Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Bill To Codify Same Sex Marriage

Manu Raju

[quote] Schumer takes procedural steps to bring up bill that would legalize same-sex marriage. Tammy Baldwin told me they have enough votes to break a filibuster. First procedural vote expected Wednesday

Sen. Tammy Baldwin

[quote] The Respect for Marriage Act will protect marriage equality and ensure individuals in same-sex and interracial marriages are guaranteed the same rights & freedoms as every other marriage.

[quote] We are going to get this done for loving families across America.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 168August 10, 2023 8:24 PM

That would be SO sweet.

by Anonymousreply 1November 14, 2022 9:22 PM

...And codify abortion while you're at it....thanks.

by Anonymousreply 2November 14, 2022 9:23 PM

....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 3November 14, 2022 9:52 PM

How crazy it is that, in the 21st century, it’s a question whether gays should have equality

by Anonymousreply 4November 14, 2022 9:57 PM

Hope they move to codify every right that fuckface Clarence Thomas threatened in his Roe opinion.

by Anonymousreply 5November 14, 2022 9:59 PM

@ R4

Hi, Debs!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 6November 14, 2022 10:00 PM

Jake Sherman (Twitter)

[quote] In gop leadership forum, @chiproytx asked Emmer about his vote to codify same sex marriage into law. Emmer didn’t directly address his position.

This Chip Roy (Wikipedia):

[quote] Roy has said his religious faith informs his political positions, including his opposition to the Equality Act, which he has characterized as trying to prevent his family from being able to "carry out our beliefs without penalty".[180] He has pointed to his generational connection to the Baptist faith, which includes his great-grandfather working as the janitor for the First Baptist Church.

WAPO:

[quote] Some Republican “yes” votes can be explained based on the large LGBTQ communities within their district. For example, all three Republicans in the Miami-area supported the measure, including Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar who represents a Democratic-leaning district.

[...]

[quote] GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) and National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), both of whom represent safe Republican districts, also broke ranks with Republican leadership, voting in favor of the legislation.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 7November 14, 2022 10:14 PM

Does anybody have thoughts about this?

I'm confused.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 8November 14, 2022 10:50 PM

How can she say the SCOTUS is likely to overturn Obergefell? Is the a time-traveler?

by Anonymousreply 9November 14, 2022 10:55 PM

Is SHE, I mean

by Anonymousreply 10November 14, 2022 10:55 PM

R9, she can read. That’s all it takes.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 11November 14, 2022 10:58 PM

Just cuz Thomas sez it. You think everyone else is going to fall in line?

Like they have with Dump?

by Anonymousreply 12November 14, 2022 11:02 PM

Love Tammy!

by Anonymousreply 13November 14, 2022 11:03 PM

R12, Thomas is the senior Justice of the conservative majority. If he’s threatening something in a concurring opinion in a major decision, it’s worth taking seriously. Of course, we could just wait until something awful happens. That makes sense, doesn’t it?

by Anonymousreply 14November 14, 2022 11:09 PM

[Quote] How can she say the SCOTUS is likely to overturn Obergefell? Is the a time-traveler?

The reason Congress is working to repeal the Defense Against Marriage Act (DOMA—which says states do not have to recognize gay marriages from other states)—which is all the current legislation does, is because SCOTUS overturned Roe v Wade and many conservatives are saying they will go after gay marriage next, even two SCOTUS judges.

By repealing DOMA, any state law that bans gay marriage (which is still in the CA constitution because of Prop 8) becomes toothless

by Anonymousreply 15November 14, 2022 11:30 PM

[Quote] How can she say the SCOTUS is likely to overturn Obergefell? Is the a time-traveler?

Evangelicals have already fallen in line.

by Anonymousreply 16November 14, 2022 11:31 PM

r8, that's exactly what jumped out at me from the NYT article. It's likely all they can get through with the 60-vote threshold in the Senate (damn Manchin and Sinema), but still very disappointing and not nearly good enough.

[quote]The bill would not require any state to allow same-sex couples to marry. But it would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal benefits to same-sex couples.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 17November 15, 2022 12:43 AM

As crazy as women's abortion rights being determined by individual states, R5, in a nation with states still attempting secession (or virtual secession) whiere people talk about the "positive" aspects of human slavery.

The nation needs to see Alito, Thomas and the Beer Stooge tossed out, and an increase in the number of justices.

Period.

And I want to live to see about 40 obituaries to help me feel assured that the worst of the Fascist Rebellion of 2000-202X is over.

by Anonymousreply 18November 15, 2022 12:55 AM

And Biden is saying we cannot codify abortion. Gee, Why am I not surprised? The democrats use abortion as a carrot. I'm Done with the democrats. From now on It will be independent 3rd party candidates.

by Anonymousreply 19November 15, 2022 1:00 AM

^^^ I forgot the link

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 20November 15, 2022 1:01 AM

Apologies for the thread title. I'll be more careful in the future.

