Tapp into the Truth
Politics • News
When One Group's Desires Conflict With Another Groups Rights
Same-Sex Marriage vs. Religious Liberty
December 01, 2022
post photo preview

   In case you were under a rock or hanging out in a cave, the U.S. Senate passed a bill named the Respect for Marriage Act on November 29th, 2022. This bill, which will most likely easily pass in the lame-duck House session and then make it to Joe Biden's desk before December 9th, is said to provide federal protections for same-sex marriages as it repeals the Defense of Marriage Act. (The Clinton era law which legally defined marriage as between one man and one woman and permitted states not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.) The bill, as currently written, would not force states to allow same-sex couples to marry under the Supreme Court's 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision. It would, however, make it so that any "person acting under color of State law" must fully recognize marriage between two people in another state and that the federal government must recognize marriages if they were valid in the state where the marriage occurred. In simpler words, if Obergefell should someday be overturned and some states then decided to no longer recognize same-sex marriage, those states would still be required to recognize same-sex marriages from states that do recognize them. (The people of California get to decide for the people of Alabama.)

   Democrats and activists have been saying the bill is necessary in an act of political theater as they were desperate to have any issue other than the economy going into the midterm elections. They jumped into full-blown fear-mongering that the Republicans are "coming for the gays" after the release of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health OrganizationIn his concurrence, Thomas stated that the Court "should reconsider" its decisions in Griswold v. ConnecticutLawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges (which established a "right" to contraception, privacy in the bedroom, and same-sex marriage, respectively) on the same grounds as the Dobbs decision. Plainly put, the Consitution does not give the federal government any power to regulate any of these issues, and it is clearly stated in the Tenth Amendment that any authority not delegated to the federal government falls to the States and the people.

   Do LGBTQ activists have reason to worry about the fate of same-sex marriage? Well ... sort of, but not really. Let me start by expressing my personal view on the issue, which many conservatives do not like, but it is my thoughts, so you are welcome to disagree. I am opposed to the Obergefell decision for the same reason Justice Thomas cites in his concurrence on the Dobbs case. It is a State's rights issue. The federal government has no jurisdiction to interfere. I am, on the other hand, not opposed to same-sex marriage. My reasoning being that we are not actually discussing marriage. We are talking about government-recognized civil unions. Call that marriage if you wish, call it a civil union, or call it sunshine on a stick. It doesn't matter what you call it; it remains government recognized civil union. (As such, states have every right to define what constitutes these unions.) True marriage is a spiritual bond that no government entity has authority over.

   Back to the question of the fate of same-sex marriage, it is clear from the way the so-called Respect for Marriage Act is written that the bill's authors did recognize the State's rights issue to some extent. Remember, the bill does not force states to allow same-sex couples to marry. I would point out here that a SCOTUS that would overturn Obergefell would most likely overturn Respect for Marriage on the very same grounds; it is unconstitutional. (This is also true of the Defense of Marriage Act and for the same reasons.) However, the Democrat lawmakers know, that if made law, Respect for Marriage would add an extra-legal buffer between overturning Obergefell and returning the issue back to the states. (It is not likely that both would be overturned simultaneously.) Respect for Marriage buys the federal government time to cling to extra-constitutional power and allows the Democrats to claim that they were "fighting" for the LGBTQ community the whole time. (Time that they would hope would allow for a change in the make-up of the court back in favor of leftist activists.) 

   Political manipulation at its best. The Democrats know that it is unconstitutional to start. They get to play the hero for a constituent group. They get to cast their political adversaries as villains, and they know that most of those "elected" adversaries either lack the stones for the fight (because someone will call them names) or, like the continued assault on the constitutional limits that are meant to constrain the federal government. They also know that it would take years to mount a serious challenge to the law, and they use that time as part of the defense of the law. They will argue about who even has "standing" to challenge the law. But there is more going on with Respect for Marriage making it unconstitutional than just the State's rights issue. 

