If you read most of the headlines and articles coming out of the MSM regarding the piece of federal legislation currently being pushed, they'll sound something like this:
U.S. House poised to pass same-sex marriage bill, showing shift in attitudes
Have a read over the actual text of the bill up for vote.
"SEC. 2." holds no legal weight in any sense. It's not part of the law. Just ramblings to provide "context." So the talk about "same-sex couples" amounts to nothing.
SEC. 3. simply repeals DOMA, which did explicitly define marriage as being
only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
SEC. 4. for the most part simply reiterates the Article IV, Section 1 "full faith and credit clause of the Constitution"; although keep in mind that FF&C only requires that a state recognize certain licenses issued in other states as being valid but doesn't necessarily require a state to transfer any license issued in another state under the laws of that state. For instance, a 16 year old can get a full drivers license in Alaska. If that 16 year old vacations in Illinois where the age requirement for a full license is 18 years old, IL MUST recognize that license as being valid and cannot penalize the 16 year old for driving. However it the 16 year old moves to IL and becomes a domiciled resident of the state, fully under its jurisdiction, IL does NOT have to issue the 16 year old a full drivers license just because they already had one in another state, nor do they have to accept the expired AK license or transfer it into a IL license. The new 16 year old IL resident can apply for a restricted drivers license, like any other 16 year old resident of IL. In the same manner, just because NY might give two dudes a marriage license/certificate, if they move to TX, the laws of the TX apply and the dudes would not meet the criteria as required by the laws of TX. The state doesn't have to issue them a new license, or count the NY one as being applicable. This same principle applies to all sorts of licenses... teachers, practice law or healthcare... granted, this kind of gets at the real issue re: marriages... marriage licenses are BULLSHIT. Marriage is a covenant between man, woman and God. The civil kingdom has no authority to violate the natural or revealed laws... but I digress...
SEC. 5. Unlike in DOMA, this bill never explicility defines marriage. It merely says that the federal government will recognize a valid marriage as being
between 2 individuals and is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into
In other words, this is simply a restatement of the 10th Amendment. The regulation of marriage is a power left to the states. This is what SCOTUS ruled in Windsor when it "struck down" DOMA (although the law still remains, hence why social liberals are pushing to have it repealed and replaced with this RFMA).
SEC. 6. actually does provide substantial protections for religious liberty. Granted, what's the whole point of a law if there can be so many exemptions?
SEC. 7. still bans polygamy, which technically, the federal government cannot do... after all, Windsor said that regulation of marriage is a state matter, not a federal one, and its under this legal premise that this very bill is being justified to replace DOMA.
One can only wonder why Ted Cruz's proposed bill in 2014 wasn't taken as seriously as this effort, considering it essentially would have created the same impact... a restoration of the states' rights to regulate marriage, and the federal government simply recognizing licenses issued by states under their laws.
So what's really going on here?
What proponents want you do believe, is that when/if SCOTUS revisits and reverses the precedent set in Obergefell, this new law (replacing DOMA, which is still technically, the law) will somehow force all states to legalize same-sex "marriage." But it will do no such thing. In 35 states, marriage is currently still BY LAW (their constitution and/or statute) defined as being between only a man and a woman. Those laws were never actually changed. Obergefell merely signaled that SCOTUS would ignore them if plaintiffs challenged them. That's how the judicial process works.
Suppose that Obergefell is overturned. All that means is that if plaintiffs try to challenge those existing state laws, the current SCOTUS won't rule in their favor. Why? Because "same-sex marriage", like abortion, isn't actually a Constitutional right, and the regulation of marriage is a matter left to the states per Windsor and the 10th Amendment. States with judicial activists who attempted to "legalize" a new definition of "marriage" without the action of the state legislature or vote of the people, will no longer have to bend the knee to such tyranny. They won't be required to recognize or honor bullshit licenses issued under duress since Obergefell, or in some states previous state level cases (all of this bullshit started in MA when Romney was governor and under his leadership, he and the legislature cowered like little bitches to the MA court).