This long thread seems to be the consensus on this issue from what I've read, plus some sobering insight on the 2024 electoral map.

[quote] The bill on same-sex marriage would not codify same-sex marriage, and it's unsurprising that reporters are just kinda tweeting out that word--"codifying"--and clumsily misleading people.

[quote] That said, this bill needs to be passed. It's the best we're going to do right now.

[...]

[quote] I think we should be doing everything in our power to prepare for this extremist Supreme Court overturning Obergefell. But we need 60 votes and there are just enough votes with Republican Senators to get some important protections in place.

[...]

[quote] I don't think that folks realize that we are already at steep odds against holding the Senate in 2024. The odds are definitely against us.

[quote] It's partly why getting Rev. Warnock reelected next month is so important. He could be the seat that makes the difference for the long haul.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 21November 15, 2022 12:56 PM

^^^OP

by Anonymousreply 22November 15, 2022 12:57 PM

R18, you seem pretty dim. You blame Democrats for not having enough votes to codify Roe, and you also refuse to vote for Democrats. Guess what? You are the problem.

by Anonymousreply 23November 15, 2022 1:03 PM

R19 is dim. R18, I’m waiting for those obits too.

by Anonymousreply 24November 15, 2022 1:04 PM

Of course the trolls show up right on schedule to tell us the Democrats are the real problem.

by Anonymousreply 25November 15, 2022 1:07 PM

[quote] And Biden is saying we cannot codify abortion. Gee, Why am I not surprised? The democrats use abortion as a carrot. I'm Done with the democrats. From now on It will be independent 3rd party candidates.

Read the article, you nitwit. Biden says DEMS DON'T HAVE THE VOTES TO CODIFY ABORTION.

by Anonymousreply 26November 15, 2022 1:07 PM

[quote]Thomas is the senior Justice of the conservative majority.

Probably the most terrifying sentence I have ever read.

by Anonymousreply 27November 15, 2022 1:09 PM

Get whatever you can get done, done. Just do it.

by Anonymousreply 28November 15, 2022 1:14 PM

This bill sucks. It does NOT codify same sex marriage. It throws it to the states. It's the worst of all worlds, really.

This bill needs to fail, and fail HARD.

by Anonymousreply 29November 15, 2022 1:16 PM

Marriage has always been a state issue so the bill is doing what it can from the federal point of view. By repealing DOMA, states will have to recognize gay marriages from other states--making any state ban obsolete.

by Anonymousreply 30November 15, 2022 1:20 PM

^ OK if you really believe that, then you thought DOMA was not a problem, right?

This bill is basically the reverse-DOMA. And yes it does a lot, including mandating that States recognize same sex marriages from other States. That's a biggie if Obergefell is overturned.

by Anonymousreply 31November 15, 2022 1:20 PM

I meant R31 in reply to R29.

by Anonymousreply 32November 15, 2022 1:20 PM

What R30 says is correct: traditionally, states define marriage—they decide whether you can marry your 14 year old second cousin. And each state has always recognized a marriage that is valid under the law of another state. If you are legally married in North Carolina, for example, you are legally married everywhere in the U.S. DOMA took that protection away from same sex marriages; that was what ruled to be unconstitutional in Obergefell. The new law, therefore, codifies Obergefell.

by Anonymousreply 33November 15, 2022 1:55 PM

If it codified Obergefell, it would make it clear that same sex marriage must be valid and recognized in all states, period.

by Anonymousreply 34November 15, 2022 2:22 PM

^ Same SCOTUS would toss that law.

If Obergefell is overturned, that means outlawing same sex marriage is no longer unconstitutional. The most the feds can do in the current legal framework is a reverse-DOMA.

by Anonymousreply 35November 15, 2022 2:39 PM

[quote] If it codified Obergefell, it would make it clear that same sex marriage must be valid and recognized in all states, period.

The federal government has no role in marriage except for interstate recognition. SCOTUS would never tolerate a federal law that says same sex marriage would be valid in all states.

Repealing DOMA does exactly that without writing it in a law.

by Anonymousreply 36November 15, 2022 4:43 PM

[quote]Repealing DOMA does exactly that without writing it in a law.

No it doesn't. Marriages don't automatically get full faith and credit.