   Religious liberty, a Constitutionally protected right as defined in the First Amendment, is stripped from individuals in this bill. The bill offers some low-level protection to you when you are at church, synagogue, or mosque but none to individuals, organizations, or other religious entities outside of church. You are no longer allowed to live your faith. (If you are a baker and do not wish to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding, too bad, do it or Colorado can fine you and take your business license. If you run a Christian adoption agency and believe you should only place children in homes where the parents are a married man and woman, well, you're a bigot and New York should shut you down.) Senators Marco RubioJames Langford, and Mike Lee all offered amendments to the bill that would have addressed the religious liberty concerns, but all were voted down. You wouldn't be wrong to question why none of these amendments could be added to the bill if your true intent is to protect someone's "rights" since congress can not (constitutionally) prioritize one person's rights over another person's rights. 

   So what is the intent? I have already alluded to multiple reasons that the American political left would want to make the so-called Respect for Marriage Act law, but in the end, at least for a good number of the political players in this fiasco, it boils down to control. Our system was intentionally built to be adversarial and require debate, discussion, and agreement before advancing a bill to its next step of becoming law. This process is often criticized as being inefficient, but that too is part of the point. Without safeguards and stop gaps, it would be far too easy to use any "emergency" as an excuse to remove individual liberties from people. The elected could work their manipulatory magic on the populace to convince them to vote away their freedoms in the name of some sort of protection or safety. 

   Part of that manipulation requires the conditioning of the American people. Many Americans have already succumbed to conditioning. They have surrendered their freedom of expression to the woke mob to avoid being canceled. They have abandoned their bodily autonomy to travel freely or avoid losing their jobs. A once fiercely independent and liberty-loving people have, in large numbers, lost their value of faith and apparently their ability to think critically.

   For the proponents of the Respect for Marriage Act, when this bill becomes law, it is another opportunity to convince Americans that Congress has no limits on what it can regulate, even in your personal life. It conditions less-than-well-educated Americans into thinking that passing a law can trump the Constitution. It is one more chance to make people believe that Congress can strip people of their rights in the name of "equity." (Despite that word not meaning what they want it to mean.) Control through conditioning, manipulation, and no shortage of gaslighting.

   Do LGBTQ activists have reason to worry about the fate of same-sex marriage? If the system worked as it should and the issue got in front of the SCOTUS, both Obergefell and Respect for Marriage would be struck down. You might be tempted to say that gives the activists good reason to worry, but that ignores a lot of facts on the ground. Let's start with the fact that there are currently no court cases "in the pipeline" that would possibly bring Obergefell before the High Court. And while that could change, it is important to remember that even when the system is working as it should, there are many legitimate reasons that such a case may not get before the SCOTUS. Let's continue with the fact that the current slate of justices are not likely to overturn Obergefell as they said precisely that in the Dobbs majority opinion, it was only Justice Thomas who said the court should revisit those other cases. And let's follow that up with the fact that even if the SCOTUS did finally, at a point in the future, send the matter back to the states, there is minimal political will at the state level to undo the current status quo. Even the most Christian Conservative of states would have a difficult time changing the present policies. At best, some will want to change the terminology back to civil unions, but I have already explained why that is a distinction without a difference. So no, there is no reason for LGBTQ folks to be worried. I would remind them that being Pro-Constitution is not being anti-LGBTQ, being Pro-State's Rights is not being anti-same-sex marriage, and believing Chuck Schumer when he tells them that they need him and the Democrats to protect them is unwise at best.

   But there are groups of Americans who should be worried about the Respect for Marriage Act. Religious Americans who believe, as a matter of faith, that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. (This includes more than just the Christians likely to be the primary targets of punishment from this legislation.) People who believe that they should not be compelled by popular culture or government mandate to participate in activities that conflict with their deeply held personal beliefs should be outraged by the bill because their liberties are being infringed upon. In truth, all Americans should be enraged because no American should ever be told by our government to just sit down, shut up, and do what we tell you to do. 

community logo
Join the Tapp into the Truth Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
Articles
Why is There Antisemitism?

Clip from the Feb. 6th Tapp into the Truth Rumble Live Stream featuring Kenneth Abramowitz, author of The Multifront War: Defending America From Political Islam, China, Russia, Pandemics, and Racial Strife and founder of Save The West, a website dedicated to saving Western Civilization.

