On Nov. 16, U.S. Senate Democrats will, once again, attempt to pass a controversial bill to codify the mandatory recognition of same-sex “marriage” across the nation, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski is seen as a critical vote.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said a vote on the so-called “Respect for Marriage Act” (or RFMA) will occur Wednesday.
The bill passed the House in July with 47 Republicans voting in favor. Schumer had hoped to get the controversial legislation through the evenly divided Senate in September but did not have a at least 10 Republicans who were willing to side with Democrats to pass it in the evenly divided Senate. Without 10 Republicans, the bill cannot overcome the 60-vote filibuster.
Now, however, Schumer is attempting to get the needed GOP senators on board.
Murkowski has long-supported same-sex marriage and is viewed as one of the Republicans who may abandon her fellow GOP members in order to pass the legislation.
The bill is being proposed due to Democratic concern that the U.S. Supreme Court may one day overturn its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling which imposed gay marriage across the nation. If the court ever did strike down Obergefell, then each state would again be free to limit marriage to the union of one man and one woman.
Although it has not been enforced since 2015, Alaska’s Constitution still affirms marriage as the union of a man and woman.
ALASKA WATCHMAN DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX
If passed by the Senate and signed into law by President Biden, the Respect for Marriage Act would repeal the longstanding (but unenforced) federal Defense of Marriage Act, which affirms that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. The federal law protects states’ rights to have similar laws, although the 2015 Supreme Court ruling has suspended this right, for now.
As written, the law would also require the federal government to recognize “marriages” performed by any state and would force all other states to recognize those marriages as well. While states would only have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, the Democratic bill would mandate that the federal government recognize any new “union” a state develops, including marriages of more than two people.
It also threatens the religious freedoms of non-profits or business owners who do not affirm homosexual “marriage.”
At least four Republicans, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Rob Portman of Ohio, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska have signaled that they might side with Democrats. Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin are also potential “yes” votes.
TAKING ACTION
— Click here to contact Sen. Lisa Murkowski.
— Click here to contact Sen. Dan Sullivan.
23 Comments
Why waist your time on writing this? We all know without any doubt that Murkowski will side as a Democrat. for the last 6 years she has. It’s so sad that we can’t pull her plug and send her packing. or force her to change her affiliation to Democrat. There’s nothing worst thst a RINO Republican.
Scotus didn’t ‘impose’ gay marriage on anyone. Not a single person in this country has EVER been forced to get gay married against their will.
They recognized the fact that gay people should have always had the right to marry just as straight people do.
Also, this article is misleading because its not true that if Obergefell was overturned that Alaska could get rid of gay marriage. Gay marriage in Alaska was made legal and that provision was stricken as unconstitutional by a federal judge BEFORE the Obergefell decision. Whats more, it was decided based on the Equal Protection clause rather than based on sex as Obergefell was. I’m personal friends with the 2 gay men that brought and won that case. You are never going to get a court to rule that lgbt people don’t deserve equal protection under the law. Not even THIS court would go that far. Not too mention, the government has no authority to dissolve legal unions. So even if by some miracle you could re-ban them, there would still be millions of legally married gay families. Which, incidently, is what you call ‘separate and unequal’. Marriage equality is here to stay.
Hasn’t been that way in 50,000 years. Codifying something destructive to families, society, and to the individuals participating in this delusion only encourages pathologies of psychological illness. Just like with helping people ‘transition’, it is intended to be seen as compassion, but is the opposite of good medicine. It is cowardly, sick, and cruel.
this is not about equal protection or anything else but protecting the rights of those who disagree with gay marriage against government sanctions or even prosecution.
Check out this article from 2007 about Ted Stevens, Don Young and Lisa Murcowski. Just amazing that these guys always seem to be able to be excused for their behavior.
