Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and 11 other Senate Republicans have committed to voting for a same-sex marriage bill in the Senate, guaranteeing its passage this week or next. Sen. Dan Sullivan was among those voting in favor of the bill. Both Murkowski and Sullivan are Catholics; the Catholic Church explicitly denies its blessing for marriages between two people of the same sex.
Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah and Roy Blunt of Missouri also said they would vote for the bill that moved forward 62-37, with 12 Republicans joining all the Democrats in the Senate. The bill only needed 10 Republicans to move.
The Respect for Marriage Act, with lead sponsors Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, went through negotiations that purport to protect religious liberties, and a final vote is expected on the Senate floor on the amended version.
“We can ease the fear that millions of same-sex and interracial couples have that their freedoms and their rights could be stripped away,” Baldwin said, equating same-sex marriage with interracial marriage. “We are guaranteeing same-sex and and interracial couples, regardless of where they live, that their marriage is legal.”
The bill was introduced and passed the House in lightning speed in July on a vote of 267 to 157, with 47 Republicans and all Democrats supporting it. There was no vote from Alaska, as the state’s congressman, Don Young, had died and the state was without representation. Based on past history, Young would have likely voted against then bill; Congresswoman Mary Peltola, who has since taken the spot, would likely have voted for it. There were no public hearings on the bill.
The passage of the Respect for Marriage Act concerns those for whom adoption and fostering of children is a stumbling block. It also affords weak-to-no protections for faith-based non-profits, religious schools, religious business owners, and civil servants.
“The so-called Respect for Marriage Act is a misnamed bill designed to enshrine same-sex marriage in federal law,” wrote Greg Baylor, chief legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom.
“As soon as the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, activists went to work mischaracterizing the ruling. Many used the decision—and particularly Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurrence—to claim that the Court could revisit other rulings, including the one in Obergefell v. Hodges, which created a constitutional ‘right’ to same-sex marriage. Using this feigned outrage as a cover, these activists pushed for a federal law called the Respect for Marriage Act,” wrote the attorney.
“Let’s be clear: the Respect for Marriage Act is unnecessary and could have a disastrous effect on religious freedom,” Baylor said.
Read more about Alliance Defending Freedom’s position here.
Sen. Dan Sullivan’s office issued a statement:
“This vote was unnecessary. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue—under Obergefell v. Hodges same-sex marriage is already the law of the land in each state—and our time and energies should be focused on addressing the very real and immediate concerns of the vast majority of Americans, including runaway inflation and looming energy shortages,” he said.
“However, given that the Majority Leader insisted on bringing this vote to the floor, I listened to Alaskans and used the opportunity to work relentlessly to include in the bill considerable advances in much stronger religious liberty protections for millions of Americans that previously were not in federal law and were not in the Obergefell decision,” Sullivan said.
The protections include:
• Directing courts that nothing in the bill diminishes current statutory religious liberties or conscience protections, including the important protections in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
• Protecting the rights of a broad array of religious organizations, including educational institutions, and their employees from being required to host, accommodate, or in any way participate in same-sex wedding ceremonies;
• Protecting these same religious organizations from being sued for not participating in same-sex wedding ceremonies; and
• Preventing the federal government from discriminating or retaliating against religious organizations that hold a traditional view of marriage by taking away any benefit, right, or status—including tax-exempt status, grants, loans, or educational accreditation, among others.
“While I’ve long held that marriage should be an issue left up to the states, the Supreme Court nationalized the issue in Obergefell. I said then that I would respect the Court’s decision, but would also continue to fight for and respect and defend the religious liberty of all Americans. This bill makes important advances in doing that. Finally, in the very unlikely event that Obergefell is overturned in the future, this bill would still respect state laws, like Alaska’s constitutional provision on traditional marriage, and it would only require states to provide full faith and credit recognition to all lawful marriages from other states,” Sullivan said.
The bill does not protect people like Colorado cake baker Jack Phillips, who has been sued repeatedly for conscientiously refusing to decorate a cake for a same-sex wedding celebration.
The Respect for Marriage Act is also opposed by the Religious Freedom Institute, which issued a statement that the bill would, “deal a devastating blow to religious freedom in America, even if it included proposed amendments [which the current bill now does] that purport to protect religious freedom, but in fact do not. It represents a dangerous authoritarian turn by Congress and the administration that would extend the power of government well beyond its constitutional role and harm the fundamental freedoms of all Americans.”