Watch the full video at:

00:01:00
placeholder
A Judge Decides to Ignore the Supreme Court on Deportation Ruling

What is the answer to judicial insurrectionists? It is time for Massachusetts U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, who is now openly defying a Supreme Court order, to find out. The Supreme Court ruled that Trump's deportations to third-world countries can continue, which reversed Judge Murphy's injunction, but Murphy seems to believe that he can ignore the SCOTUS and is openly attempting to side-step the High Court. This feels like a FAFO moment to me.

Judge Orders Release of Kilmar Garcia

U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes said that the government had not proven its contention that Kilmar Abrego Garcia was a flight risk and ordered his release. DHS will be detaining Garcia under immigration authority that the judge does not have the power to overrule, but my question is, what evidence does the judge need, given that the police body cam footage of Garcia transporting other illegal aliens was part of the case that she did see? Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a dangerous criminal illegal alien who has engaged in human trafficking and domestic abuse, plus who knows how many other crimes during his time in our country and before. The dumbest thing that could happen would be to release this guy from custody. Who knows what part of the country he would be in by the next day? Garcia is the poster child for flight risk. Thank God that this DHS under DJT won't let, this clear and present threat to whatever community he finds himself in, go free on American soil.

Satellite Images Reveal the Hellish Devastation Unleashed on Iran's Fordow Nuclear Plant

Images are now emerging showing the before and after at Iran’s underground Fordow nuclear facility. The “before” being of course previous to Saturday night, the “after” being after the United States unleashed numerous bunker-busting bombs.

https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2025/06/22/satellite-images-reveal-the-hellish-devastation-unleashed-on-irans-fordow-nuclear-plant-n2190769

March 18, 2025
post photo preview
Artificial Colors Banned by 2029

   Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. has issued a broad ban of “artificial colors by the end of his term in 2029 or face government intervention.”  While the new directive was focused toward the biggest companies in the food industry like PepsiCo North America, Kraft Heinz, General Mills, Tyson Foods, WK Kellogg, and JM Smucker (whom RFK, Jr. had meetings with the CEOs as well as representatives from the Consumer Brands Association), it is clear that all food manufactures and processors are expected to follow the edict.
   It is reported that RFK, Jr. told the executives that “removing artificial dyes is an urgent priority,” but he left what happens if the companies fail to comply intentionally vague. This ominous, open-ended threat was enough to make the markets react as stock for the food giants all dipped at a sharper rate than the S&P 500 in general (which was on a downward vector) pointing to investors’ concern about how the new directive will affect the bottom-line. (But to be fair, whenever the government gets involved to this extent, investors tend to get nervous, at least until they have a better idea of what the actual fallout will be.)
   How will the “removal of food dyes” policy affect the bottom line for food companies? Ultimately,, it is impossible to fully evaluate the question without knowing the ramificationsof non-compliance. After all, from a financial standpoint, it may be better to take the governmental penalty hit than a sales loss if the food is suddenly visually unappealing. People eat with their eyes, a,nd the U.S. market i,s not accustom,ed to seeing food that hasn’t been “dressed up” a bit to better meet an expected look. Add into the equation that there are surprisingly few “natural” food dyes that are as effective in coloring food items, and most are sourced in ways that are, shall we say, less than appetizing if you know the source. 
   This is a moment in time, however, where financial concerns may be overcome by both the true and the perceived health concerns that the dyes may present. The “Make America Healthy Again” movement has been picking up steam for years, well before it got its shiny new branding to fall inline with the Trump 2.0 administration. The American consumer has never been more conscious of what goes into their food and what the effects could be. This could put the food companies at more considerable risk of losses if the public believed that they were happy to risk your children’s health to pocket a little extra coin per unit sold. Especially given that companies like PepsiCo, Kraft Heinz, General Mills, WK Kellogg, and JM Smucker have different formulations, without many of the food dyes, that they have been selling in Europe for decades. 
   Further evidence of the moment we find ourselves in (regarding food colors and safety) is the fact that many states did not wait for the RFK, Jr. ultimatum to begin taking action. California has outlawed Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1, and Green 3 in school meals. West Virginia is moving forward with bipartisan legislation that would ban a wide range of dyes and additives from all food products sold in the state. Removing harmful additives from our food supply seems to be one of the few truly bipartisan issues in our current political chaos.
  As impactful as removing food dyes from our diets will be, RFK Jr. has his sights set on a much bigger target, the GRAS system. That is the FDA’s “Generally Recognized As Safe” program that gives food manufacturers great latitude in using ingredients based on claims that an ingredient has been safe in other applications as scientific grounds to claim without the FDA officially, independently approving the ingredient for use in the manner the food company is intending. But that is a different topic for another day; just keep it on your radar.
   The question now isn’t, “does the American consumer want healthier options,” that has been made clear, and the answer is a resounding YES. The question is how those same consumers will react when they get what they are asking for. Will steak and ground beef sales hold steady when all the beef looks grey instead of red? Will they be as drawn to that banana pudding that is a natural off-white color instead of the yellow we all think of when we think banana? Well, we certainly can get used to these things if we have enough time. The US consumer, however, is notoriously impatient and very vocal during this kind of transition. So expect grumbling from the public and a bumpy ride for the food companies (in fact, some of the smaller companies may not survive to change. 
   Will MAHA succeed? It all depends on your definition of success, but time will tell.    

