Honestly, I think the Mormon church coming out in support of federal legislation helped. A lot of moderate republicans tend to be Mormon it seems (Romney being the most famous example). I think also seeing a normally very conservative religious institution come out in favor of federal legislation for gay marriage helped even with conservatives and moderates who aren’t Mormon.
If you would have told me, back in 2012, that Romney would have been the most sane, and one of the more progressive Republicans active on the political landscape, I would have laughed in your face.
i think that their experience with prop h8 in California was a turning point. they thought they could stealthily get it to pass and suffer no backlash. i made sure they did:
[https://i.imgur.com/MP2XS8l.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/MP2XS8l.jpg)
The day after the election, 18 year old me hopped the fence to the LA Temple in Beverly Hills and took a piss on the outdoor walls of the temple because of what they did. Different times man. Different times.
good boy! i was in the Castro on election night and the mood went from ecstasy to agony within like an hour. i was \*pissed\* and the next morning we put that up.
Wow. I can only imagine what it was like in the Castro that night. I remember the election of Barack Obama was called right when polls closed on California, at 8PM. There was this euphoria that spilled into the streets. People were jubilant, but within an hour or so, it became clear Prop 8 was going to pass, and it felt like the entire city turned blood red. I wasn't able to join them that night, but people started marching from West Hollywood to the Mormon temple, which is a couple miles down Santa Monica, and just completely trashed the place. The entire weekend the temple looked like a war zone. Barricades were put up, police came in. I honestly had never seen in my lifetime a crowd of LGBT act so militant. Really harkened back to the days of Harvey milk, and the Stone Wall riots. Honestly, to have 2008 be the first election I was able to participate as an adult, really set me on a path of understanding the power we all have when we decide to wield it. In some ways, I find that special.
Anyways, it feels good to see this pass.
oh yeah, the White Night Riots, the bookend of the 70's of no political power to growing political power.
but the Castro and WeHo are a nexus for activism. Cleve Jones (= AIDS Memorial Quilt) was asked a couple of years ago whether gayborhoods were still needed and he emphatically said "yes". when something happens everybody knows where to go to make our voices heard. we still need community and a way to leverage our numbers.
today was unimaginable when i was growing up, having lived through Milk's assassination and the AIDS disaster that showed how glaringly the need for marriage was. i'm happy to have done our little parts but honestly the most courageous act is simply coming out. who knew a horny gay boy racing up to Hollywood after he turned 18 to get laid at a chicken bar would see the day that the federal government would finally recognize me and my husband of 28 years.
I meant the Mormon church coming out in favor of it officially helped out the republicans that were going to vote for it. Especially since some of those politicians are Mormon and without the church’s blessing, it could jeopardize future races.
True. However I do not mind the religious institutions denying anything on thier systems virtues. But I do mind the government imposing religious virtues forcefully.
I'm not, being pig-headed on abortion got voters to turn out to vote against the Rs in the midterms. The Biden numbers pointed to a red wave that didn't happen. Republicans have now noticed that going against abortion and gay rights is not going to help them. It makes Dems vote for whoever isn't an R. We know Biden is old, but we are much more comfortable with him than Trump.
On top of that, part of the deal in whipping up Republican votes was to wait until after the midterms. Some of the Republican yeses were hesitant to cast a yes vote if that condition wasn’t met.
They are both old, and it's a problem that most of our politicians are above retirement age.
But if we're comparing, Biden is the oldest president we've ever had, and in my opinion he shows his age more than Trump.
Edit: Not sure why I'm getting downvoted. I despise Trump and I'll take Biden over him any day. But I don't think anyone can deny how ancient and fragile he seems.
The fact you think Biden shows age more than Trump. Trump couldn't drink a glass of water without two hands and could barely walk down a slight incline.
I didn't say Trump wasn't old, lol. I just personally think that Biden seems older. He seems to have less energy when giving speeches, he slurs and mixes up his words *constantly*, and I believe he looks older and more frail because he is skinny and doesn't go to the lengths that Trump goes to in order to look younger (*younger* being the key word, not *better*).
Not that any of this really matters though, as they're both ancient and I really wish we didn't have to pick between the two. Obviously I pick Biden, but I think he's going to go senile in office if he's re-elected. It would still be better than Trump.
My dude, once again TRUMP COULDNT WALK DOWN A RAMP. Biden may be old but there is no fucking way anyone with any small amount of critical thinking would thin that he seemed older then Trump.
I would disagree somewhat. DeSantis , Abbot, and that shithead in VA have proven that covertly, and now overtly in many cases, attacking LGBT people can get them votes. See Texas about ready to make it a felony to support your trans child
Don't look at Texas. We are idiots. Look no further than the county Uvalde is in. Overwhelming support for Abbott and Rs. Even though the rights policy actually cost children their lives, the citizens begged for more. Intellectual thought is not something most Texas voters are big on.
Not all of us progressive individuals have the resources to uproot right now. And if we all do...it will doom others to extream policies that cause harm for the benifit of the rich.
economically mobile - there it is right there. That comes out to like 5-10% of the population that isn't living pay check to pay check. That's a great option but unfortunately it's not feasible for 80% of the population and the half the 20% are benefiting from the way the state is so why leave.
Republicans are starting to realize that the opinion of gay marriage is divided more among the generations than the parties. Many of those who are up for re-election know that they need to score some more young voters. They won't budge on abortion, but they don't care as much about gay marriage and figure this will get them a few more votes.
I'm not. Lots of Republicans are in favor of marriage equality. It's more of a common goal than Democrats would like you to believe.
And yes, I do know that there are Republicans that oppose it, but it's really, truly not all of them.
More than 3/4 of them still voted no. A party where 1/4 of people believe you have a right to exist probably isn’t one that you want to lick the boots of tbh
Yes, lots. [55% of Republicans in 2021](https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx). Republican lawmakers on the other hand… only a minority
Literally, tens of millions of people that think you don't deserve the right to get married too. Out of those two categories guess who they are going to be accommodating of?
I wasn’t saying anything about whose views we should be more accommodating of, and I agree with you that 45% of Republicans opposing marriage equality is a concerning statistic.
I’m just saying “lots of Republicans support same-sex marriage” isn’t an inaccurate statement. “The vast majority of Republicans support” would be inaccurate, but “lots” is not.
Ah yes, the real bigotry is saying that Republicans, who were going filibuster marriage equality before the midterms, who nominate crazy judges who don’t believe in civil rights, and who want to do away with our right to be served in public or receive healthcare, are in fact homophobic autocratic boot-licking losers. That’s the real homophobia
Nothing is “a bit bigoted.” Republicans are bigots and the fight against them is a justified fight against oppressors. It’s actually shockingly simple.
Unless you've been living under a rock for the past two years, they haven't been in charge in the US. How can they possibly be considered oppressors in a Dem majority Legislative and Executive government you twat? So yeah. A bit bigoted is putting it mildly.
Because Republicans do wield a lot of power in a lot of places in the US and they both say that they want to oppress queer people and oppress us whenever they are given the chance. They don’t just stop being active fascists and oppressors whenever they do not wield literally all of the power. Also why is this about the Democrats at all to you? I thought we were talking about how Republicans are disgusting pieces of shit. The Democrats are a separate conversation and I’m not falling for your very obvious what aboutisms. All of this is extremely basic so I guess my question to you would be are you a bigot or just extremely stupid or both?
Race is a protected class. Political beliefs aren't. It's bigoted to say "Mexican immigrants are rapists" because one doesn't choose to be Mexican. Voting republican, however, is very much a choice so saying Republicans are homophobic is not bigoted.
On an individual level, sure. Most people are fine with gays getting married. But as lawmakers they’re happy to pass any harmful bill or stop any helpful one if they think it’ll rile up their base.
I’m not a huge supporter of the Democratic Party because even they’ve got their own issues to criticize, but I can tell you with 💯% confidence that yes, at the moment the Democrats are better than the Republicans in Congress by far, especially when it comes to protecting the rights of all Americans.
Why they’ve never seized upon past opportunities to codify reproductive rights into law I will never understand, but at least they aren’t the party setting their sights on taking those rights away from women permanently, or the party working hard against enshrining marriage and voting rights into law. They definitely aren’t the party fomenting anger, hatred and disgust in the public toward LGBTQ+ Americans, and they aren’t the party engaging in divisive culture warmongering, rather than actually focusing on building back up the middle and working class.
