Sign of the times.
Every House Democrat voted for Rep. Nadler’s Respect for Marriage Act, which eliminates the Defense of Marriage Act.
The Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton in the 90s, passed the House with overwhelming support, from 224 Republicans and 118 Democrats.
This time around, the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act passed 267 to 157 with 47 Republicans joining the party. The Nadler bill actively goes after more traditional states with the language stating that, “The bill also repeals and replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.”
This has some potential problematic implications down the road.
Some of the GOP names are no surprise, like Rep. Adam Kinzinger and Rep. Liz Cheney, they’re both funded by Democrats at this point, so is Rep. Elise Stefanik, a RINO who underwent a very unconvincing conservative makeover and focuses on a few populist points while ignoring the rest.
Most of the GOP New York and California delegations voted for it, so did much of the Florida one, but also so did much of the Utah one.
Times have certainly changed, but it’s worth considering what a GOP vote on any number of social issues, including transgender ones, will look like 25 years hence.
The full list runs as follows
Rep. Kelly Armstrong – North Dakota
Rep. Don Bacon – Nebraska
Rep. Cliff Bents
Rep. Ken Calvert – California
Rep. Kat Cammack – Florida
Rep. Mike Carey – Ohio
Rep. Liz Cheney
Rep. John Curtis – Utah
Rep. Rodney Davis – Illinois
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart – Florida
Rep. Tom Emmet – Minnesota
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick – Pennsylvania
Rep. Andrew Garbarino – New York
Rep. Mike Garcia – California
Rep. Carlos Gimenez – Florida
Rep. Tony Gonzalez – Texas
Rep. Anthony Gonzalez – Ohio
Rep. Hinson – Iowa
Rep. Darrell Issa – California
Rep. Chris Jacobs – New York
Rep. David Joyce – Ohio
Rep. Katko – New York
Rep. Kinzinger – Illinois
Rep. Nancy Mace – South Carolina
Rep. Nicole Malliotakis – New York
Rep. Brian Mast – Florida
Rep. Peter Meijer – Michigan
Rep. Daniel Meuser – Pennsylvania
Rep. M. Miller-Meeks – Iowa
Rep. Blake Moore – Utah
Rep. Dan Newhouse – Washington
Rep. Jay Obernolte – California
Rep. Burgess Owens – Utah
Rep. Scott Perry – Pennsylvania
Rep. Tom Rice – South Carolina
Rep. Maria Salazar – Florida
Rep. Michael Simpson – Idaho
Rep. Elise Stefanik – New York
Rep. Bryan Steil – Wisconsin
Rep. Chris Stewart – Utah
Rep. Michael Turner – Ohio
Rep. Fred Upton – Michigan
Rep. David Valadao – California
Rep. Jefferson Van Drew – New Jersey
Rep. Ann Wagner – Missouri
Rep. Lee Zeldin – New York
Rep. Michael Waltz – Florida
Wellington says
Said it before and will say it again, if you can have gay marriage (Really?—“I now pronounce you man and man”) you can have anything, including teaching 1st graders about sexual matters and having drag queens instruct them. The destruction of traditional marriage, as only being between a man and a woman, was the tipping point.
Infidel says
Andrew Wilkow mentioned the other day that the “slippery slope” argument is not a logical fallacy, but an actual fact of life. Take this case for example. The trend started years ago when SCOTUS overturned a Texas criminalization of sodomy. That one seemed innocuous, except that one thing followed the other, and finally, they were all baying for gay marriage. That too didn’t win support until Anthony Kennedy wrote that into the law, and suddenly, there was pressure on even Third World countries to allow that
Fast forward to today, and we have all the grooming activities in our schools, where kids as young as 5 are taught about sex, asked whether they’d like to flip to the opposite gender and then given life-altering and irreversible surgeries behind their parents’ backs. At this point, if I were a legislator and re-criminalization of sodomy was up for a vote, w/ the benefit of all this hindsight, I’d vote “Yea”
somehistory says
so would I. I knew it was a big mistake when the Texas law was thrown out as unconstitutional.
