(11-30-2022 02:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-30-2022 02:07 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(11-30-2022 02:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The only place the Government should be involved with any definition of marriage is in tax law for how your income tax returns are completed in relation to marital status.

There should be no marital status. Just a contract between consenting adults. Marriage should just be ceremonial and irrelevant to the legal side.

Okay, but for tax returns, it's just a status definition which determines tax brackets and exemptions/deductions. It really has nothing to do with anything else.

Probate law

Ha, we're getting closer and closer to Bible prophesy. No matter to me what those perverts do they may have free rein here but it won't be the same when they kick the bucket. They'll have someone to answer to and law or no law He won't budge from His precepts.

(11-30-2022 01:42 PM)MonarchManiac Wrote:  Help me out: why does this bill even matter? What is the opposition to it?

If it doesn't matter, why pass it? What's the support for it?

It really sounds just like another Attorney Employment Act. Grounds to sue and harrass companies.

Time will tell if Lee's ammendment wasn't necessary. They need to spell out things to a T otherwise it leaves too much room for interpretation. He gave examples where it's happening so time will tell if this law is enough. The R's who voted for this are trying to play nice not realizing that's not what the other side does. This will be a classic example

(11-30-2022 01:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The US Government should have NO ******* SAY in who marries who!

Absolutely correct. Civil Unions all the way.

(11-30-2022 01:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The US Government should have NO ******* SAY in who marries who!

Well damn, I agree.

(11-30-2022 12:46 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:Unsurprisingly, on Tuesday evening, 12 Republican senators lined up to give Democrats exactly what they wanted in passing the Orwellian-named “Respect for Marriage Act.”

Ostensibly billed as a way to protect gay marriage from future Supreme Court challenges by codifying it at the federal level, there was no actual threat of that anywhere on the horizon. In fact, even with perhaps the most conservative Supreme Court that the nation will ever have, there might be one vote on purely technical grounds to overturn Obergefell. In short, this was a cheap exercise in virtue signaling that ignored any and all unintended consequences.

Who in the GOP caucus voted for it? As my colleague Kira Davis shared in her initial write-up, it was a lot of the usual suspects.

Roy Blunt, MO
Richard Burr, NC
Shelley Moore Capito, WV
Susan Collins, ME
Joni Ernst, IA
Cynthia Lummis, WY
Lisa Murkowski, AK
Rob Portman, OH
Mitt Romney, UT
Dan Sullivan, AK
Thom Tillis, NC
Todd Young, IN

While I had held out some small sliver of hope that a few Republicans in the above group would stand on principle and force the passage of Sen. Mike Lee’s amendment to the bill, that didn’t happen. The Utah senator’s amendment would have at least put in place clear language protections for religious liberty. Instead, Lee’s gambit failed and 12 GOP senators who had the power to hit the brakes signed onto the final result anyway.

That means that the bill passed without any real protections for religious people in the public square. “Bake the cake” just became the law of the land, and Republicans helped make it happen.

The move underscores a bigger trend among the Republican establishment. That is, they believe they can simply fold enough to take issues off the table in order to set up wins elsewhere. It’s a naive game that never works. Many of those who voted for this bill voted for the senate’s recent gun control bill. It took less than two weeks for Democrats to once again start demanding an “assault weapons” ban. You can’t take issues off the table by bending the knee because the march of progressivism never stops.

What makes this more frustrating is that many of the same senators listed above will gnash their teeth the next time someone’s religious liberty is infringed upon, not even bothering to admit they created the environment for it to happen. When that happens, the rest of us will know who to blame.

Link

Loyalty to the corporation rather than to the voters.

(11-30-2022 12:46 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:
You can’t take issues off the table by bending the knee because the march of progressivism never stops.

Conservatives need to begin putting things on the table that would start a march of conservatism. Can't really do that from a position of minority in the senate (thanks, Dr. Oz and other Trump-backed candidates who crashed and burned) but can do it in the house, if McCarthy can provide any leadership. So put a practical, common-sense agenda into play and make the democrats deal with it.

I've said for over a decade now that if I had been John Boehner when republicans re-took the HOR in 2010, my first order of business in 2011 would have been to pass Bismarck health care to replace Obamacare and either the Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin recommendations, or some combination of the best of both, to address the deficit and debt, and forced Harry Reid and Obama to handle two very hot potatoes. I can think of worse ways for McCarthy to start 2023, as we've just kicked those two cans down the road until they got worse.

Another thing conservatives need to learn is that compromise and bipartisanship don't mean what the democrats seem to think they mean--they get their way and you learn to like it. They mean you get your way over here, and in return I get my way over there. And the lesson that Ronald Reagan learned from Tip O'Neill, sometimes I have get my way over there (like, rational immigration policy) BEFORE you get your way over here (amnesty).

If Mitch was any kind of leader, every single senate vote for the last two years would have come down 50-50 with Kamala breaking the tie. And if Herschel Walker somehow wins in Georgia next week, it would be that way for the next two years. You can tell me all day how hard it is to herd cats, but Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi seem able to keep theirs pretty well in line.