Senate Republicans are on the verge of selling out people of faith.
While I understand the political merits of passing a law enshrining same-sex and interracial marriage into the law, the former is fraught with implications for people of faith who sincerely believe God himself ordained the institution between a man and woman, not people of the same sex.
Democrats, in offering their legislation, have, like Adam and Eve, offered fig leaves in response to concerns about religious discrimination. The wording of the legislation is far more nebulous than it should be and could risk the tax exempt status of religious institutions and see religious people persecuted for trying to uphold their multi-thousand year old faith based beliefs.
Sadly, the Mormon Church has sold out on the issue and provided Democrats cover to pursue weak religious protections. Progressive religious institutions have joined the Mormons in backing the existing Democrat text.
Thankfully, Senator Mike Lee from Utah, defying the elders in his church, has offered clear language to protect peoples and institutions of faith who do not want to go along with the secular redefinition of marriage.
Democrats and some Republicans claim the legislation already provides religious liberty protections. They should not be opposed to Senator Lee's amendment, which clarifies the matter of religious liberty in the legislation.
Unfortunately, Senate Republicans have agreed to a sixty-vote threshold on Lee's amendment, most likely dooming it. However, there is also a sixty-vote threshold to pass the final legislation.
If the Senate Democrats will not add Senator Lee's clear amendment for religious liberty protections, the Senate Republicans should not support the legislation. It is that simple.
Unfortunately, I do not think we will see enough Senate Republicans stand up for people of orthodox Christian faith. It is not just the Democrats who are leaving Christendom behind.
I don't understand why there should be federalization of any marriage, or why Republican senators should jump on this bandwagon. Both of my state's senators are two of the 12 who voted with the Dems to advance this bill---Tillis and Burr. I've made myself vote for Tillis twice because it was either him or the democrat but I can tell you both times it was painful. I always felt we should be able to do better than Tillis for a candidate. I'm pretty sure McConnell appreciates him more than I do. Burr is on his way out after having to resign due to some stock trading dust up. At least Ted Budd won his senate seat and hopefully will do a great job.
One major problem with same sex marriage is that it gives the radical feminist hive a second-string life-style alternative in their perpetual war against men. I know several college-educated women that are not lesbians but after their campus indoctrination in the discipline of man-hating victim studies, but have married another woman who may or may not be a lesbian. The have a good enough life wrapped in a mythology that their lives would be so much worse if married to a man.
Conversely, heterosexual men don't seem interested in that same arrangement (two non-gay men marrying for the convenience and financial benefit).
Personally, I have no problem with legalized gay marriage for two homosexual people of the same sex that love each other. My issues are two: I think the children of same-sex parents are shorted in their childhood development as the platinum situation is a life with a loving male father and female mother. And I think the enabling of more fake lesbian marriages is a disaster for civilization.