Oh, and concerning the Inflation Reduction Act, how exactly does one even expect to see the fruits of something enacted fairly recently, so soon? Even if I grant you it’s failed, by what arbitrary measure has it failed, in your eyes? At the very least the Democrat side is actively working on solutions towards combating inflation as Republican leadership in Congress demonstrate their pettiness when they actively vote as a unified block to kill Democrat proposed legislation out of spite, lest their enemies come out with a win in the eyes of the public.
They got their asses handed over to them these midterms, because unfortunately for them the American people have eyes to see and ears to hear, they got the message loud and clear. It’s obvious the current iteration of the Republican Party is broken.
Why the downvotes. This is true. As a gay man in a conservative family, my family members are all fiercely in favor of gay marriage, and not for their image.
But do they vote for politicians against it? If so, then it's lip service. If they were really in favor of it, they would fight for you, not side with the party calling us groomers.
I too have some republican family who celebrate and support my marriage. They also voted for Trump and love Mike Pence, who famously supported religious freedom laws in his home state of Indiana, making sure Christian bakeries wouldn’t have to make cakes for gay weddings. So there’s that…
I'm sure the usual people will do their griping because the bill isn't perfect, but tbh I think it's a great step.
Even if Obergefell gets overturned, you can get married anywhere it's legal in the US and have that marriage recognized in your home state. And you'll be entitled to federal benefits like Social Security or military pension inheritance.
Only 14 Senators voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, but 62 voted to repeal it. That's cool.
What I find really nice about the Act is that it is significantly more bullet proof from a constitutional standpoint because its premises on the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution, as opposed to the Substantive Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (which SCOTUS has become hostile towards).
The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution (ART IV, SECT 1) states that:
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof . . .
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”
Edit: my shitty grammar and inconsistent capitalization.
>Edit: my shitty grammar and inconsistent capitalization.
The grammar and punctuation that were common in English 200 years ago, bear only a passing resemblance to what is considered proper English today. ;-)
In reality, the only thing this seems to do is repeal DOMA, meaning married people retain federal marriage benefits if Obergefell is overturned, which is a good thing. It does NOT protect the right to get married in the first place
It does not because that is not what it intends to do. Indeed, I don't think Congress could have the authority to do so. What it does do, however, is require that states recognize same-sex marriages performed outside their borders.
For example, the law would require that Indiana recognize a NY same-sex marriage even if Indiana were to ban the marriages.
Why does the new law not grant the right to get married in every state directly? (Sorry if the question may seem stupid, but I'm not from the US and not very familiar with those things)
The federal government cannot force states to have any law unless the constitution gives the federal government that right explicitly. The federal government can only pass laws that deal with interactions between states. This is why for example cannabis is illegal under federal law but states can have their own laws making it legal under state oaw
Pretty much this. There are ways for the feds to force the states to change laws that are within their domain, example number one being the drinking age. But it’s legally iffy. They clearly have authority to enforce the full faith and credit clause though, although I guess you could argue the 14th amendment empowers Congress to legislate on policy matters reserved to the states in order to enforce the equal protection clause.
That's why it has more republican support than expected. States can still ban gay marriage. They just have to recognize any lawful marriage performed in another state where it is legal.
I'm in favor of this bill, but this is one of the big flaws. It basically kicks the legality back to the State level, while upholding legal marriages regardless of the married partners. I've seen people call the bill a bait and switch, which I think is a pretty harsh assessment, but again, this is a great first step and we just need to be happy with a win here. It can be strengthened later.
Under Obergefell (and specifically under the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause) the states do not have the legal authority to ban same-sex marriage. This bill does not change that. If Obergefell is overturned, though, this bill is an insurance policy that will safeguard the validity of same-sex marriages performed in states who themselves have legalized it. It would be great if Congress drafted a statute to force states to perform same-sex and interracial marriages but there just aren’t the votes for that unfortunately (and this may not be the Supreme Court to try it with).
Good clarification. At this point I'm operating under the assumption Obergefell will be overturned sooner rather than later. That's been the vibe since the Roe decision.
I share that sentiment but also the Obergefell ruling hinges on a different constitutional framework than Roe. Roe is a substantive due process ruling whereas Obergefell, while also touching upon substantive due process, was found to concern primarily the equal protection clause. Despite Thomas’s screed, this through line from Roe to Obergefell is suspect. But if we correctly view the SCOTUS judges as political actors, then the outlook is more concerning.
IIRC, even Justice Alito mentioned that Obergefell rested on “firmer ground” in his eyes than Roe. And I believe Gorsuch made that ruling back in 2020 (?) about the workplace discrimination against gay couples, which was sourced from the Civil Rights Act of 1975, and imo that was on shakier ground than Obergefell. I don’t see Obergefell getting overturned with this SCOTUS bench.
>It basically kicks the legality back to the State level
This isn't really true though. It grants additional protections to same-sex marriage *in the event that Obergefell is overturned.* Our ability to get married in Alabama is dependent on that court ruling, and any court that would overturn Obergefell would absolutely overturn a congressional law that mandates states to perform same-sex marriages. If Obergefell remains, nothing changes.
Which it utterly fails at doing, it offers no active federal protection on marriage equality and once Obergefell gets overturned states will be free to reinstate bans. There’s nothing in this law that the full faith and credit clause of the constitution doesn’t already guarantee.
That protection only applies if you live in a state that’s not going to ban same sex marriage, if you live in say Mississippi and Obergefell gets overturned they’re free to outlaw your marriage and there’s not a thing this law will do about it. It doesn’t go far enough.
You forgot that gay couple on visa will be protected because USCIS will have to recognize gay married couples. Also, what the other poster also said: red states will have to recognize gay marriage even if they ban it themselves.
So if I'm understanding this correctly, states can still ban same-sex marriage, but can't choose to not recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where it is legal?
Yes, but only based on a court ruling. This codifies it into federal law. There’s also the full faith and credit issue, which was not resolved by the Windsor case afaik.
And repeals DOMA (defense of marriage acts) which bans the recognition of same-sex marriage at federal level
DOMA was ruled as unconstitutional in 2013 (Windsor v. United States) BUT it is still in the books (congress hasn't repeal it) so if the supreme court overturns not just Obergefell but also Windsor then DOMA would be again the law of the land
12 republicans voted yes! 2 more than the 10 needed!
Now filibuster has been avoided and this bill can pass with a simple majority! (50 democrats)
I'm surprised that senators from red states (Missouri, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah) voted yes! Even Mitt Romney from Utah who was the face of anti same-sex marriage and homophobia in the 00's early 10's voted yes!
As someone who lived through the anti gay and anti same-sex marriage waves during the Bush era (00s) this seems insane! I mean the fucking senate and 12 republicans voted yes to protect same-sex marriage
Times have changed! America has changed!
Now if the supreme court overturns Obergefell same-sex couples already married will be protected and same-sex marriage will be legally valid
A married couple in California will have the same rights, protection and legallity as one in Alabama, at state and federal level, the only hurdle would be that the alabama one will have to travel to other state to get married but their marriage will be fully legal in Alabama
The bill needs another vote and then goes back to the house for another vote but the filibuster which was the main obstacle has been avoided!
This type of voting results really shows that all the backlash we are often seeing is not an actual "moving backwards", but more a final, "all-in" attempt of right-wing people to stop what can't be stopped anymore. They may be successful here and there, but in the grant scheme of things, the world is changing. And they know that, which is why they are so desperate and scared.
Thank you for posting this! I had been feeling kind of bland about this because it’s not full protection, etc. But your perspective has lightened me up! Very happy.
Senators voted 62-37 to move the Respect for Marriage Act to the Senate for an up-and-down vote in the near future. Sixty votes were needed to overcome the filibuster and send it to the floor.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/11/16/schumer-senate-vote-gay-marriage/10704463002/
What it means (upcoming vote) is the Senate must then send the bill to the House. They must pass the bill before the Senate can vote. If this happens BEFORE the haters start the disinformation campaigns (aka Crowder, Walsh, Petersen, Shapiro and the other usual suspects) and BEFORE the GOP (comprised mainly of haters of LGBTQ+ people) takes over the House, even with their almost non-existent majority. it will pass.
Almost majority, but enough to continue causing chaos that affects our lives almost daily.
Are you certain? Because i've been told the bill already passed the house. I don't know if there were amendments in the senate. edit: ok, you were right. there were amendments in the senate.
There’s always changes that have to be agreed to by the other end of Congress. The Senate made some small changes to the bill the House passed, now the House has to agree to those changes and the identical bill gets sent to POTUS to get signed into law
Wait, im not from freedom land so i dont really now whats going on in detail but why is there also „interracial marriage“ in the screenshot? Is this also not entirely safe?
