House PASSES bill to codify same-sex marriage:
47 Republicans including Liz Cheney and
Elise Stefanik join Democrats to send
bill to Senate - where it faces a tougher passage
Daily Mail (UK),
by
Elizabeth Elkind
Original Article
Posted By: Ribicon,
7/19/2022 7:17:08 PM
The House on Tuesday night voted 267 to 157 to pass a bill that would recognize same-sex marriage in federal law. Forty-seven Republicans joined all Democrats in sending the Defense of Marriage Act to the Senate where it faces a tougher challenge of getting through. The vote came amid concerns that the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade abortion access could jeopardize other rights.(Snip)Liz Cheney, GOP conference chair Elise Stefanik and NRCC chair Tom Emmer were among members of their party to cross the aisle. Scott Perry of the Freedom Caucus and Nancy Mace, who is facing a tough midterm, also sided with Democrats.
Indeed. States' rights. The only way to federally codify it would be an amendment to the Constitution.
46 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
bamapreacher 7/19/2022 7:45:51 PM (No. 1221784)
I don't know that any Christian church bans interracial marriages, but some churches do ban same sex marriages, notably 4 of the 5 largest denominations in the U.S. Try to force them to accept same sex marriage and they will either have to break the law or fold, and as much as liberals want to destroy Christianity I don't think people will stand for forcing churches to close. Civil wars have been fought over things like that.
50 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Michaelus 7/19/2022 7:49:42 PM (No. 1221788)
It can never be legal to force us to pretend that a man can marry a man. They might as well make a Federal law declaring that Pete Buttigieg's rectum shall henceforth be called his uterus.
67 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Jesuslover54 7/19/2022 7:50:15 PM (No. 1221789)
Is this same-sex or same-sex as self-identified?
24 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
BarryNo 7/19/2022 7:51:29 PM (No. 1221791)
We need to make them unwelcome. Very unwelcome.
30 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
jimboscott 7/19/2022 7:55:31 PM (No. 1221798)
I do not believe in same sex marriage as a religious institution but it IS a state's rights issue and, there has to be some form of reciprocity involved. That brings issues of interstate commerce or equal protection into the equation as the legal status, and financial state of a 'married' gay couple could change as they travel to or pass through other states.
Let's say New York recognizes social security benefits for a 'married' gay man that are based upon a deceased spouse. What happens to that benefit if the 'widower' moves to a state in which gay marriages are not recognized?
There needs to be either NO gay marriages allowed OR some means by which the benefits afforded by one state are in some manner recognized by all other states. I think this is a legitimate question that has to be dealt with through the legislative process.
17 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Submariner 7/19/2022 7:57:06 PM (No. 1221800)
Stefanik's vote is a surprise disappointment
53 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Anti_democRAT 7/19/2022 8:15:28 PM (No. 1221825)
It just sounds wrong.
21 people like this.
Two men----- typically not monogamous, their dirty little secret they don't want you to know about---- playing house.
19 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Zeek Wolfe 7/19/2022 8:23:15 PM (No. 1221837)
This vote will be useful in weeding out the RINOs and putting them on unimportant committees after the November election. RINOs in house leaderships roles? Bounce them out, we do not need any Hasterts, Boehners or Ryans in the next session of congress.
38 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
padiva 7/19/2022 8:33:09 PM (No. 1221848)
It appears that these stupid dems have the memory of a gnat.
The 10th Amendment applies to lots of things.
Grow up and read the Constitution.
Don't wait for the SCOTUS to make you behave.
25 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
wakeupcall 7/19/2022 8:46:09 PM (No. 1221857)
Lucifer loving political helpers of all that is evil forcing Lucifer's evil onto everyone.
15 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
DVC 7/19/2022 8:47:38 PM (No. 1221859)
Nutty, Nasty Nancy's House has passed a lot of gas that is just like regular old passed gas. They stink a lot, but quickly dissipate.
14 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
deerejon 7/19/2022 8:57:45 PM (No. 1221873)
Well, we now know where Elise Stefanik's values are.Right along side with Democrats.She just lost her credibility with Me.
42 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
Venturer 7/19/2022 8:59:20 PM (No. 1221875)
These 47 people are not Republicans.
34 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
Muguy 7/19/2022 10:27:58 PM (No. 1221938)
There used to be a “Defense of Marriage Act”
This is nothing more than a “just play gay” effort. Stefanick just lost a great deal of respect over this farce
19 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
mifla 7/20/2022 4:31:59 AM (No. 1222068)
Pelosi has obviously learned nothing from the recent Supreme Court ruling. Here we go again.