The Institute said that the bill attempts to dismantle and remake an institution that existed long before the state, that is, marriage and the family produced by marriage. Even in its amended form, it does not protect religious liberty of dissenters.”
The premise of the Respect for Marriage Act, is that any “opposition to same-sex ‘marriage’ is akin to racism. That claim is not only false but profoundly disingenuous. The vast majority of Americans, including those who are religious, do not oppose interracial marriage. There is no real or perceived threat to marriage based on race in any state in America.”
The Respect for Marriage Act would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. DOMA, as that law is known, affirmed, for federal purposes, that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and allowed states to refuse to recognize “same-sex marriages” granted under the laws of other states, the institute said. The Supreme Court overturned it in 2013 in United States v. Windsor. Later, in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court required all states to license and recognize same-sex marriage.
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) sent a letter to his Republican senators on Wednesday, urging a no vote. He wrote:
“Dear Senate Republican Colleagues,
Under the guise of compromise, and the cultural winds of today, you are slated to soon vote on the so-called “Respect for Marriage Act.” Supporting this bill would be a mistake, as passing this bill would codify, in federal law, a false belief on marriage and villainize millions of Americans for their religious beliefs. This, all because Democrats felt political pressure mounting, and Justice Clarence Thomas lives rent free in their heads.
The Baldwin-Collins-Tillis Amendment will threaten the charity status of faith-based adoption and foster-care agencies — while painting a target on them for future frivolous litigation — and fan the flames of attacks on religious liberty. As drafted, this amendment does not provide sufficient protections for faith-based non-profits, religious schools, religious business owners, and civil servants or close the polygamy loophole.
In July, the House Freedom Caucus took an official position urging you, our Senate colleagues, to oppose this unnecessary and harmful legislation.1 Not only should this bill be opposed on its merits, but Speaker Pelosi rushed this legislation through the House without hearings, markups, and the proper time to review before Members were asked to vote on the floor. Indeed, this bill passed the Democrat led House of Representatives with 157 “Nay” votes and should not become law.
The law cannot be neutral on marriage. It can either affirm truth or portray distortions. The foundational truth will always remain, and no act of Congress can change that. Those who see and know the truth have a moral duty to stand firm in its defense and to defend the crucial institution of marriage.
Doing so against the grain of cultural and political forces to cower and compromise takes courage; the question is how many Republicans will display it this week.“
Many Republicans believe it is unnecessary to vote on something already decided in favor of same-sex marriage by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Yep, so long religious freedoms.
We almost made it 300 years as a free country.
Stupid.
Pass whatever you want. Marriage defined by the church is one thing, between a man and woman. Marriage defined by politicians is another.
All they want is the same rights as heterosexual married couples. It’s just a business contract for them to get insurance and cuts on taxes. Let them have their marriage contract and let the churches have their marriage.
Churches still don’t have to perform or recognize these unions if they so choose.
It’s called religious freedom.
Evidentially, you do not understand how woke leftists think when creating a Bill like this. They will give no quarter to Religious Liberty and would like to erase it. This Bill in its final form will directly attack Christian Churches, Businesses and Charities. Make no mistake, the attacks will continue!
Evidently, you do not understand that when the bill was created, the Bill clearly states churches are not affected. You are free to practice your religion so long as it doesn’t interfer with the law.
Help me out here. I don’t see how allowing consenting individuals to live their lives as they please infringes on your ability to practice your faith as you please. Unless, of course, your faith compels you to prevent those you consider morally inferior from working, renting, raising children, participating in civic discourse, or voting.
The preamble to the constitution doesn’t carve out exceptions when asserting that all have the right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. But you, in your righteous indignation, want to judge and punish those that disagree with you. I think you should watch The Grinch Who Stole Christmas again – your heart has some growing to do.
Part of Christian faith seems to be freedom except when it comes to other people’s naughty bits.
No, Christians believe in God’s Word. His Word will stand forever. We believe everyone has a choice. God’s given us a free will. Go ahead and choose. No one is trying to stop anyone from having their fun. Merry Christmas.
Catholics should just admit they’re actually pagans, but most don’t even know they follow pagan rituals.
Anyone who has read the Bible and follows God’s law knows this is an abomination and sin.
