Respect for Marriage Act makes Congresswoman cry real tears.

[Subduction Zone]

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

It took me long enough to see that, but yes, I agree. I never debated it. So I do not know if I would have changed my mind on a forum. But I have changed my mind on other topics so I am always hopeful that I can convince others of the same. I have known it for at least ten years since that was how long ago it was on the ballot in my state. But I would bet that 15 years ago I would probably have had strong reservations about the idea. I can't be sure when I changed my mind, but I do have the date of the vote in my state that lets me know at a minimum how long ago it was.

 

[Quintessence]

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?

[/FONT]

I'll defer to the experts on the history of marriage, but as I recall marriage has been used as a tool for social control far longer than it's been about love and romance. And a social conservative generally is going to view social issues from the perspective of social control to maintain their ideals of the social order? Controlling marriage is thus an appropriate tool to maintain a desired social order, which excludes certain people from equal footing for some reason or another.

I'm speculating a bit here because these aren't perspectives I share, but getting outside of my own head for a moment I can see the logic in it. If I wanted to control human relationships within a society, regulating marriage is one way I 'd do it. Come to think of it, that's probably why I'd abolish marriage entirely if it were up to me - I feel no need to regulate or contract out those types of relationships.

[/FONT]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?

I probably should've thought more about my examples, as it wasn't my intention to only highlight examples with the common factor of safety reasons. Add to that examples like dining etiquette and gender roles if you want, the violation of which amounts to little more than a social faux pas. For some, the wrong kinds of relationships are a social faux pas even if we don't see it that way. We have a lot of those taboos that don't make sense but are present because... tradition, more or less.

Some take social faux pas very, very seriously. I'm sure most of us have known someone in our lives who has freaked out about things like that. And we are probably all more or less guilty of that on some topic or another too. It's part of having a personal and cultural identity so I try not to see anything wrong with any of that. It is what it is, and that wonderful diversity inevitably comes into conflict here and there.

 

[Koldo]

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?

From what I have seen, conservatives mix up what is lawful with what is good.
In other words, to them if marriage between two people of equal sex is legal, it means the government is saying it is good....... But they don't agree it is good, and therefore don't want it to be legal. By making it legal, they feel like the government is forcing them to agree that it is good.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From what I have seen, conservatives mix up what is lawful with what is good.

A broad spectrum of views exist but, best I can tell, the majority of conservative Abrahamic religionist believe that the Nation - to be One Nation Under God - must rest firmly on biblical principles (as they interpret them), and they are loathe to enable, much less endorse, that which they deem an abomination in the eyes of that God.

 

[SomeRandom]

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).

I’m not American, so I can only comment on what’s said on the world stage. So to speak
And well, the debates I saw were….interesting to put it mildly

Individual Dems might oppose SSM, individual Reps might support it. That’s fine and dandy and all. Makes sense even. I hardly think either political party is a monolith. Indeed I would sincerely hope that wouldn’t be the case.

Also as an Australian your Democrats look like right wingers to me. Just saying.

 

[Revoltingest]

I’m not American, so I can only comment on what’s said on the world stage. So to speak

Individual Dems might oppose SSM, individual Reps might support it. That’s fine and dandy and all. Makes sense even. I hardly think either political party is a monolith. Indeed I would sincerely hope that wouldn’t be the case.

Also as an Australian your Democrats look like right wingers to me. Just saying.

"Left" & "right" are confusing enuf terms here, but there's
also domestic vs ferrin usage complicating matters.
I hear what you say often, but I'm skeptical without ever
hearing specifics. Some things are just popular to say.

 

[SomeRandom]

"Left" & "right" are confusing enuf terms here, but there's
also domestic vs ferrin usage complicating matters.
I hear what you say often, but I'm skeptical without ever
hearing specifics. Some things are just popular to say.

Well I’m afraid I can only comment rather broadly when speaking of US politics, since I’m not in the states often enough to gain particular specifics lol

And broadly speaking the US Republican Party did gain a reputation of voting against or otherwise opposing SSM.
That’s not to say every individual Rep fell into line and held such views though. I would hope not, anyway. A politician can and indeed should have enough individual freedom to disagree with their party on some things, at least

Much like how our LNP has that public perception here of not backing SSM. Though I’m sure if I tried hard enough I could name quite a few individual LNP members across the country who backed SSM on some level. Whether that be through political measures or simply on a personal level. Nuance is always a thing

 

[Alien826]

Heck, the thought of other people dancing, or singing, has been too much for some religious folks. You know the type: "Life isn't meant to be enjoyed, it's meant to be gotten on with until you die and go to heaven!"

Q: Why don't Baptists have sex standing up?

A: Someone might think they are dancing.

 

[Alien826]

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.

Pure manipulation. "I feel so deeply about this that I'm on the verge of tears".