10 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
Rinktum 7/20/2022 5:55:35 AM (No. 1222101)
Democrats and evidently some Republicans are determined to push this issue to the forefront. Now, why would that be? It is designed to divide the Republican Party and it looks like it has been a success. Are we going to codify every sexual proclivity from here on out? Marriage is an act between one man and one woman and a vast amount of voters in this country believe this. Codifying gay marriage into federal law is not only unconstitutional, see Roe v. Wade, but it is a religious belief. Democrats are desperately trying to stir the pot of divisiveness and make this an issue right before the mid terms. Because of the definition of marriage that I hold to, I cannot support this. Put a Christian up against the wall on any moral issue and they will, most likely make a decision based upon their religious beliefs. I guess the days of tolerance is over. Now, we are going to be forced to take a stand. I cannot support a federal codification of gay marriage.
29 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
LaVallette 7/20/2022 6:05:00 AM (No. 1222106)
Total waste of time and just a bit of woke VIRTUE SIGNALLING by the Demonrats and the few "holier than thou" RINOS. Either the issue is permitted under the US Constitution and therefore no need for separate legislation, or NOT PERMITTED under the US Constitution and the law is rendered immediately futile as "unconstitutional" and goes to the States to determine. SIMPLES.
BTW: Any law that is in conflict with Natural Science and the Natural Order is called a "legal fiction" and regardless of its intent it is an outright intellectual Fraud. Well may legislatures bring down a law that says "the earth is flat" or "the sun rises in the west", each is intellectually absurd and an offends human sensibilities. "Same sex marriage" is such a legal fiction, but INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE is not.
14 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
Historybuff 7/20/2022 6:26:24 AM (No. 1222122)
Up next? Polygamy!
16 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
ARKfamily 7/20/2022 6:27:24 AM (No. 1222123)
#2, close a church? No, churches will just have to become smarter. If a couple wants to get married at a church, they must be members of the church and go through 6-12 months of premarital counseling. . .
10 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
msjena 7/20/2022 8:06:00 AM (No. 1222222)
Congress has no authority to regulate marriage. It isn't a Commerce Clause issue. But will the Supreme Court strike it down?
12 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
bigfatslob 7/20/2022 8:15:46 AM (No. 1222234)
The world's on fire and this is what our government tackles as important. We don't have a government just rich nitwits navel gazing idiots with a fraud president.
21 people like this.
Reply 24 - Posted by:
msjena 7/20/2022 8:17:08 AM (No. 1222236)
Which Democrat Senator will vote against it? And they will need more than one, because Murk and Collins and maybe even Romney are likely to vote for it.
8 people like this.
Reply 25 - Posted by:
lakerman1 7/20/2022 8:20:24 AM (No. 1222240)
Stefanik's congressional district is such that sh,e has to take certain positions, to stay in office.
Senator William Fulbright, the Arkansas liberal, voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He explained that he had to do that, to get reelected.
As for the question about one state recognizing another state's law, there is a 'full faith and credit' clause in the U.S. Constitution, where states are required to do so.
9 people like this.
Reply 26 - Posted by:
Right Time 7/20/2022 8:20:55 AM (No. 1222241)
Do these Leftist Democrats not read the US Constitution?...Or think that you didn't?
There is this little thing called "enumerated powers." And the 10th Amendment.
Ready for another SCOTUS Slapdown, Dems?
5 people like this.
Reply 27 - Posted by:
Right Time 7/20/2022 8:25:30 AM (No. 1222248)
Stefani's vote is disappointing, but no surprise.
I don't trust her and she plays both sides of the street.
She is too tight with McConnell
12 people like this.
Reply 28 - Posted by:
chillijilli 7/20/2022 8:41:39 AM (No. 1222270)
It ISN'T marriage. Just call it something else, like "Same Sex Partnership Agreement" and be done with it. The problem most people have is that words mean something and they vigorously resist redefining a word that has been acceptable and used worldwide to mean one man and one woman since 2350BC.
19 people like this.
Reply 29 - Posted by:
CivilServant 7/20/2022 8:46:40 AM (No. 1222279)
Expanding on #6, the exact same arguments apply to my CCW.
3 people like this.
Reply 30 - Posted by:
udanja99 7/20/2022 9:04:55 AM (No. 1222306)
I’m not the least bit surprised that Mace voted for it. She is persona non grata among my friends. I will probably write in a vote for Katie Arrington in November.