And your expertise comes from…?
You remind me of a guy I used to know. Evangelical. He swore, swore that at the last supper just before Christ drank wine it magically turned into grape juice.
His family, good Baptists all, thought him an idiot.
Every aspect of Christianity is based on these “pagan rituals”. Including communion, baptism, and the Lord’s Prayer.
I suggest you read the King James Version of the Bible.
I have. Plus several others. Even the awful “The Book”.
you’re still bigoted and wrong. But you do you, boo.
If you really wanna dance, we can get into the fact of of the King James initiative was to delegitimize Catholicism. For a long time England suffered from not being able to stamp out Catholicism despite it being a death penalty offense to practice it.
It’s not enough to read a version of the Bible. If you really want to understand, you have to read several AND the historical events surrounding the writings.
I got this tidbit from a guy I know who taught Sunday School at a large Baptist church for potentially more decades than you’ve been alive.
The word you’re looking for is ouch. Or if you prefer, owned.
Minor correction. Part of the King James initiative.
Fat fingered it.
I’m suggesting one might read what Jesus SAID and DID. The King James translation is just that.onevtranskation done by humans. Go back to Greek or Aramaic and start there.
There is nothing that Jesus did that was pagan. What he did do is sacrifice his life for the world, was raised from the dead by God and now sits at his Father’s right hand. He holds the keys to Heaven and Hell. He is King over this world and will be returning to judge the living and the dead. You obviously need to do some Bible Study. I’m guessing you do not attend church or read God’s Word. There is a time coming where every knee will bow, and tongue confess that Jesus is Lord. You have time to know him and receive him. He loves you and wants none to perish, but God’s justice is perfect and will happen. Receive him today!
I’m an atheist. If Jesus loves me why am I going to hell?
That’s by your choice. Stop playing the victim.
Lucinda it’s your choice. You have read the gospel in some of these comments. Your either going to believe who Jesus is or your not. Your still breathing the life He gave so there’s always hope!
You will find saved and unsaved in every single church, Catholic or otherwise. I am not Catholic but have Catholic friends with deep saving relationship with Jesus Christ. And I know people that have attended evangelical Bible teaching churches for decades and still simply follow rules and sadly do not seem to have real transforming relational connection. God knows the heart. We worship where we are fed and a saving relationship with Jesus transcends where we join in fellowship. Please do not paint such a broad brush. I do question though whether either Murkowski or Sullivan actually KNOW Jesus. Still beside the point as Where they are religiously affiliated is not the question. Neither of them is very conservative. Obviously. Religion or salvation aside.
Anyone who has read the preamble to the constitution knows there are no exceptions to the right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Nothing in this bill will force you to enter into a same sex marriage. The vast majority of those that support this bill are Christians; they just interpret God’s law differently than you do. Where in God’s law do you find support in interfering in the lives of other’s to support your personal belief system?
> Both Murkowski and Sullivan are Catholics.
Well, we wouldn’t want your faith to manifest in your decision making in any way.
Since I’m not Catholic, I appreciate that they don’t.
RINO’s.
Just like the Bushes, McCain, Graham, McConnell, Begich3, Romney, – and on and on…
But their “style” isn’t offensive so we keep voting for them – regardless of their substance.
Trump Haters and Palin Haters – people can’t see past the style – to the policy.
FACT – we need disrupters, agitators, people who challenge the MSM narrative, people who are not afraid to offend people regularly – not “statesmen” who go along to get along – otherwise we are in the slow death spiral…….
Wonder how this is going to square with Article I Section 25 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska…
Federal law superceds State law – 99.99% of the time
Federal law only supersedes state law only because states allow it to do so.
Many Republicans believe it is unnecessary to vote on something already decided in favor of same-sex marriage by the U.S. Supreme Court. That’s what people used to say about the access to women’s health care including the right to terminate a pregnancy.
Catholics in name only, just like Republicans. Counterfeit.
Sullivan will never have my vote again. Murkowski was already in outhouse for me.
Sullivan just lied to you about why.
Sullivan did it because Peltola will run for the seat he sits in today.
Agree Sullivan not getting my vote ever
Regardless of stated religious protections this likely will be used as leverage to make churches, ect. “bake the cake” – or else. I thought when I moved here I was moving away from senators who would be treating religious liberty and protection so blithely. I guess I was wrong.
