**COMMENTS BY DONNA GARNER: To see how each of the U. S. House members voted on this bill, please go to the following link where you can see the roll call vote (H.R. 8404 – Roll Call 373) and search by Name, Party, State, Yea/Nay -- https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022373
Voting “Yea” on H. R. 8404 (Respect for Marriage Act) means that the U. S. House member wants the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) repealed. DOMA defined marriage for federal purposes as a union between one [natural] man and one [natural] woman.
DOMA (as described by Texas Supreme Court Justice Devine) was to “encourage stable family environments for procreation and the rearing of children by a mother and a father…In fact, the U. S. Supreme Court had long recognized the same definition which is ‘fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.’”
Those voting “Yay” for H. R. 8404 want to codify same-sex marriage, allowing many other “rights” to be added regarding same-sex marriage benefits that would be required federally of all states.
H. R. 8404 will now move to the U. S. Senate for a vote when and if it is put on the calendar. This is where we in the public need to let our Senators know that we expect them to vote “NAY” on this bill. Please go to this link to contact U. S. Senators: https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm?Class=1
If you wish to let your U. S. House Members know how you feel about their vote on H. R. 8404, please go to this link: https://www.whitehouse.gov/get-involved/write-or-call/
======================
7.19.22 – Washington Examiner
“House passes bill codifying same-sex marriage with significant GOP support”
By Matthew Wilson
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/house/news/house-codifies-gay-marriage
Quote from this Wash. Examiner article:
“In his opinion, Thomas wrote that the Supreme Court ought to ‘reconsider’ its decision in Obergefell along with rulings in other landmark cases such as Lawrence v. Texas, which banned the criminalization of same-sex sexual activity, and Griswold v. Connecticut, which guaranteed the right to access contraception.”
COMMENTS BY DONNA GARNER: What I believe Supreme Court Justice Thomas means is this:
“Substantive due process” involves issues that are not explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution.
In 1965 (Griswold v. Connecticut), the Supremes began to expand their authority over such issues when they relied upon inferences in various Constitutional amendments and struck down state bans on the use of contraception by married couples.
Once the Supremes began this expansion of “substantive due process through inference,” this led to their ruling for the right to abortion (1973).
In 1997 the Supremes decided to tighten up their right to rule by substantive due process (amendment inferences) and stipulated that such rights would need to be ‘carefully descri[bed]’ and, under that description, ‘deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions’ and ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.’”
However, in 2003 the Supremes again decided to ignore their own 1997 stipulation by establishing the right to engage in private sexual acts (Lawrence v. Texas).
Once again the Supremes ignored the 1997 stipulation when they ruled in Obergefell vs. Hodges the right to same-sex marriage (2015).
What I believe that U. S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is saying is that the Supremes need to go back to the tighter definition of “substantive due process” (i.e., the 1997 stipulation) and quit assuming control over states’ rights through ruling by fiat (i.e., arbitrary and authoritarian).
================================
Excerpts from this Washington Examiner article:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/house/news/house-codifies-gay-marriage
The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bill that would codify same-sex marriage into federal law on Tuesday, with large numbers of Republican lawmakers [47] joining all Democrats in supporting the legislation.
Forty-seven Republicans joined all Democrats in voting for the bill, named the Respect for Marriage Act, after House GOP leadership announced that it would NOT be whipping rank-and-file lawmakers to oppose it.
The final vote tally was 267-157, with all “no” votes coming from Republicans.
Among the nearly four dozen Republicans to back the legislation were Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), the chairwoman of the House Republican Conference, and Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN), the head of House Republicans' campaign arm.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) opposed the bill.
Other notable Republicans to support the bill included Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Scott Perry (PA), the chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, and every member of Utah's congressional delegation.
Several Republicans who voted to impeach former President Donald Trump, including Rep. Liz Cheney (WY) and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (IL), also voted for the legislation.
…If enacted, the Respect for Marriage Act would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA], the 1996 law that defined marriage for federal purposes as a union between one man and one woman.
While DOMA was struck down by the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark 2015 ruling that established same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, it has never been repealed.
