 Any Republican who would sign on to that should be exiled from the party. If you vote in favor of the idea that society has an obligation to recognize male-male or female-female dyads in the same way that society has an obligation to recognize male-female, you should not be in the Republican Party. You shouldn't. You just got a little bit of a taste of right-wing theocrats throwing hissy fits over news that the Senate has found enough GOP votes to overcome a filibuster and vote to protect same-sex marriages in the event the Supreme Court votes to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. Now we'll get to what they have to say in full later on, but first, let's get to some of the details here. As HuffPost reports, the Senate is expected to vote this week on legislation to codify same-sex marriage, and more importantly, the bill has enough GOP support to pass HuffPost has learned. Quote, we have the votes, a source close to negotiations confirmed Monday. And because the Senate plans to take the House bill and simply amend it versus Senators introducing an entirely new bill, the House only has to vote to accept the changes to their bill versus starting the process over again. So this is good news for sure. It is a little bit of frustrating to me that Tammy Baldwin, who's been basically the one in charge of trying to get votes for this bill and get it passed, she allowed Republicans to kind of hide their position and let them not vote on this before the election because they were too afraid to make their positions known. So now that the election is over, they're ready to state their true feelings. And that's a little bit embarrassing, but nonetheless, it is still a positive development. But let's be clear about what this bill is. It doesn't in actuality codify Oberg-Felvey Hodges contrary to popular belief, but it is still good. Now, CNN's Manu Raju actually tweeted out the specifics here and he goes over a lot. But what I want to direct your attention to is the key things here that it does. First, it legally repeals DOMA by requiring the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages in states where they're performed. So remember that DOMA actually prevented the federal government from recognizing state same-sex marriages until, that is, it was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013. Now, the second thing that it does is it guarantees full faith and credit to all marriages, same sex, interracial, et cetera. But, and this is key, in the event the Supreme Court struck down Oberg-Felvey Hodges, this bill wouldn't actually require states to issue marriage licenses. Rather, those states would just be obligated to recognize marriages from other states. Now, it's a little bit confusing, so let me just try to clarify here. So imagine the Supreme Court voted to strike down Oberg-Felvey Hodges, meaning that states, once again, can ban same-sex marriages. So this bill doesn't prevent them from doing that. They can ban same-sex marriages in that instance. However, those states, even if they ban same-sex marriages, have to recognize those same-sex marriages from other states. So if you live in Mississippi and they strike down marriage equality, you can simply go to a different state, get married, come back, and have your state recognize your marriage. So it's still deeply bigoted and unconstitutional because this is an additional hurdle that you're not subjecting straight people to. Having said that, though, in the event Oberg-Felvey Hodges were to be struck down, there is still this protection for same-sex couples. They would still be able to be married. They just have to go to a different state. And it's sad that it's come to that. And this is basically them watering down this bill to get Republicans on board. But it's better than a pre-Oberg-Fel America, right? So in the event Republicans wanted to take us all the way back to a pre-Oberg-Fel America, they'd have to strike down this law first and then strike down Oberg-Fel. But in the event that that did happen, well, at least there's some protection. It's still just really gross that same-sex couples would have to jump through hoops to get married. It is what it is. But again, it's a positive step in the right direction. Now, who are the Republicans who are supporting this? Well, we don't actually know yet. We know Susan Collins, Ralph Portman, and Tom Tillis are going to vote for this, but we don't know the other Republicans. And Mitch McConnell is stating that he will vote. And that's when you're going to know. So in other words, they're kind of holding their cards close to their chest here. But I do want to get to the responses from Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro, because they are very angry that there's enough Republican votes to codify marriage equality, or at least protect same-sex marriages in the event Oberg-Fel is overturned. And they're kind of making some threats to Republicans. And they're saying, if you support this, you should not be in the party. If you don't keep my antiquated, bullshit, bigoted views, then you can't be in my party. So let's listen