Who will you vote for?(Lee/McMullin)

[LogGrad98]

MSN

www.msn.com

21 GOP senators tell colleagues to oppose same-sex marriage bill unless it allows discrimination​

Earlier this month, 12 Republican senators voted to advance The Respect for Marriage Act. If the bill goes to a Senate floor vote, those senators would help ensure that it passes the filibuster and gets signed into law.

The bill would officially repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the 1996 law that forbade the federal government from legally recognizing same-sex marriages. In its place, the act would require the federal and state governments to recognize same-sex marriages as long as they occur in states where they are legal. If any state refuses to recognize such marriages, the act says, the spouses can sue.

However, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) has introduced an amendment that would “ensure that federal bureaucrats do not take discriminatory actions against individuals, organizations, nonprofits, and other entities based on their sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions about marriage by prohibiting the denial or revocation of tax exempt status, licenses, contracts, benefits, etc.”

In short, the amendment wants to allow anti-LGBTQ discrimination against queer couples and to restrain government officials from intervening to stop it.

I can see religious groups being worried that they would be forced to recognize such marriages within the context of their religion. In short, going beyond simply recognizing the legality of them but threatening a religion with legal repercussions if the religion didn't also recognize them as legitimate within the framework of the religion. So the Mormons, as an example, being forced to allow and recognize gay marriages in the temples or lose their status as a religion. That would be, in essence, the government dictating religious beliefs, exactly what the founding fathers were trying to escape from.

For this reason I think in this case "discriminate" has to be clearly defined, otherwise it can tread on the right of a religion to define their own doctrine.

 

[fishonjazz]

I can see religious groups being worried that they would be forced to recognize such marriages within the context of their religion. In short, going beyond simply recognizing the legality of them but threatening a religion with legal repercussions if the religion didn't also recognize them as legitimate within the framework of the religion. So the Mormons, as an example, being forced to allow and recognize gay marriages in the temples or lose their status as a religion. That would be, in essence, the government dictating religious beliefs, exactly what the founding fathers were trying to escape from.

For this reason I think in this case "discriminate" has to be clearly defined, otherwise it can tread on the right of a religion to define their own doctrine.

You would make a good point except......... That the bill as it already was had protections for churches to not have to allow the gays into their religion. Mike Lee is trying to add more to the bill. The mormon freaking church looked over the bill and liked what they saw enough to support it. But Mike Lee was like, nope, not good enough for me. Got to make some changes to it. It isn't quite harsh enough to the gays.

 

[LogGrad98]

You would make a good point except......... That the bill as it already was had protections for churches to not have to allow the gays into their religion. Mike Lee is trying to add more to the bill. The mormon freaking church looked over the bill and liked what they saw enough to support it. But Mike Lee was like, nope, not good enough for me. Got to make some changes to it. It isn't quite harsh enough to the gays.

What exactly is he trying to add? I googled it and didn't find much about it. Admittedly I googled and read a couple things before the movie started we went to today. Does anyone know exactly what he's trying to add beyond what's already there? I'm not defending him, I'm just curious what the proposed changes are.

 

[fishonjazz]

What exactly is he trying to add? I googled it and didn't find much about it. Admittedly I googled and read a couple things before the movie started we went to today. Does anyone know exactly what he's trying to add beyond what's already there? I'm not defending him, I'm just curious what the proposed changes are.

Good question. I think it was fine as is. Which is why the church supported it (it allowed them to keep out teh gays). My guess is mike isn't really trying to add anything important or relevant to the bill he just wants his supporters to really really know that he is against the gays.