Senate passes bill to protect same-sex and interracial marriage over GOP opposition

After this, SCOTUS won't even touch gay marriage again.

Why does the GOP try to block any progress in ANYTHING?

The bill would require the federal government to recognize marriages that were valid in a state when they were performed. It would also ensure full benefits for marriages "regardless of the couple’s sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin," but it would not require states to issue marriage licenses contrary to state law.

Next it goes back to the House for a vote and then to Biden.

[quote]but it would not require states to issue marriage licenses contrary to state law.

It would, however, require states which have banned same-sex marriages to recognize such a marriage solemnized in a state where it is legal.

r1 Why that conclusion? I should think gutting Obergefell would be doubly on the menu now because the Supreme Court can give the rightwingers what they want (states rights) with not as much backlash from the left now that the marriages will be recognised federally.

[quote]After this, SCOTUS won't even touch gay marriage again.

As it is, Uncle Thomas wants to revisit the case. And Roberts and Alito originally voted against it. How hard would it be to get two of Trump’s appointees to go along?

We voted against it! As straight men, we don't agree with the gay lifestyle!

This doesn’t protect your right as a gay person to marry. It can still be overturned by the Supreme Court. We already have a thread about this.

It's firmly rooted in the FF&CC for a reason, not even the current bench will be able to come up with a good argument to dismantle it. Legal experts mostly agree that the SC won't touch this one.

Not to take away from this, because it’s fantastic. But this is what multiple Congresses over the past 50 years somehow never found the time to do for abortion rights….

[quote]But this is what multiple Congresses over the past 50 years somehow never found the time to do for abortion rights….

They likely never felt the urgency until it was too late.

They felt the urgency — they didn’t want to give up how they could leverage it with their fucking donor base.

Exactly this, r13. Fuck you, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and everyone else who made bank over the decades by taking advantage of women’s fear, instead of pushing for the one thing that would have mattered.

R14, seriously, it’s Planned Parenthood’s fault that Congress didn’t codify abortion?

The Dems know that if they codified abortion, it would have been challenged in the courts because Congress doesn’t have the power.

Congress isn’t codifying gay marriage now

[Quote] This doesn’t protect your right as a gay person to marry. It can still be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Sure but whatever SCOTUS rules becomes irrelevant when every state must recognize gay marriages legal in any other state

Yes, r15, it is in part. They could have pushed for that, and they didn’t.

Democrats have five weeks to cram in as many bills as possible...before the House flips to repubs. Really last minute now...

If Dems codified abortion, the GOP would have just reverse it the next time they took Congress.

It’s too controversial. gay marriage is way less controversial.

This law does not leave me feeling secure about the rights of Americans to be married in the state of their choice, in their home states.

Alas.

I guess he'll sign it on World AIDS Day?

[quote]This law does not leave me feeling secure about the rights of Americans to be married in the state of their choice, in their home states

The only way to permanently ensure that marriage equality is the law of the land is to pass a Constitutional amendment. And an Amendment isn't going to happen anytime soon in any remotely foreseeable future. If SCOTUS should someday reverse Obergefell, this would do a lot to blunt its impact. It isn't perfect, but it's pretty good and it is doable right here, right now.

Precisely

R22 is correct. As it stands, the Federal government can recognize marriages, but it doesn't perform them, or grant marriage licenses, that power lies with the states. Prior to Obergefell, states that acknowledged heterosexual marriages performed out of state could choose to not recognize same sex marriages performed in other states . This codifies into law that the states cannot refuse to acknowledge same sex, interracial, or interfaith marriages performed in other states. It doesn't force states to grant marriage licenses based on those protections. Congress doesn't have the constitutional authority to do that, and would be a cause for SCOTUS to overturn the law. A constitutional amendment would be required for that to be in their power.

Post Obergefell, states are not allowed to discriminate against same sex marriages, and are required to grant marriage licenses to same sex couples. However, many states still have laws and constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage. If Obergefell is overturned, those could go back into effect, or new laws could be passed. This bill basically says, okay Alabama, (for example,) you don't have to grant marriage licenses to same sex couples, but you DO have to recognize the marriages of same sex couples performed in Colorado, or Massachusetts, etc...

Similarly, the religious exemptions basically state that churches do not have to perform or recognize same sex marriages if that is against their doctrine.

This is actually good, as again trying to force religions to perform or recognize marriages that their doctrines oppose would provide SCOTUS an excuse to overturn the law on 1st Amendment grounds.

