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.
This is the very definition of compromise. If Democrats will not support the amendment I think it is reasonable to infer they intend for the Federal Government to punish any organization that does not bend the knee to secularism. And they will use liberal judges to read their vague language any way they like.
If the current SCOTUS hears such a case I expect Kavanaugh in particular to nullify the law and tell Congress to write explicit laws, as he has done before.
Democrats and their MSM minions will immediately call fowl and accuse the conservative Justices of religious bias, never mind the facts.
Thank you for this commentary, Erick. I have been so concerned about this--and about Mike Lee's small chances of getting the amendment through. I am so aggravated with the 12 Republican senators who voted with the dems. Literally praying that the bill will not pass. My 2 senators from Arkansas are on our corner on this one (and most things), but that Washington swamp has a strong influence of corruption...
I'm interested to know what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has done that you believe they have sold out on the issue.
This is their statement from November 15th on the matter:
The doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints related to marriage between a man and a woman is well known and will remain unchanged.
We are grateful for the continuing efforts of those who work to ensure the Respect for Marriage Act includes appropriate religious freedom protections while respecting the law and preserving the rights of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters.
We believe this approach is the way forward. As we work together to preserve the principles and practices of religious freedom together with the rights of LGBTQ individuals, much can be accomplished to heal relationships and foster greater understanding.
This is going to be a Trojan horse and should not be codified at the Federal level. I’m sure I’m in the minority here when I say that marriage is a contract between two (or more) consenting adults and the state should merely exist to enforce that contract. However, I do not intend to take away anyone’s religious belief in the matter, either.
Now that marriage will be a codified right, what is to prevent the next step? We have already seen the terminology “MAP,” standing for a minor attracted person. Will those people also want to further this legislation to include their wish to be legally recognized as non-pedophiles who simply want to marry a minor? I don’t know yet what all of the ramifications could be from this but I don’t think it will be good.
When you say "people of faith who sincerely believe God himself ordained". NO, we KNOW God himself ordained it because the Bible TELLS US SO. But the Bible also tells us that in the latter days, this will happen and so get ready because He is coming SOON. The first four Seals are opened and the world is showing us that already. Many other things that we read in a number of books in the Bible tell us about things to come in the end times that are happening today. We need to prepare ourselves for the next 3 1/2 years and then He comes with His Angels and the way we go.
Don’t elected officials when they are sworn in put there hand on a bible and say “so help me God” or am I mistaken? I wonder if they have ever read it?
It’s not just Christendom, but also adherents to natural law.
Granted most adherents to natural law are very likely orthodox Christians. But natural law is a more compelling argument to secularists than Biblical orthodoxy.
And the republicans who are going to stab Christians in the back are the exact "establishment" types who are deemed "electable" when they are candidates, and we need independents to vote for them. When real conservatives are candidates, they are deemed radical, far right, shit show, nut jobs. And so it goes.
Thus begins the GOP forgetting the people, packing up their "Only for Elections" spine, and getting back to the establishment way of governing. These unprincipled fools think we aren't paying attention. Maybe they're right? We get the government we deserve, and if people are willing to vote for flash and show over character, this is what they'll continue to receive. It makes me sad.
Well said Fr. Powell. Can you please provide some scripture reference, absent the Apocrypha, that one may meditate upon to improve recognition of the rhythm of the timeless faith? Ecclesiastes comes to mind on a fairly simple basis. I have seen an increase in despondency over the past decade and I know I must battle that without substituting anger or revenge in its place.
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.
While the right to marriage is implicitly in the Constitution, it is administered by the states.
What jurisdiction does the Federal Government have to pass any law regarding marriage?
This is the very definition of compromise. If Democrats will not support the amendment I think it is reasonable to infer they intend for the Federal Government to punish any organization that does not bend the knee to secularism. And they will use liberal judges to read their vague language any way they like.
If the current SCOTUS hears such a case I expect Kavanaugh in particular to nullify the law and tell Congress to write explicit laws, as he has done before.
Democrats and their MSM minions will immediately call fowl and accuse the conservative Justices of religious bias, never mind the facts.
Thank you for this commentary, Erick. I have been so concerned about this--and about Mike Lee's small chances of getting the amendment through. I am so aggravated with the 12 Republican senators who voted with the dems. Literally praying that the bill will not pass. My 2 senators from Arkansas are on our corner on this one (and most things), but that Washington swamp has a strong influence of corruption...
I'm interested to know what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has done that you believe they have sold out on the issue.
This is their statement from November 15th on the matter:
The doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints related to marriage between a man and a woman is well known and will remain unchanged.
We are grateful for the continuing efforts of those who work to ensure the Respect for Marriage Act includes appropriate religious freedom protections while respecting the law and preserving the rights of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters.
We believe this approach is the way forward. As we work together to preserve the principles and practices of religious freedom together with the rights of LGBTQ individuals, much can be accomplished to heal relationships and foster greater understanding.
This is going to be a Trojan horse and should not be codified at the Federal level. I’m sure I’m in the minority here when I say that marriage is a contract between two (or more) consenting adults and the state should merely exist to enforce that contract. However, I do not intend to take away anyone’s religious belief in the matter, either.
Now that marriage will be a codified right, what is to prevent the next step? We have already seen the terminology “MAP,” standing for a minor attracted person. Will those people also want to further this legislation to include their wish to be legally recognized as non-pedophiles who simply want to marry a minor? I don’t know yet what all of the ramifications could be from this but I don’t think it will be good.
When you say "people of faith who sincerely believe God himself ordained". NO, we KNOW God himself ordained it because the Bible TELLS US SO. But the Bible also tells us that in the latter days, this will happen and so get ready because He is coming SOON. The first four Seals are opened and the world is showing us that already. Many other things that we read in a number of books in the Bible tell us about things to come in the end times that are happening today. We need to prepare ourselves for the next 3 1/2 years and then He comes with His Angels and the way we go.
AND THEN GOD'S WRATH BEGINS.
Erick, could you please provide a list of the 12 Republican Senators that have supported this legislation.
One of the many reasons I consider myself an Independent
If we only had a leader than unwaveringly defended religious freedom- like Trump!
Don’t elected officials when they are sworn in put there hand on a bible and say “so help me God” or am I mistaken? I wonder if they have ever read it?
It’s not just Christendom, but also adherents to natural law.
Granted most adherents to natural law are very likely orthodox Christians. But natural law is a more compelling argument to secularists than Biblical orthodoxy.
And the republicans who are going to stab Christians in the back are the exact "establishment" types who are deemed "electable" when they are candidates, and we need independents to vote for them. When real conservatives are candidates, they are deemed radical, far right, shit show, nut jobs. And so it goes.
Thus begins the GOP forgetting the people, packing up their "Only for Elections" spine, and getting back to the establishment way of governing. These unprincipled fools think we aren't paying attention. Maybe they're right? We get the government we deserve, and if people are willing to vote for flash and show over character, this is what they'll continue to receive. It makes me sad.
Well said Fr. Powell. Can you please provide some scripture reference, absent the Apocrypha, that one may meditate upon to improve recognition of the rhythm of the timeless faith? Ecclesiastes comes to mind on a fairly simple basis. I have seen an increase in despondency over the past decade and I know I must battle that without substituting anger or revenge in its place.