Respect for Marriage Act

[ryoder 1,590]

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO)

 

Now let's see what someone in her family thinks of it:

https://twitter.com/verychristopher/status/1601222853239902208

 

Edited December 10, 2022 by ryoder

[JoeWeber 2,836]

22 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO)

 

Now let's see what someone in her family thinks of it:

https://twitter.com/verychristopher/status/1601222853239902208

 

I can understand being emotional about freedoms you wanted for your fellow human beings denied because in spite of your best efforts you came up short and failed. But being emotional because freedoms you wanted desperately to deny your fellow human beings are about to be granted despite your best efforts is, to my mind, absolutely antithetical to the idea of being a representative serving in a representative democracy. We will never be able to move forward as a society, moreover as a society able to coexist to the point of integration with other societies, until all societies purge this nonsense from their bodies. Hence my continued pessimism.

[billvon 3,075]

40 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO)

70 years ago she would have been crying those religious tears over how disrespectful it was to allow blacks to marry whites, and about how God meant to keep the races apart.

[wmw999 2,544]

19 minutes ago, billvon said:

70 years ago she would have been crying those religious tears over how disrespectful it was to allow blacks to marry whites, and about how God meant to keep the races apart.

And 130 years ago it would have been women voting was going to ruin the family

Pro tip: respect for someone else’s right to be different from you is exactly what respect is. It’s easy to respect someone who’s already similar. Much harder when they’re a do-rag-wearing biker with tattoos. or even a Democrat or a Trumper

Wendy P. 

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Seen on FB:

So you want to discriminate against gays because that's 'what your religion says'?

Great.

My religion says that the rich should give all their money to the poor
How about that?

[JoeWeber 2,836]

36 minutes ago, billvon said:

70 years ago she would have been crying those religious tears over how disrespectful it was to allow blacks to marry whites, and about how God meant to keep the races apart.

So much for the enlightenment. Some of us want to return to Bronze age thinking, some of us want to go boldly into a future where yesterdays ideas are the valued building blocks upon which we stand to look even further forward.

[billvon 3,075]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

Pro tip: respect for someone else’s right to be different from you is exactly what respect is.

To many people, that is loss of priviledge.  Once only people like me could get married; now it seems like everyone can do it.  Once only people like me could vote; now they will let any hysterical woman vote, and every hysterical woman cancels out one white Christian man's vote!  Once we enjoyed all the freedoms of our society; now they gave them all to shiftless blacks.  Etc.

[GeorgiaDon 379]

16 hours ago, billvon said:

70 years ago she would have been crying those religious tears over how disrespectful it was to allow blacks to marry whites, and about how God meant to keep the races apart.

Agreed, except Loving v Virginia was decided in 1967, only 55 years ago. 

Griswold v Connecticut, the case that struck down laws banning using, selling, or providing information about contraception, was decided in 1965, only 57 years ago.  That was another case that was opposed by the religious right wing.  However there was also a racist element: the decision was supported by some in the southern states due to their fear of blacks having large families and "replacing" whites. 

Justice Thomas et al want to turn back the clock, but they don't necessarily have to turn it back too far to achieve their dream of imposing their moral choices on everybody in the USA.

Edited December 11, 2022 by GeorgiaDon