There 12 rino repunks voted for radical respect for marriage act

https://stream.org/these-12-republicans-just-voted-for-radical-respect-for-marriage-act/

By MARY MARGARET OLOHAN Published on November 17, 2022

Mary Margaret Olohan
The United States Senate voted Wednesday to advance the so-called Respect for Marriage Act.

HR 8404, which passed the House of Representatives in July, “provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages,” repealing provisions that define marriage as between a man and a woman.

The legislation 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,” allows “the Department of Justice to bring a civil action,” and “establishes a private right of action for violations.”

Democratic advocates say the legislation promotes equality, but religious leaders strongly warned that it explicitly targets people of faith.

“Make no mistake,” Alliance Defending Freedom President Kristen Waggoner warned, “this bill will be used by officials and activists to punish and ruin those who do not share the government’s view on marriage.”

On Wednesday, HR 8404 received 62 “aye” votes and 37 “no” votes.

Twelve Republicans voted for advancing the legislation: Sens. 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.

Most of these lawmakers did not respond to requests for comment from The Daily Signal.

Ernst said Wednesday evening that “after hearing directly from Iowans, and closely reviewing the amended language,” she believes “this bill protects religious freedoms and will simply maintain the status quo in Iowa.”

Collins, who co-introduced an amendment to the legislation aimed at protecting religious liberty, supplied The Daily Signal with statements from religious organizations, businesses, and constitutional scholars in support of the legislation.

“This vote was unnecessary,” Sullivan said in a statement that noted Obergefell v. Hodges made same-sex marriage “the law of the land in each state” while maintaining that he has long believed “marriage should be an issue left up to the states.”

always stabbing their constituency in the back.


oh pfft...it's the usual gang.

The problem is that the average person/voter will not do any research but, will think that this "act" is something it is not! The average person/voter is going to think that there should be respect for marriage however that is NOT what is intended with this "act".

Just wait until the First Baptist Church refuses to marry Luke and John.  Not only will Luke, John, and the ACLU sue the church, the IRS will swoop down to yank away their tax exempt status.

If a two men get married is that really any skin off your nose,

I have no issue with any religious organisation refusing to marry them if its against their constitutional beliefs

RV wrote:The problem is that the average person/voter will not do any research but, will think that this "act" is something it is not! The average person/voter is going to think that there should be respect for marriage however that is NOT what is intended with this "act".

RV what sort of research would you suggest these simple minded voters do ?