This week, the Senate will be taking up the Respect for Marriage Act. People who were too anxious to vote against the legislation before midterms will now be able to comfortably support the institution of marriage.
The bill says, in part:
Different beliefs regarding the role of gender in marriage can be held by sincere and reasonable people who are able to accept and respect religious and philosophical principles.
This is false. prima facie would be the correct answer, as honorable philosophers would state.
It is not only false, as a statement like “The 2020 election was most secure in history” would be false, but it is also based on observable facts that are dependent on media coverage, electoral patterns, and strategy.
Bipartisan senators are claiming that the bill was never possible, isn’t, or will ever be true. For example, “reasonable” people don’t have “diverse beliefs regarding the role of gender and marriage.” Reasonable people use reason to guide their thoughts, words and actions. Reasonable people call a spade a spade when they see it as a spade.
There are many beliefs regarding gender and marriage. We can assume that there is a possibility that a couple of men or women could decide that their marriage would be a good fit. Nature is not a good judge. This generation’s state-sanctioned homosexuality won’t lead to an evolutionary mutation that would open nature up to the idea. The Romans attempted to change nature by force but all that was left were three named poets who had a preference for pedophilia.
I was struck by the Hallmark vision of marriage expressed in the legislation. It is a “union [that] embody the highest ideals love, fidelity devotion, sacrifice and family.” This made me reflect back to 2013, when Anthony Kennedy (an Irish-Catholic) wrote the Court’s majority opinion United States V. Windsor. Kennedy was joined by his liberal colleagues in a 5-4 decision which contributed to “the gay agenda” as it is known by families around the table.
Kennedy stated in his opinion that “by tradition and history the definition and regulation [of marriage] has been treated as falling within the authority and scope of the separate States.” He also acknowledged that the federal government could make specific provisions concerning issues that are tangentially connected to marriage. He insists that the states have the right to define it.
Kennedy insists on repeating the constitutional authority for the states to define marriage. Justice Scalia dedicated a paragraph to calling Kennedy’s zeal in question. Scalia is well worth quoting:
What can we make of all this? This opinion does not explain. I believe that while the majority is reluctant to suggest that federal statutes define “marriage”, it needs to have some rhetorical support for its pretense that today’s Federal Government-imposed ban on laws that exclude same-sex marriage only applies to them. However, I’m guessing.
Two terms later, in Obergefell, the “state-law shoe” was actually dropped. Scalia did not believe the Court could overturn the Defense of Marriage Act Windsor which he called “democratically approved legislation”.
The advocates of homosexual marriage acknowledged that Kennedy’s decision was only one step in a long march. The Court would ban states from prohibiting same-sex couples marrying two years later. Seven years later, Justice Thomas would challenge the whole system in his Dobbsconcurrence. Voters wanted to know “what constitutes due process?” Jerry Nadler answered, “marriage equality.”
Sign up today
Receive weekly emails to your inbox
Twenty-five days later, the Dobbsdecision had been released, Nadler reintroduced The Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) to the House. The House passed it the following day and Chuck Schumer is available for the upper chamber’s vote during the lame duck session.
A federal definition of fake marriage is now in place. “A person shall be considered married if their marriage is between two individuals and is valid within the State in which the marriage was entered into.” This sweet poetry will become law if Schumer can find ten Republicans willing to vote for it.
This legislation does not allow for disagreement. In a span of ten year, the federal government has changed from defending marriage to respecting it as it is. These concerns were addressed by the bill’s drafters who said: “Fear not. The legislation protects religious liberty and conscience. Why is the legislation explicit about the protection of religious liberty by federal law and Constitution? Maybe everyone will eventually love. However, I’m guessing.