The Respect for Marriage Act would also alter the federal definition of marriage to include same-sex unions and require states to allow same-sex marriages.
…In debate preceding the floor vote, Democrats repeatedly cited Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization as justification for the bill and evidence that the right to same-sex marriage was under threat.
In his opinion, Thomas wrote that the Supreme Court ought to “reconsider” its decision in Obergefell along with rulings in other landmark cases such as Lawrence v. Texas, which banned the criminalization of same-sex sexual activity, and Griswold v. Connecticut, which guaranteed the right to access contraception.
…Several openly gay members of Congress spoke about the Respect for Marriage Act in deeply personal terms in floor speeches preceding the vote…
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who led floor debate for Republicans, encouraged his GOP colleagues to vote against the Respect for Marriage Act, calling it a “charade” and deriding it as an attempt to intimidate the Supreme Court. Other Republicans, including Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA), said the bill was unnecessary and divisive in light of Obergefell's continued existence as judicial precedent, while conservative Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) argued that it would improperly impose a federal definition of marriage on the states.
…Scalise, the second-ranking House Republican, predicted at a press briefing earlier in the day that the vote would “split” the GOP, noting that Republican leaders were not whipping against the bill and were instead urging rank-and-file lawmakers to vote their conscience.
…A group of senators, including Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), introduced a companion version of the Respect for Marriage Act on Monday, but it’s unclear if and when it will receive a vote by the upper chamber. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Tuesday declined to say whether he would bring the legislation up for a Senate floor vote, and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) acknowledged that it could be difficult to schedule a vote given the Senate’s packed calendar.
…Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told reporters at a press conference that he would “delay” announcing his position on the Respect for Marriage Act, and whether he would whip Republican senators to oppose it, until Schumer schedules a floor vote.
…While many Republicans are eager to move past same-sex marriage as a political issue, some conservatives have defied that trend. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) called the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell “clearly wrong” in a recent episode of his podcast, asserting that the high court “ignored two centuries of our nation’s history” when it defined same-sex marriage as a constitutional right…
##############
7.20.22
“47 Repubs in U. S. House Voted To Codify Same-Sex Marriage Into the Law”
By Donna Garner
**COMMENTS BY DONNA GARNER: To see how each of the U. S. House members voted on this bill, please go to the following link where you can see the roll call vote (H.R. 8404 – Roll Call 373) and search by Name, Party, State, Yea/Nay -- https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022373
Voting “Yea” on H. R. 8404 (Respect for Marriage Act) means that the U. S. House member wants the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) repealed. DOMA defined marriage for federal purposes as a union between one [natural] man and one [natural] woman.
DOMA (as described by Texas Supreme Court Justice Devine) was to “encourage stable family environments for procreation and the rearing of children by a mother and a father…In fact, the U. S. Supreme Court had long recognized the same definition which is ‘fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.’”
Those voting “Yay” for H. R. 8404 want to codify same-sex marriage, allowing many other “rights” to be added regarding same-sex marriage benefits that would be required federally of all states.
H. R. 8404 will now move to the U. S. Senate for a vote when and if it is put on the calendar. This is where we in the public need to let our Senators know that we expect them to vote “NAY” on this bill. Please go to this link to contact U. S. Senators: https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm?Class=1
If you wish to let your U. S. House Members know how you feel about their vote on H. R. 8404, please go to this link: https://www.whitehouse.gov/get-involved/write-or-call/
======================
7.19.22 – Washington Examiner
“House passes bill codifying same-sex marriage with significant GOP support”
By Matthew Wilson
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/house/news/house-codifies-gay-marriage
Quote from this Wash. Examiner article:
“In his opinion, Thomas wrote that the Supreme Court ought to ‘reconsider’ its decision in Obergefell along with rulings in other landmark cases such as Lawrence v. Texas, which banned the criminalization of same-sex sexual activity, and Griswold v. Connecticut, which guaranteed the right to access contraception.”
COMMENTS BY DONNA GARNER: What I believe Supreme Court Justice Thomas means is this:
“Substantive due process” involves issues that are not explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution.