Infidel says
And I’d do that despite actually being a Libertarian: I really believe it’s none of my business what sort of sex 2 other consenting adults choose to undertake. But given what it has gated, that’s how my mind has changed today
somehistory says
I don’t care if two adults…not teens, not kids, but two adults, want to engage in what I see as perversion. God can be their Judge. But it never stops with those *consenting.* they talk about it to others like us who don’t wish to hear or know; and they actually involve others who are too young to know what is happening; plus they want to just keep on getting more and more perverse. Demanding to adopt, demanding to indoctrinate the little kids who don’t belong to them…
It’s like entropy;. Perversion isn’t ever content with the level reached…it’s always going to go further down.
Infidel says
Somehistory, absolutely so! It’s not just that I’d leave them alone: they want the bragging rights of their activities to others. Worst of all, the kids. I just wonder when and where did teachers get the idea that they have the right to share the details of their sex lives – be it straight or gay – w/ our kids?
somehistory says
You know, Infidel, when I was in school, we were allowed to actually read the Bible in the classroom. One teacher I recall had one on her desk, She was my homeroom teacher and for one of my courses; so before we left her at the beginning of the day, she’d ask if one of us would like to read something from it before we went to our classes. She didn’t tell us what to read, or tell us how she felt about it, but just asked if someone would like to share something. I don’t recall ever a morning when no one wanted to.
then, came mad murray o’hare and her demands that nothing like that happen in the schools.
so, the kids could still have a Bible, and could talk to each other, and to the teacher, but the teacher couldn’t share any thoughts or belief. or even have a Bible in sight.
Now, the schools don’t even want to allow that…the kids talking about their belief, etc. but the so-called teachers of today…many of them sex perverts, get to “share” their *feelings, beliefs, what they do for **fun,**
It’s so twisted.
john smith says
Very funny Wellington “I now pronounce you man and man.”
I never gave it much thought before, but they must say something like that.
Keys says
Agree. I never thought of that either, but it got me thinking (that’s what good educators do!):
“What Man has joined together, let no god put asunder.”
Wellington says
Well, john smith, it is a short leap from such a pronouncement to providing puberty blockers to 8 year olds and having men claiming to be women competing in women’s sports (e.g., the so-called Lia Thomas at Penn in swimming events—and he still has his male genitalia in tact in the women’s locker room as many women swimmers have noted and complained about but what is the result of all this—and I’m not kidding here—such female swimmers for complaining have been referred to counseling).
Gay marriage is ridiculous and should be regularly ridiculed. The fact that it is not serves as ipso facto evidence of the mad age Western society has entered into. One know all this by now or should know it.
Infidel says
How about Man and Husband? Or in case of lesbians, Woman and Wife?
Wellington says
By whatever nomenclature, Infidel, it is still ridiculous, though I do comprehend you are being sarcastic.
You know, the ancient Greeks tolerated all kinds of sexual activities that the vast majority of societies worldwide, not just in the West but most everywhere, have not. But said ancient Greeks never concluded otherwise than that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Well, not now. And just one solid piece of evidence that we have indeed entered into the most absurd age in man’s history. I would caution all those who are conservative in many areas but still don’t have a problem with gay marriage that they have not yet comprehended how inimical gay marriage is to the entire Western tradition and the many deleterious cascading results it has produced.
Start with gay marriage and you can end up with most anything. That’s where we are now in much of the West, certainly in America.
somehistory says
that sleaze who’s supposed to help with the country’s transportation, the one who adopted a kid and took ‘maternity leave” has a ‘husband.’ and he is also a ‘husband.’ and two females each have a “wife.’
Perversion and not marriage. Dictionary definitions no longer fit this sleazy world.
CogitoErgoSum says
I think we are going to have to re-define some words in the same way that “gender” and “sex” have been redefined. A binding agreement between a man and a woman to remain sexually faithful to one another for the rest of their lives is a marriage. A binding agreement between two people of the same sex to be sexually faithful to one another should be called a civil union. However, I’m sure the LGBTQ+etc people will call doing that discrimination and bigotry – but I call it being more precise. As always, they should educate themselves because they can do better.
