Op-Ed: 'Respect for Marriage Act' Uses Twisted Tactic to Force Same-Sex Marriage on Americans
When writing laws, you would think that our country’s representatives would not change the definitions of words in their legislation, but in order to force the law to fit their perverted needs, that is exactly what they are doing.
Let’s look at a particular word: “marriage.”
Webster’s Dictionary defined marriage as “the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.” In fact, this definition actually goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden when God brought Eve to Adam and stated that “they shall be one flesh.”
The U.S. Congress, during its 2022 lame-duck session, has decided to force every state to recognize same-sex marriages. Do you realize that in order to write this law, legislators have had to pervert the definition of the word “marriage”?
Of course, they had to also include interracial marriage to give the bill some legitimacy and cause opposition to the bill to be wrongly called racist in some circles. Interracial marriages should not be included with same-sex marriages. Interracial marriages are legitimate in the eyes of God, for they are between a man and a woman to establish a family.
What I really find so peculiar is the name they gave this bill — the “Respect for Marriage Act.” The title of the bill is, once again, the exact opposite of what the bill does. This bill does not respect marriage as it has been known since the Garden of Eden. Instead, it perverts the institution to include same-sex couples. If same-sex couples want to have some kind of union, then let them have it, but don’t call it “marriage,” for it is not marriage in the eyes of man or in the eyes of God.
Extreme caution should be taken here, for the Bible in Leviticus 18:22 (and several other places) calls same-sex relations an “abomination” to God. God does not and would never sanction such unions.
So why would Congress pass into law this bill to promote sin? Well, liberals have really pushed their perverted agenda on the U.S., with same-sex marriage, transgendering children, being unable to define what a woman is, and claiming that men can get pregnant. I understand that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has family problems with his daughter being married to another woman, but is he representing his daughter or his constituency?
In order to pass this bill, the Senate had to have a 60-vote majority. So with a 50-50 split between Republicans and Democrats, how did the bill pass? With a 61-36 vote.
First of all, if there are 100 members of the Senate, why did only 97 members vote on this bill? Did the other three members get paychecks this month? Or perhaps the better question is, should they get paychecks this month? Maybe they were busy Christmas shopping, or taking the dog to the vet, or having their hair done, or something else obviously more important to them than doing their job.
Further, 12 “Republican” senators voted for this bill. That means that without these 12 “Republicans” there would have only been 49 votes for the bill.
The Republican Party is supposed to be the conservative party. What is the definition of “conservative”? Well, the good ol’ Webster’s Dictionary defines the word as the “disposition in politics to preserve what is established.” Did these 12 “Republicans” preserve what was established by God in the Garden of Eden? Maybe — just maybe — these “Republicans” are not really conservative.
Let’s see who they are. The list consists of Lisa Murkowski Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Todd Young of Indiana, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Susan Collins of Maine, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Rob Portman of Ohio, Mitt Romney of Utah, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming.
I would suggest that these people are, by definition, not conservatives. That means they are a herd of RINOs.
How can we fix this problem of “Republicans” not being conservative? We either have to recall them or remove them in the primary before the next election.
If your state does not allow for recalling senators, then maybe you need to start rattling the cages of your state representatives and convince them to change the law to allow your state to recall senators who break their sworn oath of office, which obligates them to represent the people who voted for them and are paying their salary. The rest of us can be fired if we don’t do our jobs — why not them?
We cannot allow deceivers to campaign on conservative promises and then go to Washington on our dime and serve liberals. We must grow backbones and put in place contingency plans to control the con artists and cheats!
Let’s look at our list of RINOs.
Well, Blunt, Burr and Portman did not seek re-election in 2022. These men will leave the Senate having as one of their last acts the passage into law of the Perversion of Marriage Act. Of course, Burr retires a millionaire after insider trading before the pandemic. Nothing of interest here — please move along.
Romney will be coming up for re-election in 2024. Sullivan, Young, Ernst, Collins, Tillis, Moore Capito and Lummis all need to be defeated in the 2026 primaries. Lastly, we will be stuck with Murkowski until 2028 because she was just “re-elected” in the wacky Alaska election process, which reeked of deception and deceit. Of course, Mitch McConnell supported her even though she voted to impeach President Donald Trump.
Conservatives need to pick candidates who are truly conservative. Otherwise, we will just end up with more people changing definitions to suit their liberal agendas and writing into law perversions of the long-established norms of our society. In fact, these norms were established by God.
So will we defend what God has established, or not?
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