Read full Article
January 16, 2025
Losing At Chutes & Ladders

   I recently wrote about how Iran has effectively captured Venezuela as a proxy state in an article / op-ed that you can find at BizPac Review or here at locals. Iran has been "gifted" a large amount of land in Venezuela; It has entered into a 20-year "partnership agreement," and it has built (and is operating) a military drone factory at a Venezuelan military base, plus providing training on how to use the multiple attack UAVs that are being built there. While this is a reason to be concerned, things escalated a bit over the weekend and have been significantly downplayed by the legacy media to the point that next to no one is even talking about it.

   This past Saturday (January 11th, 2025), during Venezuela's "International Anti-Fascist Festival" in Caracas, the socialist dictator and Iranian lapdog Nicolás Maduro threatened to invade Puerto Rico, saying,  "Just as in the north they have a colonization agenda, we have a liberation agenda." and then adding, "The freedom of Puerto Rico is pending, and we will achieve it with Brazilian troops." No matter how serious you may take this threat - sabar rattling by someone looking to position himself in the eyes of the rest of South America, impress his Iranian, Russian, and Chinese "friends," just a big mouth who had a little too much to drink before taking the stage - whatever you may think, it s a clear, open threat against an American territory. (Kudos by the way to Jenniffer González-Colón, the current governor of Puerto Rico, who had the sense to skip reaching out to the (technically-still-in-charge) Biden/Haris White House and directly wrote Trump asking the in-coming administration to "to respond to the dictator's threat."

   Meanwhile, in Western Europe, China is looking to increase its influence in Germany. Chinese officials are working on a deal that would see Chinese automakers move into German automotive factories slated for closure and are particularly interested in Volkswagen's sites. Germany has previously been greatly dependent on Russia for energy (and reports vary as to the reality of how much that has actually changed since the Ukraine conflict), but taking the word of the German government about it, Germany can ill afford to trade that out the Russian influence for Chinese influence on what is (at least for now) the largest economy in the European Union.

   The pieces continue to be moved around the board by the Axis. And while the CCP and Iran lay the groundwork for what both believe will eventually end with them individually dominating the world, the Biden/Harris administration (either by incompetence or by design) continues to make it easier for what's left of the Free World to fall. January 20th, 2025, can't get here fast enough. Say what you will about Donald Trump, but at least he is not losing a game of Chutes & Ladders when the adversaries of the United States are playing 3-D chess.

Read full Article
January 14, 2025
post photo preview
Iran's Military Presence in Venezuela is Expanding
A New Proxy State Thanks To Joe Biden

   The Islamic Republic of Iran has been a disruptive force in the Middle East since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Since the overthrow of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, a.k.a. the last Shah of Iran, Khomeini and his Mullahs set Iran on a course of destruction for both the modern Persian society that existed there at the time and their neighbors who did not subscribe to the Twelver Ja'afari Shia Islam imposed by Khomeini. This remains the path the theocratic Iranian regime follows today. Sunni Muslims, Christians, Jews, and anyone who exemplifies the concepts of Western Civilization remain a target of Iran or their proxies, either by open attack or terrorism.