And while the current 6 majority on SCOTUS can't be trusted to do anything sensible, if they were to overturn a federal law requiring FF&C to same-sex marriage, they would also potentially gut the federal laws that require FF&C for child custody and support laws. Not sure they want that kind of mayhem on their hands.

by Anonymousreply 37November 15, 2022 6:20 PM

R37, actually the right is trying to go after laws that state that all marriages must be treated the same way

by Anonymousreply 38November 15, 2022 8:47 PM

"From now on It will be independent 3rd party candidates"

IAre you going to move to Canada?

by Anonymousreply 39November 15, 2022 8:57 PM

"The federal government has no role in marriage"

What about Slavery? Should some states be allowed to have slaves?

by Anonymousreply 40November 15, 2022 9:02 PM

R40, huh?

The Fed government had to pass an amendment to the constitution to end slavery

by Anonymousreply 41November 15, 2022 9:04 PM

Mormons on board

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 42November 15, 2022 9:54 PM

Pretty incredible!!

But the Morms will now back every lawsuit that claims gays are infringing on their religious rights

by Anonymousreply 43November 16, 2022 1:44 AM

The Mormons are a trip, that's for sure.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 44November 16, 2022 4:14 AM

Reading this article did make me feel better about the bill and made it understandable what it does and why.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 45November 16, 2022 4:41 AM

Probably the biggest part of the above:

[quote]So the RFMA does not force Texas to issue a marriage certificate to a same-sex couple. But it does force Texas to recognize a marriage certificate issued to a same-sex couple by New Mexico. In a post-Obergefell world, a same-sex couple in Texas could drive to New Mexico, obtain a certificate, and force Texas to respect their marriage like any other.

[quote]Why did Congress draw a distinction between licensing and recognizing marriages? Because it wanted to remain on firm constitutional ground, and that’s is as far as the Supreme Court could plausibly let it go. Time and again, the court has ruled that the federal government cannot “commandeer” states to enforce federal laws or pass specific statutes. If Congress compelled states to license same-sex marriages, the judiciary would invalidate the law as a violation of this anti-commandeering doctrine.

[quote]The federal government’s authority to make states recognize same-sex marriages, by contrast, is extremely well-established, and very likely to be upheld. That’s because the Constitution’s full faith and credit clause gives Congress the power to make states grant “full faith and credit” to the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings” of other states. As I explained in July, Congress has repeatedly used this authority to command nationwide uniformity in family law. For instance, it has ordered every state to grant full faith and credit to custody determinations and child support orders issued by another state. There is no constitutional reason why Congress could not also order each state to grant full faith and credit to a valid marriage license held by a same-sex couple. Even a Supreme Court willing to overturn Windsor and Obergefell would probably affirm this power.

by Anonymousreply 46November 16, 2022 4:46 AM

And Blunt clears the threshold

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 47November 16, 2022 6:42 PM

here, bitches

and to all the Bori and Debbie Downers who were SURE the SCOTUS was immediately going to IMPRISON us :

told ya

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 48November 16, 2022 9:11 PM

[quote]How crazy it is that, in the 21st century, it’s a question whether gays should have equality

Not crazy at all if you were/are one of those complete idiots who looked at both parties, looked at the actual platforms, looked at the actual *legislation* and still stupidly claimed "both sides" are the same.

by Anonymousreply 49November 16, 2022 9:15 PM

Way to move the goalposts down into the toilet, R48. A Christofascist SCOTUS doesn't get a pass because Congress can pass a bill with not nearly as many protections as SCOTUS is about to strip away.

When Obergefell is overturned, States will not longer have to provide same-sex marriage licenses. So in a number of States, gay couples will have to LEAVE THEIR STATE to get married. Nice for you that erosion of basic civil rights is A-OK as long as it's something shy of imprisonment, but many of us do not agree.

by Anonymousreply 50November 16, 2022 9:16 PM

[quote]and to all the Bori and Debbie Downers who were SURE the SCOTUS was immediately going to IMPRISON us

You are truly a very stupid person. There's no depth at all to how you think, is there?

by Anonymousreply 51November 16, 2022 9:19 PM

^^^^

black hole of negativity

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 52November 16, 2022 9:20 PM

If you live in Florida, and you want to get married, you're going to have to drive several hours up to Maryland.

by Anonymousreply 53November 16, 2022 9:24 PM

Sure, Sveta.

by Anonymousreply 54November 16, 2022 9:28 PM

The Mormons givith, this moron taketh away:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 55November 16, 2022 10:11 PM

Nubby Schumer

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 56November 17, 2022 1:01 AM

^^^Bubby

by Anonymousreply 57November 17, 2022 1:02 AM

Why doesn't this make me feel any safer? It's like putting The AIDS Quilt on the list of historic places.

by Anonymousreply 58November 17, 2022 1:06 AM

Let's be really, really clear here: This bill does NOT "codify" same sex marriage.

by Anonymousreply 59November 17, 2022 4:52 AM

[quote] r36 The federal government has no role in marriage except for interstate recognition.

