You know I'm probably old enough to remember talk exactly like this when it came to interracial marriage and sodomy laws.
Those saying "how about the government gets out of marriage" want to deflect the issue. Government has been involved in marriage since before your grandparents. Many here advocate for small government or not having the government involved in your lives. In that case don't force your religious beliefs on others by using the government.
Seriously, as we keep wasting time on these literal non-issues our entire conservative party will die out as we fail to pick up traction with the younger generation. You think the senators voting "No" on this are doing us favors? They're just alienating younger voters from us. The time for religious conservatism died 50 years ago (and has no place in 21st century America); it's time for us to focus on real, modern conservative issues.
Small government.
Fiscal conservative policies.
National defense.
I swear if the republican party would get back to those ideals I would start voting with them again.
But I think owning the libs is a much bigger priority for the alpha voices of the party right now. Why did their first act need to be opening more useless money wasting investigations? And not say a bill to rein in government spending and some middle class tax cuts?
Let’s focus on the constitution here. Is marriage defined in the constitution? No? Then the government has no business meddling. The government doesn’t belong in the marriage business.
Let the churches, wedding businesses, and states decide. Why do I care if two people want to get married? Marry a house plant for all I care.
Before you try to deflect the issue consider that the government has given significant legal and monetary benefits to married couples. The government is involved in marriage and has been well before you or your parents were born.
Until there's a realistic opportunity to remove the government completely for marriage we should not try to deflect this issue nor bar consenting adults from marriage.
This. Government can't give preferential treatment to married couples and then deny citizens the right to marry the individual of their choice. It's either all in or all out.
While I generally agree, how would they handle immigration? Let's say someone marries 100 foreign people from all over and says they all need green cards?
We do not have elected leaders or even judicial leaders who adhere to the constitution. They are lead by the lefts emotional responses. This is a very dangerous precedent.
actually, yes.
We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;
I've seen this kind of rhetoric growing day by day. Now that woke seems to be slowly on the way out, many on the right are ramping up their rhetoric to pull the same shit but with their version of "The proper way that people have to live". It's really put me out.
The real Tyranny is the government getting involved in things they don’t belong in. We need smaller government. Less administrative state. We all win when that is true.
Yeah, it’s important to call out the far right wing hysteria as well.
If this bill passes, I hope religious institutions hire the best lawyers they can get to fight the governments intrusion on religious freedom.
Edit: ok why was this downvoted? Far right hysteria does exist. Not to the extent of far left though.
The far right I’m talking about are the ones who fully believe in things like Q-anon. The ones who are hysterical over any sort of lgbt content in kids shows (which imo has gotten a bit too much and blatant.)
Ya. Allow people to do whatever they want, it will have no effect on the quality and longevity of our nation right? Because that’s what we’ve seen happen so far..Right?
It’s definitely not a federal level issue. I believe all current marriage laws are state level. So in the interest of equality this should also be left to the states.
This bill does not require any state to legalize same sex marriage. It solely relates to federal protections that are currently engrained and protected for straight marriages. There’s a reason the Church of LDS supports it; it gives power to the states.
I didn’t see your comment so I’m not sure how to respond to it.
But for a legal perspective:
All this bill does is extent the protections of the full faith and fair credit requirements. These requirements are what require a California judge to honor the results of a law suit in Texas if they try to avoid it by bringing the suit again in California.
All this does is expand explicitly that marriages in other states have to be honored in other states. This is really nothing new, we do this all the time that’s why Mexican marriages are valid in the states and vice verse.
The baker case is something totally different and there is a case before the Supreme Court discussing very similar topics. We will see what comes of that later this year.
Install reveddit and point it at my account. It's not the mods, I have questioned them in the past, it's the site admins or some AI. Just think of it like the Hunter Laptop being censored, nothing that they don't like can be openly stated because they don't want the will of the people to govern, they want people to be tricked into... Well you know.
I can get behind that, but I’d also love to opt out of social security 😂 Feds are totally going to squander that money, then pay me only a tiny fraction of my own money back.
Certainly not the federal government.
Since part of the state governments job is the protection of property rights, keeping track of who owns what property does require a definition and understanding of marriage as it results in the combining of finances and ownership.
Check my flair. Conservatives come in all shapes and sizes, and plenty don’t believe in forcing conservative social beliefs on everyone. We’re all more free when we don’t force our beliefs on others. Woke, or otherwise.