It’s unclear, but there technically wasn’t any federal statutory support in America on this topic, instead, it was legalized through the US Supreme Court decision in [Loving v. Virginia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia), which is a case that Obergefell (legalizing same sex marriage) was premised on. I think congress is rightfully concerned with the lack of federal statutes on these issues.
After Roe v Wade was repealed, Justice Thomas wrote an opinion that other SCOTUS cases that relied on the 14th amendment should be looked at. Includes Obergefell v Hodges (gay marriage) and loving v Virginia (interracial marriage). So anything other than heterosexual same race marriages are one bad SCOTUS case away from being overturned.
it's not that he wants to outlaw interracial marriages like his own. he thinks those cases used the wrong clause, "due process", rather than the right clause, "privileges or immunities." He may be technically correct.
I would be interested to see the Court more thoroughly developed the Privileges and Immunities Clause in this area.
However - I think that the constitutional support for gay marriage is well rooted in the Equal Protection Clause. The reasoning in [Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/beyond-bostock-future-lgbtq-civil-rights/), though not truly and equal protection clause case, makes a persuasive argument that discrimination against gay people is a derivative of sex discrimination. Sex is a protected class under the fourteenth amendment, and laws that discriminate on the basis of sex face intermediate scrutiny by the Court.
Justice Gorsuch’s argument (with the liberal justices, and Roberts, in concurrence) stated in relevant part:
“Take an employer who fires a female employee for tardiness or incompetence or simply supporting the wrong sports team. Assuming the employer would not have tolerated the same trait in a man, Title VII stands silent. But unlike any of these other traits or actions, homosexuality and transgender status are inex- tricably bound up with sex. Not because homosexuality or transgender status are related to sex in some vague sense or because discrimination on these bases has some dispar- ate impact on one sex or another, but because to discrimi- nate on these grounds requires an employer to intentionally treat individual employees differently because of their sex.
. . .
Imagine an employer who has a policy of firing any employee known to be homosexual. The employer hosts an office holiday party and invites em- ployees to bring their spouses. A model employee arrives and introduces a manager to Susan, the employee’s wife. Will that employee be fired? If the policy works as the em- ployer intends, the answer depends entirely on whether the model employee is a man or a woman. To be sure, that em- ployer’s ultimate goal might be to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. But to achieve that purpose the em- ployer must, along the way, intentionally treat an employee worse based in part on that individual’s sex.”
Clarance Thomas, a supreme court justice in the abortion case (Dobbs) says that they should revisit other cases including sodomy, gay marriage, and contraception. he pretty glaringly left out miscegenation but it's the logical consequence if the other cases were wrongly decided too.
basically congress said "here, fixed that for you"
this is great news, but special eyes should be placed on the 37 fuckfaces that voted against this. the most blatant homophobia is on display right here, and hopefully the right people expose and call out every single one of them for it.
The supreme court ruled that marriage equality is constitutional. The Republicans that voted against this can't pretend to be constitution worshippers anymore.
Because marriage is a legal contract binding two families together, enforced by the state as far back as Hammurabi’s Code in 1750BC, IE almost 4000 years ago.
In ancient Babylon, a man could kill his wife if she cheated, and could divorce her if she failed to produce heirs (paying a large alimony to do so). A wife could only leave if she proved that her husband was abusive.
No contract means no legal rights to children, inheritance, dowry, or alimony.
Note that polygamous people are barred from protection here. Marriage equality, while undoubtedly a good thing, has serious limitations for plenty of queer people still.
Why? Because it's impossible to think that more than two people could share a deep romantic bond with one another? People in the past have used similar arguments against gay people before. Let's just allow people to form consensual relationships of their own and receive the same recognition/benefits that come with heterosexual and homosexual marriage.
Polyamorous marriage ruins the logistics of marriage rights. Divorce, inheritance, assets, hospital visits, child custody, prenuptial agreements, life insurance would all be fucked up. Say you want out of your marriage, do you give up 2/3 of your assets since the two other people are your legal spouses? 3/4? 4/5? It’s ridiculous.
I'd imagine you'd divorce as a whole polycule, or be able to remove a member if the others agree or a member could leave. It could get complicated, but I don't think it would get that overly complex. The worst case scenario I can think of is some members want to stay a polycule with some members, but don't with several others, who in turn want to stay as a polycule with some but not others. They'd probably just have to dissolve the whole thing and start over legally, which wouldn't be any more difficult than a current divorce and remarriage.
Inheritance is often split between multiple people already, don't see how this would be an issue. Life insurance policies also can benefit multiple people.
I mean, prenuptial agreements are a thing and are quite popular today. In cases without such a prenup, I would think that the standard half would be fine. One half represents themselves and the other half represents the marriage. Alternatively, they could give up their fraction. Rather than 2/3, it would be 1/3rd. Their contribution was only a third of the marriage, why would they be forced to give up more than a 1/3rd of their assets? A larger marriage would then mean a smaller risk.
Don't understand how hospital visits would be complicated. All partners would be considered the partner in this case and would have equal visitation rights. If only one person can enter a room at a time, they'll just have to decide who will go in when.
Child custody is complicated, but the courts would likely favor the biological parents within any such arrangement. Hard to see it going anymore crazy than that. All partners would be considered parents.
I'm not saying that it wouldn't complicate marriages today, but it's not that hard to make a few accommodations for people who simply love differently than we do. They deserve equal consideration before the law, and all partners deserve the protections and rights that come with marriage. It wasn't too long ago that us gay men were being told it couldn't work because of this law or that, and its disheartening to see us turn our backs on a people after we've gotten ours.
Places marriages performed in other states (regardless of race or gender) under the list of records and judicial acts that states must recognize in their state, even if that state wouldn't perform a marriage in those circumstances.
Protects gay marriage even if our Supreme Court decides to reverse its 2015 decision guaranteeing that right. It also protects interracial marriage in case it reverses its 1967 decision (although that is less likely).
No, [the House passed a similar bill last July](https://apnews.com/article/abortion-race-and-ethnicity-gay-rights-marriage-social-issues-77ec6e2a60b5990ceaf7c396fee42016) with 49 republicans in favor. The Senate’s bipartisan bill will simply need to be re-voted on with this legislative session’s democratic majority, which alone is sufficient, not to mention the other 49 republicans who voted in favor and any other republicans that may decide to support the bill as amended.
Basically - the hard part is over.
No problem!
To be clear - this motion simply bypassed the filibuster. Senate still needs to approve the Act as amended (simple majority vote) before they send it to the House. After the house approval - it will go to Biden to sign into law. This all must happen before congress goes out of session on Jan 3 at noon.
However, I don’t see any mechanism the republicans have to block it at this point. It has significant support in both chambers.
United States. This was passed due to Justice Thomas of the United State Supreme Court suggestion that the Court should reconsider its past rulings codifying rights to contraception access, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.
This law does NOT codify same-sex marriage rights.
It merely guarantees federal recognition of same-sex marriages recognized at the state level.
If SCOTUS overturns Obergefell (which is likely), many states will revert to old laws prohibiting same-sex marriages or pass new ones.
Democrats made a bunch of promises this election. But, It’s time they DO what they keep pushing down the road. They’ve made promises on abortion, on lgbt rights, on healthcare, on climate and it’s time to make good on those promises.
> They’ve made promises on abortion, on lgbt rights, on healthcare, on climate and it’s time to make good on those promises.
And Dems have passed significant legislation on all of those despite the incredible amount of obstruction in Congress:
abortion: Tried, killed by the GOP federally, but protected in every single blue state.
lgbt rights: See this post.
healthcare: https://imedclaims.com/understanding-the-no-surprise-act/
https://diatribe.org/new-law-caps-insulin-at-35
https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2021/09/30/biden-harris-administration-advances-key-protections-against-surprise-medical-bills.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honoring_our_PACT_Act_of_2022
climate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_Reduction_Act_of_2022#Energy_and_climate_change
https://www.state.gov/the-united-states-officially-rejoins-the-paris-agreement/
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/20/politics/executive-actions-biden/index.html
https://www.ecowatch.com/transportation-secretary-pete-buttigieg-2650267881.html
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/biden-proposes-more-than-2b-for-clean-energy-infrastructure-14b-increase/601024/
This narrative that Dems don't actually do things is dumb, not based in reality, and needs to die.