Well, joint tax returns, government pensions…

by Anonymousreply 60November 17, 2022 5:20 AM

R60, those things are the result of a status that is created under state law.

by Anonymousreply 61November 17, 2022 6:48 AM

Texas or Florida will sue and SCOTUS will say this law is unconstitutional and will overturn SSM and return to the states. Period.

The only way to stop that regardless of who’s president or how many Democrats are in congress is expand the Supreme Court.

by Anonymousreply 62November 17, 2022 6:48 AM

[quote]R61 those things are the result of a status that is created under state law.

But you can’t say the federal government isn’t involved in marriage when it specifically is (as cited.)

by Anonymousreply 63November 17, 2022 7:05 AM

Bill who?

by Anonymousreply 64November 17, 2022 7:15 AM

A couple of shocking names here

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 65November 17, 2022 12:03 PM

Mitt Romney? Maybe one of his 200 grandkids is gay.

by Anonymousreply 66November 17, 2022 12:08 PM
Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 67November 17, 2022 12:15 PM

Yay for North Carolina Republicans!

by Anonymousreply 68November 17, 2022 12:20 PM

You mean the guy who is retiring, R68?

by Anonymousreply 69November 17, 2022 12:24 PM

This is genuinely the most excited I’ve been for anything to come out of Congress in a long, long time. It’s well overdue and I am actually shocked they are DOING IT after 25 years of a flatly unconstitutional “Defense of Marriage Act.”

To any naysayers on here: fuck off. This is huge and a reason to celebrate. Gonna pop some champagne when this crosses Biden’s desk. Also going to write letters of thanks to the GOP Senators who voted yes to this.

by Anonymousreply 70November 17, 2022 12:47 PM

Senator Burr has been relatively moderate throughout his Senate career, for a Republican. So has Tillis

by Anonymousreply 71November 17, 2022 12:58 PM

[quote]Texas or Florida will sue and SCOTUS will say this law is unconstitutional and will overturn SSM and return to the states. Period.

Doing so would mean overturning the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, which impacts a lot of other things the Court wouldn’t want to deal with. Period.

by Anonymousreply 72November 17, 2022 12:59 PM

[quote] Let's be really, really clear here: This bill does NOT "codify" same sex marriage.

At the federal level, that would require a constitutional amendment.

What this does is codify marriage through a back door.

by Anonymousreply 73November 17, 2022 1:06 PM

[quote] Texas or Florida will sue and SCOTUS will say this law is unconstitutional and will overturn SSM and return to the states. Period.

The current bill mainly overturns DOMA so that states will have to recognize marriages made in other states.

If the GOP wants to block the that original law, it would put the recognition of straight marriages in danger. How idiotic would it be to have to be remarried in every state you travel? If your spouse gets hospitalized in a state that doesn't see you as married, you suddenly have no rights.

by Anonymousreply 74November 17, 2022 1:08 PM

I truly believe that passing this law now would mean SCOTUS has no incentive whatsoever to overturn is gay marriage ruling.

It would know that overturning the ruling would have little legal effect--so why go down that road.

by Anonymousreply 75November 17, 2022 1:10 PM

Who's Bill?

by Anonymousreply 76November 17, 2022 1:10 PM

[quote]What this does is codify marriage through a back door.

A remarkably apt thing for it to do.

by Anonymousreply 77November 17, 2022 1:16 PM

He's STILL trying to block it.

Mike Lee fundamentally believes that the Constitution exists explicitly and solely for the benefit of people like him. Unlike people like like his friend Ted Cruz who is a con artist and grifter and lover of his own voice, Lee genuinely, deeply is committed to a society of unequal citizens

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 78November 17, 2022 2:24 PM

R78, Basically Mike Lee is saying; "HOW DARE LGBT GET EQUALITY!"

His vote to prevent cloture is just a small bump in the road. With more than 60 votes pushing this forward, it will pass ultimately.

by Anonymousreply 79November 17, 2022 3:06 PM

[quote] In an apparent effort to win re-election, Johnson said he would not oppose a pending bill to protect same-sex marriage.

Narrator: Yesterday, he did, in fact, oppose it.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 80November 17, 2022 3:57 PM

Republicans who said 'yea':

Susan Collins of Maine; Rob Portman of Ohio; Thom Tillis of North Carolina; Mitt Romney of Utah; Lisa Murkowski of Alaska; Roy Blunt of Missouri; Richard Burr of North Carolina; Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia; Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming; Dan Sullivan of Alaska; Todd Young of Indiana; Joni Ernst of Iowa.

by Anonymousreply 81November 17, 2022 4:16 PM

[quote][R60], those things are the result of a status that is created under state law.