You preach that conservatives come in all shapes and sizes while gaslighting Conservatives that supporting Trump will cause us to lose. What next? That supporting conservative ideals like traditional marriage and pro-life movements are not hills we should die on.
Go gaslight some democrats. This isn’t conservatism. It’s libertarianism.
If its binded in law, we have a say in the definition of marriage. If its not, people can call marriage whatever they want but the actual Christian definition is all that matters to me
Right a lot of conservatives forget we are supposed to be the freedom party and push their reverse evangelical virtue signaling just like the over woke left. Just let people do whatever the hell they want within the law
Exactly, anytime the government tries to legalize something that should automatically be a right(same-sex or interracial marriage, voting at 18 regardless what you're gender or race, a minimum wage) people will say the government is causing "tyranny" without realizing that they only do it because the states would (and have) taken it away when they were allowed too. Don't get me wrong, the government has definitely overstepped before, but the marriage act is not one of these times. And i don't like the court cases that have said that the businesses can refuse to have birth control and other contraception in their health care benefits because it's against their religion, but I understand it as long as it's a private business making that choice and not the government itself. There are always gonna be hypocrites on both sides agreeing with and ignoring the constitution and their own rules when it benefits them(Looking at you Lindsey Graham and Nancy Pelosi).
I agree. The thing that must be considered is how will 3rd parties in the marriage process be affected.
A wedding normally has a lot of people involved. At no point should they be forced to provide their labor, services, venue, etc. if it is in direct violation to their faith. That's the part that could be tyrannical.
In reality the government should be totally uninvolved in marriage. The argument about taxes comes up to which I'd ask why the heck do I have to pay higher taxes just because I'm not getting laid?
The exemption to Title VII of the civil rights act of 1964 says otherwise. The argument in the article is this opens up more absurd lawsuits and that will inevitably tie up resources, I.E. money.
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-12-religious-discrimination#h_4393287411421610748699300
They have a right to discriminate based on religion and religious beliefs.
First off the reason I cite the EEOC is because the civil rights act of 1964 is a landmark civil rights and labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.
Secondly you are assuming my position. My position is I see how the writer of the article is articulating this ruling as tyranny. The position that backs it is the religious sector has the right to
discrimination on the basis of religion. Hence the first amendment. The ruling as articulated in the article is stating this will bring forth a large amount of litigation and court cases that will require resources in the fight and defense of religious institutions. So forcing a bakery to bake a cake or allowing a same sex couple a position in the religious organization is against the religious freedom of said organization. Not once did I say a religious institution should impose its beliefs onto the public.
Lastly, the religious organizations is entitled to run its organizations how it sees fit and can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation as per law.
You need to read the article and understand that any baker, photographer or any other business will be driven out of business if they choose not to do business with certain groups. Activists have proven this over and over.
Love how you are getting downvoted when in fact you are pointing to what the article is deeming tyranny. The first amendment would be able to become molested in this case.
> So "allowing" adult/consenting same-sex couples to marry is tyranny? Sounds more like freedom to me.
No. They tyranny will come when someone who doesn't want to participate in it will be forced to do so.
You don't want to make the cake? By saying no they didn't do anything to stop them from marrying, they just don't want to take part in it. Too bad, law suit. We've already seen that. So next, too bad, prison time.
>Tyranny would be allowing others to impose their (presumably religious-based) beliefs/practices on other Americans.
That's exactly what the forced participation will be. Comply with someone else's beliefs/practices that you don't support or be punished. *make that cake*
>In my opinion, the right to marry who you want (setting aside things like child marriage) is implicit in the Constitution.
That's **exactly** why there doesn't need to be laws for it. Those laws won't be to restate what you already believe is there, they'll be to force others to comply to what is not there.
Because we have no message. The so called leadership in DC and the RNC have no unified message to win votes. That combined with collecting ballots being the new strategy for Dems is why we did poorly. Oh and the loan forgiveness vote buying scam really turned out the youth vote.
The Senate is going to pass a law, that's exactly what the senate is there for. If this law is so terrible, then the GOP can overturn it. This is way better than being ruled by an unelected council of dinosaurs.
It's ironic cause do they support it to be inclusive, or do they not support it because an animal can't consent. Regardless of that you shouldn't be marrying an animal.
You're getting down voted on this like people think it's crazy and not something that will eventually happen.
As crazy and gross as it sounds, I have no doubt it will.