In 1965 (Griswold v. Connecticut), the Supremes began to expand their authority over such issues when they relied upon inferences in various Constitutional amendments and struck down state bans on the use of contraception by married couples.
Once the Supremes began this expansion of “substantive due process through inference,” this led to their ruling for the right to abortion (1973).
In 1997 the Supremes decided to tighten up their right to rule by substantive due process (amendment inferences) and stipulated that such rights would need to be ‘carefully descri[bed]’ and, under that description, ‘deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions’ and ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.’”
However, in 2003 the Supremes again decided to ignore their own 1997 stipulation by establishing the right to engage in private sexual acts (Lawrence v. Texas).
Once again the Supremes ignored the 1997 stipulation when they ruled in Obergefell vs. Hodges the right to same-sex marriage (2015).
What I believe that U. S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is saying is that the Supremes need to go back to the tighter definition of “substantive due process” (i.e., the 1997 stipulation) and quit assuming control over states’ rights through ruling by fiat (i.e., arbitrary and authoritarian).
================================
Excerpts from this Washington Examiner article:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/house/news/house-codifies-gay-marriage
The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bill that would codify same-sex marriage into federal law on Tuesday, with large numbers of Republican lawmakers [47] joining all Democrats in supporting the legislation.
Forty-seven Republicans joined all Democrats in voting for the bill, named the Respect for Marriage Act, after House GOP leadership announced that it would NOT be whipping rank-and-file lawmakers to oppose it.
The final vote tally was 267-157, with all “no” votes coming from Republicans.
Among the nearly four dozen Republicans to back the legislation were Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), the chairwoman of the House Republican Conference, and Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN), the head of House Republicans' campaign arm.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) opposed the bill.
Other notable Republicans to support the bill included Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Scott Perry (PA), the chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, and every member of Utah's congressional delegation.
Several Republicans who voted to impeach former President Donald Trump, including Rep. Liz Cheney (WY) and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (IL), also voted for the legislation.
…If enacted, the Respect for Marriage Act would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA], the 1996 law that defined marriage for federal purposes as a union between one man and one woman.
While DOMA was struck down by the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark 2015 ruling that established same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, it has never been repealed.
The Respect for Marriage Act would also alter the federal definition of marriage to include same-sex unions and require states to allow same-sex marriages.
…In debate preceding the floor vote, Democrats repeatedly cited Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization as justification for the bill and evidence that the right to same-sex marriage was under threat.
In his opinion, Thomas wrote that the Supreme Court ought to “reconsider” its decision in Obergefell along with rulings in other landmark cases such as Lawrence v. Texas, which banned the criminalization of same-sex sexual activity, and Griswold v. Connecticut, which guaranteed the right to access contraception.
…Several openly gay members of Congress spoke about the Respect for Marriage Act in deeply personal terms in floor speeches preceding the vote…
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who led floor debate for Republicans, encouraged his GOP colleagues to vote against the Respect for Marriage Act, calling it a “charade” and deriding it as an attempt to intimidate the Supreme Court. Other Republicans, including Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA), said the bill was unnecessary and divisive in light of Obergefell's continued existence as judicial precedent, while conservative Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) argued that it would improperly impose a federal definition of marriage on the states.
…Scalise, the second-ranking House Republican, predicted at a press briefing earlier in the day that the vote would “split” the GOP, noting that Republican leaders were not whipping against the bill and were instead urging rank-and-file lawmakers to vote their conscience.
…A group of senators, including Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), introduced a companion version of the Respect for Marriage Act on Monday, but it’s unclear if and when it will receive a vote by the upper chamber. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Tuesday declined to say whether he would bring the legislation up for a Senate floor vote, and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) acknowledged that it could be difficult to schedule a vote given the Senate’s packed calendar.
…Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told reporters at a press conference that he would “delay” announcing his position on the Respect for Marriage Act, and whether he would whip Republican senators to oppose it, until Schumer schedules a floor vote.
…While many Republicans are eager to move past same-sex marriage as a political issue, some conservatives have defied that trend. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) called the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell “clearly wrong” in a recent episode of his podcast, asserting that the high court “ignored two centuries of our nation’s history” when it defined same-sex marriage as a constitutional right…
##############