Except that little matter of federal workers who are in gay marriages. Under Obama, gay spouses were finally given the same benefits as their hetero counterparts.

by Anonymousreply 82November 17, 2022 4:20 PM

Ruh-roh. No more Christian caks?:

"Earlier this week Baldwin released an amended version of the bill that includes protections for religious liberty. The move helped convince Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, to back the bill. “If it includes important protections for religions and religious institutions, I will support it,” Romney told Politico."

by Anonymousreply 83November 17, 2022 4:44 PM

R80: Moscow Ron lied. Who knew?

by Anonymousreply 84November 17, 2022 4:56 PM

Chip Roy wrote a similar letter on Tuesday.

Hateful people.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 85November 17, 2022 5:34 PM

Lots of trolls around very insistent that losing the right to same-sex marriage recognition is no biggie. As if the crawlback of civil rights is something to be blasé about.

by Anonymousreply 86November 17, 2022 9:25 PM

Vote scheduled for tomorrow

by Anonymousreply 87November 18, 2022 12:40 AM

Funny that all those people yelling “the Fed govt should get out of marriage altogether!!!” never made a peep before gay marriage was even considered.

by Anonymousreply 88November 18, 2022 12:45 AM

Roy Blunt has just a few weeks in office. It's highly doubtful he would be voting yes if that were not the case. But good for him.

by Anonymousreply 89November 18, 2022 3:40 PM

^ And Tillis.

Unfortunately, this is not true of Ron Johnson

by Anonymousreply 90November 18, 2022 3:42 PM

[bold]It does not codify gay marriage[bold]. Stop spreading misinformation. By leaving it to the states it makes gay marriage more vulnerable in the future. The Repubes have already accomplished what they wanted. Leaving it to the states so they can start picking it apart

by Anonymousreply 91November 18, 2022 3:54 PM

[quote] Roy Blunt has just a few weeks in office. It's highly doubtful he would be voting yes if that were not the case.

And thus its will pass in the lameduck session. Once you've been defeated in re-election, you don't give a crap

by Anonymousreply 92November 18, 2022 4:33 PM

[quote] It does not codify gay marriage. Stop spreading misinformation. By leaving it to the states it makes gay marriage more vulnerable in the future. The Repubes have already accomplished what they wanted. Leaving it to the states so they can start picking it apart

It's the best the federal government can do without trying to pass a Constitutional amendment. It's as close to codification as we can get.

by Anonymousreply 93November 18, 2022 4:34 PM

r91, we've already covered that and OP already apologized for the title at r21. Thanks for letting us know you didn't bother to read the thread.

by Anonymousreply 94November 19, 2022 7:40 AM

Unfortunately, this will have no bearing on the Supreme Court. I could care less. They will make gay marriage unconstitutional and return the decisions to the states by next year

by Anonymousreply 95November 19, 2022 8:03 AM

R95 but if Congress can pass this, whatever the states do will have no effect of gay marriage. The state will have to recognize marriages from other states.

If this passes Congress, SCOTUS is drop any anti gay marriage cases

by Anonymousreply 96November 19, 2022 12:16 PM

So when is the final vote on this before it heads back to the house?

by Anonymousreply 97November 19, 2022 12:20 PM

Does it go back to the House?

by Anonymousreply 98November 19, 2022 1:19 PM

No.

by Anonymousreply 99November 19, 2022 1:21 PM

Assuming the Senate is passing the exact same bill, it doesn’t have to go through reconciliation and can go directly to the President to sign

by Anonymousreply 100November 19, 2022 1:21 PM

The Republicans tacked on a religious liberty amendment, so even when (if) it passes the Senate, it does have to go back to the house to be voted on again.

by Anonymousreply 101November 20, 2022 4:17 AM

[quote]To assuage their concerns, the amendment ensures nonprofit religious organizations will not be required to provide services, facilities or goods for the celebration of a same-sex marriage, and protects religious liberty and conscience protections available under the Constitution and federal law, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It also makes clear the bill does not authorize the federal government to recognize polygamous marriage and safeguards any benefit or status — such as tax-exemptions, grants, contracts or educational funding — of an entity so long as it does not arise from a marriage.

[quote]The amendment "recognizes the importance of marriage, acknowledges that diverse beliefs and the people who hold them are due respect, and affirms that couples, including same-sex and interracial couples, deserve the dignity, stability and ongoing protection of marriage," according to the bipartisan group.

[quote]With the amendment, the bill will have to be taken up by the House once again before going to President Biden's desk for his signature. The White House urged passage of the measure.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 102November 20, 2022 4:18 AM

You know, does anyone feel sick about this? Literally. It's been such a fucking rollercoaster for us. Husband & I got married in 2009 when the Iowa Supreme Court ruled it as legal. Before that, we were watching other states grant that right and found that appealing, that there were states that offered us legal protections, a sense of security. Then it was legalized on the federal level in 2015. Suddenly we were like "oh wow, we could move to ANY state now!" So we did, in October 2019. To a state that we had strong ties to but had NOT legalized same-sex marriage before the 2015 decision. So now here we sit, watching this unfolding and feeling helpless. Will we suddenly have no legal rights or protections as a married couple? It is sickening. I fucking hate it.

by Anonymousreply 103November 20, 2022 4:42 AM

R103, that’s why this constant conservative war to reinstate the past can’t go on. It’s futile and tiring. It undermines the ability of society to function.

by Anonymousreply 104November 20, 2022 5:59 PM

R103, i understand why you feel that way, but Democrats and progressives Need to realize that the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance, and we will never get to the point where we can exhale and rest on any progress we may have me. I think the right understands that Any cultural and political any cultural and political wins are potentially temporary. He seems like liberals are so eager to rest and sit on success instead of being vigilant and zealous to keep it

by Anonymousreply 105November 20, 2022 7:55 PM

It seems like liberals are so eager to rest and sit on success instead of being vigilant and zealous to keep it

by Anonymousreply 106November 20, 2022 8:32 PM

That also describes conservatives. After getting their tax cut and Supreme Court, they literally have no agenda.

by Anonymousreply 107November 20, 2022 8:37 PM

Yeah but he are always in fight mode

by Anonymousreply 108November 20, 2022 8:39 PM

They are always in fight mode

by Anonymousreply 109November 20, 2022 8:45 PM

R102, why does the right always want to link gay marriage to polygamy?

I'm surprised they didn't add an amendment that says people cannot marry their pets.

by Anonymousreply 110November 20, 2022 10:55 PM

[quote] The Senate is expected to move forward TODAY at 5:30p to pass the bill codifying federal protections for same-sex marriage, the Respect For Marriage Act — with final passage expected later this week.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 111November 28, 2022 4:24 PM

61-35

by Anonymousreply 112November 29, 2022 12:46 PM

Mike Lee

[quote] My amendment simply prohibits the Federal Government from retaliating against schools, businesses, and organizations because of their religious beliefs about same-sex marriage.

Senate Press Gallery

[quote] By a vote of 48-49, the #Senate did not adopt the Lee amendment #6482, in relation to H.R. 8404 Respect for Marriage Act. 60-vote affirmative threshold was needed.

[quote] Senator Manchin voted YEA

[quote] Senator Collins Voted NAY

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 113November 29, 2022 9:35 PM

Also failing were the Lankford Amendment to make sure gays don't benefit financially and the Rubio Amendment to make sure gays can't sue schools and shelters and adoption agencies.

They're convinced that we are out to harm them and take more than than just being treated as equal.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 114November 29, 2022 9:55 PM

61 - 36

The Bill Has Passed!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 115November 29, 2022 10:26 PM

....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 116November 29, 2022 10:33 PM

Whining Enby "Queer" doesn't like it. Apparently, thinks that churches should be forced to perform same-sex marriages. Of course, including that would provide an easy excuse for SCOTUS to overturn this new bill. This bill doesn't even force the states to perform same-sex marriages (which also wouldn't be constitutional,) it just requires the states to recognize same sex marriages performed in states that do perform them.

Right now, all states perform them, but if Obergefell is overturned, this still forces red states, who will stop performing same sex marriages, to recognize marriages performed in other states.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 117November 29, 2022 10:41 PM

The GOP senators who voted for same-sex marriage bill, which passed Senate 61-36

Susan Collins

Lisa Murkowski

Rob Portman

Mitt Romney

Thom Tillis

Roy Blunt

Cynthia Lummis

Richard Burr

Shelley Moore Capito

Dan Sullivan

Joni Ernst

Todd Young

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 118November 29, 2022 10:41 PM

Blunt, Loomis and Ernst are surprises to me. Nice surprises.

by Anonymousreply 119November 29, 2022 10:43 PM

I suspect Blunt has a gay or lesbian grandkid. There's a personal reason there, most likely, when current and former Missouri politicians who know him were taken aback by his vote.

by Anonymousreply 120November 29, 2022 10:52 PM

Related ^^

Chuck Schumer

@SenSchumer

[quote] Today, we’re working to pass the Respect for Marriage Act on the Senate floor.

[quote] This is personal to me, and today I’m wearing the tie I wore at my daughter’s wedding to her wife.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 121November 29, 2022 10:55 PM

This is why the most political act anyone can do is to come out .

by Anonymousreply 122November 29, 2022 10:56 PM

U.S. Rep. Mark Takano — who jokingly calls himself a "Gaysian" — called it a "massive slay."