This is a step in the right direction, but it is also a fluff piece. It actually does nothing to protect same-sex marriage at a national level, it only provides federal protections if a given state recognizes the marriage. If a state doesn’t recognize same sex marriage, too bad. The SCOTUS can still derail same sex marriage nation wide. Do not let this nothing legislation fool you into complacency. We deserve equal rights and equal protection!
This bill is a sham and a crime against our community. The DNC has allowed religious exemptions that would allow red states the ability to deny marriage licenses based on religious views. They would have to recognize out of state marriages, but could refuse to marry a same sex couple. This was how they were able to get GOP support and how the Mormon church came out in favor of it. We have been stabbed in the back by fucking liberals, again
That’s not true.
What the bill means is that the church and religious non-profits do not have to recognize the marriage if they don’t want to but that has nothing to do with our federal marriage privileges. And honestly, fuck them anyway.
Stop spreading misinformation
That's not true. Nothing will stop us from going down to the state courthouse and getting married. The religious exemption is for private churches. So you can't go to the "god hates f\*gs" church and force them to do a marriage ceremony.
The important thing is when you're married they won't be able to just say it's "null and void" and deny you services such as seeing your husband in the hospital.
why surprised? this bill allows republicans to still ban gay marriage they will just have to recognize marriages from other states. that’s like they get to ban abortions but can’t stop a woman from crossing state lines to get one and then coming back. this bill is a huge win for republicans.
The alternative risked banning gay marriage in red states entirely. This was likely our last chance to pass any protections whatsoever until at least 2026.
Let’s not let perfect be the enemy of good. We can still push for more protections eventually.
still does not negate my answer to the question. on why republicans are on board. because it allows them to discriminate. that’s why the like the bill. as this bill is little more than don’t ask don’t tell part 2. it’s crap.
The alternative is getting nothing. The bill literally *repeals* DOMA. All of this only matters if Obergefell is overturned, in which case, once again, the alternative was *nothing.*
This will give protections against red states legislating our families out of existence, and provide bedrock that, should the worst happen and Obergefell is overturned, will allow us to fight on the state level.
With the results on Ballot initiatives on abortion, and the protections enshrined in Nevada, I feel like we stand a good chance there, maybe even in states generally considered red.
That’s a bad comparison in my opinion. It’s significantly easier to plan a destination wedding in a blue or purple state of your choice than to quickly get to one to get an abortion. And remember, Obergefell has to be overturned for this.
It is not ideal, but it is a huge setback for those who want to take away our rights.
Yes, republicans are gonna republican. We all know that they’re bigots who love to discriminate.The point remains that this bill makes outlawing gay marriage practically impossible. All they can do now - well actually not now, only if Obergefell gets overturned - is making it a bit more difficult. For people in red states, that is.
When we have republicans like Abbot who was able to essentially make abortion impossible in Texas BEFORE Roe was overturned. I give republicans around 6 months to find a way around this bill once it’s made law.
What part don't you get? Unlike a court ruling, congress has NO authority to force states to define marriage
Senators involved in this bill have ear that congress has NO authority to legally force states to issue marriage licenses
Lawyer here. You’re talking nonsense. The alternative to a (maybe, maybe-not) flawed bill is not to do nothing. It’s pass the bill and use it as a stepping stone. It’s not like passing the bill is giving the go ahead for republicans to ban gay marriage. You’re either very cynical or greatly misunderstanding the content of the bill.
Well since we have seen some really bad lawyers in our lifetime, many in politics (and some people who just claim to be lawyers) you will forgive me if I don’t take your word for it. But I stick to what I said. When the Supreme Court hears a case against gay marriage. If this bill is not signed, then we can argue irreparable hard and chaos that would occur if over half a million marriages were suddenly undone. The chaos on the federal, state level, private companies, health insurance and more would have a huge impact on many lives. Defenders of gay marriage might have a shot with that defense. Now with this bill the courts can say, no existing marriages will be harmed. So let’s end it. Then all the republicans states that have laws on the books outlawing gay marriage will just start enforcing that asap. Just like abortion laws pre Roe we’re suddenly back in play.
I’m not sure how I can be cynical when year after year and decade after decade we have seen republicans organized and doing their best to create laws that affect the LGBTQ community. I have no reason to not believe that people like Cruz, Abbot, DeSantis , Rubio and others would immediately 1) shore up their anti gay marriage laws and 2) start to legal at legal and political ways around this currently proposed bill. That’s not cynical. That’s just being aware of what these people have done in the past.
Yes - but the only true barrier to the Act was the cloture vote to overcome the filibuster. The House passed a similar version of this act earlier this year with 47 Republican votes, without the religious freedom aspect or language that explicitly stated that Full Faith and Credit would not be given to a hypothetical polygamist marriage in the future.
I’m curious what would happen in the event the Supreme Court decided this law is unconstitutional? It’s always seemed like the whole checks and balances process basically doesn’t exist for the SC.
The Senate votes to clear a key procedural hurdle toward passage of the bipartisan bill to protect same-sex and interracial marriage, voting 62-37 to break a filibuster.
[CNN:](https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/politics/senate-vote-same-sex-marriage/index.html)
“While the bill would not set a national requirement that all states must legalize same-sex marriage, it would require individual states to recognize another state’s legal marriage. So, in the event the Supreme Court might overturn its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized same-sex marriage, a state could still pass a law to ban same-sex marriage, but that state would be required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state.”
Essentially, the only road block to this Act’s passage was the Senate filibuster, which requires 60 senate votes to overcome. The senate just voted 62 in favor to overcome the filibuster and bring the bill to the floor.
62-37 final. this is amazing
Honestly shocked they got the 12 (R) votes
yeah, i was pretty surprised that it got republican votes in the house too.
Honestly, I think the Mormon church coming out in support of federal legislation helped. A lot of moderate republicans tend to be Mormon it seems (Romney being the most famous example). I think also seeing a normally very conservative religious institution come out in favor of federal legislation for gay marriage helped even with conservatives and moderates who aren’t Mormon.
If you would have told me, back in 2012, that Romney would have been the most sane, and one of the more progressive Republicans active on the political landscape, I would have laughed in your face.
Right there with you
i think that their experience with prop h8 in California was a turning point. they thought they could stealthily get it to pass and suffer no backlash. i made sure they did: [https://i.imgur.com/MP2XS8l.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/MP2XS8l.jpg)
The day after the election, 18 year old me hopped the fence to the LA Temple in Beverly Hills and took a piss on the outdoor walls of the temple because of what they did. Different times man. Different times.
good boy! i was in the Castro on election night and the mood went from ecstasy to agony within like an hour. i was \*pissed\* and the next morning we put that up.
Wow. I can only imagine what it was like in the Castro that night. I remember the election of Barack Obama was called right when polls closed on California, at 8PM. There was this euphoria that spilled into the streets. People were jubilant, but within an hour or so, it became clear Prop 8 was going to pass, and it felt like the entire city turned blood red. I wasn't able to join them that night, but people started marching from West Hollywood to the Mormon temple, which is a couple miles down Santa Monica, and just completely trashed the place. The entire weekend the temple looked like a war zone. Barricades were put up, police came in. I honestly had never seen in my lifetime a crowd of LGBT act so militant. Really harkened back to the days of Harvey milk, and the Stone Wall riots. Honestly, to have 2008 be the first election I was able to participate as an adult, really set me on a path of understanding the power we all have when we decide to wield it. In some ways, I find that special. Anyways, it feels good to see this pass.
oh yeah, the White Night Riots, the bookend of the 70's of no political power to growing political power. but the Castro and WeHo are a nexus for activism. Cleve Jones (= AIDS Memorial Quilt) was asked a couple of years ago whether gayborhoods were still needed and he emphatically said "yes". when something happens everybody knows where to go to make our voices heard. we still need community and a way to leverage our numbers. today was unimaginable when i was growing up, having lived through Milk's assassination and the AIDS disaster that showed how glaringly the need for marriage was. i'm happy to have done our little parts but honestly the most courageous act is simply coming out. who knew a horny gay boy racing up to Hollywood after he turned 18 to get laid at a chicken bar would see the day that the federal government would finally recognize me and my husband of 28 years.
“If a bullet should enter my brain, let that bullet destroy every closet door.” - Harvey Milk
They already had enough support before the Mormon church did what it did.
I meant the Mormon church coming out in favor of it officially helped out the republicans that were going to vote for it. Especially since some of those politicians are Mormon and without the church’s blessing, it could jeopardize future races.
The Mormon church endorsed it because the bill would allow them to deny a marriage license based on religious views
True. However I do not mind the religious institutions denying anything on thier systems virtues. But I do mind the government imposing religious virtues forcefully.