Infidel says
I just refuse to speak this new language. I’m not gonna use ‘they’, ‘them’, ‘their’ to describe anything singular. I’m not gonna use ‘he’ or ‘she’ for a person just b’cos she or he (in that order) wants me to do it (and how does that even work, when the second person address of anyone is a universal “You”, no matter how sliced up one is?) And you’re right: what the LGB’s are doing are civil unions, not marriages
In fact, I don’t consider gender different from sex either. As Jordan Peterson pointed out, what these activists are describing are personality and temperament, which is fluid, but that gender is not the right term to describe it. Yeah, there are effeminate men and masculine women, but that doesn’t make them women and men – in that order
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R98k6XBJO1w
CogitoErgoSum says
Yes, they are not only creating a new language but changing the meaning of words we have been taught in the past. One word I know that is their favorite word and which has not been re-defined yet has just four letters and starts with an F. So I wish them a good time performing the meaning of that word upon themselves today and for many years to come. I wish them all the peace, love and happy hormones that comes with it.
Wellington says
The creation of a new language, CES, is all part of a much larger phenomenon and that is critical theory as first put forward by the Frankfurt School of the 1920’s in order to explain why Marxism by that time has not already taken over the world.
Well, per the neo-Marxism of the Frankfurt School the reason was that before the brilliance of Marxism could be implemented everything had to be destroyed (Marx missed this apparently). Yes, everything—society as a whole, marriage, gender, even pronouns. And, as with every totalitarian ideology, the neo-Marxist Frankfurt School had to have a “them” to hate, rather as Nazism “needed” Jews and Islam has “needed” non-believers. They found it by the 1970’s, courtesy of Derrick Bell at Harvard et al., to wit, the white race. Yes indeed, all the “oppressions,” including traditional marriage and the nuclear family, were just more evidence of the real culprit—Caucasians. Hell, even math is evidence of white racism, now isn’t it?
I do wish that many more people who rightly oppose the idiocy and evil of CRT would realize that it is only part of a much larger effort to realign the world according to Marxism and neo-Marxism. It’s got to happen because knowledge is power.
CogitoErgoSum says
Well, from what I have seen of this world power comes not from what you know but from who you know. Let’s hope people have gotten to know Joe Biden well enough now that they will decide he should make room for someone else. But knowledge is tricky and it’s true that people who know more can control those who know less. There are lots of people in the U.S. now who know very little – and the numbers keep growing. It’s not the type of world I had envisioned when I was a boy but I will keep hoping that things will change. Maybe knowledge will lead to wisdom and that’s what we will have when it’s time to start over – but the lesson I draw from the great pyramids in Egypt is that all we will have is amnesia.
Wellington says
Well, somehistory, what one knows and who one knows are often, as you noted, two different things, but unless one knows matters properly then who you know without knowing matters properly may benefit a specific person but it will never benefit a society overall.
The first step is accurate knowledge rooted in the self. Without this first step all else will DESCEND accordingly.
Infidel says
The above 47 are the reasons why conservatives ought to take GOP primaries more seriously! Be very suspicious of candidates who only wanna talk about taxes, inflation, Ukraine/NATO, Covid and run from issues like trans grooming or CRT education in schools and other institutions like our military
Wellington says
Seconded, Infidel. Social issues at least as much as economic and defense issues are key to preserving the greatest civilization of all time and the greatest polity of all time, i.e., the United States of America, and both of which the impostor in the White House is doing his best to destroy by way of sundry measures, including the entirely bogus man-made climate change nonsense for which no hard scientific evidence exists to this day, only computer model projections and correlation studies, and both of these do not constitute scientific evidence and each has a horrible record for accuracy.
We live in a mad age and one way of ridding humanity of this mad age is doing what you suggested about the 47 because the Republican Party of the USA is still salvageable while the Democratic Party no longer is. Primaries count. Boy, do they ever.
somehistory says
those idiots from Florida, should just pack up and leave.
