Traditional marriage. A union between a woman and a man. It is a gift of God that some people receive.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 majority decision to reverse Roe ,, fearful Democrats race to avoid what is certain to be the Court’s next ruling: an overturning of federal rights to same-sex marital relations.
There was no doubt in the minds of Democrat legislators that there was a concurring view in the Roe Overturn by Justice Clarence Thomas in which he pushed the Court to revisit cases relating to contraception or same-sex marital relations.
So, what’s a group of left-wingers, who in June voted in the Senate (49 of 50 Democrats) in support of on-demand abortion until birth, to do? Pass legislation in the House — joined by 47 Republicans — under which the federal government would recognize any marriage legally performed in any of the 50 states.
Not meant to be sarcastic, but to push this idea to the logical extremity.
As reported by Reasons to Be Cheerful in October 2021, legal systems around the world — including in America — are beginning to confront an existential question: What rights does an animal have? Valid question. As is the case for everything on Planet Looney Tunes ,, a movement has begun to grant “personhood to” animals under the law ..
So, let’s extrapolate. First, remember that the Democrat-passed House bill, should it become law, would mandate the federal government to recognize any marriage if it is legally performed in any of the 50 states. Let us say that California passes a law granting “personhood” rights for, let’s just say, dogs. (You know the direction this is heading, right?) We can also assume that California, no longer the Golden State, passes legislation legalizing marriage between an individual and their dog. This is just to show how extreme it can be.
Under the Democrats’ so-called Respect for Marriage Act, which was introduced by New York’s despicable Democrat Representative Jerry Nadler — the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, no less — the federal government would not only be forced to recognize that marriage; the attorney general of the United States would be able to file lawsuits against states that refuse to recognize the marriage as well.
Do I think the scenario above is possible? No. Are you also convinced that nothing the rabid right could possibly do anything to surprise me? Yes, indeed.
Also as CNN reported that the Democrat bill protects the right of same-sex marriage across the country, it also provides federal protections to interracial unions. This means, once again, that a marriage must still be recognized by federal law if it was legally established in the jurisdiction where it occurred.
House Majority leader Steny Hyer was another Democrat with impeccable character.
It is critical to ensure that federal law protects those whose constitutional rights might be threatened by Republican-controlled state legislatures. LGBTQ Americans, and interracial couples in interracial relationships deserve the assurance that their rights to equality marriage will be protected no matter where they reside.
Stoyer was unavailable for comment on the constitutional rights of babies, murdered until right before birth.
On a humorous note, South Carolina Republican Representative Nancy Mace, one of the 47 Republicans who supported the bill, tweeted:
We just passed the Respect for Marriage Act from the House. I am a huge fan of marriage and have done it several times. Gay couples can be just as happy or as unhappy as straight couples. This is what I can assure you.
Nicely played Congresswoman, even though your vote was not.
We just passed the Respect for Marriage Act from the House. I am a huge fan of marriage having experienced it several times. Gay couples can be just as happy or as unhappy as straight couples. This is what I can assure you.
— Nancy Mace (@NancyMace) July 19, 2022
Related on RedState:
Whoopi Goldberg Is Either a Hyperbolic Liar or a Perfect Example of the Left’s Ignorance
Private Religious Scholar Kamala Harris Discusses God’s Views on Abortion
Elena Kagan Claims ‘Legitimacy” of Supreme Court When it stray from Public Opinion