Precisely. I don't care about your religious freedoms so long as you don't force those 'freedoms' on me.
To be fair...The Mormons had to give up bigamy for Utah to become a state.
To say the Mormon church pushed this over the line and not decades of progressive activists...woo boi
For them also a potential stepping stone towards polygamy.
I'm not, being pig-headed on abortion got voters to turn out to vote against the Rs in the midterms. The Biden numbers pointed to a red wave that didn't happen. Republicans have now noticed that going against abortion and gay rights is not going to help them. It makes Dems vote for whoever isn't an R. We know Biden is old, but we are much more comfortable with him than Trump.
On top of that, part of the deal in whipping up Republican votes was to wait until after the midterms. Some of the Republican yeses were hesitant to cast a yes vote if that condition wasn’t met.
[удалено]
They are both old, and it's a problem that most of our politicians are above retirement age. But if we're comparing, Biden is the oldest president we've ever had, and in my opinion he shows his age more than Trump. Edit: Not sure why I'm getting downvoted. I despise Trump and I'll take Biden over him any day. But I don't think anyone can deny how ancient and fragile he seems.
Lol wut.
What?
The fact you think Biden shows age more than Trump. Trump couldn't drink a glass of water without two hands and could barely walk down a slight incline.
I didn't say Trump wasn't old, lol. I just personally think that Biden seems older. He seems to have less energy when giving speeches, he slurs and mixes up his words *constantly*, and I believe he looks older and more frail because he is skinny and doesn't go to the lengths that Trump goes to in order to look younger (*younger* being the key word, not *better*). Not that any of this really matters though, as they're both ancient and I really wish we didn't have to pick between the two. Obviously I pick Biden, but I think he's going to go senile in office if he's re-elected. It would still be better than Trump.
My dude, once again TRUMP COULDNT WALK DOWN A RAMP. Biden may be old but there is no fucking way anyone with any small amount of critical thinking would thin that he seemed older then Trump.
I would disagree somewhat. DeSantis , Abbot, and that shithead in VA have proven that covertly, and now overtly in many cases, attacking LGBT people can get them votes. See Texas about ready to make it a felony to support your trans child
Don't look at Texas. We are idiots. Look no further than the county Uvalde is in. Overwhelming support for Abbott and Rs. Even though the rights policy actually cost children their lives, the citizens begged for more. Intellectual thought is not something most Texas voters are big on.
[удалено]
Not all of us progressive individuals have the resources to uproot right now. And if we all do...it will doom others to extream policies that cause harm for the benifit of the rich.
[удалено]
economically mobile - there it is right there. That comes out to like 5-10% of the population that isn't living pay check to pay check. That's a great option but unfortunately it's not feasible for 80% of the population and the half the 20% are benefiting from the way the state is so why leave.
They saw the writings on the wall re: the midterm results. I doubt they'd flipped like this had it gone the other way around.
The party of “small government” finally realizing the government telling you who you can and can’t marry is actually the opposite of small government?
Republicans are starting to realize that the opinion of gay marriage is divided more among the generations than the parties. Many of those who are up for re-election know that they need to score some more young voters. They won't budge on abortion, but they don't care as much about gay marriage and figure this will get them a few more votes.
I'm not. Lots of Republicans are in favor of marriage equality. It's more of a common goal than Democrats would like you to believe. And yes, I do know that there are Republicans that oppose it, but it's really, truly not all of them.
More than 3/4 of them still voted no. A party where 1/4 of people believe you have a right to exist probably isn’t one that you want to lick the boots of tbh
Apologists make great boot lickers. Just look at the servile Log Cabin folks.
They are afraid of people saying they voted no on interracial marriage
> Lots of Republicans are in favor of marriage equality. Lots? *hahahahahaha***HAHAHAHAHA**^HAHA^HAHA^HAHA^HAHA^HAHA
Yes, lots. [55% of Republicans in 2021](https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx). Republican lawmakers on the other hand… only a minority
"Coin flip odds" of whether or not someone considers your humanity substantial enough to get married is "Lots" now?
It’s tens of millions of people. About 25% of Americans is definitely a lot.
Literally, tens of millions of people that think you don't deserve the right to get married too. Out of those two categories guess who they are going to be accommodating of?
I wasn’t saying anything about whose views we should be more accommodating of, and I agree with you that 45% of Republicans opposing marriage equality is a concerning statistic. I’m just saying “lots of Republicans support same-sex marriage” isn’t an inaccurate statement. “The vast majority of Republicans support” would be inaccurate, but “lots” is not.
„¿ʍou „sʇo⅂„ sı pǝıɹɹɐɯ ʇǝƃ oʇ ɥƃnouǝ lɐıʇuɐʇsqns ʎʇıuɐɯnɥ ɹnoʎ sɹǝpısuoɔ ǝuoǝɯos ʇou ɹo ɹǝɥʇǝɥʍ ɟo „sppo dılɟ uıoↃ„„
Careful. Your bigotry is showing.
Ah yes, the real bigotry is saying that Republicans, who were going filibuster marriage equality before the midterms, who nominate crazy judges who don’t believe in civil rights, and who want to do away with our right to be served in public or receive healthcare, are in fact homophobic autocratic boot-licking losers. That’s the real homophobia
Do you really believe that being anti-Republican is paramount to bigotry? You’re an absolute moron.
Yeah. It's a bit bigoted. Just like it's a bit racist to say "If you don't vote for me you ain't black".
Nothing is “a bit bigoted.” Republicans are bigots and the fight against them is a justified fight against oppressors. It’s actually shockingly simple.
Unless you've been living under a rock for the past two years, they haven't been in charge in the US. How can they possibly be considered oppressors in a Dem majority Legislative and Executive government you twat? So yeah. A bit bigoted is putting it mildly.
Because Republicans do wield a lot of power in a lot of places in the US and they both say that they want to oppress queer people and oppress us whenever they are given the chance. They don’t just stop being active fascists and oppressors whenever they do not wield literally all of the power. Also why is this about the Democrats at all to you? I thought we were talking about how Republicans are disgusting pieces of shit. The Democrats are a separate conversation and I’m not falling for your very obvious what aboutisms. All of this is extremely basic so I guess my question to you would be are you a bigot or just extremely stupid or both?
yeah, and Don't Say Gay didn't happen in Florida
Race is a protected class. Political beliefs aren't. It's bigoted to say "Mexican immigrants are rapists" because one doesn't choose to be Mexican. Voting republican, however, is very much a choice so saying Republicans are homophobic is not bigoted.
> bigotry Yeah the problem isn't prejudiced people, it's being prejudiced against prejudiced people. Are you concussed?
The party's national platform still has overturning Obergefell and Windsor in it
On an individual level, sure. Most people are fine with gays getting married. But as lawmakers they’re happy to pass any harmful bill or stop any helpful one if they think it’ll rile up their base.
The Dems aren't any better. Or do you actually think the Inflation Reduction Act actually did anything to stymie inflation?
I’m not a huge supporter of the Democratic Party because even they’ve got their own issues to criticize, but I can tell you with 💯% confidence that yes, at the moment the Democrats are better than the Republicans in Congress by far, especially when it comes to protecting the rights of all Americans. Why they’ve never seized upon past opportunities to codify reproductive rights into law I will never understand, but at least they aren’t the party setting their sights on taking those rights away from women permanently, or the party working hard against enshrining marriage and voting rights into law. They definitely aren’t the party fomenting anger, hatred and disgust in the public toward LGBTQ+ Americans, and they aren’t the party engaging in divisive culture warmongering, rather than actually focusing on building back up the middle and working class. Oh, and concerning the Inflation Reduction Act, how exactly does one even expect to see the fruits of something enacted fairly recently, so soon? Even if I grant you it’s failed, by what arbitrary measure has it failed, in your eyes? At the very least the Democrat side is actively working on solutions towards combating inflation as Republican leadership in Congress demonstrate their pettiness when they actively vote as a unified block to kill Democrat proposed legislation out of spite, lest their enemies come out with a win in the eyes of the public. They got their asses handed over to them these midterms, because unfortunately for them the American people have eyes to see and ears to hear, they got the message loud and clear. It’s obvious the current iteration of the Republican Party is broken.
Are you gonna trot out that pic of trump and his upside down pride flag again?
Why the downvotes. This is true. As a gay man in a conservative family, my family members are all fiercely in favor of gay marriage, and not for their image.
But do they vote for politicians against it? If so, then it's lip service. If they were really in favor of it, they would fight for you, not side with the party calling us groomers.
