{"id":3951,"date":"2022-11-30T18:20:55","date_gmt":"2022-11-30T18:20:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.inthedays.com\/?p=3951"},"modified":"2022-11-30T18:22:37","modified_gmt":"2022-11-30T18:22:37","slug":"senate-rejects-religious-freedom-protections-approves-respect-for-marriage-act-biden-to-sign","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.inthedays.com\/?p=3951","title":{"rendered":"SENATE REJECTS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROTECTIONS, APPROVES \u2018RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT;\u2019 BIDEN TO SIGN"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
Days of Lot \u2014 Sins of Sodom<\/div>\n
\" Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is \n
revealed Strongs 601: <\/font> apokalupto, ap-ok-al-oop\u00b4-to; from 575 and 2572; to take off the cover, i.e. disclose: \u2014 reveal.<\/span><\/div>.\"\n \u2014 Luke 17:28-30<\/blockquote><\/div>\n\n
\"Behold, this was the \n
iniquity Strongs 5771: <\/font> avon, aw-vone; aw-vone; from 5753; perversity, i.e. moral evil fault, iniquity, mischeif, punishment of iniquity, sin.<\/span><\/div> of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed
abomination Strongs 8441: <\/font> tow\ua725ebah, to-ay-baw\u00b4; or tonebah, to-ay-baw\u00b4; feminine active participle of 8581; properly, something disgusting (morally), i.e. (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol:\u2014abominable (custom, thing), abomination.<\/span><\/div> before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.\" \n \u2014 Ezekiel 16:49-50<\/blockquote><\/div>\n\n
Days of Lot \u2014 Confusion of Faces<\/div>\n
\"O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us
confusion Strongs 1322:<\/font> bosheth, bo\u00b4-sheth; from 954; shame (the feeling and the condition, as well as its cause); by implication (specifically) an idol:\u2014ashamed, confusion, + greatly, (put to) shame(-ful thing).<\/font> <\/span><\/div> of faces, as at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, that are near, and that are far off, through all the countries whither thou hast driven them, because of their trespass that they have trespassed against thee. \n

<\/p> \u2014 Daniel 9:7<\/blockquote><\/strong><\/div>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Article Source: The Epoch Times<\/a><\/span><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n

A bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate approved the\u00a0Respect for Marriage Acton Tuesday after rejecting on close votes a trio of detailed amendments that sponsors claimed were required to protect the right of\u00a0religious freedom\u00a0of practice and expression.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

On a count of 61 to 36, the majority\u2014including 49 Democrats and 12 Republicans\u2014adopted a measure\u00a0approved by the House of Representatives in July and that President Joe Biden has promised to sign. The House still must OK the Senate\u2019s minor revisions of the original proposal.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

The vote on the controversial proposal capped a series of procedural hurdles requiring at least 60 votes that proponents overcame with support from the chamber\u2019s 50 Democrats and the dozen Republicans who supported final passage.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

The dozen Republican senators were Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa, Sen. Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, and Sen. Todd Young of Indiana.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Late Monday during a lengthy roll call on a cloture motion to limit debate, three of the dozen GOP senators supporting the bill withheld their votes until proponents agreed to allow floor votes on amendments offered by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). Each of the proposed amendments was designed to ease the threats posed by the proposal to religious freedom.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Throughout the debate on the proposal, opponents claimed the bill will inflict profound damage on freedom of religion, including after proponents accepted an amendment they said would remedy such fears.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

In an impassioned floor\u00a0speech\u00a0delivered before the voting began on the amendments, Lankford asked, \u201cIs today about respecting the rights of all, or about silencing some and respecting others?\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Oklahoma Republican\u2014who was well-known in his home state before his political career as a result of his work with a Southern Baptist youth camp\u2014told colleagues \u201cthere are three major problems in the bill on the issue of religious liberty. If these three things are not changed in this bill, it will put religious liberty at great risk for millions of Americans who \u2026 have sincerely held religious beliefs.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

The first of the three, according to Lankford said the bill reference to \u201cany individual or entity acting under the color of state law\u201d would be subject to penalties for failing to support same-sex or inter-racial marriage.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cThis would be an entity that a state hires to fulfill\u00a0 something for them. This could be a private prison, for example, it could also be an adoption agency, foster care agencies. It could be an entity that actually does housing for immigrants families, a homeless shelter contracted by the state to provide services. It could be any number of entities,\u201d Lankford explained.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Many such agencies are faith-based and the Respect for Marriage Act \u201cwould be a new restriction on those religious entities that formally held contracts that then would very well be pushed out from providing those services \u2026 or abandoning their faith,\u201d he said.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

The second problem Lankford pointed to was the proposal\u2019s creation of a new \u201cprivate right of action\u201d for \u201can individual who senses that they have been harmed\u201d by a covered entity.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cNow, it\u2019s not defined what \u2018harm\u2019 means in this new statute, it just says if someone feels they\u2019ve been harmed, they would now have the opportunity to sue someone else,\u201d Lankford explained.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cIf Congress creates a new right to sue people, there will be a lot of lawsuits \u2026 For anyone who believes this new right to sue people won\u2019t be used and won\u2019t be used quickly by lawyers and outsider groups all around the country, you are kidding yourself. What it really does is it silences any individual who may disagree and it discourages any faith-based entity from cooperating with government,\u201d he said.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

The third problem lies in the bill\u2019s language saying \u201cif a benefit does not arise from a marriage.\u201d Lankford said he asked multiple lawyers what that phrase means and received widely different answers.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cIt is clear what it doesn\u2019t mean. When it says all these different rights being granted that don\u2019t include marriage, it doesn\u2019t include your belief about marriage,\u201d Lankford pointed out. The result is beliefs about marriage can still be the basis for litigation against individuals and entities, he said.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Lankford\u2019s amendment needed only a simple majority, but was defeated on a 45-52 vote. No Democrat supported it, while Republicans Portman, Collins, and Murkowski voted against it.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Lee amendment gained the support of all 12 of the GOP supporters of the proposal but the only Democrat to support it was Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). The amendment thus failed on a 48-49 count.\u00a0The Rubio amendment failed on a 48-to-49 vote.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Baldwin said the amended proposal is needed to \u201cgive the millions of Americans in same-sex and interracial marriages the certainty that they will continue to enjoy the freedoms, rights, and responsibilities afforded to all other marriages.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s 2015\u00a0Obergefell v. Hodges\u00a0decision legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The Supreme Court\u2019s 1967\u00a0Loving v. Virginia\u00a0legalized interracial marriage in America.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Not voting were Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) and Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.).<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington on June 25, 2020. (Tom Williams\/Pool\/AFP via Getty Images)<\/p>\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/p>\n

On a count of 61 to 36, the majority\u2014including 49 Democrats and 12 Republicans\u2014adopted a measure\u00a0approved by the House of Representatives in July and that President Joe Biden has promised to sign.<\/font><\/strong><\/h5>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":3954,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"pmpro_default_level":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[58,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3951","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-confusion-of-faces","category-days-of-lot","pmpro-has-access"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.inthedays.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3951","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.inthedays.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.inthedays.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.inthedays.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.inthedays.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3951"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/www.inthedays.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3951\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3962,"href":"https:\/\/www.inthedays.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3951\/revisions\/3962"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.inthedays.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/3954"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.inthedays.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3951"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.inthedays.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3951"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.inthedays.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3951"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}