 Republican at Calardis is one reason why the left keeps winning at the social battles, despite the fact that the population is not all in on everything that the social left wishes. Now, the polls show that there is widespread public support for same-sex marriage. What there is not widespread support for is the idea that you as a religious person ought to be forced in your life to accept same-sex marriage in the way that you do business, in the way that you send your kids to school, and the idea that society has a duty to force individuals to acknowledge things they don't believe to be moral. That is not something the vast majority of Americans are willing to go along with, and that is the biggest problem with the so-called Respect for Marriage Act. It essentially says that only bigots and fools based on their silly religion would object to the idea that a man, woman, and child is the basic fundamental building block of society. And then further, it says, well, here are a few religious exemptions that we'll put out there. We'll sort of suggest that in your own church, we're not going to take away your tax-exempt status. But it doesn't actually enshrine those protections strongly at all for religious people outside of their church. So let's say that you're a religious person, and let's say that you're on a cake shop in Colorado, and let's say you get sued every two seconds. There are no protections in this bill. What did Republicans win in this bill precisely? What did Republicans get in this bill precisely? The answer is they got pretty much nothing, and went along with it anyway because there are a lot of weak-need Republicans who are unwilling to have a headline that says that they oppose same-sex marriage. Well, if that's the case, if you don't have an affirmative case for why you are either in favor of same-sex marriage or why you believe that the protections of religious people here are sufficient, then I'm not sure why you're voting for the thing or why you should be in the Senate, as I've said before. You just watched Ben Shapiro see the over-the-Senate's passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, which passed 61 to 36 with 12 Republicans supporting it, including Roy Blunt, Richard Burr, Shelley Moore Capito, Susan Collins, Joni Ernst, Cynthia Loomis, Lisa Murkowski, Rob Portman, Mitt Romney, Dan Sullivan, Tom Tillis, and Todd Young. And he claims that these Republicans are cowards because deep down they probably know that marriage equality is bad, but they're just too afraid to do what's right and see the negative headlines about them. No, they probably just don't care, because most people have moved on from your antiquated way of thinking, Ben Shapiro, and not only is he ignorant in that video, but what he says a lot, I believe, is actually projection, because he claims that this bill forces people to acknowledge that things that they don't believe to be moral is good. Except, no it doesn't, he also says, essentially the bill says that only bigots and fools based on their silly religion would object to the idea that a man, woman, and child is the basic fundamental building block of society. No, the bill doesn't say that actually, you can still believe those things, the difference is you don't get to impose your will, you don't get to enforce all of us to live in the way that you deem moral, in the way that you feel is fit. See, this is about freedom fundamentally, Ben Shapiro is anti-freedom and I am pro-freedom in this instance, as much as I actually do personally not like religion and I do think that religion is silly, I would not support legislation banning religion and stopping people like Ben Shapiro from practicing his religion, but conversely he would stop me from living my life in the way that I want to live it. I've been married to my husband now for five years, we've been together for more than ten years, it's not just about symbolism, having marriage is something that grants you a lot of tangible material benefits, for example when I got married to my husband I was able to finally get healthcare after years because he had healthcare through his employer. So this is something that is important because in order to live in a pluralistic society we have to allow people the freedom to live the way that they want to live, but Ben Shapiro is saying, No, I don't like it so I don't think that you should be able to live that way because I think that it's bad, but yet I wouldn't say the same thing about him, I would fight anyone who tried to ban religion as much as I personally don't like religion, we are not the same. And he clearly hasn't read the bill because even the Mormon Church endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act because it literally permits discrimination for religious people, it essentially gives special rights to religious institutions. So if a church says we don't want to marry an interracial or a gay couple, they are allowed to do that specifically because of this bill, that's why the Mormon Church supported it. Religions have special rights here and Ben Shapiro is effectively claiming that by passing this law you're giving queer people special rights when the opposite is true. He didn't say that there directly, but this is an argument that religious people make. So if theoretically a queer couple or an interracial couple walked into a Walmart, Walmart could not turn them away, however a church does have the legal autonomy to do that because of this law. And I do think that that's wrong, but I'm admitting this is what the law entails. Now Ben Shapiro admits that well, yeah, I guess you outside of your religious institution don't have freedom, which implies that within that religious institution you do have the freedom to discriminate. But what he's saying is effectively a baker who doesn't want to bake cakes for queer couples, they should also have the ability to discriminate outside of the church. So in other words, if you work with the public, you get to be discriminatory if you're religious, you have a blank check to discriminate based on your religion. But again, that is an anti-freedom argument. Imagine if a queer baker didn't want to bake a cake for a Christian couple or turned away Christians or Muslims or Jewish people, that would be disgusting. So once again, Ben Shapiro is saying, I want to