Respect for Marriage Act makes Congresswoman cry real tears.

[Windwalker]

What tears? I just watched the end again. No sound. I could see some strained expressions, some dramatic pauses, a lot of blinking. But no tears.

I guess that I could say that every tear I saw was genuine and not be wrong or lying.

That old crocodile genuinely needed to cry to keep her eyes moist because she'd been out of the water too long with that pathetic whimpering speech she gave.

Crocodile tears, or superficial sympathy, is a false, insincere display of emotion such as a hypocrite crying fake tears of grief. The phrase derives from an ancient belief that crocodiles shed tears while consuming their prey, and as such is present in many modern languages, especially in Europe where it was introduced through Latin. While crocodiles do have tear ducts, they weep to lubricate their eyes, typically when they have been out of water for a long time and their eyes begin to dry out. However, evidence suggests this could also be triggered by feeding.

Crocodile tears - Wikipedia​

 

[Heyo]

Why does she think -- AND I WOULD REALLY LIKE AN ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION FROM RELIGIOUS PEOPLE -- that it is robbing her of her "religious freedom" to deny soimebody else the right to live their life as they see fit? Is "religious freedom" really about the freedom to order other people to do what you want them to, and not to do what you don't want them to?

I think she was just confused about where she was.

I support the right of religions to discriminate. When a church doesn't want to perform their traditional bonding ceremony for certain people, they shouldn't have to. If they want to exclude members, they should be able. If they want to refuse service of any kind, it is their right. Nobody has to be religious and surely they don't have to be members of a particular church.
This right of association should, of course, also be given to the government or anyone doing business with them. If they get subsidies, up to and including tax exemption, they'd have to accept terms and conditions or forgo their privileges.
Churches don't sell anything anyone needs and they don't have monopolies on things anyone wants. The next church is at the next corner.

That is religious freedom. You can order people to do what you want them to do - if they agree, i. e. are members of your club and as long as they can leave at any time.

So, if she were at a church assembly (were she might have thought she was), her speech would have been perfectly OK.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My question is this: how, exactly, is telling this stupid ***** that she is not permitted to direct the course of my life drviing "people of faith out of the public square?" She is making the implicit (it's almost explicit) claim that her faith allows her to dictate -- period-end-of-story.

I'm too tired for this now, but it basically comes down to a victimhood and martyrdom thing based on the real fact their legal sway and social presence have greatly declined. It's also a part of their toxic to the core theology that expects a world that is intolerant and hostile towards them.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Consider for a moment that marriage is an important contract that governs keystone social relationships in the human species. In particular, think about the historical role marriage has played in foreign relations, diplomacy, taxation, transference of property, granting of title and prestige, pedigree breeding, and so forth. Setting aside these somewhat more dated roles marriage has traditionally had, also think about the sacredness of the contract, the depth of its meaning, the implications it has for social and cultural norms, and so forth.

In short, marriage is an extremely serious business and how it is conducted is not a question to be handled lightly. Different cultural groups throughout history have had very particular and specific standards for it, and with good reason - marriage is a huge vehicle of social relations between humans in ways that have a very strong impact on the entire tapestry of that society. From this vantage point, it becomes more shocking to not care about marriage; being very particular about how it is handled is essential when one recognizes the critical social role it plays in a society.

But that's just the point -- its serious and important, so open it up to all members of society. What is the good of excluding people who don't fit one norm? Would a society that bars minority races, or the poor from marrying be better off? How?

I obviously can't answer from her perspective given I don't share it, but as before, if we consider things from a broader vantage point it isn't that hard to understand. All limitations on human behavior infringe upon human freedoms. Doesn't matter if we're talking speed limits, what kinds of marriages are okay, or credentialing who can practice medicine.

We insist that drivers obey speed limits, get licensed to drive, or credentialed to practice medicine for obvious safety reasons (and why many of us think that gun ownership should likewise be limited to those who have passed tests and gotten licenses). What danger does my relationship with my partner cause?

And in fact, if my partner and I were not permitted the relationship we have, his care after his serious illness and handicapping would have fallen on the state, rather than, as it does now, on me. That, in my view, is a societal good.

In any case, personally, I have a hard time celebrating this change. I can celebrate it when the ghoulish remission of women's rights is fixed, and am livid angry that this gets through but basic flipping women's rights can't get through. I know that sounds petty, but... basic flipping women's rights for flips's sake.

Not sure where that comes in. I don't know what basic rights women are being deprived of in the United States (where this law passed). Still, it can hardly be right to say that some necessary law should not be passed until some other law is. That would require the extraordinarily difficult step of agreeing upon the correct order of precedence of every issue that the law may be called upon to address. In a diverse society, I can't begin to imagine how that might be accomplished.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But that's just the point -- its serious and important, so open it up to all members of society. What is the good of excluding people who don't fit one norm? Would a society that bars minority races, or the poor from marrying be better off? How?

