Democrats Plan Senate Vote on Radical Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Bill by End of September

LifeSite News ^ | 9/8/22 | Calvin Freiburger

[marshmallow]

Pro-family advocates only have weeks left to convince Republicans to vote against the Respect for Marriage Act.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) — The U.S. Senate will vote on a Democrat bill to codify forced recognition of same-sex “marriage” and open the door to federal recognition of polygamy “in coming weeks,” Democrat majority leader Chuck Schumer announced Wednesday, in what may be a sign that Democrats have found ten Republicans willing to defect.

HR 8404, the so-called “Respect for Marriage Act,” would repeal the longstanding (but unenforced) Defense of Marriage Act (which recognized marriage as a man-woman union in federal law and protected states’ rights to do the same), federally recognize any “marriage” lawfully performed by any state, and force every state to recognize any “marriage” of any other state “between 2 individuals,” without regard for “the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.” States would only have to recognize one another’s same-sex “marriages,” but the federal government would have to recognize any new union a state comes up with, such as a marriage of more than two people.

In July, 47 House Republicans joined every House Democrat in voting to pass it, with the blessing of House Republican leaders Kevin McCarthy and Steve Scalise, and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell declined to stake out a public position on the legislation until Schumer announced a decision on bringing it to the floor of the evenly-divided Senate.

“We all want to pass this quickly,” Schumer said at a Wednesday press conference, the Associated Press reports. “I hope there will be 10 Republicans to support it.” The AP adds that the vote is expected by the end of September.

[ClearCase_guy]

Gosh. I wonder if Mitt Romney is interested in that polygamy thing.

[JudyinCanada]

This was predicted a looooong time ago. Move away from the standard (God’s standard) and anything goes. Anything.

[combat_boots]

Islam

[Lockbox]

Can I enter my 14 wife’s on my IRS tax return? We all plan to file a tax return claiming the spouses to maximize deductions... 🤣

[joshua c]

please correct me if i am wrong

but wont this cause the matter to get before the supreme court

and since it used the same logic as roe v wade would be kicked to the states

it does not matter what congress does if ussc rules it is a state matter

[BenLurkin]

Respect for Marriage Act (Orwellian name) would force every state to recognize any “marriage” of any other state “between 2 individuals.”

Why only two? Serious question.

As the Senate makes a mockery of marriage then why not go just a little further and endorse polygamy?

[packagingguy]

Yep, it moved from”we just want to marry the person we love” to “we just want to sexually mutilate kids”.

Personally I didn’t expect things to move this fast, I was thinking maybe a lifetime or more, not 10 years.

[TexasFreeper2009]

LMAO

ZERO chance they find 10!!!! Republicans to vote for that

[rfp1234]

Right. Just like the Defense of Marriage Act was ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS, so will this new act.

[TexasFreeper2009]

The court said, the “court” shouldn’t decide, and since the feds never passed a law, it then should be decided by the states. BUT, if the feds were to pass a law then that would give the court an “out” also.

If Dems had the votes they would simply pass a law legalizing abortion, and the court would uphold it.

They didn’t saying unborn babies were human and deserving of life, they simply said, the court didn’t have the power to make it legal out of thin air.

[deport]

Two men marry, surrounded by wedding party, in New Orleans, LA on November 11, 2017

The United States Census Bureau has collected data on unmarried same-sex households since 2005. Since 2013 following United States v. Windsor, the Bureau began recording married same-sex households in its Same-Sex Couples report. It recorded about 252,000 same-sex spouses in 2013; 335,000 in 2014; 425,000 in 2015; 487,000 in 2016; 555,000 in 2017; 593,000 in 2018. In 2018, the states of California, Texas and New York had the highest total number of same-sex households, whereas Wyoming, Vermont, South Dakota and Connecticut had the most married same-sex households in comparison to unmarried households (92.4% of Wyoming same-sex households were married, followed by Vermont at 79.3%, South Dakota at 77.8% and Connecticut at 70.7%). Nationally, 59.5% of cohabiting same-sex couples were married.[178] The Population Reference Bureau reported that by October 2015 approximately 486,000 same-sex marriages had taken place in the United States. It estimated that 45% of all same-sex couples in the country were married at that time.[179] According to Gallup, the percent of cohabiting same-sex couples who are married rose from 38% in 2015 to 49% in 2016 and to 61% in 2017.[180]

Same-sex marriage in the United States

[Brooklyn Attitude]

“Democrats Plan Senate Vote on Radical Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Bill by End of September”

What are the Republicans planning? Do they have a list of goals they want to accomplish? If so do they have a strategy on how to accomplish them? Doesn’t seem so.

[wiseprince]

It’s going to pass. Again, there is no opposition party

[Political Junkie Too]

It’s going to pass. Again, there is no opposition party

Democrats don't want the bill to pass, they want the issue to club Republicans over the Supreme Court.

Democrats want the Republicans to oppose the bill so they can use their public statements in campaign ads in October. That makes this a "September Surprise" to rope-a-dope Republicans into saying stupid things.

This is all about creating an issue to be used in October to argue that Republicans are extreme and will work towards SCOTUS nominations that will "take away" gay marriage just like they "took away" abortion.

The Democrats are masters of this deceitful strategy, and Republicans fall for it every time, and will continue to as long as the geriatric class still runs the party.

-PJ

[quantim]

Why in Heaven’s sake would somebody want more than one mother-in-law?

[FlingWingFlyer]

DemocRATS are the greatest threat to democracy. They give democracy a bad name.

[wiseprince]

What if you don’t identify as an individual but you identify identify as a partnership? What if two women identify as one woman and decide to marry one man?

[wiseprince]

Send money to the Ukraine?

[Amendment10]

Thank you for referencing that article marshmallow. Please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

Regarding politically correct federal marriage bill, patriots are reminded that, just as the misguided Supreme Court has finally at least admitted that government power to legalize the murder of unborn children belongs to the states, it also remains that neither have the states expressly constitutionally given the feds the power to regulate marriage.

"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.

Not only do I still question if Supremes overturned Roe v. Wade to try to help alleged election-stealing Democrats win 2022 midterm elections, the marriage bill is undoubtedly an additional attempt by election year desperate Democrats and RINOs to exploit constitutionally low-information, post-17th Amendment ratification voters to try to stay in power imo.

Additionally, consider that activist Supreme Court justices are undoubtedly very much aware that, as a consequence of the very corrupt, constitutionally undefined political parties dividing the Senate vote basically 50/50, the Senate's 2/3 supermajority power to remove from office activist Supreme Court justices impeached by House is effectively nullified imo.

In other words, activist justices know that they have job security imo, the Constitution be damned.