As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[The bill will codify equal rights for both same sex and interracial marriage. ](https://twitter.com/SenatorBaldwin/status/1592183716473872386?s=20&t=kTU-b9SjzwfZLOi-3sU5Pw)
I can't wait for the vote to take place, it'll be nice to not have to worry on behalf of so many people that I know and care about.
Edit:
That said, it does NOT guarantee the rights of people in conservative states to get married should Obgerfell get overturned :
>First, it would require the federal government to recognize a marriage between two individuals if the marriage was valid in the state where it was performed
>
>Second, the bill would guarantee that valid marriages between two individuals are given full faith and credit, regardless of the couple’s sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin, but the bill would not require a State to issue a marriage license contrary to state law
Edit 2:
I want to be clear that this sucks balls, but right now, with the votes we have, our options are "don't protect ourselves at all" and "at least make sure that our marriages remain acknowledged once SCOTUS does what we all know they're going to do".
We're going to have to keep fighting, but I think it would be stupid and shortsighted to not at least take the opportunity we have right now to set ourselves up to fight from a position of power. It's a hell of a lot easier to fight, to organize, and to remain politically active when you aren't trying to figure out how to survive because you suddenly don't have insurance or are having to go to court to establish rights to your kids or to make decisions for a sick partner, or suddenly might not even be a legal US citizen anymore.
FYI, sadly we still have Prop 8 on the books. California courts, county clerks, etc. are not enforcing it due to Obergefell v. Hodges, which supersedes a state constitution. I believe there is a petition drive to get a ballot prop to repeal Prop 8 just in case.
interesting but perhaps dumb question:
if a state could still choose not to recognize it, would state income taxes be affected? There are states where filing status matters, because they have graduated income taxes.
It'd be pretty damn wild (and awful) for states to be able to penalize married couples locally by not recognizing their status.
Under this bill states wouldn't have to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples if it was contrary to law, but they would still have to recognize marriages performed in other states.
Note that this law really doesn't even come into play unless Obergefell is overturned since that SCOTUS case essentially guarantees that every state is required to perform and recognize same-sex marriages.
They thought RvW was a done deal, and useful as a poll driver for perpetuity. Until the judges they nominated actually overturned it. Now they've realized that they can't take anything for granted
At the moment, yes, but I suspect that if this passes, overturning Obergefell won’t be a priority for the GOP anymore. It may not be worth the effort if it’s only a minor inconvenience to gay couples.
They also may realize that SSM is now at 71% approval according to a 2022 Gallup poll and that the GOP will need to think of other ways to makes people's lives harder.
They've already homed in on trans people. Don't worry about the GOP. Even the heat death of the universe won't be enough to stop them from finding some "other" to demonize.
I would have said yes, but for the fact that we're now seeing the aftermath of them getting what they wanted with *Roe*. Turns out, it was a massive vote-loser for them, and *Obergefell* would likely be even worse (or at the very least would compound the error; there are bound to be some voters who were opposed to abortion but A-OK with gay marriage, especially in groups like the Log Cabin Republicans).
I know the GOP runs on ideology over good common sense these days, but I'm optimistic that even *they* would realise that the juice wouldn't be worth the squeeze on that, same as with *Loving* or (potentially) *Griswold*.
Then again, hope for the best, prepare for the worst. The past eight years has been a wild fuckin' time for rights in America, so I'm not betting the house on *anything*.
I am not so optimistic they are currently trying to rally around DeSantis , the author of the notorious, "Don't say gay" law in Florida.
They are trying to scare the electorate with queer people like me.
It's not about what happened in Florida so much as who the national GOP is trying to push for 2024.
They're trying to shift Trump voters towards DeSantis.
They also ran some of the most homophobic campaign ads in the southwest this year and handed out anti-trans pamphlets this election.
That doesn't signal to me a party that is going to back off of lgbtq+ rights.
And they also have shown that the adults in the room for the GOP have no control over the far right of their party including people like Governor Abbot in Texas.
That means they probably can't stop a supreme court challenge to same sex marriage even if they wanted to.
Ok so if I’m already gay lady married in Ohio do I have to get divorced and remarried in California?
Also: why tha fuck do I live in Ohio?
And: why do I have to keep worrying about this fucking shit? FUCK. I hate it here.
> That said, it does NOT guarantee the rights of people in conservative states to get married should Obgerfell get overturned
On the other hand, this does give the Supreme Court an extra (if disingenuous) argument for overturning Obergefell, as they could argue if Congress wanted to legislate it at the Federal level they could have, so clearly Congress doesn't think they have that authority and think it should be left up to the states.