   In recent years, Iran has decided to extend its influence beyond the Middle East, where it orchestrated attacks on Israel and Saudi Arabia and financed terror in Western Europe and piracy throughout the region. This expansion was born out of Russia's war with Ukraine. Russia found itself unable or unwilling to end the conflict quickly. Once the U.S. and most of Europe started sending "aid" and sanctioning Russia, Putin found himself in need of help from friends and frenemies alike. A new Axis (Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela) was formed as a result. An Axis that was, at least on the surface, allying with Russia against the U.S., NATO, and the Western World. Iran had been a long-standing ally of Russia, so it made sense that it would be part of this new Axis.

   A global financial partnership to end the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency, known as the BRIC nation bloc (named for its founding members: Brazil, Russia, India, and China) was formed in 2006, had its first summit in 2009, and South Africa joined the group in 2010 leading to an official name change to BRICS. However, this group of countries was largely unsuccessful and generally ignored by the world's financial powers as it was widely seen as a not-so-veiled effort by China to become the world's dominant economy. That changed in 2024 when China and Russia (two founding members) reached out to other nations that had issues with the various disastrous foreign policies enacted by the Biden/Haris administration, and a unified global financial force was born by expanding the group to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Iran (not to mention a long list of countries who have expressed interest in joining: Algeria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.) You will notice that some of these countries have been enemies for a very long time and, despite joining this group, remain adversarial, even hostile toward one another. Only the bungling of Joe Biden on the international stage brought some of these people together to work against the interests of the United States. So, "Let's Go Brandon!"

   It makes sense that Russia would want Iran to be a part of everything they are doing. As I pointed out before, they have been long-time allies due in large part to the amount of oil and lack of refining capacity in Iran. There are other reasons, but the sweetheart deal they worked out so long ago to refine oil for Iran made Russia an indispensable partner in the eyes of Mullahs and both sides rich. However, since the 1980s, there is another reason why Iran has become a valued ally of Russia. What most people don't know, despite the best efforts of people like myself who have been telling anyone who would listen for years now, is that Iran has been developing drone technology since the 1980s and is one of, if not the world leader in drone production (especially military drone production). Much of Russia's drone capabilities is a direct result of Iran.

   That takes us to the latest threat that Iran now poses. The other members of the Axis have developed an appreciation of the Iranian drone. So much so that Venezuela opened its borders to the Iranian proxy group Hezbollah, not only allowing them to operate within Venezuela but to actually "oversee" elections in some regions of the country since about 2017. Then, in 2022, Venezuela provided Iran with 1,000,000 hectares of "farmland for cultivation." Nicolás Maduro visited Tehran that year, where he signed a 20-year partnership agreement "on cooperation with Iran in various fields." It seems clear that what Iran has been "cultivating" is a new poxy state similar to Syria before the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime, only this time, it's within striking distance of the United States. The IDF even warned everyone in March of 2024 that Iran was arming Venezuela with weapons that were "very capable of hitting the U.S."

   Maria Villarroel, writing for the Latin Times, revealed in her January 11, 2025, article that Iran had built a drone development factory and was training Venezuelan military personnel at the El Libertador air base in Venezuela. One of the wide range of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) being produced there is the ZAMORA V-1, used for one-way attack missions. (And by the way, Iran has indicated that it intends to sell UAVs to other countries in the region, a practice that could - and most likely will - destabilize the geopolitical landscape in Latin America.)

   Iran developed its drone technology and is still developing its nuclear capabilities, making it extremely dangerous to Israel, all the Sunni Muslims, Christians, and anyone who does not share their belief in the Twelver Ja'afari Shia tradition within its reach. Iran has strengthened the so-called Red-Green Axis, as it serves its purpose of advancing their belief in the eventual worldwide caliphate. And Iran has harnessed Venezuela as a proxy under the ruthless and illegitimate rule of Nicolás Maduro. All of this happened under the watch of Joe Biden, who, instead of working to prevent it, actually helped Iran to pay for it all. That includes an additional 10 billion dollars in sanctions relief issued three days after the 2024 Presidential election. So, thanks Joe, and one more time on your way out the door, "Let's Go Brandon!"

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals