republican senators must hold strong and defend what is true and good. Marriage is a natural and supernatural institution before it is a political institution.
I don't know that I can agree with any of that. Like a******n, is Marriage even mentioned in the Constitution??
The Respect for Marriage Act: br br Republicans w... (
show quote)
The equal protection clause covers both same sex and mixed race marriage.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.