#20 beat me to it. If same sex “marriage” is legal and being codified, how can the congress and SCOTUS ban polygamy?
And after that…….
6 people like this.
Reply 31 - Posted by:
Dodge Boy 7/20/2022 9:09:25 AM (No. 1222314)
What #3 said.
3 people like this.
Reply 32 - Posted by:
Blue-Z-Anna 7/20/2022 9:09:28 AM (No. 1222315)
Read the 10th amendment and then get back to me.
2 people like this.
Reply 33 - Posted by:
PrayerWarrior 7/20/2022 9:12:50 AM (No. 1222318)
When we lived in California, we had a vote (proposition) many years ago on same sex marriage. The citizens voted it down. Even the Black Community democrats voted against same sex marriage. What did the Left do? They went to the courts. The CA Supreme Court ruled against the citizens of CA and said same sex marriage would be the law of the land, even though the people voted against it. That's how the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the American people in the States violating the 10th Amendment. The Supreme Court's ruling was not based on the Constitution, but "found" same sex marriage in some convoluted twisted thinking there. You can thank Justice Kennedy for that.
11 people like this.
Reply 34 - Posted by:
PrayerWarrior 7/20/2022 9:20:33 AM (No. 1222331)
We regret sending money several times to Elise Stefanik. We won't do that again.
7 people like this.
Reply 35 - Posted by:
moebellini3 7/20/2022 9:38:05 AM (No. 1222361)
Ah yes, gay marriage, where diseases like Hiv/Aids and monkeypox flourish. It's a civil union not a marriage. Since the beginning of time, amongst every species on the planet marriage is between a man and a woman, a male and a female. You see the gay community and it's ring leader, Barack Hussein Obama would not settle for a civil union because they had to demean and cheapen marriage in the face of the church. From that time on their sick perverted agenda has invaded our school systems and destroyed our society. Wake up...
10 people like this.
Reply 36 - Posted by:
GoodDeal 7/20/2022 10:17:56 AM (No. 1222409)
Codifying immorality and sin. Those Republicans will have a special place in line at the bottomless pit and lake of fire.
5 people like this.
Reply 37 - Posted by:
MDConservative 7/20/2022 10:34:53 AM (No. 1222442)
FTA: "...top Republican leaders did not whip lawmakers to hold the party line against the bill."
LOL! It's called politics, folks. Misdirection, lies and broken promises litter the landscape. Today's "heroes" are tomorrow's traitors, betraying this or that great principle with a vote or two. There is no honor in politics, only survival and seniority. When will folks wake up that there is no trustworthy politician, none whatsoever.
This proposal and vote did exactly what the Dems expected. Flushed out those RINOS, some so highly thought of by "real conservatives". And now the RINOS can be flushed out of the system...you think. Realize, Republican leadership allowed a "free vote" on this. All RINOS...right? Go primary them. You can bet virtually all will be re-elected, the only exceptions might be weak sisters running for a second term in a normally Dem district.
6 people like this.
Reply 38 - Posted by:
ironchefw 7/20/2022 10:55:36 AM (No. 1222470)
I understand the theater of this action, but if SCOTUS were to overturn the gay marriage case with similar logic to Dobbs, then why wouldn't this "codification" be immediately nullified, too? As in, this law isn't as strong as its supporters think or want their voters to think.
2 people like this.
Reply 39 - Posted by:
Zigrid 7/20/2022 10:58:06 AM (No. 1222475)
Who really gives a flying doodle...it's not a constitutional right...but if you want validation for this move...I really don't care...I know in my heart what is right and will conduct myself accordingly...this "in your face" move doesn't mean a thing to me....cheney has lost all credibility with Americans...so let her do her huff and puff for the cameras...if this an attempt at closing the christian churches...give US your best shot...my church gets fuller every Sunday...so I'm thinking it's not working...
4 people like this.
Reply 40 - Posted by:
Mass Minority 7/20/2022 11:34:43 AM (No. 1222528)
This actually is a federal issue. The argument is about extending federally granted priveleges to same sex couples, most obvios those in the federal tax code. This is how this issue should have been dealt with at the outset. The supreme court should never have been involved in the first place.
Marriage is NOT a right, not for you, not for me and not far anyone else, same sex or not. the real argument is the insistance on calling it marriage and trying to force the idea that it is the same as the normal definition of mariage. Leave the sexes of the participanta out of the discussion for the moment. Marriage, as historically understood in the western sense is a religious institution, it is a covenant between two adults and God and is sanctified by a religious leader inside the church. In all Western religions the two adult participants have been required to be one man and one woman. The fed cannot change this, thats a first amendment right for the churched to be independant from gov interference.