The reversal of Roe v. Wade has signaled that the current SCOTUS is keen on restoring states rights and to some degree, cleaning up the damage the prior courts had done for culture war issues over the past several decades. The winds have shifted. If social activists want changes, then they're going to have to start winning hearts and minds to get actual laws written instead of relying on bullshit lawfare.
Of course, millions of NPCs on both sides, will read clickbait headlines like the one linked above, not actually read the text of the bill, and buy into whichever narrative is being pushed towards their predispositions... right now cultural left are praising Congress for "defending same-sex marriage" while those on the cultural right are freaking out that "this will make America Sodom & Gomorrah!" Hate to break it to you, but we're already well past Sodom and Gomorrah by now. But it will be quite entertaining watching leftists go full meltdown in a year or so once they realize that this bill is not only NOT a win for them, but is a poison pill for nationalized same-sex "marriage"
Sticky for the good write up and research on what the law does and doesn’t do compared to MSM’s interpretation.
Many thanks. There's so much noise about this bill right now, and few seem to want to filter it out. Hopefully this may help.
So why would the special interests write a bill for the leftist traitors in Congress to pass that would do opposite of what the culture warriors have long coveted? And why would the leftist traitors frame it in such a way as to make the culture warriors look like the idiots that we all know they are?
Is it simply that Patriots are in control and we are watching a movie?
Certainly could be. Could also be that these people are really that stupid 🤷🏻
Good question.
Yes, in *Windsor" SCOTUS used the argument that regulation of marriage is a states' rights issue, therefore Congress cannot write law that attempts to supersede state law. At the time, in 2013, only a handful of states recognized same-sex marriage as being legal, and less than 5 had been done via legislative action or popular vote. Of course, officials in several more states were illegally issuing licenses, despite what their actual laws said. Once Windsor came down, the left and Blue states basically just started acting as if state laws didn't matter anymore. "Same-same marriage is legal now" they claimed. But obviously that wasn't the case. So then came Obergefell. That SCOTUS basically threw out their Windsor argument and claimed like abortion, that same-sex marriage was a constitutional right. Just invented it out of thin air, thereby allowing them to ignore Windsor
Obergefell goes down, then we're still left with Windsor, but more importantly we go back to 35 states still explicitly banning same-sex marriage, and even a good portion of the remaining 15 without explicit law redefining marriage or permitting same-sex marriage, but due to court rulings and orders, they've just recognized them anyway. The question then will be, what do these 35 states do? Will there leadership demonstrate actual courage and follow their laws?
Thank you. Very important and insightful post. I'll continue the part, to which I completely agree with you, that you "digress[ed]" from.
You stated here, "marriage licenses are BULLSHIT. Marriage is a covenant between man, woman and God." You are absolutely correct.
There is little to no advantage of getting a marriage license. I posted the actual history of the marriage licence on 09-15-22, to which is very mind-blowing. As an excerpt, the following provides a small insight to government control of marriage and the family.
This is the story of how a license often becomes an arbitrary control by government to make an absolute right, which is ordained by our Creator in Heaven, into a statutory privilege of carnal politicians.
Common Law marriages are the way to go. Yesterday I posted on this subject. Many States recognize them. If your State doesn't recognize common law marriages either travel to a State that does or ignore this altogether. It's none of their business. All that's required is a person of your faith to ordain and preside over the marriage service. Your marriage is before God, not the corporate Pastor, or State. Did you know corporate pastors pay marriage fees to the State in order to marry people? Most all pastors will deny your unlicensed marriage due to the fact they are required by the State to report them.
Get a unlicensed pastor/person of your faith to solemnize and preside over your marriage. It can be your best friend or someone even in your family. The vows for a common law marriage are well posted on the Internet. All that a marriage requires are witnesses to the vows before God.
The last important item to remember is to always file taxes independently. There is no tax savings for having a licence for marriage. It's better to file independently. Doing so, has many advantages and protections against any lawsuits incurred. Protection id privacy. Privacy is protection. Below is a sample of a Godly marriage agreement.
