Integrity vs Compromise and: What’s Good for the Goose Is Good for the Gander?

Compromising Integrity?

Since the U.S. Senate pushed forward the “Respect Marriage Act” (RMA) with the compromsing help of 12 Republicians in order to gain the 60% vote to overcome a potential filibuster, it passed a cloture vote, 62-37. Now it’s back to the House of Representives to pass some compromising admendments. Both chambers must pass the same writing of a bill before it goes to the President for sign into law of be vetoed. Will the outgoing Nancy try to push it forward with these compromising admendments?

12 Republican Senators Back ‘Disrespect for Marriage’ Act in Key Vote

From the article:

A bill supported by President Biden that would legalize same-sex marriage nationwide, threaten Christians who object to participating in LGBT ceremonies, and create a bonanza for trial lawyers to sue believers in natural marriage cleared a key Senate hurdle Wednesday afternoon — with the assistance of 12 Republicans.

H.R. 8404, labeled the “Respect for Marriage” Act by supporters and the “Disrespect for Marriage” act by critics, needed at least 60 votes to overcome a potential filibuster. It passed a cloture vote, 62-37. The bill would force all 50 states to recognize any marriage legally allowed in any other state and formally repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It would also create a private right of action, allowing anyone who feels discriminated against to sue any individual or business who refuses to participate in such a ceremony, even if motivated by faith-based objections.

“The U.S. Senate is making a mockery of marriage as it tramples on a foundational right — religious freedom of the individual,” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins shortly after the vote….

…The “dirty dozen” Republican senators who backed the bill include Mitt Romney (Utah), who centered his 2008 Republican presidential bid around his opposition to same-sex marriage; as well as midwestern Senators Roy Blunt (Mo.) and Joni Ernst (Iowa), who served as co-chairs of the congressional Values Action Team, which is “dedicated to advancing pro-life and pro-family policies in Congress.” (See the full list below.)…

…In voting for the act, Republicans gave Democrats a political victory to a major voting bloc: the LGBTQ+ lobby. Progressives introduced the bill — along with legislation favoring abortion-on-demand and abortion-inducing drugs marketed as contraceptives — as a political cudgel shortly after Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his lone concurrence that the Supreme Court should revisit cases involving a controversial legal theory favored by judicial activists. Legal scholars consider the likelihood of justices overturning Obergefell v. Hodges or Griswold v. Connecticut exceedingly remote. Still, Democrats hoped to put Republicans on record as opposing abortion, redefining marriage, and contraception….

But shortly after H.R. 8404 passed the House in July with 47 Republican votes, a coalition of GOP senators approached Democrats behind the scenes to signal their support. At the request of Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Schumer postponed the vote until after the 2022 midterm elections, to remove electoral pressure from her GOP colleagues.

The amended bill faces additional Senate votes, where Lee said it must again obtain 60 votes, before the amended bill must again clear the House of Representatives. While it is rare for a legislator­­­ who votes for cloture to reverse his or her vote on final passage, it is possible — especially if constituents make their objections clear.

“There’s still a possibility of it being stopped,” said Lee….


Just before the Senate vote, I Wrote both of my Republican Senators via their E-Mail address with a short message two days before the vote and expressed my desire for them to vote NO as I had just voted for them the week before. Well the Senate voted to pass with a couple of compromising admendments I was unaware of at the time.

Then 11/17 I Wrote and Posted:

Then 12/1, to my late suprise, I received an E-Mail reply from Senator Tillis:

Response from Senator Tillis

12/1/2022 2:55 PM

   Dear Mr. Yarbrough:
Thank you for taking the time to contact me about H.R. 8404, the Respect for Marriage Act. I appreciate hearing from you.

The Senate recently passed the Respect for Marriage Act, and I worked to secure a bipartisan compromise to protect the religious freedoms of churches and religious organizations.

The legislation would provide more certainty for same-sex couples, and at the same time, it ensures that churches are not required to perform or celebrate same-sex marriages and that religious organizations do not lose their tax-exempt status for holding a more traditional view of marriage. 