The priveleges married couples have enjoyed were initiated to protect and nurture children. To support stable and long lasting families to uphold the social order. They can be revoked at any time by a simple majority vote in congress. They cannot annul your marriage, that is a religious act, but they can take away all of the legal protections, the tax status, the inheritance issues, the medical care issues, all of it.
The only issue at hand is if we as a people feel that an altered definition of a familial unit is good for societal stability and should the definition of who is eligable for these government priveleges be expanded. Thats it.
The term marriage should be reserved for the religious institution it is. In the eyes of government all of our marriages are simple civil contracts, a contract whose terms can be arbitrarily changed by gov alone at any time and for any reason. The intransigent insistence of the use of the term marriage by the left has nothing to do with codifying government privleges and everything to do with exerting power over their opponents. They argue it's just a word and we should give it up yet call the argument that it is just a word and they should give it up as facetious and stupid.
They want to use this argument not as a simple redefinition of government privlege but as a means of government endorsement for a lifestyle the vast majority of Americans can tolerate but do not wish to celebrate. Ultimately it is a means to further divide us and to provide a political talking point of derogation of the opposition party. And that is an abuse of power.
3 people like this.
Reply 41 - Posted by:
Rumblehog 7/20/2022 12:16:46 PM (No. 1222564)
To "codify" does not make it Constitutional, as the Supreme Court will soon enough have a chance to determine. These homosexuals are depraved degenerate deviants and should not have ANY laws passed in their behalf, especially when it comes to one of our sacred institutions of marriage, which is ONLY between a man and a woman. Guess what Demonrats? We'll do you one better by passing a Constitutional Amendment establishing "Marriage" as being between a biological MALE and a biological FEMALE!
5 people like this.
Reply 42 - Posted by:
whyyeseyec 7/20/2022 12:32:39 PM (No. 1222583)
Dems always do this close to an election in an effort to back the GOP into a corner on an issue. Vote NO and you're vilified as as homophobic. Let's see if the GOP cave or hold their ground. I'm betting they'll cave for votes.
3 people like this.
Reply 43 - Posted by:
kiwinews 7/20/2022 2:01:07 PM (No. 1222666)
If this is to be done this is the way it should have been done in the first place. Legislated by the People's representatives, not judicial fiat.
1 person likes this.
Reply 44 - Posted by:
Safari Man 7/20/2022 2:48:34 PM (No. 1222702)
So now a man can marry his father and bypass inheritance taxes?
1 person likes this.
Reply 45 - Posted by:
davew 7/20/2022 7:58:14 PM (No. 1222936)
There is no mention of "a right to marriage" in the body of, or any of the 25 functional amendments to the US Constitution. This was the same argument that was applied to overturning Roe v. Wade. The only statutes of anti-discrimination legislation not in the Constitution that have been upheld over many years are the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights acts. The legal foundation of these acts was the Constitutional provisions to regulate interstate commerce which require "public accomodations" for all citizens. Since secular marriages are licensed and regulated under each state's law there is no possible interstate commerce interpretation that would apply.
This is actually a moot point since on June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all state bans on same-sex marriage, legalized it in all fifty states, and required states to honor out-of-state same-sex marriage licenses in the case Obergefell v. Hodges. The legislation is virtue signalling and a political stunt in an election year.
0 people like this.
Reply 46 - Posted by:
davew 7/20/2022 9:37:34 PM (No. 1222994)
Obergefell v. Hodges overturned the state's bans on same sex marriage based on the equal protection language of the 14th Amendment. Discrimination based on sex is explicitly banned by the amendment although it could be argued that the states allowed men and women equal protection to get "married" as defined as a union between people of the opposite sex. I've always believed the opinion had the effect of banning states from defining legal terms that liberals didn't agree with but...this ship has sailed and the fact that Stefanik signed on further proves it was meaningless virtue signaling. Nice to know the Congress has done so well with illegal immigration, inflationary energy policy, national defense, and fiscal responsibility that they have time for the really important stuff like virtue signaling.
0 people like this.
Reply 47 - Posted by:
jerrodmason 7/21/2022 1:39:26 AM (No. 1223145)
It's not cut-and-dried. Legitimate federal interests may arise from the tax code and social security.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Ribicon"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
This is not a federal issue.