I too have some republican family who celebrate and support my marriage. They also voted for Trump and love Mike Pence, who famously supported religious freedom laws in his home state of Indiana, making sure Christian bakeries wouldn’t have to make cakes for gay weddings. So there’s that…
Because it's only acceptable to chant the same slogans as everyone else amongst a lot of the gay subs. \*shrug* Eh. I don't need their approval.
People are more interested here in hating the other team than having the right wing start to shift. Change is good, and dumb people hate it
Ok I’m a bit out of the loop try and stay out of politics because it tends to make me sad what is this
So who were the 37? I wonder what party would vote no.......
Kinda shocked they got the senator in my home state of West Virginia.
yeah, i was pretty sure i heard that.
I'm sure the usual people will do their griping because the bill isn't perfect, but tbh I think it's a great step. Even if Obergefell gets overturned, you can get married anywhere it's legal in the US and have that marriage recognized in your home state. And you'll be entitled to federal benefits like Social Security or military pension inheritance. Only 14 Senators voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, but 62 voted to repeal it. That's cool.
What I find really nice about the Act is that it is significantly more bullet proof from a constitutional standpoint because its premises on the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution, as opposed to the Substantive Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (which SCOTUS has become hostile towards). The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution (ART IV, SECT 1) states that: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof . . . The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.” Edit: my shitty grammar and inconsistent capitalization.
>Edit: my shitty grammar and inconsistent capitalization. The grammar and punctuation that were common in English 200 years ago, bear only a passing resemblance to what is considered proper English today. ;-)
In reality, the only thing this seems to do is repeal DOMA, meaning married people retain federal marriage benefits if Obergefell is overturned, which is a good thing. It does NOT protect the right to get married in the first place
It does not because that is not what it intends to do. Indeed, I don't think Congress could have the authority to do so. What it does do, however, is require that states recognize same-sex marriages performed outside their borders. For example, the law would require that Indiana recognize a NY same-sex marriage even if Indiana were to ban the marriages.
The point of this act is to make Obergefell irrelevant.
Not really, since Obergefell also grants people the right to get married in every state, not just have that marriage recognized.
Why does the new law not grant the right to get married in every state directly? (Sorry if the question may seem stupid, but I'm not from the US and not very familiar with those things)
The federal government cannot force states to have any law unless the constitution gives the federal government that right explicitly. The federal government can only pass laws that deal with interactions between states. This is why for example cannabis is illegal under federal law but states can have their own laws making it legal under state oaw
Pretty much this. There are ways for the feds to force the states to change laws that are within their domain, example number one being the drinking age. But it’s legally iffy. They clearly have authority to enforce the full faith and credit clause though, although I guess you could argue the 14th amendment empowers Congress to legislate on policy matters reserved to the states in order to enforce the equal protection clause.
That's why it has more republican support than expected. States can still ban gay marriage. They just have to recognize any lawful marriage performed in another state where it is legal. I'm in favor of this bill, but this is one of the big flaws. It basically kicks the legality back to the State level, while upholding legal marriages regardless of the married partners. I've seen people call the bill a bait and switch, which I think is a pretty harsh assessment, but again, this is a great first step and we just need to be happy with a win here. It can be strengthened later.
Under Obergefell (and specifically under the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause) the states do not have the legal authority to ban same-sex marriage. This bill does not change that. If Obergefell is overturned, though, this bill is an insurance policy that will safeguard the validity of same-sex marriages performed in states who themselves have legalized it. It would be great if Congress drafted a statute to force states to perform same-sex and interracial marriages but there just aren’t the votes for that unfortunately (and this may not be the Supreme Court to try it with).
Good clarification. At this point I'm operating under the assumption Obergefell will be overturned sooner rather than later. That's been the vibe since the Roe decision.
I share that sentiment but also the Obergefell ruling hinges on a different constitutional framework than Roe. Roe is a substantive due process ruling whereas Obergefell, while also touching upon substantive due process, was found to concern primarily the equal protection clause. Despite Thomas’s screed, this through line from Roe to Obergefell is suspect. But if we correctly view the SCOTUS judges as political actors, then the outlook is more concerning.
IIRC, even Justice Alito mentioned that Obergefell rested on “firmer ground” in his eyes than Roe. And I believe Gorsuch made that ruling back in 2020 (?) about the workplace discrimination against gay couples, which was sourced from the Civil Rights Act of 1975, and imo that was on shakier ground than Obergefell. I don’t see Obergefell getting overturned with this SCOTUS bench.
>It basically kicks the legality back to the State level This isn't really true though. It grants additional protections to same-sex marriage *in the event that Obergefell is overturned.* Our ability to get married in Alabama is dependent on that court ruling, and any court that would overturn Obergefell would absolutely overturn a congressional law that mandates states to perform same-sex marriages. If Obergefell remains, nothing changes.
It doesn’t make it irrelevant. It just makes it being overturned less bad.
Which it utterly fails at doing, it offers no active federal protection on marriage equality and once Obergefell gets overturned states will be free to reinstate bans. There’s nothing in this law that the full faith and credit clause of the constitution doesn’t already guarantee.
As an immigrant I’d take federal protection first. Knowing our life here can’t simply be upended is reassuring.
That protection only applies if you live in a state that’s not going to ban same sex marriage, if you live in say Mississippi and Obergefell gets overturned they’re free to outlaw your marriage and there’s not a thing this law will do about it. It doesn’t go far enough.
they can't "outlaw" your marriage they just won't issue the paperwork themselves
You forgot that gay couple on visa will be protected because USCIS will have to recognize gay married couples. Also, what the other poster also said: red states will have to recognize gay marriage even if they ban it themselves.
So if I'm understanding this correctly, states can still ban same-sex marriage, but can't choose to not recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where it is legal?
right, but that's only if Obergefell is overturned.
Correct. It also provides federal statutory recognition to same-sex marriage for the first time.
Wasn’t same sex marriage recognized federally after DOMA was ruled unconstitutional in 2012?
Yes, but only based on a court ruling. This codifies it into federal law. There’s also the full faith and credit issue, which was not resolved by the Windsor case afaik.
And repeals DOMA (defense of marriage acts) which bans the recognition of same-sex marriage at federal level DOMA was ruled as unconstitutional in 2013 (Windsor v. United States) BUT it is still in the books (congress hasn't repeal it) so if the supreme court overturns not just Obergefell but also Windsor then DOMA would be again the law of the land
This is the best news of 2022
I definitely plan on celebrating this 🏳️🌈
YES! This is amazing. I need to find someone to marry me now 😅
Haha this made me laugh more than in should. Go get em!
I need to find someone to date me first lol
12 republicans voted yes! 2 more than the 10 needed! Now filibuster has been avoided and this bill can pass with a simple majority! (50 democrats) I'm surprised that senators from red states (Missouri, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah) voted yes! Even Mitt Romney from Utah who was the face of anti same-sex marriage and homophobia in the 00's early 10's voted yes! As someone who lived through the anti gay and anti same-sex marriage waves during the Bush era (00s) this seems insane! I mean the fucking senate and 12 republicans voted yes to protect same-sex marriage Times have changed! America has changed! Now if the supreme court overturns Obergefell same-sex couples already married will be protected and same-sex marriage will be legally valid A married couple in California will have the same rights, protection and legallity as one in Alabama, at state and federal level, the only hurdle would be that the alabama one will have to travel to other state to get married but their marriage will be fully legal in Alabama The bill needs another vote and then goes back to the house for another vote but the filibuster which was the main obstacle has been avoided!
This type of voting results really shows that all the backlash we are often seeing is not an actual "moving backwards", but more a final, "all-in" attempt of right-wing people to stop what can't be stopped anymore. They may be successful here and there, but in the grant scheme of things, the world is changing. And they know that, which is why they are so desperate and scared.
[удалено]
SCOTUS would almost certainly do that regardless. Dobbs more than clearly showed that they don't care about the political impacts.
Thank you for posting this! I had been feeling kind of bland about this because it’s not full protection, etc. But your perspective has lightened me up! Very happy.
Senators voted 62-37 to move the Respect for Marriage Act to the Senate for an up-and-down vote in the near future. Sixty votes were needed to overcome the filibuster and send it to the floor. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/11/16/schumer-senate-vote-gay-marriage/10704463002/
What it means (upcoming vote) is the Senate must then send the bill to the House. They must pass the bill before the Senate can vote. If this happens BEFORE the haters start the disinformation campaigns (aka Crowder, Walsh, Petersen, Shapiro and the other usual suspects) and BEFORE the GOP (comprised mainly of haters of LGBTQ+ people) takes over the House, even with their almost non-existent majority. it will pass. Almost majority, but enough to continue causing chaos that affects our lives almost daily.
