Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Betrayed Again
Just when I started to believe that the Republicans in Congress might actually be ready to act boldly, they have betrayed us again. It’s difficult for me to determine whether I am angrier with the Democrats for proposing this deceitful bill, the Respect for Marriage Act, or with the Republicans for lining up behind them. This Act further damages and weakens our religious liberties, in particular our support of traditional marriage, and it reminds us that the Progressive Left will never stop infringing on our rights and freedoms.
So what’s the big deal? A dozen Republicans have decided that they want to cozy up to the Democrats, or are too lazy or foolish to study the real intentions of the bill, or simply don’t care:
The 12 Republicans who voted yes on Wednesday were Susan Collins of Maine, Rob Portman of Ohio, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Mitt Romney of Utah, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Todd Young of Indiana and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
For anyone who wants to read the bill, go here.
What are the real dangers built into the bill? Mike Lee and several of his Senate colleagues wrote to their peers about the potential dangers and solutions in the legislation:
Instead of subjecting churches, religious non-profits, and persons of conscience to undue scrutiny or punishment by the federal government because of their views on marriage, we should make explicitly clear that this legislation does not constitute a national policy endorsing a particular view of marriage that threatens the tax exempt status of faith-based non-profits. As we move forward, let us be sure to keep churches, religious charities, and religious universities out of litigation in the first instance. No American should face legal harassment or retaliation from the federal government for holding sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions. My amendment would ensure that federal bureaucrats do not take discriminatory actions against individuals, organizations, nonprofits, and other entities based on their sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions about marriage by prohibiting the denial or revocation of tax exempt status, licenses, contracts, benefits, etc. It would affirm that individuals still have the right to act according to their faith and deepest convictions even outside of their church or home.
Although several supporters of the bill admitted it had problems, Mike Lee’s amendment wasn’t supported. In fact, no amendments were considered, although several were submitted.
Other possible attacks on religious institutions may be on the horizon:
H.R. 8404 abandons all current limits in federal law requiring marriage to be the union of only two persons. Under H.R. 8404 all it takes is a single state to recognize a polygamous or other unusual union as a marriage and the federal government must automatically recognize it for all federal purposes, including tax deductions, welfare benefits, immigration status, and federal employee benefits.
And as outrageous as polygamous marriages may seem, they also have the potential for being legalized:
There are upwards of 60,000 people practicing polygamy without legal recognition in the United States today. Public support for polygamy has more than tripled since 2010 to nearly one in four people today. In 2020, Utah reduced the criminal penalties for living in polygamous relationships to infraction status. Organizations such as the Polyamory Legal Advocacy Coalition, with support from Harvard Law School, are pushing for legalization of polyamorous unions. Two cities in Massachusetts, Somerville and Cambridge (home to Harvard University) have recently granted official Domestic Partnership status to plural unions. Nothing in Obergefell prohibits any state legislature in the country from following Cambridge’s lead, nor does it prevent a state Supreme Court from imposing polyamory or polygamy by interpretation of its state constitution.
And one other outcome that will make individuals and organizations vulnerable:
Anyone merely alleging a harm would be able to sue under H.R. 8404. Activists will argue that faith-based foster care providers, state-funded religious social service organizations. and religious organizations and businesses that provide services under contract with the government are acting “under color of State law” to, at the very least, impose costs on and harass institutions that seek to live their beliefs about man-woman marriage without having to withdraw from civic or public life.
* * * *
Some people will see these concerns as overreactions or extremes. Ten years ago, we wouldn’t have believed there would be social support for gender mutilation surgery, CRT, taking away control from parents for their children’s education, border invasions or censorship by the media. I think the House Freedom Caucus sees the future clearly:
‘This vote is about more than culture. It is about affirming the self-evident truth that marriage is a natural institution that predates government,’ the letter reads. ‘Republicans must stand united in defense of that truth and the institution of marriage which forms the backbone of a healthy society. There can be no compromise on this question.’
Unfortunately, I doubt that the Republicans are listening.
Published in Politics
When Mitch is regarded as such a great tactician . One has to ask just who is he tactating/sarc for. When the same votes that bless the dems every time are the same ones that frame old Mitch in his press conferences. Well, yes, they kinda sorta are the GOPE . Mitch and his close collogues are raping the country with his dem cohorts.
With all due respect, @susanquinn (I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically), you recently wrote a post about that slimy weasel Kevin McCarthy, which said in part,
Last I heard, he promised to read the entire US Constitution at the opening session of the House. There are so many things wrong with this that it’s hard to know where to begin. Not only is it useless virtue signaling (as if the Left gives a rat’s patootie about the Constitution), it distracts from the real issues of the day while pandering to the CivNats. And is weasely Kevin gonna read the three-fifths clause in Article I? I can just see the lefty media having a field day with that one. He might just be stupid enough to do it.