MARRIAGE AGREEMENT
IN THE PRESENCE OF THE ALMIGHTY CREATOR, those present here today and of the hereinafter named and subscribed witnesses, Do you, Groom [Complete name] of the Groom’s [Last name] family, hereby take Bride of the Bride’s family to be your lawful wedded Wife, and promise to love, honor, protect and obey, to support her, be always faithful, cherish, hold and care for her in sickness and in health until death do you part?
[I do]
And,
IN THE PRESENCE OF THE ALMIGHTY CREATOR, those present here today and of the hereinafter named witnesses, do you, Bride [Complete name] of the Bride’s [Last name] family take Groom [Complete name] of the Groom’s [Last name] family to be your lawful wedded Husband, and promise to love, honor, protect and obey, to support him, be always faithful, cherish, hold and care for him in sickness and in health until death do you part?
[I do]
And,
Do you, Groom [Complete name], recognize and hold these aforementioned marriage vows to be binding on you before our Creator in all of life’s challenges?
[I do]
Do you also recognize and concede that Bride [Complete name] recognizes that our Creator has blessed your unity as Husband and Wife and established this covenant on this day of [Date] , [Year]?
[I do]
And,
Do you, Bride [Complete name] recognize and hold these aforementioned marriage vows to be binding on you before our Creator in all of life’s challenges?
[I do]
Do you also recognize and concede that Groom [Complete name] recognizes that our Creator has blessed your unity as Husband and Wife and established this covenant on this day of [Date] , [Year]?
[I do]
And,
IN THE PRESENCE OF ALMIGHTY CREATOR, those present here today and of the hereinafter named and subscribed witnesses, Groom [Complete name], and Bride [Complete name], promise and declare that you will both be equally responsible for any child or children that may result from this marriage. That neither of you will in any way abandon or abuse said child or children; that you will raise said child or children to know love and respect God, to obey and defend His law, the Liberty of men, the rights and property of others, respect, uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and obey only those Laws enacted in pursuance thereof?
[We do]
Now I Do Hereby Proclaim before this assembly of witnesses, on this [ ]th Day of [month] in the Year of Our Lord [year], the taking and holding of wedding Vows between Groom and Bride in the presence of the Almighty CREATOR, those present here today and of the undersigned Witnesses, do declare you to be Husband and Wife.
You may now exchange wedding bands.
Witnesses of this Holy Matrimony:
Witnesses of this Holy Matrimony:
Witnesses of this Holy Matrimony:
Witnesses of this Holy Matrimony:
The government has no business in dealing with marriage (as you mention). I have a libertarian view of this. If there is a church out there that believes adults can marry a tree or a horse, go for it. So long as it doesn’t affect the rest of us.
I agree. In legal terms it should be a civil union and a civil union can be agreed upon between two people for any reason doesn’t need to be sexual. For example if everyone in my immediate family and my fiancée died I should be allowed to have a civil union with my best friend so I can have someone I trust to represent me.
The federal government certainly has no constitutional authority to regulate marriage. However, the institution itself overlaps both the civil and ecclesiastical realms, meaning that government is still ordained to be "in the business" of marriage, so to speak. But the idea that it's a marriage license is nonsense. A "certificate" merely indicating that a marriage was "contracted" into and ordained should suffice. The reality is that one's married status is relevant in so many aspects of the law, so there must be some entity tasked with regulation.
None of this should really be a big debate, if there wasn't this post modern lunacy of changing definitions of words.
It's just one more example of anything that leftists promote, they give a name that is the opposite of what it actually does.
My sister in law is in a legal relationship with another female. They can “play” the “we’re married and equal to ALL couples!” game all they please. I’ll never equate them to a God ordained covenant and there’s nothing they can do.
Truth wins every time.
God won't either. He wrote the definition, after all.
It's unconstitutional anyway, just like DOMA.
Great insight into this.
Appreciate the effort
Thank you for your work!
SEC. 4. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN TO MARRIAGE EQUALITY.
Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, as amended by this Act, is further amended by inserting after section 1738B the following:
Ҥ 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.”.