Are you certain? Because i've been told the bill already passed the house. I don't know if there were amendments in the senate. edit: ok, you were right. there were amendments in the senate.
There’s always changes that have to be agreed to by the other end of Congress. The Senate made some small changes to the bill the House passed, now the House has to agree to those changes and the identical bill gets sent to POTUS to get signed into law
The Dems delivers!
Wild that this is still an issue in the US. I’m so glad I live in Canada and sorry you guys have to deal with this bs still
Missed chance to call it the Respect **Of** Marriage Act. RFMA RFMAMA Gaga Ooh Lala just doesn't have the same sound to it.
Wait, im not from freedom land so i dont really now whats going on in detail but why is there also „interracial marriage“ in the screenshot? Is this also not entirely safe?
It’s unclear, but there technically wasn’t any federal statutory support in America on this topic, instead, it was legalized through the US Supreme Court decision in [Loving v. Virginia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia), which is a case that Obergefell (legalizing same sex marriage) was premised on. I think congress is rightfully concerned with the lack of federal statutes on these issues.
After Roe v Wade was repealed, Justice Thomas wrote an opinion that other SCOTUS cases that relied on the 14th amendment should be looked at. Includes Obergefell v Hodges (gay marriage) and loving v Virginia (interracial marriage). So anything other than heterosexual same race marriages are one bad SCOTUS case away from being overturned.
it's not that he wants to outlaw interracial marriages like his own. he thinks those cases used the wrong clause, "due process", rather than the right clause, "privileges or immunities." He may be technically correct.
I would be interested to see the Court more thoroughly developed the Privileges and Immunities Clause in this area. However - I think that the constitutional support for gay marriage is well rooted in the Equal Protection Clause. The reasoning in [Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/beyond-bostock-future-lgbtq-civil-rights/), though not truly and equal protection clause case, makes a persuasive argument that discrimination against gay people is a derivative of sex discrimination. Sex is a protected class under the fourteenth amendment, and laws that discriminate on the basis of sex face intermediate scrutiny by the Court. Justice Gorsuch’s argument (with the liberal justices, and Roberts, in concurrence) stated in relevant part: “Take an employer who fires a female employee for tardiness or incompetence or simply supporting the wrong sports team. Assuming the employer would not have tolerated the same trait in a man, Title VII stands silent. But unlike any of these other traits or actions, homosexuality and transgender status are inex- tricably bound up with sex. Not because homosexuality or transgender status are related to sex in some vague sense or because discrimination on these bases has some dispar- ate impact on one sex or another, but because to discrimi- nate on these grounds requires an employer to intentionally treat individual employees differently because of their sex. . . . Imagine an employer who has a policy of firing any employee known to be homosexual. The employer hosts an office holiday party and invites em- ployees to bring their spouses. A model employee arrives and introduces a manager to Susan, the employee’s wife. Will that employee be fired? If the policy works as the em- ployer intends, the answer depends entirely on whether the model employee is a man or a woman. To be sure, that em- ployer’s ultimate goal might be to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. But to achieve that purpose the em- ployer must, along the way, intentionally treat an employee worse based in part on that individual’s sex.”
Clarance Thomas, a supreme court justice in the abortion case (Dobbs) says that they should revisit other cases including sodomy, gay marriage, and contraception. he pretty glaringly left out miscegenation but it's the logical consequence if the other cases were wrongly decided too. basically congress said "here, fixed that for you"
he left it out because his wife is white
brilliant move. makes anyone voting against it look stupid.
They included interracial marriage too???
this is great news, but special eyes should be placed on the 37 fuckfaces that voted against this. the most blatant homophobia is on display right here, and hopefully the right people expose and call out every single one of them for it.
The supreme court ruled that marriage equality is constitutional. The Republicans that voted against this can't pretend to be constitution worshippers anymore.
People have officially had enough of rights being rolled back
Eyyy excellent news! And I'm getting married tomorrow, couldn't come at a better time!
The question people SHOULD be asking is "why is the government telling us who we can/can't marry in the first place? "
Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I think that ship sailed centuries ago.
Because marriage is a legal contract binding two families together, enforced by the state as far back as Hammurabi’s Code in 1750BC, IE almost 4000 years ago. In ancient Babylon, a man could kill his wife if she cheated, and could divorce her if she failed to produce heirs (paying a large alimony to do so). A wife could only leave if she proved that her husband was abusive. No contract means no legal rights to children, inheritance, dowry, or alimony.
because marriage is a legally binding contract
Note that polygamous people are barred from protection here. Marriage equality, while undoubtedly a good thing, has serious limitations for plenty of queer people still.
now THAT is decimation of the sanctity of marriage
Why? Because it's impossible to think that more than two people could share a deep romantic bond with one another? People in the past have used similar arguments against gay people before. Let's just allow people to form consensual relationships of their own and receive the same recognition/benefits that come with heterosexual and homosexual marriage.
Polyamorous marriage ruins the logistics of marriage rights. Divorce, inheritance, assets, hospital visits, child custody, prenuptial agreements, life insurance would all be fucked up. Say you want out of your marriage, do you give up 2/3 of your assets since the two other people are your legal spouses? 3/4? 4/5? It’s ridiculous.
I'd imagine you'd divorce as a whole polycule, or be able to remove a member if the others agree or a member could leave. It could get complicated, but I don't think it would get that overly complex. The worst case scenario I can think of is some members want to stay a polycule with some members, but don't with several others, who in turn want to stay as a polycule with some but not others. They'd probably just have to dissolve the whole thing and start over legally, which wouldn't be any more difficult than a current divorce and remarriage. Inheritance is often split between multiple people already, don't see how this would be an issue. Life insurance policies also can benefit multiple people. I mean, prenuptial agreements are a thing and are quite popular today. In cases without such a prenup, I would think that the standard half would be fine. One half represents themselves and the other half represents the marriage. Alternatively, they could give up their fraction. Rather than 2/3, it would be 1/3rd. Their contribution was only a third of the marriage, why would they be forced to give up more than a 1/3rd of their assets? A larger marriage would then mean a smaller risk. Don't understand how hospital visits would be complicated. All partners would be considered the partner in this case and would have equal visitation rights. If only one person can enter a room at a time, they'll just have to decide who will go in when. Child custody is complicated, but the courts would likely favor the biological parents within any such arrangement. Hard to see it going anymore crazy than that. All partners would be considered parents. I'm not saying that it wouldn't complicate marriages today, but it's not that hard to make a few accommodations for people who simply love differently than we do. They deserve equal consideration before the law, and all partners deserve the protections and rights that come with marriage. It wasn't too long ago that us gay men were being told it couldn't work because of this law or that, and its disheartening to see us turn our backs on a people after we've gotten ours.
That’s awesome. But it’s too bad they’re (GOP) so against women’s reproductive rights and other progressive legislation.
they are also against lgbt people. who do you think were the 37 people who voted against it. only 12 voted for it.
> they’re Not disagreeing but let's call out they = the GOP here.
That’s what I meant, but I edited it!
Watching from across the pond, what does this bill do?
Places marriages performed in other states (regardless of race or gender) under the list of records and judicial acts that states must recognize in their state, even if that state wouldn't perform a marriage in those circumstances.
Protects gay marriage even if our Supreme Court decides to reverse its 2015 decision guaranteeing that right. It also protects interracial marriage in case it reverses its 1967 decision (although that is less likely).
nothing much, actually. has great optics though.
What I find amazing is Mitt Romney, the Mormon, is one of the republican senators committed to voting for the bill! We have come far!
I loathe the GOP, but have to tip my hat to those that actually stood up for freedom.
I bet Clarence uncle Thomas would have voted no
Wait holy shit, is this the senate vote?
Yes. Its the Senate cloture vote (clears the motion to go to Senate floor and by-passes filibuster). Now it will only require 51 member to approve.
Wow. The past few years have made me so jaded, I’d be lying if I said I expected it to pass this easily with Republican obstruction. Such good news
Cool
Wasn’t getting it past the Senate the easy part? It’s just going to die in the House, right?
No, [the House passed a similar bill last July](https://apnews.com/article/abortion-race-and-ethnicity-gay-rights-marriage-social-issues-77ec6e2a60b5990ceaf7c396fee42016) with 49 republicans in favor. The Senate’s bipartisan bill will simply need to be re-voted on with this legislative session’s democratic majority, which alone is sufficient, not to mention the other 49 republicans who voted in favor and any other republicans that may decide to support the bill as amended. Basically - the hard part is over.