“Ethics: The Frontier Of Corruption”
“Alaska may be the second youngest state in the country, but it’s also one of the most corrupt. The state’s entire congressional delegation — Sens. Ted Stevens (R) and Lisa Murkowski (R) and Rep. Don Young (R) — is now embroiled in a series of scandals and criminal investigations that threaten to topple Alaska’s oil industry-friendly political leadership.”
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/ethics-the-frontier-of-corruption/
correction alaska is the largest state, not texas
Clark said “Youngest”.. Didn’t mention “size”.
You’re all swimming upstream on this one, folks. Polls show that society now accepts this concept by a pretty wide margin. Do you even know anyone in a same-sex marriage? I know several, and I’ve got to say that their relationships are just as strong, loving, and committed, as other hetero marriages. You view them as sick, I suppose in a sexual way, but in fact they are not. And furthermore – wait for it – they are committed Christians as well!
I don’t know what form of Christianity they practice but it certainly isn’t based on the teachings of the Bible.
I guess you’re referring to Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon, all of whom had multiple wives??
Far be it for me to tell anyone how to live their lives. But heterosexual marriage is the foundation of family from the beginning of human kind and homosexual is an aberration of that. I too have had a few gay friends with some living in partnerships and I have to disagree about all being happy and healthy. And definitely not a healthy family model. There is good reason for God’s plan, one that fills hundreds of pages. His plan for marriage is one man and one woman.
You do know the bible is overflowing with stories about righteous men who purchased multiple wives and also had multitudes of concubines, right? The Bible is a horrible example of what is and isn’t moral. Because its got a lot of good stuff in it, and its got a lot of awful stuff in it. So everyone has to pick and choose which parts they want to follow. You can find a quote in the bible that supports darn near anything, from having to marry your rapist, to genocide, to murdering your children for back-talking, to condoning animal sacrifice, to killing babies and pregnant women. Every single one of those things is done in the bible and called righteous. Do you think those things are moral? I don’t
Even the story of Sodom that conservatives love to pretend is about homosexuality is a terrible example. The ‘righteous’ man in that story offered his own daughters up to be gang-raped, and those same daughters eventually raped HIM to get pregnant with incest babies. And THAT was the one family that was righteous enough to save!?
They are not Christian would be the dawg….. They are abominations in GODS own word….They cannot reproduce and can only pervert making their victims a worse child of hell….period… I pray they repent and for you also as your message is of the deceiver.
I used to contact her office often, she has voted the opposite all the time, we all know where this is headed.
I contacted Sullivan’s office. I usually never bother to call Murkowski but may give it a try.
The only union of persons that is physically capable of bringing forth new members of society is that between a man and a woman. Therefore, the union between a man and woman is categorically different from any other union of persons and should be defined and treated as such.
So you think only adults who can and will actively conceive children should be allowed to marry? What about sterile men? Barren women? Intersex individuals with the wrong parts? Post-menopausal women? People that refuse to have children? Their unions can’t make babies…so should they not be allowed to marry? Thats a old and tired argument. Unless you agree with all this other crap it makes you a hypocrite. You’re making up an arbitrary standard to use only against 1 group of people. Nowhere in the bible does it say only a man can marry a woman. It does say you have to kill her if she isnt still a virgin though. But I’ll assume you don’t support that either.
Men and women that cannot conceive can marry and adopt children. That is the superior way of raising children. Mother and father. People that refuse to have children should not be granted the benefits of doing so because they are not contributing to the future of the nation beyond their own selfish existence.
Called both. Put up on my Concerned Conservatives of Alaska (CCA) FB page as well.
Done.
We contacted and emailed. It did zero good. What else can we do to fight these trash ideals?
You can’t tell her anything, we’ve tried for years. I wish we’d tell her to take a hike and have her listen.
Both fake Catholic and fake Republican senators voted for this? I am glad to say that I have never voted for Lying Lisa. I never contributed to Sellout Sullivan’s campaign and he will never receive another vote from me. Zero principles. Fake Christians. No votes. I prefer Demoncrats who claim to be Demoncrats. Anything to cycle out the swamp trash.