Who wants to take away gay marriage
The New Gay Marriage Bill
This week, Roger Severino, Heritage’s Vice President of Domestic Policy and The Anderlik Fellow, breaks down the so called “Respect for Marriage Act.”
Michelle Cordero: From The Heritage Foundation, I'm Michelle Cordero, and this is Heritage Explains.
Cordero: This summer in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Congress introduced the Respect For Marriage Act.
Speaker 2: As abortion rights advocates and Democratic lawmakers continue to protest the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Property is voting on a bill to protect marriage equality, out of horror the conservative high court could revisit other landmark decisions.
Speaker 3: It simply says each state will recognize the other state's marriages and not oppose a person the right to marry based on race, gender, sexual orientation.
Cordero: The legislation passed the House with the back of 47 Republicans. It now moves to the Senate where it would need just 10 Republican votes to pass.
Cordero: Final passage would mean states are no longer allowed to define and acknowledge marriage as a legal union between a gentleman and a woman. Instead, they
Project 2025 Exposed
Strip away non-discrimination policies
– Removing terms including “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” “diversity,” “equity,” “inclusion,” “gender,” “abortion,” and “reproductive rights” from federal rules, regulations, contracts, grants, and legislation.
– Restricting the application of the Supreme Court’s Bostock v. Clayton County decision, which extended workplace protections against sex discrimination to LGBTQ employees.
– Rescinding regulations prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender self, transgender status, and sex characteristics.
– Defining “sex discrimination” narrowly as referring only to the “biological binary” of male and female as assigned at birth.
Restrict health care
– Eliminating transgender health care in Medicare and Medicaid
– Opposing transgender health care or abortion access to service members using public funds
– End anti-discrimination rules based on gender identity and sexual orientation in the Affordable Protect Act
– Ending Medicare’s ability to negotiate drug prices which would negatively impact millions of elderly Americans, particula
Idaho Republican legislators dial on SCOTUS to reverse same-sex marriage ruling
The Idaho Dwelling passed a resolution Monday calling on the Supreme Court to reconsider its 2015 decision on same-sex marriage equality.
The court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision established the right to same-sex marriage under the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
The resolution comes after Associate Justice Clarence Thomas’s expressed interest in revisiting the Obergefell judgment in his concurring opinion on the Supreme Court's landmark 2022 opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Company that overturned the federal right to abortion.
Thomas, who issued a dissenting view in 2015 against same-sex marriage, wrote in 2022, "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process choice is 'demonstrably erroneous,' we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents."
Lawrence v. Texas overturned a law criminalizing same-sex sexual manner and Griswold v. Connecticut ov
LGBTQ+ Rights
###Embeddable###
###Embeddable###
###Embeddable###
###Embeddable###
###Embeddable###
###Embeddable###
###Embeddable###
###Embeddable###
###Embeddable###
###Embeddable###
###Embeddable###
###Embeddable###
###Embeddable###
###Embeddable###
###Embeddable###
| Yes | No | No opinion | |
|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | |
| 2023 May 1-24 | 39 | 60 | * |
| 2021 May 3-18 | 31 | 69 | * |
| Should be legal | Should not be legal | No opinion | |
|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | |
| 2021 May 3-18 ^ | 79 | 18 | 2 |
| 2020 May 1-13 | 72 | 24 | 3 |
| 2019 May 1-12 | 73 | 26 | 2 |
| 2018 May 1-10 | 75 | 23 | 2 |
| 2017 May 3-7 | 72 | 23 | 5 |
| 2016 May 4-8 | 68 | 28 | 4 |
| 2015 Jul 8-12 | 68 | 28 | 4 |
| 2015 May 6-10 | 69 | 28 | 4 |
| 2014 May 8-11 | 66 | 30 | 4 |
| 2013 Jul 10-14 | 64 | 31 | 5 |
| 2013 May 2-7 | 65 | 31 | 5 |
| 2012 Nov 26-29 | 64 | 33 | 3 |
| 2012 May 3-6 | 63 | 31 | 6 |
| 2011 Dec 15-18 | 62 | 33 | 5 |
| 2011 May 5-8 | 64 | 32 | 4 |
| 2010 May 3-6 | 58 | 36 | 6 |
| 2009 May 7-10 | 56 | 40 | 4 |
| 2008 May 8-11 ^ | 55 | 40 | 5 |
| 2007 May 10-13 | 59 | 37 | 4 |
| 2006 May 8-11 † | 56 | 40 | 4 |
| 2005 Aug 22-25 | 49 | 44 | 7 |
| 2005 May 2-5 | 52 | 43 | 5 |
| 2004 May 2-4 | 52 | 43 | 5 |
| 2004 Jan 9-11 | 46 | 49 | 5 |
2003 Jul 25-2 Some Republican lawmakers raise calls against homosexual marriage SCOTUS rulingConservative legislators are increasingly speaking out against the Supreme Court’s landmark 2015 judgment on same-sex marriage equality. Idaho legislators began the trend in January when the state House and Senate passed a resolution calling on the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision -- which the court cannot do unless presented with a case on the issue. Some Republican lawmakers in at least four other states like Michigan, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota possess followed suit with calls to the Supreme Court. In North Dakota, the resolution passed the express House with a vote of 52-40 and is headed to the Senate. In South Dakota, the state’s Dwelling Judiciary Committee sent the proposal on the 41st Legislative Day –deferring the bill to the final day of a legislative session, when it will no longer be considered, and effectively killing the bill. In Montana and Michigan, the bills possess yet to deal with legislative scrutiny. Resolutions include no legal rule and are not binding law, but instead allow legislative bodies to convey their collective opinions. The resolutions in four other states ech |