Why participate in the Respect for Marriage Act negotiations?
In 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) held in Obergefell v. Hodges that States must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. However, SCOTUS did not address the legal impact of Obergefell on religious institutions and nonprofits, leaving that legal question open. A key reason why I worked to amend the Respect for Marriage Act was to ensure that federal law expressly acknowledges that people of good faith could disagree about marriage, and that federal law protects religious institutions and nonprofits from being forced to violate their beliefs. A bipartisan amendment I helped negotiate will ensure robust protections for churches and religious organizations – protections that are more robust and expansive than what currently exists in federal law. 

What religious protections does this legislation provide?
Under Section 6, the Respect for Marriage Act will protect all religious liberty and conscience protections available under the Constitution or Federal law, including but not limited to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and forbids this bill from being used to diminish or repeal any such protection. The Respect for Marriage Act confirms that nonprofit religious organizations will not be required to provide any services, facilities, or goods for the solemnization or celebration of a same-sex marriage.

Does the Respect for Marriage Act open the door for the IRS to strip away tax-exempt status for churches and religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriage?
Absolutely not. In fact, the legislation provides new protections for religious organizations so they do not lose their tax-exempt status. 

The 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling did not address the legal impact on religious institutions and nonprofits, leaving that legal question open for interpretation. The Respect for Marriage Act settles that matter by providing more robust and expansive protections for religious liberties than the current status quo. 

Under Section 7, the IRS would be prohibited from denying or altering any benefit, right, or status of an otherwise eligible person or entity – including tax-exempt status, tax treatment, grants, contracts, agreements, guarantees, educational funding, loans, scholarships, licenses, certifications, accreditations, claims, or defenses – provided that the benefit, right, or status does not arise from a marriage. 

For example, a church, university, or other nonprofit’s eligibility for tax-exempt status would not be impacted if they do not agree with or do not want to recognize same-sex marriage. 

Does the Respect for Marriage Act recognize polygamous relationships? 
No, this bill does not recognize polygamous relationships. As a matter of fact, the Respect for Marriage Act provides explicit language under Section 7(b) that the legislation does NOT recognize polygamous marriages. 

Does the Respect for Marriage Act punish adoption and foster placement agencies for their beliefs on marriage?  
Absolutely not. In fact, this legislation will likely improve protections for religiously-affiliated adoption and foster care placement agencies because it includes new religious liberty protections currently not in law. 

These protections will help stop progressive groups from attacking religiously-affiliated adoption or foster care placement agencies, which are also protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia, which upheld the religious liberty rights of a Catholic adoption and foster care agency.

Did you support Senator Mike Lee’s (R-UT) Amendment?
Yes, I voted in favor of Senator Mike Lee’s amendment to the Respect for Marriage Act. Senator Lee’s amendment went beyond the scope covered by the Respect for Marriage Act to include protections for individuals, non-religious organizations, and closely-held businesses. 

The Lee Amendment also addressed other matters like tax-exempt status, federal grants, contracts, loan scholarships, and accreditation, which are already covered in the bipartisan amendment that I also supported. Ultimately, the Lee Amendment did not meet the 60-vote threshold and was not adopted. 

I supported Senator Lee’s amendment because I agree with him that people of faith should have greater protections than those currently in law, including protections that extend beyond those in the final version of the Respect for Marriage Act. I am confident, however, that the amendment I negotiated with my colleagues includes appropriate religious liberty protections to address legitimate concerns about the Respect for Marriage Act. 

Moving forward, I will continue to support efforts to provide greater religious protections for individuals. I strongly oppose any effort to infringe on any American’s religious freedom and First Amendment rights, which is why I negotiated with my colleagues to significantly improve this legislation. 

I believe this legislation ultimately strikes the right balance. Same-sex couples will continue to have the right to get married, now without the fear of government intervention. And churches and religious organizations will continue to operate and worship free from government interference, now with even more protections provided because of this legislation.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. Please do not hesitate to contact me about other important issues.    Sincerely,
 Thom Tillis
U.S. Senator Follow Me on Social Media:     
Website: To contact me, click here.