to Ben Shapiro first. So with the Democrats taking the Senate, they're now going to move ahead with a vote on a gay marriage bill. Now, what is the purpose of a gay marriage bill? There is no purpose to a gay marriage bill. Oberg-Fel has already been ruled upon. And a simple gay marriage bill is not even a constitutional amendment. So it's not even bobbin' beyond the Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court ruling is still the law. If the Supreme Court ruling were overturned, a quick majority in the Senate could quickly overturn this law. But the idea here is that you're going to get all the Republicans on record as to whether they support or do not support same-sex marriage. Now, let me just put this out there for the Republican senators. If you vote in favor of the idea that society has an obligation to recognize male-male or female-female dyads in the same way that society has an obligation to recognize male-female, you should not be in the Republican party. You shouldn't. Hey, the reason I say this is not because I wish to shrink the size of the Republican party. Because if the fundamental basis of human society is male-female child, and you think that by passing a law you can change that reality, you do not belong in government. This is a very simple proposition. Men and men are not the same as a man and a woman who are capable of becoming one flesh and producing a child. This is not difficult stuff. Many Republicans will be tempted to vote for this simply to avoid the conflict. So that people don't yell at them, oh my gosh, you're not respecting love is love. Now, first of all, the love is love argument was always bull crap. Look, I've just got to say this. Ben, you look like a bozo, bro, and you get no pussy, and you can't even make your wife wet, bro. So what's good? So anyways, now that that's out of the way, had to get it out of my system. Ben Shapiro says that the love is love argument is crap. And essentially, you know, marriage is about having children. Except if that were true, then we wouldn't allow couples who were infertile the privilege of getting married. So these arguments are so old. These are pre 2010 arguments. And they're just not persuasive anymore. Society has moved on. We've had marriage equality in this country now for the last seven years. And people realize that it's not actually a threat to heterosexual marriages. So there's no reason a logical and reasonable person should be against this unless they're a bigot and they think that gay people are inferior and shouldn't have the same rights. As heterosexual couples. And that's what Ben Shapiro is essentially saying here. And he says that there's no purpose of a gay marriage bill. Obergefell's already been ruled on. He's being purposefully obtuse because he's pretending as if there's no threat to marriage equality, even though Clarence Thomas in the Dobs decision said that we should revisit these cases. And he's specifically named Obergefell Vihages. So Republicans are doing this. Ted Cruz did the same thing where they're pretending as if voting to, you know, protect same sex marriages is unnecessary because it's unfathomable to think that the Supreme Court would overturn Obergefell Vihages. That's kind of their way of dodging. So they're not pissing off their evangelical base. So if they say they support it, then evangelicals aren't going to be happy with them. But if they just dodge and say, well, I don't have to support this because it's not going to happen, then they kind of get to ride the fence. But we see you. We know that you're bullshitting. We know that you're just too afraid to state your position. We know that you know that this is a non-issue and anyone who thinks that gay people should not have the same rights, they're just clowns at this point. He also said, if you vote for this, you should not be in the Republican party. That's a really good way of saying I would rather lose than move on and grow with society. I mean, imagine if the Republican Party never adapted and never got on board with interracial marriages. I mean, there's certainly enough GOP voters that think that it shouldn't be a thing. But imagine if the GOP never adapted to that. This is somebody who thinks that the Republican Party should continue to lose in perpetuity just so that way they can continue to own same-sex couples and not allow them equal rights. Well, I think that the GOP senators who are voting for this are savvy because, I mean, regardless of how they feel personally about same-sex marriages, and again, I don't think you're a reasonable person if you're against it. But regardless of how they feel, they understand that to be a bigot is turning off independence. And extremism in this last election blew up in your faces. So are you going to continue to hold strong and try to dig your feet in, or are you going to grow with the times? Do what society wants you to do? Well, Ben Shapiro doesn't want them to do that, but too bad. Now, Matt Walsh kind of said the same thing as Ben Shapiro, but regardless, let's listen. Obviously, if you do this, it is to begin with, it's not just