be able to discriminate because of my religion, but people on the opposite side of the aisle, people like myself are saying, we don't want to discriminate. As a society, we should not be tolerating intolerance because fundamentally that doesn't lead to more freedom, it leads to less freedom. But that's not enough for Ben Shapiro. If he's not able to impose his theocratic views on all of us, then to him, that isn't freedom. Freedom is only one way for Ben Shapiro. It's asymmetric. See, if he can tell you what to do, that's freedom. But if we all get to live our lives in the way that we want to, then that's not freedom according to individuals like Ben Shapiro. So he is absolutely ridiculous and even if he doesn't want to admit this, he is a bigot. That is a bigoted position by definition. So he can cope and see, but thankfully society is moving on and even if individuals like him are very loud, they are the minority. Now let's talk about the respect for marriage act and what it actually does. First and foremost, it repeals the defense of marriage act. So it is forcing the federal government to recognize all same sex and interracial marriages, even if Loving v. Virginia or Obergefell v. Hodges is shot down. But it doesn't force states to issue marriage licenses in that instance to same sex couples or interracial couples. So in the event, let's say, hypothetically speaking, the Supreme Court overturned Obergefell v. Hodges. Well, Alabama could ban same sex marriages at that point and not offer marriage licenses to same sex couples. However, because of this law, a couple who lives in Alabama can go to Kansas and get married and then come back to Alabama. And they would have to recognize that marriage because of this law. So that's why I tell you it literally permits discrimination because in the event Obergefell v. Hodges or Loving v. Virginia were overturned by the Supreme Court, states can deny marriage licenses on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and race. But they still have to recognize the marriages from other states. So it's a bit of a loophole in a way. And I don't think that states should be allowed to discriminate. But this was the compromise that got even the Mormon Church on board. So I think that it's a compromise that is worthwhile, even if I disagree with it. Now, we've had marriage equality in this country for quite some time. So this doesn't feel that significant on its face. And there are other issues that more immediately impact the lives of the LGBTQ plus community. But I do want people to understand that this does signal that we've come a really long way and I don't want you to take that for granted. And this was highlighted in an article published in the Washington Post. 26 years ago, the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly for the Defense of Marriage Act, a law broadly supported by the American public that defined marriages as the union between a man and a woman. Republicans had found a wedge issue they would use for more than a decade to divide Democrats between their liberal base and swing voters. Eight years later, then President George W. Bush embraced protection of marriage as a central focus of his successful 2004 reelection effort. The voice of the people must be heard, he said upon proposing a constitutional amendment to keep marriage between opposite sex couples. But the people's voice, as it turned out, was always moving. A bipartisan group of 61 senators spoke loudly on Tuesday signaling a near total upending of one's dominant political dynamics when they voted to effectively nullify the 1996 law. The Respect for Marriage Act, once repassed by the House and signed by President Biden, will help protect recognition of same-sex marriages and forced by the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 Obergefell V. Hodges ruling against future legal challenges. So obviously we have a long way to go, but we've come a really long way and the gratitude that I feel for older LGBTQ plus generations who fought for my rights today is just infinite. What they did was pave the way for all of us. And I want to live in a world where future LGBTQ plus people don't even have to think about discrimination, don't even have to worry about coming out to their parents, don't even have to come out at all to anyone. Because we don't think about being queer, it's just accepted as a part of society because these are human beings who deserve a life with dignity and freedom like everyone else. But, of course, bigots know that they lost on the issue of marriage equality, so they're trying to find new ways to divide Americans and attack LGBTQ plus people. This year we've seen how the groomer narrative has proliferated and led to harassment in queer spaces and whatnot, and trans people are especially under attack as the right has targeted them disproportionately. But understand that we've overcome a lot as a community. Before people thought that gays either didn't exist or they were possessed by the devil, there was a point where they were viewed as diseased during the AIDS crisis. There was the gays are pedophiles trope, and we overcame all of that. Some of these old tropes may bubble back up to the surface and new myths will be propagated about this community. But we are resilient and overall I do believe that we are going to win at the end of the day, but I don't necessarily believe that progress is linear. Sometimes you take a couple of steps forward, but a lot more steps back. But ultimately I do believe that we are headed in the right direction. But right now it's a really tumultuous and volatile time for queer people, especially trans individuals. So we have to just keep pushing ahead, and this should show us that what was once impossible is actually possible. And even if right now it feels as if the LGBTQ plus community is public enemy number one, who knows where we'll be 10 years from now. It may be worse for us, but it could be better if that's something to hold onto. And it's an indication that we shouldn't give up and we should keep on chugging ahead because we are right and the bigots are wrong. And they are losing and as they lose they're going to get louder and try to spew more hatred. But that's just more evidence that they're losing and we're winning. So hang on to that because it's worth something.