Butthurt Democrats continue push to desecrate traditional marriage, pass ‘Respect Marriage Act’

Traditional wedding. The union between a man and a woman. A gift from God to some, sacred to all who continue to live their whole lives as husband and wife, raising a family, and aging together into their golden years.

Now, following the Supreme Court’s 5-4 majority decision to overturn Roe vs. Wadeterrified Democrats are racing to avoid what they are certain will be the Court’s next decision – a reversal of the federal law on same-sex marriage.

There was no doubt in the minds of the Democratic legislators that there was a concurring opinion in the deer reversal by Judge Clarence Thomas, in which he pushed the Court to reconsider cases related to contraception and same-sex marriage that had already been decided.

So what is a group of leftists who in June voted in the Senate (49 out of 50 Democrats) in favor of abortion on demand until birth, TO DO? Pass legislation in the House – joined by 47 Republicans – under which the federal government would recognize any marriage legally solemnized in one of the 50 states.

Not to be facetious but rather to take this thing to a logical extreme.

As reported by Reasons to be happy in October 2021, legal systems around the world – including America – are beginning to grapple with an existential question: what rights does an animal have? Valid question. But as is the case with everything else crazy about Planet Looney Tunesa movement is underway to give a “personality” to animals, including before the law.

So let’s extrapolate. First, remember that the House bill passed by the Democrats, if it becomes law, would require the federal government to recognize any marriage if it is legally executed in any of the 50 states. Suppose, oh, California, for example, passes a law granting “person” rights to, say, dogs (you know where that leads, right?). Suppose further that the no longer golden state then passes a law legalizing marriage between a person and a dog – again, a logical extreme, just to illustrate a point.

Under the so-called Democrat Respect for Marriage Act, which was introduced by despicable New York Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler — the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, no less — the feds would not only be obligated to recognize this marriage; the United States Attorney General could also sue states that refuse to recognize the marriage.

Am I to believe that the above scenario is likely? No. Do I also believe that there is nothing could the rabid left do that would surprise me in the least? Oh shit yeah, I do.

Further, as Les Actualites reported, in addition to protecting the right to same-sex marriage nationwide, the Democratic bill also includes federal protections for interracial marriages, again affirming that a marriage must be recognized. under federal law if the marriage was legal in the state where it took place.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, another clean-blooded Democrat [sarcasm]said in a statement on the vote, as transcribed by Les actualites:

It is essential to ensure that federal law protects those whose constitutional rights could be threatened by Republican-controlled state legislatures. LGBTQ Americans and those in interracial marriages deserve to know that they will continue to have their right to equal marriage recognized, no matter where they live.

Stoyer was unavailable to comment on the constitutional rights of babies, murdered until just before birth.

On a humorous note, South Carolina Republican Rep. Nancy Mace, one of 47 Republicans who supported the bill, tweeted:

We just passed the respect for marriage act in the House. I’m a big fan of the wedding, having done it a few times. And if gay couples want to be as happily or miserably married as heterosexual couples, more power for them. Trust me.

Well done, MP – although your vote was not.

Related on –:

Whoopi Goldberg is either a hyperbolic liar or a prime example of leftist ignorance

Famous Religious Scholar Kamala Harris Shares What God Thinks About Abortion

Elena Kagan says the Supreme Court’s ‘legitimacy’ is threatened when it deviates from public opinion

Leave a Comment