Todd Young...idiot

[BigRed]

So Todd Young voted against free speech, freedom of religion and the 2nd Amendment by voting for the gay marriage act.

I'm still trying to figure out how he is different than a Democrat other than an R beside his name.

This R is a marine, so there is that and the spelling.

 

[oze]

So Todd Young voted against free speech, freedom of religion and the 2nd Amendment by voting for the gay marriage act.

I'm still trying to figure out how he is different than a Democrat other than an R beside his name.

Wait. The Respect for Marriage Act has anti- 2A provisions?

 

[DadSmith]

Wait. The Respect for Marriage Act has anti- 2A provisions?

I read it, but unable to find the source now. It seems to have disappeared.
Until I can find the source again I take back the what I said on the 2nd Amendment.
My statement on the 1st Amendment stands.

 

[Expat]

In the Senate of the United States,

November 29, 2022.

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 8404) entitled “An Act to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage, and for other purposes.”, do pass with the following

AMENDMENT:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Respect for Marriage Act”.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family.
(2) Diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises. Therefore, Congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs are due proper respect.
(3) Millions of people, including interracial and same-sex couples, have entered into marriages and have enjoyed the rights and privileges associated with marriage. Couples joining in marriage deserve to have the dignity, stability, and ongoing protection that marriage affords to families and children.
SEC. 3. REPEAL OF SECTION ADDED TO TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, BY SECTION 2 OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT.
Section 1738C of title 28, United States Code, is repealed.
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.”.
SEC. 5. MARRIAGE RECOGNITION.
Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
Ҥ 7. Marriage
“(a) For the purposes of any Federal law, rule, or regulation in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is between 2 individuals and is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is between 2 individuals and is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.
“(b) In this section, the term ‘State’ means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.
“(c) For purposes of subsection (a), in determining whether a marriage is valid in a State or the place where entered into, if outside of any State, only the law of the jurisdiction applicable at the time the marriage was entered into may be considered.”.
SEC. 6. NO IMPACT ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND CONSCIENCE.

(a) In General.—Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an individual or organization under the Constitution of the United States or Federal law.
(b) Goods Or Services.—Consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such an organization, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.
SEC. 7. STATUTORY PROHIBITION.

(a) No Impact On Status And Benefits Not Arising From A Marriage.—Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to deny or alter any benefit, status, or right of an otherwise eligible entity or person which does not arise from a marriage, including tax-exempt status, tax treatment, educational funding, or a grant, contract, agreement, guarantee, loan, scholarship, license, certification, accreditation, claim, or defense.
(b) No Federal Recognition Of Polygamous Marriages.—Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to require or authorize Federal recognition of marriages between more than 2 individuals.
SEC. 8. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision to any person, entity, government, or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or any amendment made thereby, or the application of such provision to all other persons, entities, governments, or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.
Attest:

 

[flatlander]

This R is a marine, so there is that and the spelling.

What? He's a Marine? I didn't know that!
Traitorous mother ****er

 

[Shadow01]

I'll try again. Anyone?

All I have is AFR stating that the alphabet agencies get to make their own definition of “deeply held religious moral beliefs “ for testing groups that may need their tax status changed or have a deep dive by the efbeeeye. If true I can’t imagine anyone in a leadership position in these agencies ever using this to harm those they oppose with their own political agenda.

 

[asevans]

He was selected
Not elected

 

[KLB]

All I have is AFR stating that the alphabet agencies get to make their own definition of “deeply held religious moral beliefs “ for testing groups that may need their tax status changed or have a deep dive by the efbeeeye. If true I can’t imagine anyone in a leadership position in these agencies ever using this to harm those they oppose with their own political agenda.

Read the bill. It basically says, if two people are legally married in one state, all states have to recognize that marriage. That's it.

Then they added the protections at the end, which I hadn't even seen before.

 

[Shadow01]

Read the bill. It basically says, if two people are legally married in one state, all states have to recognize that marriage. That's it.

Then they added the protections at the end, which I hadn't even seen before.

did it take more than a half page to say that in the bill? If so there is no “basically “ about it.

 

[BigRed]

Dissolve the central state

 

[JettaKnight]

did it take more than a half page to say that in the bill? If so there is no “basically “ about it.

Obviously you're not a politician or lawyer.

 

[BigRed]

How did voting for Toad Young go?

 

[asevans]

But but. I had to vote for young cause a democrat might get elected.
Young is a democrat.
There is nothing to fear but fear itself.
Fear makes people do irrational things.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

One of Indiana’s senators thinks it’s wrong to purge service men/women because they believed an experimental drug was wrong for them. A concoction that has proven to be more hazard than benefit for most anyone, but especially for most of those fit to be in the service. One of Indiana’s senators doesn’t, apparently. Without looking, which is which?

Now look.

 

[Ingomike]

Young is a democrat.

This is just delusional He's a solid RINO, but not a dem as evidenced by his SCOTUS votes. Bayh or Donnelly would have voted the same as Young? No they would not, so significant difference. Conservatives had their chance to put a conservative in the primary against Young but sat on their collective hands and accomplished nothing…

 

[Ingomike]

How did voting for Toad Young go?

Better than the Bayh/Donnelly option, but not a conservative…

 

[Tombs]

Better than the Bayh/Donnelly option, but not a conservative…

Wrong game plan.

If someone is electable to the republican electorate, they will keep getting in. If the voters are rejecting that person, the party is forced to make changes to put someone more electable up.

This is why the democrats have become so radicalized, they'll vote for anyone with a D beside their name. Doesn't matter what the policy platform is to them. The party can advocate anything it wants and will be assured their base will support their candidate no matter what.

That doesn't mean you should vote for a democrat, but low turnout or high 3rd party votes in a state where an R is all but certain, helps send a message. And in the end, if a D gets in, at least it gets the party to stop being lazy.

 

[KLB]

One of Indiana’s senators thinks it’s wrong to purge service men/women because they believed an experimental drug was wrong for them. A concoction that has proven to be more hazard than benefit for most anyone, but especially for most of those fit to be in the service. One of Indiana’s senators doesn’t, apparently. Without looking, which is which?

Now look.

I will be sorry to see him leave the senate if he does.

 

[Ingomike]

Wrong game plan.

If someone is electable to the republican electorate, they will keep getting in. If the voters are rejecting that person, the party is forced to make changes to put someone more electable up.

The party, the party, the party! Who the heck is that? “They” sure are tough birds. You are the one that has this wrong.

The republican party is a car, the questions are who is going to keep the car running right and who is going to drive it. Those of us that are conservative are not keeping the car running right and not making the case for the type of representation we want.

Just another post blaming them/they for what we could do…

 

[Tombs]

The party, the party, the party! Who the heck is that? “They” sure are tough birds. You are the one that has this wrong.

The republican party is a car, the questions are who is going to keep the car running right and who is going to drive it. Those of us that are conservative are not keeping the car running right and not making the case for the type of representation we want.

Just another post blaming them/they for what we could do…

I think you're taking what I said a bit wrong.