Somebody's been watching too much Drag Race!

[quote]Massive slay in the Senate today — passage of the Respect for Marriage Act!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 123November 29, 2022 11:03 PM

[quote] Mitch McConnell has voted against his interracial marriage.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 124November 30, 2022 12:09 AM

Re. Blunt......weren't there rumors about Matt Blunt when he was governor?

by Anonymousreply 125November 30, 2022 12:28 AM
Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 126November 30, 2022 2:02 AM

And just keep reminding yourself the 73% of Gen Z (voters under 30) couldn't be bothered to vote in our recent election.

"Voting is for old people" they answer when asked!

by Anonymousreply 127November 30, 2022 2:07 AM

Well, we'll just see about THAT.

by Anonymousreply 128November 30, 2022 2:09 AM

I can't link to the Kansas City Star piece about it, but Roy Blunt's going with the "protecting religious freedom" excuse, which gives his ilk an easy way out on this one. Over the summer he claimed to support marriage equality, which was new for him, so I will continue to think there's more to this than meets the eye.

by Anonymousreply 129November 30, 2022 2:19 AM

Interesting perspectives, R120/r129.

Skimming the article just now, it seems to me that Blunt's position is not much dissimilar than Romeny's

[quote] Blunt said he supports the bill because it will ensure that legal same-sex marriages are recognized by all states and because the bill includes religious freedom protections.

[quote] “It’s better for the Congress to speak on this issue, than to let the courts and various federal entities decide what the previous cases on marriage might do to minimize religious freedom,” Blunt said.

And, as such, it is a compromise (and disappointment) to the right as much as it is to the left. Whereas the religious nutters and the progressives are both FURIOUS tonight, it seems like the vast middle of the country is sighing in relief and acknowledgement that this is the best that could happen right now.

by Anonymousreply 130November 30, 2022 2:32 AM

Gay senator Kyrsten Sinema rocked her very quirkiest style to commemorate the victory, squeezing her oddly built frame into magenta, tangerine, sparkly fluorescent blue, and slightly mismatched sneakers. She keeps DL giving new reasons to love her.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 131November 30, 2022 2:42 AM

[quote] She keeps DL giving new reasons to love her.

Oh, goodie! I'll look forward to that beginning any time now...

by Anonymousreply 132November 30, 2022 2:45 AM

How solid/permanent is this? Can a future republican majority and president make a new law to undo this?

by Anonymousreply 133November 30, 2022 2:55 AM

I'm assuming the reason they voted on Same Sex Marriage and not abortion. They have enough votes to break a filibuster in the Senate for Same Sex Marriage but probably didn't have it for abortion. The Democrats should still propose it so that those that vote against it, can be remembered in 2024.

by Anonymousreply 134November 30, 2022 3:01 AM

Sinema is bisexual, not gay

by Anonymousreply 135November 30, 2022 3:06 AM

R131 Sinema's nickname on Capitol Hill is Crayola - for a reason.

by Anonymousreply 136November 30, 2022 3:29 AM

I'm actually shocked that this looks like it's going to pass.

by Anonymousreply 137November 30, 2022 3:37 AM

[quote] “This was about settling something that is on the minds of millions of people and their families,” Tillis said. “And I thought it was worth doing.”

[...]

[quote] “I’m a skeptical person.” But he also saw an opportunity to both protect same-sex marriage rights if the Supreme Court ever revisited its 2015 Obergefell decision and simultaneously ensure that every state “would not be required to sanctify same-sex marriages in the future.”

[quote] “We’re all doing the best we can to get it right. And I have high confidence that I’ve gotten it right,” Young said.

[...]

[quote] “I think marriage is between one man and one woman. Other people have a different point of view and people have relied upon Obergefell to make their life decisions. I don’t think you go back and unwind marriages that have been performed legally by various states,” Romney said.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 138November 30, 2022 12:17 PM

What's the catch?

by Anonymousreply 139November 30, 2022 2:05 PM

[quote]What's the catch?

At the end of it all, you're married.

by Anonymousreply 140November 30, 2022 4:24 PM

Why won't anyone think of str8 women?

to allow any kind of "marriage" is only to reinforce the patriarchal history of marriage and on the historical dominance exercised by men over the women they possessed as wives. No person that truly supports real feminism should ever seek to emulate that!

by Anonymousreply 141November 30, 2022 4:47 PM

All marriages should be abolished. No one should be legally bound to another.

by Anonymousreply 142November 30, 2022 4:50 PM

Naw

by Anonymousreply 143November 30, 2022 11:45 PM

[Quote] All marriages should be abolished. No one should be legally bound to another.

