Knowledgeispower
Ah I love the smell of missile spam in the morning
Really surprised Romney was crazy enough to do that given where he's been elected from
Couldn't even abstain, had to sell out to the values of the day.
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone after Justice Thomas made noises about revisiting Obergfell, even if the other Justice's didn't agree.
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone after Justice Thomas made noises about revisiting Obergfell, even if the other Justice's didn't agree.
And at this point, I don't think anyone but the most hardcore parts of the Right have any problem with this legislation, because outside that fringe very few people have problems with same sex marriage.
And no, supporting same-sex marriage is not the same as supporting 'drag queen story hour' in the eyes of most of the American public, so that argment doesn't really hold much weight except to preach to the choir.
The law apparently withdraws a Church's tax protections if it doesn't marry homosexuals. A gun point coercion and a violation of the 1A.
I hope there's recall efforts on those senators
36 Senators voted against this, and you still say it's a 'fringe.' Even setting aside your lack of understanding of the basic moral principles involved, you're showing you're willfully blind here.
You got a source for this?The law apparently withdraws a Church's tax protections if it doesn't marry homosexuals. A gun point coercion and a violation of the 1A.
I hope there's recall efforts on those senators
From my reading of the text of the Bill, that is not the case. It includes specific languages to retain protection for churches.No, I'm just not going to pretend that this legislation is some horrible thing that deserves to be in this thread.
And yes, 36 R voted against it, because they are voting against most anything the Biden admin pushes.
This wouldn't be an issue if Justice Thomas hadn't made noises about revisiting Obergfell, thus spurring the Dems to codify same-sex marriage federally to pre-empt it.
You got a source for this?
Removing 1A protections/tax exemptions for churches is something that would not make SCOTUS happy, and would open the legislation up to other types of SCOTUS challenges.
See, this is what I had heard before, that the GOP had made sure language was put in that would protect religious liberty, and that is why it passed.From my reading of the text of the Bill, that is not the case. It includes specific languages to retain protection for churches.
SEC. 6. NO IMPACT ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND CONSCIENCE.
(a) In General.—Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an individual or organization under the Constitution of the United States or Federal law.
(b) Goods Or Services.—Consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such an organization, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.
Ok, if that is the case, then can someone provide a updated version, and what amendments made it and what did not.That was an amendment that failed
Um... it would not appear so from the text of the bill that passed.That was an amendment that failed
Really surprised Romney was crazy enough to do that given where he's been elected from
This doesn't give full wording but summarizes additions and failed amendments.Same-sex marriage protected under bill passed by U.S. Senate with GOP support • Kansas Reflector
The U.S. Senate approved legislation Tuesday that would enshrine protections for same-sex and interracial marriages, codifying many of the rights that would disappear if the U.S. Supreme Court were to overturn those landmark decisions the way it overturned the nationwide right to an abortion...kansasreflector.com
The religious liberty protections now in the bill would protect “all religious liberty and conscience protections available under the Constitution or Federal law,” according to a summary of the changes.
The legislation would insulate religious organizations, certain religious nonprofits and their employees from being required “to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.”
It would prevent changes to tax-exempt status since “a church, university, or other nonprofit’s eligibility for tax-exempt status is unrelated to marriage, so its status would not be affected by this legislation,” according to the summary.
Before the Senate approved the bill Tuesday, lawmakers voted down three Republican amendments.
Senators voted 48-49 to reject a proposal from Utah Sen. Mike Lee that would have barred the federal government from taking “any discriminatory action,” like eliminating a tax benefit, for any person who “speaks, or acts, in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief, or moral conviction, that marriage is” between one man and one woman or two individuals as recognized under federal law.
Lee argued ahead of the vote that lawmakers “would do a disservice to all Americans if we elevate the rights of one group at the expense of another.”
The Senate voted 45-52 to reject a proposal from Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford that would have changed who was required to comply with the law from any person acting under “color of state law” to a state, territory, or tribe.
Lankford said Tuesday that the “color of state law” language could refer to any organization that a state contracts with to perform a government function, such as private prisons, adoption agencies, foster care agencies, or homeless shelters.
Lankford’s amendment would have also removed a section of the bill that would allow people “harmed” by a violation of the law to sue. Lankford said the legislation didn’t define what “harmed” would mean.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s amendment to eliminate the section of the bill that would allow anyone “harmed by a violation” of the law to sue in a U.S. district court was rejected following a 45-52 vote.
Rubio argued in a written statement that while the legislation included language that “would protect nonprofits whose ‘principal purpose’ is the ‘study, practice, or advancement of religion,’ it would not protect other faith-based organizations.”
Baldwin urged senators to reject the three amendments ahead of the vote, saying they would “upend the months of good-faith negotiations and they would disrupt our carefully crafted bipartisan compromise.”
The religious liberty language added to the bill, Baldwin said, ensures protection for “religious liberties afforded under our Constitution and federal law.”
“We are not pushing this legislation to make history,” she said. “We are doing this to make a difference for millions upon millions of Americans.”
And that seems to be the bone of contention here. Will such an unspecific, blanket protection manage to cover all the possible avenues of very specific activist lawyer poking that will inevitably happen? Only time will tell.Looks like the article references the same text @Bear Ribs cited, and the GOP amendments that were rejected had the issues they covered dealt with by the religious liberty amendment as a blanket 1A/religious liberty protection, instead of as specific issues amendments.
Well, the wording doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation, in that it says nothing in the bill is meant to impede or infringe on religious liberty protections that already exist under the Constitution.And that seems to be the bone of contention here. Will such an unspecific, blanket protection manage to cover all the possible avenues of very specific activist lawyer poking that will inevitably happen? Only time will tell.
Try to think like an exceptionally malicious lawyer for a moment and read it again while doing so...Well, the wording doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation, in that it says nothing in the bill is meant to impede or infringe on religious liberty protections that already exist under the Constitution.
Which means if someone tries to use this bill to screw with religious liberty, the case will likely fail if it gets to SCOTUS.
It gives no new powers to the states or gov, it just codifies Obergfell at the Congressional level, without impeding religious liberty.
The sodomites proved over the past few years that the bible was right about them. I might be an atheist, but I can admit when I was wrong and the bible was right.This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone after Justice Thomas made noises about revisiting Obergfell, even if the other Justice's didn't agree.
And at this point, I don't think anyone but the most hardcore parts of the Right have any problem with this legislation, because outside that fringe very few people have problems with same sex marriage.
And no, supporting same-sex marriage is not the same as supporting 'drag queen story hour' in the eyes of most of the American public, so that argment doesn't really hold much weight except to preach to the choir.
No, how we end up with drag queen story hour is thanks to power pedo's like Epstein. Biden, Weinstein, and friends, along with the fucking doctors making bank off tran-ing people.The sodomites proved over the past few years that the bible was right about them. I might be an atheist, but I can admit when I was wrong and the bible was right.
And you are wrong, supporting same sex marriage is exactly how we ended up with drag queen story hour.