The Sickening Truth About the Dems’ “Respect for Marriage” Act

zimmytws / shutterstock.com
zimmytws / shutterstock.com

If you hadn’t heard, the White House just received the still-Democratic-controlled House of Representatives’ Respect for Marriage Act to be signed into law. The act doesn’t actually have anything thing to do with respecting marriage, as its name implies. In fact, it does quite the opposite, literally declaring that marriage as it has been for millennia is no longer enough or sacred.

And while that in itself should be frightening enough, there is another scary thing about it. The act also severely undercuts not only states’ rights but the power and authority of the Supreme Court.

According to The Hill, the bill passed 258-169-1, meaning that a whopping 39 GOP members voted with Democrats to push the bill forward. Utah’s Burges Owens was the only representative to vote present. It’s noted that the Senate has already passed its version of the bill. In the Upper House, 12 Republicans sided with the left against marriage.

So what does the bill actually do?

Well, for one, it completely eradicates the current 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that maintained that marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. It further allowed states to reject marriages that were anything other than that, should they wish.

Now, to be clear, in 2015, the Supreme Court ruled this act unconstitutional in the infamous Obergefell v Hodges decision. However, the 1996 act has remained intact still.
The Democrats’ new RFMA would officially nullify it. Additionally, it would make marriage a federal-only institution. Meaning that states, should they not like gay marriages or one that involves more than two people, cannot do anything to outlaw them.

As Dem Rhode Island Rep David Cicilline, co-chair of the LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus, said, “Today we will vote for equality and against discrimination by finally overturning the exclusionary homophobic Defense of Marriage act and guaranteeing crucial protections for same-sex and interracial marriages.”

Naturally, he’s rather ecstatic about the new law being passed and expected to be signed into law by the president.

Just a few months back, Cicilline and all those who side with him on the issue were in an altogether different state of mind. Panic is what I would call it.

If you remember, in June, the Supreme Court made a massively influential decision to overturn Roe v Wade, the 1973 decision that made abortion legal in the United States. Abortion has now become a state issue, allowing each one to make its own laws on how, when, where, etc., abortions can be handled.

But the ruling opinion also made mention that former decisions on marriage, such as Obergefell v Hodges, could also be reconsidered and overturned.

Naturally, this sent Dems and pro-LGBT-ers everywhere into a hysterical fit. And so, a massive push to protect those marriages began immediately. They knew that given the expected red wave of the 2022 midterms, there were only a few short months in which they were likely to pass such a law.

And they weren’t wrong.

It also gave Democrats reason to ensure that they did far more than just change the laws surrounding marriage in the United States. Additionally, they would have to find ways for their versions of the law to stick for good.

And so that’s precisely why there is an inclusion in the bill that states that this will be law going forward, even if states or the Supreme Court rules otherwise. Talk about throwing out those democracy necessary checks and balances, huh?

As Cicilline said, “By passing the Respect for Marriage Act, we will ensure that all Americans continue to be afforded the same rights by the government, no matter what the Supreme Court may decide in the future.”

The Supreme Court may have never even seen a case in which Obergefell v Hodges could be overturned. It took over 50 for one to overturn Roe. And yet, that is how terrified the Democrats are of losing yet another anti-Christian right.

So much for respecting marriage, the Supreme Court, or states.