Respect Marriage bill violates freedom of religion

[notmyfault2020]

US bishops concerned gay marriage bill will punish 'reasonable and sincere' religious objectors

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has voiced concern about the likely passage of the President Biden administration's Respect for Marriage Act.

www.foxnews.com

All Christians should be concerned about this .. what I call a weasel bill.. No, I haven't read it (yet) but it looks like another one of those sneaky liberal bills that purports to do one thing while really accomplishing something else that their sick souls care about more...

I am still searching through sites on this issue.. but as one person put it.. yeh.. looks like any religious protections in that bill are WEAK.

 

[jackflash]

We are fighting against a LOT more than just corrupted flesh & blood for sure.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Here you go. Its very short.

Text - H.R.8404 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Respect for Marriage Act

Text for H.R.8404 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Respect for Marriage Act

www.congress.gov

§ 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

“(a) In General.—No person acting under color of State law may deny—
“(1) full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals; or
“(2) a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.
“(b) Enforcement By Attorney General.—The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against any person who violates subsection (a) for declaratory and injunctive relief.
“(c) Private Right Of Action.—Any person who is harmed by a violation of subsection (a) may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against the person who violated such subsection for declaratory and injunctive relief.
“(d) State Defined.—In this section, the term ‘State’ has the meaning given such term under section 7 of title 1.”.
SEC. 4. MARRIAGE RECOGNITION.
Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
Ҥ 7. Marriage

“(a) For the purposes of any Federal law, rule, or regulation in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.
“(b) In this section, the term ‘State’ means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.
“(c) For purposes of subsection (a), in determining whether a marriage is valid in a State or the place where entered into, if outside of any State, only the law of the jurisdiction applicable at the time the marriage was entered into may be considered.”.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I am very suspect of anything that Democrats support.

I am in favor of states recognizing the marriages of other states. That has always been a part of the United States's law. In Texas, I can marry my first cousin. Maybe in South Carolina, they think that is incest and would not allow it. But, if I move to South Carolina with my wive/cousin it is vital to us that our marriage be valid there. Also for our kids, who have it bad enough with the extra toes and all.

 

[martybegan]

I am very suspect of anything that Democrats support.

I am in favor of states recognizing the marriages of other states. That has always been a part of the United States's law. In Texas, I can marry my first cousin. Maybe in South Carolina, they think that is incest and would not allow it. But, if I move to South Carolina with my wive/cousin it is vital to us that our marriage be valid there. Also for our kids, who have it bad enough with the extra toes and all.

That's how Obergfell should have been decided.

 

[whitehall]

Legislating "respect"? WTF is happening in the Biden administration?

 

[TNHarley]

Maybe you religious people shouldnt have let the govt get into marriages. Its YOUR fault your institution is being overran.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I am very suspect of anything that Democrats support.

I am in favor of states recognizing the marriages of other states. That has always been a part of the United States's law. In Texas, I can marry my first cousin. Maybe in South Carolina, they think that is incest and would not allow it. But, if I move to South Carolina with my wive/cousin it is vital to us that our marriage be valid there. Also for our kids, who have it bad enough with the extra toes and all.

As to always being part of United States law. That is incorrect. DOMA specifically exempted states from recognition of legal same-sex civil marriages performed in other states. And it barred federal recognition of legal same-sex civil marriages performed in any state.

WW

 

[Canon Shooter]

No, I haven't read it...

And that's where any reasonable person would lose complete interest in the rest of your post.

To comment on a bill without actually reading the bill is ignorant.

I would ask you how it violates freedom of religion, but I already know you can't tell me...

 

[BluesLegend]

Well I think we can all agree that we now have 3x more government that we need. Who's for laying off 50% of government tomorrow?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well I think we can all agree that we now have 3x more government that we need. Who's for laying off 50% of government tomorrow?

Probably not.

We'll need the other 50% to monitor women's uteruses.

WW

 

[pknopp]

All Christians should be concerned about this .. what I call a weasel bill.. No, I haven't read it (yet) .....................................

Well then......................I'll wait until you have.

 

[Donald H]

To allow freedom of religion, it's necessary to allow lies and superstitious beliefs to be forced on more rational people.

The clash between religious beliefs and truth had to come eventually.

'Freedom of religion' can't be permitted to negatively influence the rights and freedoms of others!

Already the practice of lying to children about the god is child abuse that condemns children to a life of believing lies!

 

[Donald H]

Probably not.

We'll need the other 50% to monitor women's uteruses.

WW

Fascist policies eliminate elected government officials and replace them with appointments who are loyal to the leader of the regime.

Election scandals in America are in fact illustrating that to be the goal.

 

[notmyfault2020]

We are fighting against a LOT more than just corrupted flesh & blood for sure.

yeh.. for sure. I get a lot of flack from Protestants about the rosary but I have yet to find a better way (outside being physically inside the [true] Church) of beating back evil..

 

[notmyfault2020]

Well I think we can all agree that we now have 3x more government that we need. Who's for laying off 50% of government tomorrow?

not 3 x

more like 100 x

 

[notmyfault2020]

I am very suspect of anything that Democrats support.

I am in favor of states recognizing the marriages of other states. That has always been a part of the United States's law. In Texas, I can marry my first cousin. Maybe in South Carolina, they think that is incest and would not allow it. But, if I move to South Carolina with my wive/cousin it is vital to us that our marriage be valid there. Also for our kids, who have it bad enough with the extra toes and all.

i love the diversity found in the states I have visited.. this one blue city is just.. VASTLY different from small cities in red states, for example.

It was not all bad in the blue city I once lived in but.. there was always this.. I dunno... something in the air I can't define.. Let's just say there weren't very many Christ-centered persons there.. to say the least.. so it was no wonder the atmosphere was just not always so great..

 

[notmyfault2020]

Here you go. Its very short.

Text - H.R.8404 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Respect for Marriage Act

Text for H.R.8404 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Respect for Marriage Act

www.congress.gov

§ 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

“(a) In General.—No person acting under color of State law may deny—
“(1) full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals; or
“(2) a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.
“(b) Enforcement By Attorney General.—The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against any person who violates subsection (a) for declaratory and injunctive relief.
“(c) Private Right Of Action.—Any person who is harmed by a violation of subsection (a) may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against the person who violated such subsection for declaratory and injunctive relief.
“(d) State Defined.—In this section, the term ‘State’ has the meaning given such term under section 7 of title 1.”.
SEC. 4. MARRIAGE RECOGNITION.
Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
Ҥ 7. Marriage

“(a) For the purposes of any Federal law, rule, or regulation in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.
“(b) In this section, the term ‘State’ means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.
“(c) For purposes of subsection (a), in determining whether a marriage is valid in a State or the place where entered into, if outside of any State, only the law of the jurisdiction applicable at the time the marriage was entered into may be considered.”.

If the following (from the bill) doesn't disturb people, they are not well-informed and should definitely be disturbed (regardless of religion or lack thereof)

(b) Enforcement By Attorney General.—The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against any person who violates subsection (a) for declaratory and injunctive relief

get that passed and it is only a matter of time before Civil becomes Criminal as well

scary times.. but I will finish reading what you have here.. Thanks

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Hell, let the queers pretend to be married

 

[martybegan]

To allow freedom of religion, it's necessary to allow lies and superstitious beliefs to be forced on more rational people.

The clash between religious beliefs and truth had to come eventually.

'Freedom of religion' can't be permitted to negatively influence the rights and freedoms of others!

Already the practice of lying to children about the god is child abuse that condemns children to a life of believing lies!

It's not a lie because you can't say the person knows God doesn't exist, because no one knows if God exists or not.