Todd Young did not waste any time in proving his continued worthlessness

[TheTrooper]

12 Senate Republicans Vote with Dems for 'Respect for Marriage Act'

Lawmakers voted for the measure 62-37 after a bipartisan group of senators added a clause about religious liberty.

www.breitbart.com

Two men engaging in sterile intercouse while destroying each others anuses is clearly not marriage, its obviously an extremely unhealthy abomination. Apparently, Todd thinks differently.

"Lawmakers voted for the measure 62-37 after a bipartisan group of senators made changes to the bill to include a clause about religious liberty. With the amendment agreed upon, the bill will go back to the House before going to President Joe Biden. The White House has expressed support for the measure.

The 12 Republicans who voted for the bill include Sens. Roy Blunt (R-MO), Richard Burr (R-NC), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Susan Collins (R-ME), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Rob Portman (R-OH), Mitt Romney (R-UT), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Todd Young (R-IN)."

 

[BigRed]

It's what some here voted for.

 

[Tombs]

The left says republicans are moving further right.

Meanwhile here's republicans showing themselves to be part of the radical left.

 

[asevans]

But. But. We have to vote for cause democrats are worse.

 

[Ingomike]

But. But. We have to vote for cause democrats are worse.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

"Two men engaging in sterile intercouse while destroying each others anuses is clearly not marriage."

I readily admit that I don't understand it. But as things stand now it is marriage, but more importantly, it does not harm me or anyone else here.

A personal philosophy of mine that has served me well for many years is that I mind my own business, and I do not harm anyone who is not trying to harm me.

 

[JCSR]

I don't want to get banned tonight so I'll just be on my way.

 

[DadSmith]

"Two men engaging in sterile intercouse while destroying each others anuses is clearly not marriage."

I readily admit that I don't understand it. But as things stand now it is marriage, but more importantly, it does not harm me or anyone else here.

A personal philosophy of mine that has served me well for many years is that I mind my own business, and I do not harm anyone who is not trying to harm me.

You are part of the moral decline that is destroying this country. That's just my opinion.

 

[BigRed]

"Two men engaging in sterile intercouse while destroying each others anuses is clearly not marriage."

I readily admit that I don't understand it. But as things stand now it is marriage, but more importantly, it does not harm me or anyone else here.

A personal philosophy of mine that has served me well for many years is that I mind my own business, and I do not harm anyone who is not trying to harm me.

Truth.

Does the central state involving itself in matters beyond its delegated authority cause you harm?

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Truth.

Does the central state involving itself in matters beyond its delegated authority cause you harm?

It might. It might not. The devil is in the details.

 

[Ingomike]

"Two men engaging in sterile intercouse while destroying each others anuses is clearly not marriage."

I readily admit that I don't understand it. But as things stand now it is marriage, but more importantly, it does not harm me or anyone else here.

A personal philosophy of mine that has served me well for many years is that I mind my own business, and I do not harm anyone who is not trying to harm me.

This is the direct result of government usurping from the church that which is gods…

 

[Liberty Sanders]

This is the direct result of government usurping from the church that which is gods…

Marriage is mandated by man, not any god, which is why even in our own states laws concerning it differ.

If an American who does not believe in a god gets married according to the laws of his state, is he married or not?

 

[Zackerpacker002]

This is the direct result of government usurping from the church that which is gods…

Freedom of religion baby, Separation of church and state

 

[Ingomike]

Marriage is mandated by man, not any god, which is why even in our own states laws concerning it differ.

If an American who does not believe in a god gets married according to the laws of his state, is he married or not?

Not my understanding of the history.

State or church?

Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.

Civil marriage

In the last several hundred years, the state has played a greater role in marriage. For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, and by the 19th-century marriage licenses were common in the United States.

 

[BigRed]

It might. It might not. The devil is in the details.

When is the leviathan of concern?

When is the leviathan of no concern?

How do you decide when the beast should be caged, let out on a leash, left to roam at will?

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Which means that the government has usurped nothing.

In this country you are free to get married with a god's involvement or without one.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

When is the leviathan of concern?

I don't understand what you're asking, nor its relevance to this discussion.

 

[Cameramonkey]

"Two men engaging in sterile intercouse while destroying each others anuses is clearly not marriage."

I readily admit that I don't understand it. But as things stand now it is marriage, but more importantly, it does not harm me or anyone else here.

A personal philosophy of mine that has served me well for many years is that I mind my own business, and I do not harm anyone who is not trying to harm me.

I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with him. I agree. Their sinfulness will be their downfall, not mine. Love the sinner, not the sin.

My only beef is the use of the word Marriage. I see no reason two committed loving individuals shouldnt get the same tax benefits and other things like crisis access to hospital rooms reserved for family. My Coworker Al who is in a lifelong committed relationship with his partner Steve Should have the same ability to be by his partner's bedside in his final days/hours just like my wife and I do.

Just dont call it Marriage because thats between a man and a woman.

 

[BigRed]

I don't understand what you're asking, nor its relevance to this discussion.

I agree state has no place in marriage. Yet it involves itself in the matter consistently. Tax code and property code are just a couple of examples.

My question is this.

How far must the leviathan reach beyond its constraints for it to believe it causes you harm?

 

[Liberty Sanders]

My answer to that is unchanged. I can only say that letting consenting adults marry who they choose is NOT among government actions that have harmed me, nor do I think that this has involved government overreach.

Government overreach generally entails curtailing the rights of Americans. Expanding marriage rights EXTENDS personal rights.