Supporting the destruction of the family, upon which a stable society is based, and, which I personally believe is a God-given arrangement for the humans involved to be happiest, is evil. Supporters of evil, sowing evil, will reap accordingly.
Tony Naim says
Traditional American values can take the world. It is truly disheartening to see America being destroyed from the inside.
“ one nation , UNDER God” is turning into
“Multiple nations, ABOVE God “.
Wellington says
Well said, Tony Naim.
I would start here in this “direction” after the Dobbs decision of 2022, a decision rooted in common sense and the law, with the Obergefell v. Hodges decision of 2015 which found a 14th Amendment due process right to gay marriage, This is even more nuts than finding a 14th Amendment due process right to abortion as the deficient Burger court did in 1973.. It’s almost as though the 19th Amendment was superfluous because the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment would have also found a right for women to vote.
Abuse plain meaning, strict construction and original intent and you can use the Constitution to establish a myriad of bogus rights. So many miss this. So many still will because we live in an age of ignorance of history and a superficial understanding of what real rights (which must be accompanied by common sense, self-restraint and proper knowledge lest real rights be abused) entail and require. The Age of Nonsense marches on. You bet it does and tine is way overdue for more to realize this lest we lose Western Civilization and which we presently are now losing,
Tony Naim says
I always enjoy reading your posts. Wish my English was as good as yours.
All my respect, brother!
somehistory says
Your English seems fine to me. You made the point above clear enough.
Wellington says
Seconded, somehistory, respecting Tony Naim’s contention.
RCCA says
I don’t agree with the line of reasoning here that the recognition of same sex marriage by definition leads to the erasure of Western civilization. Many great contributors to Western civilization were homosexuals. To me it seems incredibly small minded and hateful to deny homosexuals the right to have their committed relationships recognized and respected, or to demand that they live as outlaws or freaks and remain alone.
How does our shared value of individual liberty somehow include the intrusion of government into our personal intimate relationships and the imposition of the doctrines of some religious group onto people without their consent? If we could be objective this would be obvious.
somehistory says
You can disagree all you want to. I for one, don’t feel that I have to “respect” something that I view as a perversion.
And, homosexuals **asked** for the government to get involved by making demands that they be allowed to live together and call it “marriage.” First, it was “civil unions” and they said that would be enough because it would allow them to count on insurance, wills and other legal things.
then, it was demanding to have it be “marriage” and force people who believe it to be immoral and wrong, to serve them in this with cakes, and flowers, and wedding chapels.
After that, it’s the adopt children…because they can’t have kids of their own…because of the way they have chosen to live.
I don’t respect anyone who makes unreasonable demands on me anyway., so, I’m not going to “respect” something that my God, my faith, tells me is immoral and willfully wrong.
And those “great contributors” had among them some that others didn’t even realize that’s what they were because it wasn’t being shoved down our throats and the demands to have “marriages” weren’t being made by those people. they kept it a secret.
Now, homosexuals don’t want to keep any of it secret….that’s why the “pride parades,” the telling of experiences, the “coming out” parties, and other stuff.
as for “religious doctrine,” you must not be aware that there are many different views on this site regarding religion, but on this page, until yours, all comments seem to agree.
and another point about the “religious doctrine “imposition” on others: The cake baker who was being sued by homosexuals because he didn’t want to make a “wedding” cake; the florist who was being sued because she didn’t want to make a “wedding” bouquet, the photographer who didn’t want to take photos of a homosexual ceremony, and the chapel owners who were forced to close their business because they didn’t want to hold a homosexual ceremony …in …their….home.
These homosexuals chose businesses they knew were owned by Christians…forcing them to comply with their demands. they could have simply gone to other vendors, but each “couple” refused to just go where there were others who would be glad to serve them in their ceremony.
this is “obvious” which side is not “objective.”
gravenimage says
RCCA wrote:
I don’t agree with the line of reasoning here that the recognition of same sex marriage by definition leads to the erasure of Western civilization.
…………………………………..
With all respect to most other posters on this thread–including some of the people I most respect here–I agree with RCCA. I realize this is a minority opinion.