Nothing yet from Burr!

Here’s what it’s all about.

HR 8404 RMA

Everything You Need to Know About the Respect for Marriage Act

The law recently advanced by the US Senate doesn’t deny religious liberty to those who support traditional unions.


From the article:

his week, the Senate advanced the Respect for Marriage Act (RMA). The law tries to balance the unquestionable goodness of traditional marriage with America’s changing views on same-sex relationships. Some conservatives will undoubtedly treat the act as a loss. But others will take the view that, in a morally pluralistic society, a few concessions yield a win for the common good. I’m one of them.

The history of RMA goes back to late June, when the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overruled its predecessor Roe v. Wade. Buried in a concurring opinion by justice Clarence Thomas was his suggestion that the court make a clean sweep of things by reconsidering the 2015 Obergefell decision finding a constitutional right to gay marriage. That comment unsettled the tens of thousands of Americans who had entered same-sex unions, which in conservative states are dependent on Obergefell remaining good law.

In response, the US House passed the Respect for Marriage Act, or H.R. 8404. But it failed to safeguard religious liberty for churches, universities, and other institutions that believe in traditional marriage.

Rather than just say no to RMA, a small collective of faith groups moved quickly in the Senate to see if the act could be brought into balance. A few senators from both parties who were keen on doing just that helped. After adding in a measure of religious liberty protections, the Senate substitute of the House bill passed the higher chamber earlier this week, 62–37.

In order of significance, here’s what you need to know about the Respect for Marriage Act:…


From my Tillis E-Mail reply:

“Ultimately, the Lee Amendment did not meet the 60-vote threshold and was not adopted.” 

From 10/29/22

California Baker Sued for Discrimination Wins Free Speech Case

From the article:

A California judge has ruled in favor of a Christian cake designer in the latest court decision regarding the conflict between religious freedom and same-sex marriage.

Eric Bradshaw, a Superior Court judge in Kern County, said in an October 21 opinion the state violated Cathy Miller’s freedom of religion and speech when it decided she unlawfully discriminated under California law by declining to design a cake for a same-sex wedding celebration.

Bradshaw’s decision is the latest in a series of court actions over several years regarding wedding vendors—such as cake designers, florists, photographers and artists—who refuse to provide their services for same-sex wedding ceremonies because of their biblically based belief that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

While the US Supreme Court has issued multiple opinions in support of the free exercise of religion in recent years, cases involving the conscience rights of wedding vendors have resulted in conflicting opinions across the country.

“This court has rightly affirmed that people of faith should be able to live out their deeply held religious beliefs in the public square,” said Hannah Daniel, policy manager for the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

“As tension continues to grow between our culture’s shifting beliefs on issues of gender and sexuality and the beliefs of many religious Americans, rulings like this provide important indicators that religious speech and expression will continue to be protected.”

A similar case will be before the Supreme Court in early December….


And that case is:

SCOTUS hears case arguing LGBTQ rights, freedom of speech violations

by: Alexandra Limon

Posted: Dec 5, 2022 / 03:50 PM CST

Updated: Dec 5, 2022 / 03:50 PM CST

From the article:

WASHINGTON (Nexstar) – The U.S. Supreme Court is tasked with deciding whether a wedding website designer is allowed to refuse to make websites for same-sex couples.

A crowd gathered outside the Supreme Court on Monday as the justices considered whether anti-discrimination laws violate the First Amendment.

“Colorado is trying to force me to create custom, unique artwork to promote ideas inconsistent with my faith and the core of who I am ,” website designer Lori Smith said.

Smith says Colorado would be violating her freedom of speech if it forces her to create websites for same-sex weddings and she’s asking the Supreme Court to step-in.

“It will decide whether the government can respect everyone’s freedom to say what we believe,” Smith explained.

Colorado and the US government argue that the exemption the website designer seeks would result in legalized widespread discrimination.

“And if there were to be a loophole of the kind discussed, people with disabilities, African Americans, Jews, Muslims, others could find themselves without access to the marketplace,” Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said.