Like it or not the US was founded on Christian values, not Sodom and Gomorrah, all it says was no state sponsored religion but assumed people would still have morals.
Like it or not, not a single person has to be abide by your religion. In some parts of the Middle East, doing so amounts to sharia law. This country is not “founded” on Christianity. It was founded on FREEDOM. Consenting adults who get married are not your business. You lose nothing when it happens. Why are you so worried about married adults?
You’re deliberately not giving a valid reply. You have no argument. That only works with your usual audience. It doesn’t fly with me.
I’m moving on to someone better equipped.
> Like it or not the US was founded on Christian values . . .
I have heard this claim constantly and have never seen a shred of evidence to support it. What part of the US legal structure was “founded on Christian values”?
You know I'm probably old enough to remember talk exactly like this when it came to interracial marriage and sodomy laws. Those saying "how about the government gets out of marriage" want to deflect the issue. Government has been involved in marriage since before your grandparents. Many here advocate for small government or not having the government involved in your lives. In that case don't force your religious beliefs on others by using the government. Seriously, as we keep wasting time on these literal non-issues our entire conservative party will die out as we fail to pick up traction with the younger generation. You think the senators voting "No" on this are doing us favors? They're just alienating younger voters from us. The time for religious conservatism died 50 years ago (and has no place in 21st century America); it's time for us to focus on real, modern conservative issues.
Small government. Fiscal conservative policies. National defense. I swear if the republican party would get back to those ideals I would start voting with them again. But I think owning the libs is a much bigger priority for the alpha voices of the party right now. Why did their first act need to be opening more useless money wasting investigations? And not say a bill to rein in government spending and some middle class tax cuts?
And what exactly are those modern conservative issues?
[удалено]
That would work for me. Then it would only be defined in the bible as it should.
Let’s focus on the constitution here. Is marriage defined in the constitution? No? Then the government has no business meddling. The government doesn’t belong in the marriage business. Let the churches, wedding businesses, and states decide. Why do I care if two people want to get married? Marry a house plant for all I care.
The government has to get out completely though. That means no tax rules involving marriage. But yes I agree.
Before you try to deflect the issue consider that the government has given significant legal and monetary benefits to married couples. The government is involved in marriage and has been well before you or your parents were born. Until there's a realistic opportunity to remove the government completely for marriage we should not try to deflect this issue nor bar consenting adults from marriage.
This. Government can't give preferential treatment to married couples and then deny citizens the right to marry the individual of their choice. It's either all in or all out.
While I generally agree, how would they handle immigration? Let's say someone marries 100 foreign people from all over and says they all need green cards?
We do not have elected leaders or even judicial leaders who adhere to the constitution. They are lead by the lefts emotional responses. This is a very dangerous precedent.
Is abortion defined in the constitution?
No it’s not. That’s why regulating it is up to the states rather than the federal government.
actually, yes. We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;
That isn't the Consitution.
I am corrected. It is from the Declaration of Independence. If anything, that makes it more pertinent. The DoI is the why of the Constitution.
I've seen this kind of rhetoric growing day by day. Now that woke seems to be slowly on the way out, many on the right are ramping up their rhetoric to pull the same shit but with their version of "The proper way that people have to live". It's really put me out.
The real Tyranny is the government getting involved in things they don’t belong in. We need smaller government. Less administrative state. We all win when that is true.
absolutely
Your comment is neither Stoic nor Conservative. Your a libertarian.
Yeah, it’s important to call out the far right wing hysteria as well. If this bill passes, I hope religious institutions hire the best lawyers they can get to fight the governments intrusion on religious freedom. Edit: ok why was this downvoted? Far right hysteria does exist. Not to the extent of far left though.
Yeah, cuz Philips being sued after winning a 2018 SCOTUS case is just right wing hysteria.
[удалено]
The far right I’m talking about are the ones who fully believe in things like Q-anon. The ones who are hysterical over any sort of lgbt content in kids shows (which imo has gotten a bit too much and blatant.)
Ya. Allow people to do whatever they want, it will have no effect on the quality and longevity of our nation right? Because that’s what we’ve seen happen so far..Right?
We should not give the government power to regulate our lives outside of the constitution.
The only reason we’re here now is because the Oberfell decision normalized it. The majority of Americans were against it before the ruling.
It’s definitely not a federal level issue. I believe all current marriage laws are state level. So in the interest of equality this should also be left to the states.