Wellington says
Here, gravenimage, is one of the few areas in which we disagree. Significantly alter a basic institution of Western society, in this case what marriage should constitute, and thereafter expect most anything—like instructing 1st graders about sexual matters, having drag queens having “special sessions” with children, providing puberty blockers to 8 year olds, all the transgender nonsense, et al. Do you not see the cascading effect and which we are now most definitely dealing with?
Frankly, and I write with great respect for you, I don’t think you see how deleterious gay marriage has been to the entire Western and Judeo-Christian tradition. It opened the door to so much else which is rot. Initially, what those who were traditionally looked upon as perverted was just simple respect and the right to engage in what they wanted to engage in without legal persecution. To this extent with this I am in agreement. But don’t you see that it is far more what such people wanted, i.e., complete and total acceptance of their lifestyle even though some 95% of most any population has significant reservations about this, even to the point of intellectual tyranny by this small minority respecting questioning ANYTHING they want?
What of all those who think same-sex “activities” and the normalization of this is aberrant and dispositive of societal descent? Are we all just bigots? Has mankind been in error until this enlightened age we live in about same-sex relationships, let alone same-sex marriage? Can one not object to this “recent development” without being assigned a status of total bigot and retrograde? Your turn if you care.
somehistory says
You know, Wellington, I’ve been thinking on your comment.
There are groups who have had special consideration for them only….like nudists. They aren’t allowed to walk the streets of cities everywhere, but they can have their camps and anyone who visits them there, has to abide by their camp rules. When they leave their camp, they must abide by the laws of the cities, counties, etc.
But, homosexuals want to have it their way everywhere and just keep grabbing for more while insisting they just want ‘one more thing.’
It was just to not be arrested, until they got their way then.
Next, it was civil unions so they could claim each other on insurance, and wills and things
Now, we must put up with the nakedness in their parades, and the little kids get to see it in their libraries, and they adopt little kids and raise them to be the same as they are, and they have the fake marriage ceremonies…forcing businesses out of business if they won’t cater their ceremony….and they insist on being allowed to teach school kids all of what they do as being *normal.* And when a State or governor…as in Florida…makes it harder for them, they lie and say it inhibits them and ‘hurts the children.’
It should have been cut off at the knees, but wasn’t. Now, it’s their way or no way for the rest of us…the majority.
gravenimage says
Understood, Wellington and Somehistory–and I agree with the rest of your points.
And my gay Anti-Jihadist friend Marc agreed with you–he was especially worried that gay marriage would lead to a legalization of Muslim polygamy. He was fine with civil unions. He passed away a few years ago, before all of this indoctrinating grade schools with transgender claptrap.
And I never said you were bigots.
somehistory says
per the Washington Examiner. If they can lower it for this, they can lower it for other things
“Lowering the age of consent”
“Maryland just passed a bill enabling therapists and psychologists to diagnose and treat 12-year-olds without parental knowledge or consent. “There are so many young people who have struggled with depression, who’ve had tremendous isolation, and they need help,” said bill sponsor Malcolm Augustine, a state senator who supported the yearlong school closures in his county that caused this depression and tremendous isolation.
The Maryland Psychological Association opposed the bill, explaining the obvious: “Most pre-teen and younger teenage children do not have the cognitive capacity to consent to such treatment without parental involvement, and it is not developmentally appropriate to expect them to be able to do so.” Maryland’s psychological Board of Examiners also opposed the legislation, which “places the burden of determining maturity and capacity on the healthcare provider, which is further problematic as it may introduce bias.“ The nursing board opposed the bill because “a child, as young as 12 years old, could be consenting to a treatment without understanding the risk, benefits, or alternatives. Children are extremely impressionable and may feel pressured to consent.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/lowering-the-age-of-consent/ar-AAZQtsa?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=36ea1575010b48eebf3350c87e59a
gravenimage says
More child abuse, Somehistory. If adults want to do this after due consideration and on their own dime, fine. But to push this on children–most 12-year-olds have not even hit puberty yet–is grotesque.