Weiser adds that Colorado’s civil rights laws don’t violate freedom of speech.

“They can say on the website ‘we believe in marriage as celebrated in The Bible,’” Weiser said before noting business can’t reject serving certain customers.

“The court has never recognized that exemption and to do so would threaten to core of our Civil Rights laws,” Weiser said.

The US Supreme Court will decide the outcome of the case before the end of the term next summer. 


Will the Outging House pass the Senate’s version?

Will the new House have enough mind-melded Republicrats to push it through?

Will the Senate have to vote again?

Will the 12 Republicrats ever grow some…?

Will SCOTUS uphold free speech and the free exercise of principles?

Can two Ganders make gooslings?

Do Vulcans pierce those pointed ears?


Is what’s good for the Goose good for the Gander?

From the article:

…”For weeks, we had planned a gathering in a private room to fellowship and update supporters on our work. About an hour and a half before the event was set to take place, one of the restaurant’s owners called our team to cancel. An employee had looked up our organization, and their wait staff refused to serve us.”

She said the restaurant official claimed “that our pro-life and pro-traditional-marriage positions violated the ‘basic human rights’ of women and LGBT individuals.”

But, she noted, “What human right is more basic than the right to life? What family structure is more foundational than marriage between a man and a woman, the bedrock of Western civilization for thousands of years? Lest we forget, it wasn’t so long ago that, when running for president, Barack Obama declared that ‘marriage is between a man and a woman.'”

She pointed out, “This is the gospel of woke — the new intolerant religion controlling the left. Anyone who refuses to bow before their altar must be subdued, discriminated against, and punished. It’s a godless religion without mercy and without hope.”

She said the progressives today are preaching “tolerance” but in fact are demanding a forced “celebration” of their views.

If Christian businesses can refuse service for homosexual weddings, can left-leaning businesses refuse service to Christians? Yes No

Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use….

“Welcome to the double standard of the left, where Jack Phillips must be forced to create a wedding cake as part of the celebration of a same-sex ceremony, to take an action that violates his beliefs, but any business should be able to deny a basic meal to a paying customer who holds traditional views about marriage. The double standard is sickening and reeks of this intolerant, unyielding doctrine wokeness preaches.”

Metzger’s did not respond to WND’s request for a comment.

But Cobb explained, “Conservatives and people of faith need to expect to be cut off from services in the current cancel culture environment. They best know they will pay more for goods and services and their options will be fewer. While many may not experience discrimination yet, we recognize we are on the tip of the spear. Watching these situations across the nation and in our own sphere helped initiate the purchase of our own building, forecasting a day when we would no longer be a welcomed tenant by intolerant left corporate building owners.

“The left hates us because we espouse Christian values which they seek to snuff out and destroy. This brazen act of discrimination was a shot across the bow at Christians everywhere, and it’s just the beginning.”

While many may not experience discrimination yet, we recognize we are on the tip of the spear. Watching these situations across the nation and in our own sphere helped initiate the purchase of our own building, forecasting a day when we would no longer be a welcomed tenant by intolerant left corporate building owners.

“The left hates us because we espouse Christian values which they seek to snuff out and destroy. This brazen act of discrimination was a shot across the bow at Christians everywhere, and it’s just the beginning.”


Will Codd sue the resturant?

How would you vote in the poll?

Really want to “get the left’s goat”?

Matthew 5:38-42

KJV(i) 38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Matthew 7:12

KJV(i) 12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

And talking about goats…

Ezekiel 34:20-22

KJV(i) 20 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD unto them; Behold, I, even I, will judge between the fat cattle and between the lean cattle. 21 Because ye have thrust with side and with shoulder, and pushed all the diseased with your horns, till ye have scattered them abroad; 22 Therefore will I save my flock, and they shall no more be a prey; and I will judge between cattle and cattle.

Could all this be a prelude?

Come out of Babylon for her judgement is near!



  1. keiisaac921 says:

    Amen Amen hallelujah praise the Lord


Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s