One of my favorite bloggers made the following observation: the Republican politicians are divided into three roughly equal parts. One third are really Democrats but need to run as Republicans because of their local political situation (e.g., Lisa Murkowski). The next third are squishy RINOs who stab their constituents in the back at the first opportunity. The last third are actually interested in representing their constituents. Now calculate how many Republican legislators you need to elect to gain a true majority in either house of Congress and you can begin to understand the scope of the problem.
With all due respect (and I’m sincere, too) I said in the McCarthy post that I had doubts about my position, after all the great comments. I very much appreciate the blogger’s definition, too; I think he’s on to something.
I have earthier terms than “GOPe” for Mittens but they all violate the CoC, biblical injunctions, or the laws of physics (or some permutation thereof) so GOPe will do.
No, we didn’t. The e in GOPe simply means the establishment. This should not be a pejorative to those who align themselves with the establishment. If they align with it, they must think it’s best, right?
Funny. Oh yes, they certainly did think it was best, while the people they represented were being ignored. They decided to focus on getting re-elected and voting with their Dem friends because, well you know, compromise was important. Sigh.
I’ll own this. I introduced this sarcastic term regarding the Republican establishment in Washington, D.C. into the thread. While @kevinschulte and @flicker have already addressed this, I respect @susanquinn and the OP, so will answer for myself. The twelve Republican senators who voted for this did not do so against the wishes of Mitch McConnell. They did so purposefully, because the Senate Minority Leader (the highest ranking party representative actually holding office at this time) wanted the legislation to advance. If this isn’t an example of the “GOP establishment” in action, I’ll consider arguments to the contrary.
I’ll state this upfront: Just because a given public policy idea is popular among the public doesn’t mean that the public policy idea is a good idea.
With that out of the way, a recent poll shows that 71 percent of Americans support same sex marriage.
Broken down by party affiliation, 55 percent of Republicans, 72 percent of independents and 87 percent of Democrats support same sex marriage.
64 percent of Republicans aged 18 to 29 support same sex marriage.
A majority of people in Louisiana support same sex marriage.
Again, just because something is popular doesn’t mean it is right. But let’s face it, politicians like getting re-elected and when they see how popular same sex marriage is, many politicians are likely to just go with the crowd.
Thanks for posting this Susan
it looks finally that people are waking up to what a huge assault on our rights this law is.
However the Mitch McConnell et Al betrayal factor is actually a much bigger problem.
The forces that are pushing American into a dictatorship have amassed trillions of dollars and are bribing almost all of politicians including the Senate 12who voted for this utterly disgusting Respect for Marriage Act.
Let me explain.
Back when Obama took office in 2009 the economy was in shambles and Obama wanted to spend a huge amount of money which the Treasury was not able to finance.
So the FED quietly printed a huge amount of money in what hasbcome to be called “Quantative Easing”. From 2009 to 2020 the FED printed 3.5 Trillion dollars and since 2020 they have printed another 6 Trillion.
Not only is this an incredibly inflationary move but what is worse, actually much worse is how they did it.
Normally when the FED does a small money print they let member banks borrow at what is called the FED “discount window” and thereby increasing the money supply of dollars through lending.
But this time, the FED created a policy called ZIRP or “Zero interest rate policy” where it allowed the special Member banks and Hedge Funds to borrow at 0.25 percent and then these specially connected entities could and often did lend this money overseas at much higher rates of interest making mega-billions and in some cases trillions of dollars. Meanwhile small business and small commercial property owners were stiffed granting an enormous competitive advantage in the marketplace to these Big Banks, Big Hedge Funds like Vanguard and Blackrock and large often multinational Corporations who then had access to Corporate bonds at these very low interest rates.
This scheme facilitated an enormous multi/trillion dollar transfer of wealth from the lower, middle and lower upper classes to the priveleged 1 percent and it generated huge sums of cash that could used to bribe politicians and bureaucracies all over the place. Financial Guru Nomi Prims estimates that the ten largest Corporate entities each have cash hordes now of over a trillion dollars each. When you have a trillion dollars at your disposal what is a million here or there to bribe all sorts of politicians and / or bureaucrats?
So the real problem is that our political system almost top to bottom has been totally corrupted by these huge bribes.
It’s the voters that the politicians are worried about. Given the broad support among Americans in support of same sex marriage, including 55 percent support among Republicans, 72 percent support among Independents and 87 percent support among Democrats (71 percent overall), it’s no wonder politicians are either keeping their opposition to same sex marriage quiet or willing to vote in favor of it.
Back in 2004 only 42 percent of Americans supported same sex marriage. Now with support for same sex marriage at 71 percent, the political environment has changed dramatically.