We insist that drivers obey speed limits, get licensed to drive, or credentialed to practice medicine for obvious safety reasons (and why many of us think that gun ownership should likewise be limited to those who have passed tests and gotten licenses). What danger does my relationship with my partner cause?

And in fact, if my partner and I were not permitted the relationship we have, his care after his serious illness and handicapping would have fallen on the state, rather than, as it does now, on me. That, in my view, is a societal good.

Not sure where that comes in. I don't know what basic rights women are being deprived of in the United States (where this law passed). Still, it can hardly be right to say that some necessary law should not be passed until some other law is. That would require the extraordinarily difficult step of agreeing upon the correct order of precedence of every issue that the law may be called upon to address. In a diverse society, I can't begin to imagine how that might be accomplished.

In the last part I think that he was referring to abortion rights. He does not seem to understand that it looked as if marriage equality was the next target of the Supreme Court. What this did was to take it off of the chopping block. And the reason that I think that some Republicans agreed to this was that they did not want to give any more ammunition to the Democrats in the next election. Abortion rights might sadly wait until just before the election. If the Republicans had any brains they would be working on restoring abortion rights now so that it will be a nonissue in 2024.

 

[exchemist]

@Evangelicalhumanist

I have to take issue with the title of this thread.

I am not at all convinced those were real tears she was crying.

As the British satirical magazine "Private Eye" would say, "Taking an onion from her pocket, she continued......"

 

[1213]

...
Why, I really have to ask, does she, or anybody else in the world give a rat's tiny hiney who I marry, who you marry, or whether we marry or not?....

Indeed, I can choose not to care about your marriages, I can ignore it wholly. For me the problem would be more in that if you demand me to recognize and care about it.

 

[Jainarayan]

This is just grandstanding, and a waste of time and tax money. Unless there is a Constitutional amendment or the SCOTUS revisits Obergefell v. Hodges, neither of which is very bloody likely, same sex marriage is constitutionally legal in the US, and no House or Senate bill can override that. The Constitution and decisions based on it trump all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Indeed, I can choose not to care about your marriages, I can ignore it wholly. For me the problem would be more in that if you demand me to recognize and care about it.

No one is demanding that of you. Though it could create problems for you if you insist on pretending that a couple is not married. Someone could justly treat your marriage in the same way. That is assuming that you are married.

 

[joelr]

Vicky Hartzler (R, Missouri) cried real tears as she begged her congressional comrades not to pass the bill, which she called "misguided and dangerous." Thank goodness, her own nephew, who is gay, had the cojones to to put her firmly in her place.

Why, I really have to ask, does she, or anybody else in the world give a rat's tiny hiney who I marry, who you marry, or whether we marry or not?

Why does she think -- AND I WOULD REALLY LIKE AN ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION FROM RELIGIOUS PEOPLE -- that it is robbing her of her "religious freedom" to deny soimebody else the right to live their life as they see fit? Is "religious freedom" really about the freedom to order other people to do what you want them to, and not to do what you don't want them to?

She wants marriage to be what it was intended originally. Except she's cherry-picking because originally a woman was able to marry at about 13. A suitor would get together with the father to arrange details and payment.
In biblical times, people were married in early youth, and marriages were usually contracted within the narrow circle of the clan and the family. It was undesirable to marry a woman from a foreign clan, lest she introduce foreign beliefs and practices. The father arranged the match.

Negotiating a Match
As a rule, the fathers arranged the match. The girl was consulted, but the “calling of the damsel and inquiring at her mouth” after the conclusion of all negotiations was merely a formality.

In those days a father was more concerned about the marriage of his sons than about the marriage of his daughters. No expense was involved in marrying off a daughter. The father received a dowry for his daughter whereas he had to give a dowry to the prospective father-in-law of his son when marrying him off.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/ancient-jewish-marriage/


This was the "upgraded" marriage that Judaism brought in which gave some rights to women instead of them being pure property.

How does this woman know if God intended this to be the proper way marriage should be done? If she could go back to 13 would she be willing to re-instate old marriage practices or is she cool with updating them to match modern society? Of course her updates are only going to be things that suit her, not an openness to different sexualities which we now recognize as normal.

 

[Revoltingest]

Exactly. As a non American I have to make the observation that it’s only ever, even now, the Republican Party that has a problem with it.

Not so.
The Clintons & Obama opposed gay marriage.
Yet even the evil Dick Cheney was pro gay marriage.

Sure, sure...there are party tendencies otherwise.
But get yer facts right....Democrats aren't as liberal
(in the libertarian sense) as you think.
Many are illiberal, having opposed also free speech
& other civil liberties (eg, 4th Amendment).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Not so.
The Clintons & Obama opposed gay marriage.
Yet ultra-evil Dick Cheney was pro gay marriage.
Sure, sure...there are party tendencies otherwise.
But get yer facts right....Democrats aren't as liberal
(in the libertarian sense) as you think.
Many are illiberal, having opposed also free speech
& other civil liberties (eg, 4th Amendment).