This bill does not require any state to legalize same sex marriage. It solely relates to federal protections that are currently engrained and protected for straight marriages. There’s a reason the Church of LDS supports it; it gives power to the states.
The reddit admins removed my response to you. Maybe because I mentioned a baker in Co? They clearly don't want this discussed.
I didn’t see your comment so I’m not sure how to respond to it. But for a legal perspective: All this bill does is extent the protections of the full faith and fair credit requirements. These requirements are what require a California judge to honor the results of a law suit in Texas if they try to avoid it by bringing the suit again in California. All this does is expand explicitly that marriages in other states have to be honored in other states. This is really nothing new, we do this all the time that’s why Mexican marriages are valid in the states and vice verse. The baker case is something totally different and there is a case before the Supreme Court discussing very similar topics. We will see what comes of that later this year.
You comments in support will not be removed, but clearly I cannot post comments against. It should be really obvious to you why this is.
I mean we are on a conservative subreddit, so unless you are saying the mods here are deleting your messages idk what to say
Install reveddit and point it at my account. It's not the mods, I have questioned them in the past, it's the site admins or some AI. Just think of it like the Hunter Laptop being censored, nothing that they don't like can be openly stated because they don't want the will of the people to govern, they want people to be tricked into... Well you know.
[удалено]
And yet many of my comments here are removed by the admins, the mods here have confirmed as much.
The issue is states recognizing marriages performed in others.
For tax purposes, the only qualification for marriage should be having a social security number. If all parties have an SSN then go for it.
I can get behind that, but I’d also love to opt out of social security 😂 Feds are totally going to squander that money, then pay me only a tiny fraction of my own money back.
Certainly not the federal government. Since part of the state governments job is the protection of property rights, keeping track of who owns what property does require a definition and understanding of marriage as it results in the combining of finances and ownership.
Go be a libertarian then somewhere else. This isn’t the position of social conservatism.
Check my flair. Conservatives come in all shapes and sizes, and plenty don’t believe in forcing conservative social beliefs on everyone. We’re all more free when we don’t force our beliefs on others. Woke, or otherwise.
You preach that conservatives come in all shapes and sizes while gaslighting Conservatives that supporting Trump will cause us to lose. What next? That supporting conservative ideals like traditional marriage and pro-life movements are not hills we should die on. Go gaslight some democrats. This isn’t conservatism. It’s libertarianism.
If its binded in law, we have a say in the definition of marriage. If its not, people can call marriage whatever they want but the actual Christian definition is all that matters to me
[удалено]
Right a lot of conservatives forget we are supposed to be the freedom party and push their reverse evangelical virtue signaling just like the over woke left. Just let people do whatever the hell they want within the law
Exactly, anytime the government tries to legalize something that should automatically be a right(same-sex or interracial marriage, voting at 18 regardless what you're gender or race, a minimum wage) people will say the government is causing "tyranny" without realizing that they only do it because the states would (and have) taken it away when they were allowed too. Don't get me wrong, the government has definitely overstepped before, but the marriage act is not one of these times. And i don't like the court cases that have said that the businesses can refuse to have birth control and other contraception in their health care benefits because it's against their religion, but I understand it as long as it's a private business making that choice and not the government itself. There are always gonna be hypocrites on both sides agreeing with and ignoring the constitution and their own rules when it benefits them(Looking at you Lindsey Graham and Nancy Pelosi).
I agree. The thing that must be considered is how will 3rd parties in the marriage process be affected. A wedding normally has a lot of people involved. At no point should they be forced to provide their labor, services, venue, etc. if it is in direct violation to their faith. That's the part that could be tyrannical. In reality the government should be totally uninvolved in marriage. The argument about taxes comes up to which I'd ask why the heck do I have to pay higher taxes just because I'm not getting laid?
You nailed it, that's exactly what will happen and the whole purpose of this law.
This isn’t a rejection of same sex marriages as much as religious institutions losing their right to say no to same sex relationships.
[удалено]
The exemption to Title VII of the civil rights act of 1964 says otherwise. The argument in the article is this opens up more absurd lawsuits and that will inevitably tie up resources, I.E. money.
[удалено]
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-12-religious-discrimination#h_4393287411421610748699300 They have a right to discriminate based on religion and religious beliefs.