 

[Alien826]

Well I’m afraid I can only comment rather broadly when speaking of US politics, since I’m not in the states often enough to gain particular specifics lol

And broadly speaking the US Republican Party did gain a reputation of voting against or otherwise opposing SSM.
That’s not to say every individual Rep fell into line and held such views though. I would hope not, anyway. A politician can and indeed should have enough individual freedom to disagree with their party on some things, at least

Much like how our LNP has that public perception here of not backing SSM. Though I’m sure if I tried hard enough I could name quite a few individual LNP members across the country who backed SSM on some level. Whether that be through political measures or simply on a personal level. Nuance is always a thing

It's fairly straightforward. "You dance with the one that brung you". If a party gets a lot of its support from a particular section of the population, they will try to keep those people happy, not because they necessarily agree with their principles but so they will vote for them again. Republicans get a lot of support from the religious right, who want certain things. They've already delivered on abortion, though it seems to have backfired on them.

 

[Alien826]

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.

Yah. We thought Roe v Wade was safe too ...

 

[TLK Valentine]

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?

The closest I can possibly think of to an answer is that they're deathly afraid that their god, in His infinite wrath, will somehow hit them with some sort of divine collateral damage as He moves to smite the wicked.

Of course, there's little to no point in trying to get on the good side of such a divine being if He has such poor aim...

 

[Father Heathen]

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.

Securing rights and liberty is is a pressing matter. Many on the right have already demonstrated a desire to deny such in the name of religion.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The closest I can possibly think of to an answer is that they're deathly afraid that their god, in His infinite wrath, will somehow hit them with some sort of divine collateral damage as He moves to smite the wicked.

Of course, there's little to no point in trying to get on the good side of such a divine being if He has such poor aim...

One would think, if they read their Bible, that they would know better. After all, wasn't God's "aim" good enough that He could single out only the first-born males among the Egyptians?

 

[SomeRandom]

It's fairly straightforward. "You dance with the one that brung you". If a party gets a lot of its support from a particular section of the population, they will try to keep those people happy, not because they necessarily agree with their principles but so they will vote for them again. Republicans get a lot of support from the religious right, who want certain things. They've already delivered on abortion, though it seems to have backfired on them.

That’s a fair point.
It’s just politics, as they say lol

A little confused as to why abortion backfired on them. I suppose it’s because R v W has broad support across political lines in the US?

 

[fantome profane]

Special shout out to the one person who voted "Yes" in the poll.

Someone will be round soon to force you to confirm to the one true religion.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

Bout my thoughts on the matter.

Useless bills for useless politictions.

 

[Alien826]

That’s a fair point.
It’s just politics, as they say lol

A little confused as to why abortion backfired on them. I suppose it’s because R v W has broad support across political lines in the US?

Polls have shown that around 70% of respondents favor legal abortion in one form or another. Support is higher among Democrats than among Republicans, but both groups have both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice people. Democrat (blue) states have higher populations than Republican (red) states, but there are more red states than blue states. Red states tend to be rural and socially conservative.

Having set the stage, how did Roe get overturned against the wishes of 70% of the population?

When there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court, the President gets to nominate candidates and the Senate gets to confirm them. The Senate is "rigged" in the Constitution, in that each State gets two Senators. As there are more red (rural) States, the Senate tends to represent the Republicans over than the Democrats more than you would expect by adding up the actual votes cast in the various States.

After Roe, the Pro-Life people never gave up, not surprisingly as they see abortion as murdering babies. I suspect that the Pro-Choice people got complacent too, thinking that Roe was settled law. Anyway they finally got a (professed) Pro-Life President in Trump who had promised to take their side, coupled with a Republican Senate. Then followed some shenanigans by Mitch McConnell, and we had a Supreme Court with not only a conservative majority, but one that was hell bent on reversing Roe.

As to it backfiring, I'm sure the Republicans knew of the sentiments in the country, but hoped that the anger would fade in time for the mid-term elections. A bad miscalculation.

Where it will go from here will be interesting. Both sides are digging in to their positions, and I'm sure that, barring a Federal law, there will be States where abortion is legal and States where it is not for the foreseeable future.

 

[Alien826]

Of course, there's little to no point in trying to get on the good side of such a divine being if He has such poor aim...

A man was playing golf with the local Minister. He had a short temper and was given to coarse language. Every time he hit a bad shot he would shout "F*ck it, missed!" The Minister got more and more annoyed by this and finally warned him that if he didn't moderate his language, he would ask God to strike him down.

Naturally the man continued with his foul language. The Minister knelt down and prayed. Suddenly a bolt of lightning came from a cloud and hit the Minister.

A mighty voice boomed from the sky ... "F*ck it, missed!"

 

[TLK Valentine]

One would think, if they read their Bible, that they would know better. After all, wasn't God's "aim" good enough that He could single out only the first-born males among the Egyptians?

One must remember that even then, God needed them to put up a signal so that their own first born would be passed over. Clearly they've received no such signal these days, and they're getting worried.

After all, God punished the entire Egyptian nation... and since the Christians consider this nation to be their own...