Original text amended by the above:
1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
This seems pretty cut and dry. If a same sex couple got married in California, this statute would require Texas to give it full faith and credit (presuming Texas did not allow same sex marriage). So ya, you couldn’t be a same sex couple and get married in Texas. But you could go to California then when you return to Texas, it must be recognized by Texas.
Basically, all it takes is one state doing gay marriages, and the other 49 have to recognize it. Not sure how else you could read this.
The driver license analogy is not the best. Because someone moving from one state to the other has to apply for a license in their new state of residence. At no time must you apply for a marriage license again just because you moved. You aren’t getting married again. You just relocated. A state banning same sex marriage wouldn’t have to issue you a license, but you also wouldn’t be asking them to do so. Since you already got one in a state that allowed it.
Except that's not what full faith and credit actually means. That's a leftist warped view of what the clause actually means. The drivers license example illustrates what full faith and credit actually means. If two dudes in SC could just go to CA and get "married", and SC be forced to accept that, then then what's the point in allowing states having their own laws? Pass the bar in KY and move to NV, and see if NV will let you practice law. Buy a gun in IN and move to IL and see if IL will just give you a license, no questions asked, no other conditions required. Different states, licenses issued under different laws. Full faith and credit does not require states to honor statuses or privileges attained in other states, under different legal requirements. The clause simple means that states must be able to make records public.
There is a key distinction here though. All of the licenses you describe are for ongoing activities. Marriage doesn't work that way. One does not get married, and then continue to get married. It is a one time occurrence.
To illustrate: You can be admitted to practice law in Kentucky, and when moving to Nevada, you are seeking to continue practicing law. So you must apply to Nevada. Because the practice of law is going to continue. Same thing with driver licenses.
When you move from CA as same sex married couple to SC, you aren't asking SC to let you get married. Because you already are married. To get unmarried, you'd have to get divorced. Under full faith & credit, this statute is requiring a state recognize this out of state occurrence.
Not that I agree with any of these concepts; but I can't see how a one time occurrence is analogous to ongoing or future actions.
A license, is a license. So if the government is going to require marriage "licenses" then they have to be treated as licenses. Of course, as I've said before, marriage licenses are bullshit, because there shouldn't be any. But the state can't have its cake and eat it too 🤷🏻
It is bullshit that government is involved in marriage to begin with. Having said that...
If you go get same sex married on January 1 of next year, you go get a license to get married on January 1. Lets just say it will be in Minnesota. It was a long time ago when I got married, so I don't remember what the exact rules were. But if I did not get married within like 72 hours of what I put on there, it was void.
So you finally get married on January 1 of 2023. A few months later (lets say June 1, 2023) you move to another state (lets say Tennessee) that wouldn't let you do it there on Jan 1, 2023. But you aren't asking them to let you do it there. Because you already did it in Minnesota. What this statute is requiring is that Tennessee must recognize what you lawfully did in Minnesota on Jan 1 2023. As in past tense.
Want to practice law in Tennessee after being admitted to Minnesota bar? Not the same thing. Simply existing in Tennessee is not the practice of law. But representing clients in a court room sure is. If you wish to represent people in the future in a Tennessee court room, then you must be admitted to the Tennessee bar. Tennessee has no need to recognize your ability to practice in Minnesota.
Want to drive a car in Tennessee after having a Minnesota license? This is an ongoing act or a future act. Not the same as having a past event recognized. You don't need a Tennessee license to cover your past driving in Minnesota.
On another note, I am not sure where the feds even come off with the authority to write such a statute.
Article I § 9
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Doesn't appear on the list.
This is 2022, the term "same sex" does not even mean anything any more.
Yes. Their goal is to actually change the meaning of the word itself, to normalize something abnormal.
IMO the government shouldn't be involved or have any say over marriage.
Is this paving a path for "minor attracted persons?"
Feels like the pedos could end up being able to marry children in some states and the feds would recognize the legitimacy...
Theoretically a state could pass a law lowering marriage minimum age to 12, but I highly doubt even the dumbest people in the worst states wouldn't do it.
Technically all they would have to do is put it on the ballot then steal that election to pass such a law.