Funny how no one mentioned abolishing all marriage until gays got the right to marry

by Anonymousreply 144December 1, 2022 12:40 AM

[quote]What's the catch?

The catch is that the press will still treat President Biden like a total failure who is to be blamed for everything the sleazy, ignorant Republicans do, and that Gen Z is still determined to never show up to vote for Democrats because "Why bother? All politicians are corrupt and they're all alike anyway!"

by Anonymousreply 145December 1, 2022 3:21 AM

progress

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 146December 1, 2022 5:02 PM

[quote]Can a future republican majority and president make a new law to undo this?

Doing so would require a 3/5 majority to bring it to a vote in the Senate. At this point it's a pretty safe bet that no Democrat would support that, so it would never come to a vote and thereby never get to the President's desk.

by Anonymousreply 147December 1, 2022 9:25 PM

Uh, were you around for this past election dipshit R145? The only reason we won anything was because Gen Z showed up in huge numbers. The problem was with you fucking boomers who voted overwhelmingly for Republicans and Trump candidates.

So shut your fucking mouth.

by Anonymousreply 148December 1, 2022 9:42 PM

jesus you bitches need some weed

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 149December 1, 2022 9:45 PM

Always open to donations r149.

by Anonymousreply 150December 1, 2022 9:47 PM

Bill Cosby is into same sex marriage?

by Anonymousreply 151December 1, 2022 10:55 PM

[quote]Uh, were you around for this past election dipshit [R145]? The only reason we won anything was because Gen Z showed up in huge numbers.

Oh, pipe down McKenzie!

In the last election a whopping 27% of Gen Z were able to put down their phones to vote, meaning a bizarre supermajority of 73% of Gen Z couldn't be fucking bothered to vote at all! I think those numbers are shameful, especially since in the last midterms in 2018 30% managed to weigh in, and this was before Roe was struck down and before Joe Biden wrote Executive Orders canceling student loans and the threat of anti-Democratic hordes wasn't at our door yet!

by Anonymousreply 152December 3, 2022 2:44 AM

Totally off topic but...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 153December 5, 2022 3:56 AM

Lindsey Graham voted against gay marriage despite being gay

Mitch McConnell voted against interracial marriage despite being in one

Clarence Thomas threatened the right to interracial marriage despite being in one

GOP men are too chickenshit to stand up, even for themselves

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 154December 5, 2022 3:50 PM

Today could be the day...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 155December 6, 2022 2:31 PM

The bill passed the House 258-169, going to Biden for his signature.

by Anonymousreply 156December 8, 2022 3:34 PM

Any republicans of note that voted for it?

by Anonymousreply 157December 8, 2022 4:23 PM

^ 39 it appears

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 158December 8, 2022 5:36 PM

I think he's missing the point:

“I rise today in strong opposition to the so-called Respect for Marriage Act — honestly the bill should be called the ‘Disrespect for Marriage Act,’” Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.) said on the House floor during debate. “This bill certainly disregards God’s definition of marriage, a definition that has served his creation well for more than 5,000 years of recorded history.”

“And his definition is the only one that really matters,” he added.

Good, who was first elected to the House in 2020, beat former Rep. Denver Riggleman (R-Va.) in a GOP primary that year after Riggleman became the target of criticism for officiating a same-sex wedding.

by Anonymousreply 159December 8, 2022 5:52 PM

[quote] a definition that has served his creation well for more than 5,000 years of recorded history

Think he's ever read anything about those 5000 years of recorded history? What a loon.

by Anonymousreply 160December 8, 2022 6:38 PM

Republican bitch cries as the bill proceeds to passage.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 161December 8, 2022 9:02 PM

[quote]“And his definition is the only one that really matters,”

I don't recall Jesus or God specifically defining marriage.

Miss Good sounds like a big ol' Mary! to me ....

by Anonymousreply 162December 8, 2022 9:17 PM

Elise Stefanik voted for it.

I'll admit I was surprised.

by Anonymousreply 163December 8, 2022 9:38 PM

[quote] Republican bitch cries as the bill proceeds to passage.

And her twink nephew, Andrew Hartzler, calls her ass out on it, R161

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 164December 10, 2022 1:04 PM

[Quote] Elise Stefanik voted for it.

She’s from NY State. She’d be in trouble if she voted against it

by Anonymousreply 165December 10, 2022 2:30 PM

[quote]Will we suddenly have no legal rights or protections as a married couple?

If Obergefell were to be reversed, under this law your marriage would be recognized in your current state or any other, until death or divorce do you part.

by Anonymousreply 166July 28, 2023 10:35 PM

I don't think so R166.

by Anonymousreply 167August 10, 2023 7:28 PM

And how do you figure this? Please explain your reasoning.

by Anonymousreply 168August 10, 2023 8:24 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!