Is there any question that religious values, and even deeply ingrained social norms, can be very difficult to change? I think we have to ask ourselves, however, what type of person is more readily able to do so when presented with new facts and new understanding?

It took a long time before science could see that various aspects of human sexuality occur naturally (rather than by depraved choice), and are generally immutable. But once that realization came, in my view the less religious and the less conservative find it easier to accept. In Dick Cheney's case, having a gay daughter may well have helped him to see for himself that it was a naturally inborn and immutable orientation, and to adapt his thinking accordingly.

But yes, you are right, we are all different. Adherents of any political ideology can differ from their fellows in a whole lot of ways.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am so glad that Congress doesn't have any pressing matters to deal with and time to pass bills that are little more than symbolic.

Redundant, not symbolic.

And it would not be redundant if Obergefell v. Hodges were overturned.

IMO, this bill is the act of a government that got caught with its pants down on the overturning of Roe v. Wade and is looking to put up some bulwarks about something similar happening on the issue of marriage.

 

[Revoltingest]

....what type of person is more readily able to do so when presented with new facts and new understanding?

One not burdened with an oppressive religion.

It took a long time before science could see that various aspects of human sexuality occur naturally (rather than by depraved choice), and are generally immutable. But once that realization came, in my view the less religious and the less conservative find it easier to accept.

Conservatism has multiple senses, not just the N American
political one. There's also the sense of not changing the
status quo. This can afflict any in the simple left-right
political spectrum.

In Dick Cheney's case, having a gay daughter may well have helped him to see for himself that it was a naturally inborn and immutable orientation, and to adapt his thinking accordingly.

Our life experiences affect our views. As we observe,
some Republicans can have more diverse experience
than some Democrats.

But yes, you are right, we are all different. Adherents of any political ideology can differ from their fellows in a whole lot of ways.

Democrats should turn their keen critical eye
towards themselves, & recognize their own
authoritarian tendencies. Tis not enuf to just
preach that the other side is evil.


A dangerous libertarian view....
I never needed science to allow gays to marry.
(I don't even know any science behind homosexuality.)
They're just minding their own business, & harming
no one. So there's no need for government to
interfere with them. If people & their God take
offense....that is their own problem to overcome.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think she was just confused about where she was.

I support the right of religions to discriminate. When a church doesn't want to perform their traditional bonding ceremony for certain people, they shouldn't have to. If they want to exclude members, they should be able. If they want to refuse service of any kind, it is their right. Nobody has to be religious and surely they don't have to be members of a particular church.
This right of association should, of course, also be given to the government or anyone doing business with them. If they get subsidies, up to and including tax exemption, they'd have to accept terms and conditions or forgo their privileges.
Churches don't sell anything anyone needs and they don't have monopolies on things anyone wants. The next church is at the next corner.

That is religious freedom. You can order people to do what you want them to do - if they agree, i. e. are members of your club and as long as they can leave at any time.

So, if she were at a church assembly (were she might have thought she was), her speech would have been perfectly OK.

My position is basically the same... if all we're talking about is a religion's "traditional bonding ceremony."

IMO, if the religious minister is licensed by the government to perform marriages, then they should be held to similar standards of non-discrimination as other licensed professionals like doctors or engineers.

If they don't like it, they can keep on doing their religious ceremonies, but then ask the newlyweds to make the marriage legally official at the County Clerk's office (or wherever) on Monday morning.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Indeed, I can choose not to care about your marriages, I can ignore it wholly. For me the problem would be more in that if you demand me to recognize and care about it.

Are you a CPA? Do you file taxes for married couples?
Are you a hospital administrator? Do you allow people to make medical decisions for their spouses if they are incapacitated?

In short: are you in any sort of position where another person's marriage would be relevant?
I suspect you aren't.

So don't care, and the feeling will be mutual.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am so glad that Congress doesn't have any pressing matters to deal with and time to pass bills that are little more than symbolic.

How would you have voted?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why, I really have to ask, does she, or anybody else in the world give a rat's tiny hiney who I marry, who you marry, or whether we marry or not?

The OP question, though rhetorical, strikes me as better than the poll question. The latter could conceivably be posed by either side of the debate.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The OP question, though rhetorical, strikes me as better than the poll question. The latter could conceivably be posed by either side of the debate.

I suppose it could. So, let's pose it from the other side: what is it about your religion that entitles you to direct how someone else, of another (or no) religion, lives theirs?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I suppose it could. So, let's pose it from the other side: what is it about your religion that entitles you to direct how someone else, of another (or no) religion, lives theirs?

I think I'll abstain from Devil's advocacy here. I have long maintained that LGBTQ rights are human rights.