this, but it's also to begin with a threat to an attack on religious liberty. That's where it ultimately leads. Because if you're codifying on a federal level that two men have a right to get married, that's a human right, a civil right, then that would mean by extension that a church that refuses to marry a gay couple is depriving them of their basic human civil rights. They may not be putting that language in the bill exactly because they want it to pass, but that's what it means. And that's how it will be used, no matter what the bill says. And I'll tell you this, any Republican who would sign on to a bill like this, I don't care if they have this weak, they've created this Trojan horse now where they're pretending that they're protecting religious liberty, doesn't matter. Any Republican who would sign on to that should be exiled from the party. It won't happen because this is the direction the whole party is going, but that's what should happen. These are Republicans who are signing on to something that only 10 years ago would have would have been too radically far left for even the farthest left people in the Democrat Party. It must be so frustrating to see society leave you and your antiquated way of thinking behind Copenseeth, Matt Walsh. So he says that this is an attack on religious liberty, simply giving gay couples the right to equal marriage protection under the law is an attack on religious liberty somehow. We've had gay marriages and religion didn't implode in this country. It's going down, but that trend was consistent before marriage equality became a thing. So, I mean, you have no reason to be against it unless you're a hateful bigot. And we know that Matt Walsh is one of the biggest hate mongers in the country. But he wants to make it seem as if in the event this law is passed, then religious liberty will go the way of the dodo, because if a church doesn't want to marry same sex couples, then they're going to, I guess, be banned from existing. First of all, the law explicitly says that churches can be bigots. They don't have to marry same sex couples. And that's where I disagree with this law. I actually think that if you are a church and you offer marriages, then you should be required by law to offer marriages to same sex couples and interracial couples as well. In the year 2022, I don't think that churches should be allowed to keep their tax exam status. If they say, sorry, we're only going to marry white couples, no interracial couples allowed. Like, can you imagine letting that fly in 2022? But yet this is effectively what they're arguing for. They want states or they want churches to be able to keep their tax exam status and states and be able to explicitly discriminate. And the law is giving them that privilege to do something like that. But yet they're still not happy. They're still claiming it's going to destroy religious liberty. Well, it hasn't been destroyed yet, and you're still talking your shit. So it seems like marriage equality isn't really a threat to you. Has your marriage been affected, Matt Walsh, aside from your wife probably being very dissatisfied with you? I mean, it hasn't, right? So shut up and stop fear mongering. He also says here that any Republican who signs onto this should be exiled from the party, but it won't happen because this is the direction the whole party is going. And ask yourself, Matt Walsh, why do you think that is? It's because you lost and society has moved on. Let's look at the poll again from Gallup. 71% of Americans support marriage equality. You've lost. The overwhelming majority of Americans think that same sex couple should have the same rights as heterosexual couples. And good, this shows that most Americans are actually reasonable and that gives me a little bit of hope. Now, what you can still try to do is create a little bit of residual bigotry based on homophobia. You can claim that perhaps gay teachers are a threat to students because they want to groom them and trans people are a threat to students because they're going to turn everyone trans. But for the most part, when it comes to the issue of marriage equality, that's solved and you've lost, son. So it's time to move on. But I love how he acknowledges that the Republican party, because they want to win probably, has to abandon this issue. Because even people like Joe Rogan, who's a bigot when it comes to trans issues, is right on the issue of marriage equality. So even bigots who aren't allies to the LGBTQ plus community acknowledged that this issue is an issue that they don't agree with the GOP on. But people like Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh want to keep the GOP in this homophobic era where they just explicitly deny them equal protection under the law when it comes to marriage rights. And that's just not going to fly anymore. So that's why you're losing. And that's why the Republican party is slowly but surely too slowly, in my opinion, moving away from this bigoted position. So you can continue to cry, but it's not going to change the fact that society is leaving you behind and you can either adapt or not.