Or they are too afraid of seeming “phobic” to a complete stranger conducting an opinion poll.
Or there is a large proportion of the population that declines the opportunity to waste time chatting with someone conducting such a poll.
Or there is a problem with relying on opinion polls in general, which are to statistical analysis what the 2019 Miami Marlins were to professional baseball (53 wins – 105 losses).
Precisely this. McConnell didn’t go on record voting for it, but he didn’t have to. He did nothing to keep enough Rs against it to keep it from going forward.
Half the republican senate body
So what. Supporting something as people is fine. Bringing laws into a social issue is bad. Laws that mandate support must be enforced with punitive measures. They are going too far and setting up churches and cake bakers for more targeting, this time by the power of government. We are fast approaching the next tree of liberty moment.
I don’t care for this excuse nor do I trust polls. They rarely tell the whole truth. The Jan 6 folks were the most honest people in DC that day,
Opinion poll legislation is just mob rule.
But of course, the “majority support” for SSM was manufactured too.
Yep, that’s why they had to “manufacture” support first.
I prefer the Patton method of victory.
They are the the ones who are openly GOPe right now, or who are especially beholden to the same; a larger number only opposes it because its guaranteed to pass, and are given political cover.
No, I do not know exactly how many.
And should be held accountable when they oppose religious liberty in doing so.
Now, about all those Democrats going with the crowd as far as late-term abortion laws are concerned…..oh wait, they don’t-almost as if the Democrat establishment does not pressure them to do so…
The issue with the Respect for Marriage act is not whether there will be same sex marriage- that was already decided in the Oberfell decision at the Supreme Court; the issue is whether priests, rabbis or ministers of a religion could be forced to administer a same sex marriage against their religious beliefs which thus act does with all the power of the FBI and the IRS behind it,
One can cite all the polls you want which these days are totally bogus because what conservative or religious person would knowingly subject themselves to the wrath of the cancel culture answering a stupid poll, but all those polls were absolutely not about whether these priests et al could be forced to perform same sex marriages against their will which is an outrageous violation of the Freedom of Religion in the 1st Amendment.
Those 12 Senators knowingly violated one of our most fundamental rights in the Constitution and also violated knowingly the wishes of their electorate ( which if the issue was properly explained to them would be overwhelmingly against it without a doubt) because they are all bought and paid for and reliably follow McConnell’s orders in crunch time. Remember the same sex advocates needed at least ten Republican Senators for cloture to bring this to a vote.
Is this article overly optimistic?
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2022/november-web-only/same-sex-marriage-religious-liberty-respect-marriage-act.html
From which:
Joni Ernst is one of the two Republican Senators from Iowa.
Even though I was born and raised in Hollywood I own and effectively run a very old family farm in Iowa.
I know enough of the townspeople there well enough to know that Ernest’s vote on this issue when it finally comes to light is not going to go down well at all for her. Her stance in old days would have nearly been justification for the townspeople to drag her out of her offices, take her out to the nearest tree and Lynch her right there. It’s that bad.
So knowing that why would she so stupidly vote for such an atrocity? Because like many of the 12, she has been thoroughly bought and paid for with big money and to cross those big money forces is far more dangerous than to endure the wrath of the voters.
And cake decorators? Wedding photographers? Pizza restaurant owners?
I voted with only 24% of people in Georgia in opposing an Amendment to the state constitution in 2004 that banned gay marriage and civil unions; the record of growing persecution against any and all dissenters since Obergerfell (not to mention a social climate in many areas where majorities refer to and treat religious and social conservatives the same way the Westboro Baptist Church treated gays) has proven that religious freedom protections must be very broad and extremely explicit- and preferably spelled out as legal and moral priority-or such persecution will continue and grow worse.
From the same article:
I guess it is something be resolved by the judiciary. Does sincere ideological belief legitimise discrimination in the public square (against gays, against Blacks, against Jews) or not?
When you’re used to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
Yes.
Why?
Re-read the OP and the links, Zafar. Many churches are also on the Left and don’t think about being attacked by them.
We’re in the hands of totalitarians and fools, the real question is can we free ourselves from them? They think that centralizing power will work out for them in the short and perhaps medium run. Do any of them have enough historical insight to know where this leads? Which centralized country in history, at any time, prospered broadly, and grew economically and culturally? Why did the US take off economically and culturally even though it was bottom up run by ordinary people. Correction, it wasn’t run by them or anybody else for that matter. We seem to think our far more complex digital, industrial, technological society must be run by experts because it’s so much more complex. It’s exactly the opposite. It’s too complex to be run from the top by the most honest brilliant and cooperative personally disinterested folks that ever existed but run by these self interested fools, it will crash rather quickly and even the Chinese will be able to call the shots only briefly.