This > “It also affords weak-to-no protections for faith-based non-profits, religious schools, religious business owners, and civil servants.”
This is why states have rights and those states attorney general should be suing and taking this case to the Supreme Court.
“Should be”
I agree. But lots of things “should be” and are not. The R’s are not our cavalry that is coming to save us. The sooner with disabuse ourselves of this notion the better. We have to save us. We have to be our own leaders.
“If it proves impossible legally to compel the ruling power to change the ways it governs us, and if for various reasons those who reject this power cannot or do not wish to overthrow it by force, then the creation of an independent or alternative or parallel society is the only dignified solution…”
~ Ivan Jirous, Parallel Polis: An Inquiry
You realize that is merely an assertion, without any supporting evidence?
Agree or disagree with the law, but one should do so on its actual legal merits and content, not merely the assertions of either supporters or detractors.
That kind of empty, and puerile, “us vs them”, “with me 100% or you are anathema and a fraud” BS poisons civil society.
“RINO” does not mean, “disagrees with me on a single topic, or even several” and I find it cute when people who have probably never read the GOP platform purport to (re)define “Republicanism” in response to assertions by those that agree with them.
Are you replying to my comment or did you misclick? Seems like you misclicked as your comment makes little sense as a reply to mine.
And the perverted, degenerate Weimarization of the USA marches onward.
Although the amendments do some good, again, Dan doesn’t listen. I called opposing, and if I did, I’m sure loads more did as well!
This along with the vote to keep the hater Mitch McConnell of all thing Kelly Tshibaka just gives me one more reason to support a good solid conservative that will run against him in 2024!
I called as well, along with a few of my friends. I’m sure he heard from many. Do they check their voice mail? Perhaps not. Albeit the left had a bit of money invested in promoting this bill and were cold calling people to contact their senators in favor, so who knows what kinds of other calls were received. We don’t have the advantage of Soros, the crypto currency guy, or Bezos funneling money into our causes as does the left.
Is this because Lisa wants a wife & Dan wants a husband?
Asking for a friend.
This is great (sarc). Senator Feinstein wins another one. Senator Murkowski has a backbone of chocolate pudding.
I’m pretty sure vanilla. Or even lemon jello.
It would have been better named “The CONTEMPT for Marriage Act”.
I don’t blame people for not voting if this is what we get.
Useless virtue signaling
There is right now nothing to support laws against more than two people entering into a marriage. Those laws will quietly go by the side as did laws against sodomy. Contract and real estate law will soon need to be modified exactly as it has been modified over time to accommodate same sex marriage. There is very likely nothing to support laws preventing siblings marrying.
If you follow public broadcasting you will reach the conclusion that sex with animals will become legal sometime in the current century. We can continue to replace Christianity with religions like climate change, but the law will need some time to catch up. Much of the less developed world may take far longer to catch up, and that rebalancing may be interrupted by decades at a time by world war and its aftermath, quite possibly multiple times. Elected officials in the United States such as urban school board members are very often choosing to be on the leading edge, and I honestly don’t know what to think about that.
So how many spouses will employers be willing to let ride on an employee’s health plan?
Two things are obvious: 1. you’ve never listened to public radio; 2. you are deep in the rabbit hole.
I have no problem with this. I know lots of great gay couples in long term relationships and they are really are indeed in a married relationship.
I have the same experience. However that does not alter the fact this was virtue signaling legislation.
SCOTUS settled this issue some time ago.
It would seem recent history would suggest the opposite–the current SCOTUS does not believe in precedent and is sincerely motivated by their own religious beliefs (their are six Catholics on the Court, somewhat disproportionate to the country’s overall religious makeup). If a 49-year old precedent can be struck down, then there is no reason anyone should have faith that a group of religious zealots wouldn’t take advantage of an opportunity to overturn Obergefell.
Please. SCOTUS settled Roe some time ago, and upheld it many times since then. Justice Thomas clearly called for this decision to be revisited, so it’s perfectly logical that proponents would want to codify it as protection against future SCOTUS decisions.
Always assume that the opposite will occur when the congress titles these bills. Lisa and the rest conveniently passing this after the fraud filled elections.
Great I can finally get married to myself, my dog, my car, my socks, my degenerate imagination! 1960s free love has finally come to its climax! Make sure you wear your condommasks ! Who said we’re running short on fertiliser?