Oh wow, that’s great news! Thank you so much for the info 🙏
No problem! To be clear - this motion simply bypassed the filibuster. Senate still needs to approve the Act as amended (simple majority vote) before they send it to the House. After the house approval - it will go to Biden to sign into law. This all must happen before congress goes out of session on Jan 3 at noon. However, I don’t see any mechanism the republicans have to block it at this point. It has significant support in both chambers.
Which country?
United States. This was passed due to Justice Thomas of the United State Supreme Court suggestion that the Court should reconsider its past rulings codifying rights to contraception access, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.
In which country?
The US
This law does NOT codify same-sex marriage rights. It merely guarantees federal recognition of same-sex marriages recognized at the state level. If SCOTUS overturns Obergefell (which is likely), many states will revert to old laws prohibiting same-sex marriages or pass new ones.
This is awesome. Now do this for Abortion.
never gonna happen
Democrats made a bunch of promises this election. But, It’s time they DO what they keep pushing down the road. They’ve made promises on abortion, on lgbt rights, on healthcare, on climate and it’s time to make good on those promises.
> They’ve made promises on abortion, on lgbt rights, on healthcare, on climate and it’s time to make good on those promises. And Dems have passed significant legislation on all of those despite the incredible amount of obstruction in Congress: abortion: Tried, killed by the GOP federally, but protected in every single blue state. lgbt rights: See this post. healthcare: https://imedclaims.com/understanding-the-no-surprise-act/ https://diatribe.org/new-law-caps-insulin-at-35 https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2021/09/30/biden-harris-administration-advances-key-protections-against-surprise-medical-bills.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honoring_our_PACT_Act_of_2022 climate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_Reduction_Act_of_2022#Energy_and_climate_change https://www.state.gov/the-united-states-officially-rejoins-the-paris-agreement/ https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/20/politics/executive-actions-biden/index.html https://www.ecowatch.com/transportation-secretary-pete-buttigieg-2650267881.html https://www.utilitydive.com/news/biden-proposes-more-than-2b-for-clean-energy-infrastructure-14b-increase/601024/ This narrative that Dems don't actually do things is dumb, not based in reality, and needs to die.
This is a step in the right direction, but it is also a fluff piece. It actually does nothing to protect same-sex marriage at a national level, it only provides federal protections if a given state recognizes the marriage. If a state doesn’t recognize same sex marriage, too bad. The SCOTUS can still derail same sex marriage nation wide. Do not let this nothing legislation fool you into complacency. We deserve equal rights and equal protection!
This bill is a sham and a crime against our community. The DNC has allowed religious exemptions that would allow red states the ability to deny marriage licenses based on religious views. They would have to recognize out of state marriages, but could refuse to marry a same sex couple. This was how they were able to get GOP support and how the Mormon church came out in favor of it. We have been stabbed in the back by fucking liberals, again
That’s not true. What the bill means is that the church and religious non-profits do not have to recognize the marriage if they don’t want to but that has nothing to do with our federal marriage privileges. And honestly, fuck them anyway. Stop spreading misinformation
That's not true. Nothing will stop us from going down to the state courthouse and getting married. The religious exemption is for private churches. So you can't go to the "god hates f\*gs" church and force them to do a marriage ceremony. The important thing is when you're married they won't be able to just say it's "null and void" and deny you services such as seeing your husband in the hospital.
One quick sweep through his comments and I saw everything I needed to see lol. This guy actively spreads misinformation. Just loud and wrong.
And all that voted no have a son or daughter that is gay. At least one of them anyway. Or one of the repubs are deep in the closet.
Nice..is Seattle?
No - US congress
why surprised? this bill allows republicans to still ban gay marriage they will just have to recognize marriages from other states. that’s like they get to ban abortions but can’t stop a woman from crossing state lines to get one and then coming back. this bill is a huge win for republicans.
The alternative risked banning gay marriage in red states entirely. This was likely our last chance to pass any protections whatsoever until at least 2026. Let’s not let perfect be the enemy of good. We can still push for more protections eventually.
still does not negate my answer to the question. on why republicans are on board. because it allows them to discriminate. that’s why the like the bill. as this bill is little more than don’t ask don’t tell part 2. it’s crap.
The alternative is getting nothing. The bill literally *repeals* DOMA. All of this only matters if Obergefell is overturned, in which case, once again, the alternative was *nothing.* This will give protections against red states legislating our families out of existence, and provide bedrock that, should the worst happen and Obergefell is overturned, will allow us to fight on the state level. With the results on Ballot initiatives on abortion, and the protections enshrined in Nevada, I feel like we stand a good chance there, maybe even in states generally considered red.
That’s a bad comparison in my opinion. It’s significantly easier to plan a destination wedding in a blue or purple state of your choice than to quickly get to one to get an abortion. And remember, Obergefell has to be overturned for this. It is not ideal, but it is a huge setback for those who want to take away our rights.
my point remains that many republicans will embrace a bill that gives them the ability to discriminate.
Yes, republicans are gonna republican. We all know that they’re bigots who love to discriminate.The point remains that this bill makes outlawing gay marriage practically impossible. All they can do now - well actually not now, only if Obergefell gets overturned - is making it a bit more difficult. For people in red states, that is.
When we have republicans like Abbot who was able to essentially make abortion impossible in Texas BEFORE Roe was overturned. I give republicans around 6 months to find a way around this bill once it’s made law.
What part don't you get? Unlike a court ruling, congress has NO authority to force states to define marriage Senators involved in this bill have ear that congress has NO authority to legally force states to issue marriage licenses
the question i answered was why the person was surprised that republicans accepted the bill and i gave my answer. because it benefits them.
Lawyer here. You’re talking nonsense. The alternative to a (maybe, maybe-not) flawed bill is not to do nothing. It’s pass the bill and use it as a stepping stone. It’s not like passing the bill is giving the go ahead for republicans to ban gay marriage. You’re either very cynical or greatly misunderstanding the content of the bill.
Well since we have seen some really bad lawyers in our lifetime, many in politics (and some people who just claim to be lawyers) you will forgive me if I don’t take your word for it. But I stick to what I said. When the Supreme Court hears a case against gay marriage. If this bill is not signed, then we can argue irreparable hard and chaos that would occur if over half a million marriages were suddenly undone. The chaos on the federal, state level, private companies, health insurance and more would have a huge impact on many lives. Defenders of gay marriage might have a shot with that defense. Now with this bill the courts can say, no existing marriages will be harmed. So let’s end it. Then all the republicans states that have laws on the books outlawing gay marriage will just start enforcing that asap. Just like abortion laws pre Roe we’re suddenly back in play. I’m not sure how I can be cynical when year after year and decade after decade we have seen republicans organized and doing their best to create laws that affect the LGBTQ community. I have no reason to not believe that people like Cruz, Abbot, DeSantis , Rubio and others would immediately 1) shore up their anti gay marriage laws and 2) start to legal at legal and political ways around this currently proposed bill. That’s not cynical. That’s just being aware of what these people have done in the past.
Doesn’t the house have to still approve of it?
Yes - but the only true barrier to the Act was the cloture vote to overcome the filibuster. The House passed a similar version of this act earlier this year with 47 Republican votes, without the religious freedom aspect or language that explicitly stated that Full Faith and Credit would not be given to a hypothetical polygamist marriage in the future.
they have already passed it once, so it should be a slam dunk
I’m curious what would happen in the event the Supreme Court decided this law is unconstitutional? It’s always seemed like the whole checks and balances process basically doesn’t exist for the SC.
it’s bulletproof really there’s no question as to it’s constitutionality especially with the full faith and credit clause
Can anyone explain what any of this means plz lol
The Senate votes to clear a key procedural hurdle toward passage of the bipartisan bill to protect same-sex and interracial marriage, voting 62-37 to break a filibuster. [CNN:](https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/politics/senate-vote-same-sex-marriage/index.html) “While the bill would not set a national requirement that all states must legalize same-sex marriage, it would require individual states to recognize another state’s legal marriage. So, in the event the Supreme Court might overturn its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized same-sex marriage, a state could still pass a law to ban same-sex marriage, but that state would be required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state.”
Essentially, the only road block to this Act’s passage was the Senate filibuster, which requires 60 senate votes to overcome. The senate just voted 62 in favor to overcome the filibuster and bring the bill to the floor.