Of course, the idea of anyone forcing the Catholic Church (for example,) to perform same sex marriages is ridiculous on its face. It would be a stupid thing to try. Any lawsuit would be thrown out of court due to separation of Church and State.

[quote]Legal experts mostly agree that the SC won't touch this one.

Won’t touch what? It doesn’t codify same-sex marriage. They’ll happily touch that one.

[quote]Sure but whatever SCOTUS rules becomes irrelevant when every state must recognize gay marriages legal in any other state

No it doesn’t. Gays will only be allowed to marry in certain states. That’s like saying, “So what if Roe was overturned, just go get an abortion in another state.” It’s a very, very bad thing for people to have to do. You will be, yet again, declared a second class citizen under the law.

R24, no one was calling for churches to be legally mandated to marry gay people. You write like a two-year-old.

[quote]If Dems codified abortion, the GOP would have just reverse it the next time they took Congress.

You can de-codify something after it’s been codified? How does that work?

So, if enacted, the marriage laws will become like a reverse Reno divorce?

In the old days, if your home state wouldn’t grant you a divorce, you might go to Reno, Nevada for a quick no fault divorce, and then return home newly, legally “single” in your state’s eyes.

So if two nonbinary people get married is it called “no sex/same gender/different gender/no gender marriage?”

R24 That is why the religious exemption in the bill isn't a big deal, you nasty, rude, cunt.

Exactly

[quote]It’s a very, very bad thing for people to have to do.

Nobody is saying otherwise, but two people looking to get married aren’t in the same situation as a woman needing to get an abortion.

[quote]They’ll happily touch that one.

Pics please.

Now do abortion rights.

Nowhere enough votes to override filibuster of abortion rights. Republicans Almost unanimously say no

^ Oh well then. It's only about women. Next.

Opposition to Abortion remains the litmus test for Republicans, except for the urban Northeast and New England

R28, a statute, like this one, can be repealed. You’d need the same number of votes you’d need to enact a statute.

[quote]a statute, like this one, can be repealed

Such a bill would have to get through the Senate first, as this one did. At this point it's a pretty safe assumption that all or nearly all Senate Democrats would vote against it, and so would some Republicans. The Republicans like to threaten a filibuster, the Democrats can do it too. It wouldn't have the support to get through now and will have even less in the future.

[Quote] Similarly, the religious exemptions basically state that churches do not have to perform or recognize same sex marriages if that is against their doctrine.

Churches aren’t forced to perform Jewish or Buddhist weddings. Why would they be forced to perform gay weddings?

This repeals DOMA. Trying to pass another DOMA would be next to impossible as more and more people accept gay marriage, understanding that it has absolutely no effect on straight marriage

They aren't, R41. The point is that some on the "progressive" end of the Democratic Party are whining about the religious exemptions, but the religious exemptions are largely meaningless, and only exist to get some members of the GOP on board. The US Congress cannot force churches to perform same sex marriages, or ANY marriages for that matter. That would violate the first amendment, and passing a bill requiring them to would be a perfect poison pill to get SCOTUS to declare it unconstitutional. Most of the complaints about this bill from the left side of the aisle involve things that are not constitutional, or not within the power of the Federal Government without a constitutional amendment.

Again, this is insurance against SCOTUS Obergefell, which seems safe at the moment.

There isn’t an entire movement related to overturning gay marriage as there is to overturn abortion. While the anti abortion group can get supporters by claiming “Babies are dying,” it’ll be tough to get people to join any anti-gay marriage crusade

Here is one of the complaints. This "Queer person" ( a non-binary, not sure of orientation, but non-binary couples with mismatched genitalia wouldn't be impacted if Obergefell were overturned.

One of their points in the article

[quote]The concession was made in the form of an amendment that not only spells out that religious organizations can refuse to marry same-sex couples but also protects such religious organizations’ tax-exempt status and ensures they still receive other federal benefits should they choose to discriminate against same-sex couples who wish to wed.

These are not actually concessions. The first is obeying the separation of Church and State. The second would require a change to the laws around tax exemption for churches, and would also likely violate the first amendment.

Writing either of those into the bill would just provide our right wing SCOTUS an easy excuse to declare the whole damn thing unconstitutional. They are unnecessary in the bill, and are time-release poison pills that would kill it.

Congress did the only thing the fed government can do with regards to marriage—oversee how marriages are recognized from state to state.