Does anything make sense anymore?
We as a majority have no representation in Washington DC. I will not support Sullivan as I did in the past.
He doesn’t care. His loyalty is to the DC machine.
Nor I. I am disgusted.
Are we a majority? Based on voter patterns, it appears we aren’t
Both Sullivan and Murkowski should be expelled from the church. Refused Holy Communion.
Sullivian, you lost my vote next election, my respect Hopefully, we will know that Kelly beat out Murkowski
Are they supposed to represent the Catholic church or the people of the United States? It turns out Catholics only make up about 21-23% of the current population, but the Senate makes law for 100% of Americans. Perhaps it’s better that a U.S. Senator represent the people of their state and country and not a select minority.
Thank you MRAK Fan- The United States has been called a Protestant nation by a variety of sources. In 2020, Christians represent 65% of the population in the US. It’s true Catholics only make up about 21-23% of this.
I feel that some don’t understand religions very well. It’s unfortunate that those selected to represent us forget their backgrounds and morals to be bought by lobbyist and special interest groups.
It also will force churches who disagree with gay marriage to perform the unions. It is about shoving this down your throat, kind of like these farce rank choice elections. Less than a million people and it takes a month to count how embarrassing, thank you Lisa Murkowski for failing the state for your greed.
Read the article.
We did.
Alaska has an all-Democrat delegation.
I though better of him but it looks like he’s cut from the same rainbow cloth as Murkowski
Lisa believes in abortion too. But to the current Pope, none of this matters.
Process that is due to tamper with “due process” is not made by English Common Law Stare Decisis precedents at Admiralty Law in the Judicial Branch. You cannot touch me there. Due process is changed at national Article V Convention just like the due process was created by the US Constitution. So, no.
American Common Law (of which there is precious little) says “if you were not a party to the “stare decisis” precedent; you didn’t pay the legal expenses; nor receive any remedy you have no claim and nothing to do with the order and decision in cited cases at Admiralty law as claimed by British Common Law a popular custom “practiced” inapproproately. British land law does not flood our USA docks and churches etc. so as to envelope them into the British Monarchs preferred rule. Get it? At last?
What is in the water in Washington DC? Needs to be tested. Do not drink it, buy your water at the grocery store and vary the brand. I, for one, am stunned. Maybe I am slow. I counted on Sullivan to be conservative. To uphold at least basic conservative values. He did – at least in the beginning. Hence my water suspicion. I am disgusted. I pray Kelly will take out Lisa. With someone actually conservative taking out Sullivan next. Disgusting. Spineless, weak, relativistic and useless, except for the purposes of the left.
Finally. Some common sense. You can’t pray the gay away, Kelly T.
I expected this from Lisa – her social libertinism is well known and documented – don’t like it, but expected it. But Senator Dan? To say that I am VERY disappointed is to understate in extremis. For all of your wonderful patriotic speeches and the spine you exhibit when dealing with rogue agencies – for which I’ve been a thrilled fan – I’m nearly speechless with anger. YOU have stolen my religious liberty. The courts will quickly overturn any “religious protections” you have amended into an extremely flawed law. The amendments have actually succeeded in making it worse while attempting to compromise into something that the msmedia are proclaiming as the best of all worlds. Simply, this will reorder society. You have handed the lawyer industry a huge paycheck, and lawsuits will flood the courts until the last vestiges of religion are removed from society. You think you support our nation’s founding principles? You have betrayed them and us. This isn’t the time to think this is a way to be generous to the left that won’t hurt anything – it will be the turning point resulting in the destruction of America. This was the time to stand up for the bedrock of all human society – Biblical marriage. When the foundation is destroyed, who/what can stand?
Rich. Go to church. Pray. Be a christian. This law has no impact on your religious freedom.
When Dan Sullivan says “I listened to Alaskans” he means he listened to how the Democrats are able to win elections in this state through rank choice voting. The funny thing about Dan is that when Mitch McConnell says jump, Dan just bends over and then tries to convince Alaskans that he did the right thing by not jumping.
“Team Alaska,” Senators Murkowski and Sullivan
seem to think Alaska and America’s biggest problem
is the LGBTQ community’s inability to legally marry.
It is the first thing they voted for after the midterms.
“That,” in their minds is Alaska and Americas largest problem!
GOD SAVE US!!!