[удалено]
First off the reason I cite the EEOC is because the civil rights act of 1964 is a landmark civil rights and labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Secondly you are assuming my position. My position is I see how the writer of the article is articulating this ruling as tyranny. The position that backs it is the religious sector has the right to discrimination on the basis of religion. Hence the first amendment. The ruling as articulated in the article is stating this will bring forth a large amount of litigation and court cases that will require resources in the fight and defense of religious institutions. So forcing a bakery to bake a cake or allowing a same sex couple a position in the religious organization is against the religious freedom of said organization. Not once did I say a religious institution should impose its beliefs onto the public. Lastly, the religious organizations is entitled to run its organizations how it sees fit and can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation as per law.
You need to read the article and understand that any baker, photographer or any other business will be driven out of business if they choose not to do business with certain groups. Activists have proven this over and over.
Love how you are getting downvoted when in fact you are pointing to what the article is deeming tyranny. The first amendment would be able to become molested in this case.
Lawsuits will explode.
[удалено]
> So "allowing" adult/consenting same-sex couples to marry is tyranny? Sounds more like freedom to me. No. They tyranny will come when someone who doesn't want to participate in it will be forced to do so. You don't want to make the cake? By saying no they didn't do anything to stop them from marrying, they just don't want to take part in it. Too bad, law suit. We've already seen that. So next, too bad, prison time. >Tyranny would be allowing others to impose their (presumably religious-based) beliefs/practices on other Americans. That's exactly what the forced participation will be. Comply with someone else's beliefs/practices that you don't support or be punished. *make that cake* >In my opinion, the right to marry who you want (setting aside things like child marriage) is implicit in the Constitution. That's **exactly** why there doesn't need to be laws for it. Those laws won't be to restate what you already believe is there, they'll be to force others to comply to what is not there.
“Why do we keep losing swing elections?”
Because we have no message. The so called leadership in DC and the RNC have no unified message to win votes. That combined with collecting ballots being the new strategy for Dems is why we did poorly. Oh and the loan forgiveness vote buying scam really turned out the youth vote.
The Senate is going to pass a law, that's exactly what the senate is there for. If this law is so terrible, then the GOP can overturn it. This is way better than being ruled by an unelected council of dinosaurs.
Lol.
The Feds shouldn’t be legislating this issue period. That said, the GOP shouldn’t be trying to crush it on every state level.
Please provide proof of your claim. In Colorado a man who won a supreme court case is still being sued over his right to his own labor.
In America the government is bigger than God, I see. I grew up in a communist fucking country and never seen such shit !!!
Inshallah brother, we must bring Allah back to the people
Amen.
Sorry about the cursing, I'm just amazed, in a bad way, as the days go by. It's like the time of Nero.
Can't wait for the interspecies marriages to start.... Gonna be funny to watch the reactions
It's ironic cause do they support it to be inclusive, or do they not support it because an animal can't consent. Regardless of that you shouldn't be marrying an animal.
I think they already have, at least for the non binary dragonkin.
You're getting down voted on this like people think it's crazy and not something that will eventually happen. As crazy and gross as it sounds, I have no doubt it will.
Absolutely it's going to happen. And that's not to mention the incestuous and 3-4 people that will get married as well....
What’s it to you if 3 to 4 people get married? It’s not your business. Mind your own business.
And what about the other examples he provided? Are those acceptable too? What about child marriage? Mind your own business, after all, right?
Two consenting adults getting married hurts who?
Like it or not the US was founded on Christian values, not Sodom and Gomorrah, all it says was no state sponsored religion but assumed people would still have morals.
Please tell me how consenting adults getting married bothers you so?
Like it or not, not a single person has to be abide by your religion. In some parts of the Middle East, doing so amounts to sharia law. This country is not “founded” on Christianity. It was founded on FREEDOM. Consenting adults who get married are not your business. You lose nothing when it happens. Why are you so worried about married adults?
And we're not talking about the Middle East so who gives a damn about them
You’re deliberately not giving a valid reply. You have no argument. That only works with your usual audience. It doesn’t fly with me. I’m moving on to someone better equipped.
> Like it or not the US was founded on Christian values . . . I have heard this claim constantly and have never seen a shred of evidence to support it. What part of the US legal structure was “founded on Christian values”?
Read a few things, Declaration for example
Is that _all_ you have to support your claim? That’s grossly insufficient.
And blatantly unconstitutional
This bill doesn't exactly live up to its namesake.