All men are created equal from the Declaration of Independence comes to mind.
Sigh,
If you can show where marriage is mentioned in the Declaration, or even the Constitution, please do.
Your understanding of our system is even worse than your understanding of faith. Seems at least one of the members of your troll collective ought be able to read.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
“That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.”
What our 2 Senators don’t understand is they do not have the consent to do much of what they do, yet they are giving Alaskans the middle finger in most cases. They have become the puppets of a corrupt regime in Washington D.C. and no longer serve the people. Which is why they both need replacement as does McConnell and many others. Alaskans had an opportunity for a Con-Con to fix what is broken in Juneau and in our Judicial System and chose to throw it away. I guess failed policies and government corruption is okay in Alaska. Question is, how long until we are the next California!
So we are talking about men. How fortunate for us. You women, take a hike. You are not created equal according to the Constitution as understood by Frank.
I often am critical of people for being too lazy to vote. Still am.
But I have growing respect for people who refuse to vote out of conscience. Especially when the GOP constantly delivers candidates who end up being further to the left than the Democrats they defeat.
Josh Hawley said it best. It’s time we burn the GOP to the ground and start over.
Whoever wrote THIS bill was written wrong. Sullivan had NO option. If he voted against this bill, he was denying multi-culture(man and wife) ability to marrying. BECAUSE they included the same gender marriage with the multi-culture we were “SCREWED” to start with. Lisa is another problem.
We are in the wilderness, gang. It’s time to accept that evil has finally outnumbered the good in the United States of America. We have only ourselves to blame.
The generations of Americans that have happily, quietly, sat by and allowed the left to pollute the minds of our youth, has finally caught up and overtaken us. The good people of faith, who sit the sidelines EVERY election, because they’ve misread Romans 13:1-7 to mean we should have ZERO involvement in politics, have hastened our demise as a Nation. The Republicans that have surrendered the “morality” playing field, so we could concern our Party with the important things, like tax cuts and “smaller” government, have poured gasoline on the Left’s tyrannical crusade to force all of us to bend the knee to their collective depravity. And the millions of apathetic people, who go about everyday, distracted by the device in their hands (or something else…), unwilling to devote ANY time to their civic duty, are sending us hurling over the cliff.
What do we do now? We let God sort out America. We get right with Him in our own lives.
I’m not saying we throw our hands up and give up the fight; we need to continue to stand and vote (while we still have that right…) for people of conviction and faith to fight back, but ultimately, we have to look to the Sovreign Hand of the Universe to bring this country back to its roots, or tear it asunder as history has shown.
I understand Jesus to have said-Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and render what is *od’s to *od. Mark 12:17
Maureen, what is “*od”?
.
It looks very odd, by God.
Respect for what it represents. I understand completely that you wouldn’t see or know that.
Quite contradictory. You complain that Christians aren’t politically active then you offer them the out: let god take care of it.
God wants us to handle our own affairs. He also doesn’t care if the Seahawks win or lose. It’s our fault conservatives are too lazy and self absorbed to manage society
Additionally no one promised us heaven in this life. In fact, quite the opposite.
The question people should be asking themselves at this point is, “How will this be used against me?”. Going by previous history these things are weapons against traditional culture and people, not some new found freedom for a helpless minority as portrayed.
Bake any good Christian cakes lately?
“Law of the Land” = Not mentioned in The Constitution. I dunno, is anal sex a “creed”?
Same sex coupling (and marriage) = 0 population growth
Thoughts to consider:
The function of marriage in evolution is the insurance of race survival, not merely the realization of personal happiness; self-maintenance and self-perpetuation are the real objects of the home. … Nature demands survival, but the arts of civilization continue to increase the pleasures of marriage and the satisfactions of family life.
No more support for Sullivan from me, ever.
It is to bad that our government has turned out to be such a heinous criminal conspiracy. On the bright side, more and more people can see it, and whether it is us who bring Justice, or God, is of little consequence to us. It is anticipated that those who snub their noses in the face of truth and justice will reap what they have sown. It sure would be great to see it!
Semper infidelis jarhead Dan
Symbolic vote that means nothing, ditto her.
Neither of these Senators act in your best interest. Both have disappointed time and again. Rino Murkowski is a democrat. Sullivan is confused. Good thing I am not the king as they would be exiled to Cuba.
Comments are closed.