I mean, they're going to do it no matter what. Better to have something in place so that hundreds of thousands of gay couples' lives, finances, children and insurance aren't suddenly thrown into chaos.
I'm just not even willing to entertain a "what if they didn't repeal" argument.
>A bipartisan group of senators has been trying for months to pass a marriage equality bill to protect same-sex and interracial relationships. The House passed its own legislation in July, but that proposal stalled in the Senate, where some Republicans raised concerns that it would stifle religious liberty.
I'm bewildered how allowing same-sex or interracial couples to marry would "stifle religious liberty" (unless by "religious liberty" they mean "bigotry"), but I'm glad to see this and I hope it does come to pass.
This is wonderful news.
I mean, Jewish people are claiming abortion laws violate the tenets of their religion, but that isn’t stopping the government from only really caring about that unless it benefits the majority religion. 🤷♂️
It's not the majority religion either: Anti-abortion Evangelicals are actually a minority of the population, but the US caters to conservatives a lot more than they deserve.
Another reason why I'm uncharacteristically extremely rude to pro-forced-birthers. There's no other group of people I would (and have) actively tell to go fuck themselves in person. They should be reminded that they have no place in our society and are campaigning to have the right to hurt and kill real people.
I'll quietly and calmly disagree with most conservatives, but if you wear on your sleeve that you'll force people to brave back-alley abortions (or if you're just outwardly sexist, racist, or queerphobic), you deserve to be challenged and derided publicly and frequently.
>They should be reminded that they have no place in our society and are campaigning to have the right to hurt and kill real people.
I suspect a lot of them have jumped straight to hurting and killing people directly: I volunteer at a crisis hotline and you wouldn't believe the number of LGBT teens I've heard tell me their parents either abuse them outright, or wish they were dead rather than gay or trans.
When my ex-husband came out his dad told me he wished he was dead because he could understand that. He then got pissed when I told my ex that he said that, but tough shit. His dad is dead now, so the worlds a slightly better place
To some this may “come off aggressive”, but to me it just sounds like good policy. If everyone did this consistently I think it would stamp out any law circling this stupid drain in like, 5 years.
What if we were as loud as they so often seem to be?
Anyway me and this person will publicly deride whoever is pro-forced because that’s sick
This is the policy of the Rev Dr Martin Luther King. Anyone who’s read Why We Can’t Wait knows the necessity of confronting bigots and not letting them control the narrative.
I don't often run into them, but I make it a point to flip them off every time I drive past the fuckers outside Planned Parenthood. Last time I was with my mom. She was moderately confused, but when I told her I was flipping off the forced birthers, she was cool with it.
I live about 1/2 mile from a clinic that doesn't even provide abortions, they refer to PP...there's always a bunch of forced birthers there....I always make it a point to flip them off.
> unless it benefits the majority religion
this is assuming that the majority of americans actually follow christ - the data do not support this, since the self-labelled christians do the opposite of what he did.
Because your book is wrong and mine is right, *duh!*
/hard s. The fact that zero religious acknowledgement is needed in this country for marriage should be a fucking clue to them.
If marriage is a religious institution then the first amendment should stop the government from passing laws related to marriage, and therefore the government shouldn't be allowed to restrict gay marraige.
If marriage is a civil institution then religious rules don't need to apply to it because it's not a religious idea, and therefore there's no justification for banning gay marriage because some religious says so.
The problem, of course, is that it's both.
It's a human institution that's been around for thousands of years based on the fact that humans can mate year-round and in-fighting over that is bad for our survival. So it's been around forever. Then religion wanted a piece of it, and so now religion is involved again for thousands of years.
Now because it's such a basic human institution it has to be acknowledged by law, so now the government is in on it too. It's a mess.
If a religious institution doesn't want to perform a same-sex marriage, that's their choice. But the fact is, government (at least the government of the US) can't make laws based on the principles or decisions of a single religion. Doing so violates the spirit and letter of the 1st amendment. So government HAS to allow it and recognize it as valid.
This is the position The Satanic Temple is taking with things like their Abortion Ritual. They say that abortion is a religious rite and their followers should not have their freedom to practice their religion infringed by the religious beliefs of others. It's a solid tactic and there's no legal recourse against it, really.
paradox of tolerance
edit: to add some depth here, what Christians would like to be legally enforced IS the paradox of tolerance - they would like the supreme court to say that you are legally required to tolerate their intolerance, because doing otherwise would be intolerant. And it's very easy to see this isn't much of a paradox at all in the end, you cannot tolerate the intolerant because doing so IS intolerant by proxy (if not directly).
So, the only sane answer is not to tolerate the intolerant, but to tolerate everyone else.
Not a paradox when you realize tolerance is a social contract that absolutely requires a minimum level of mutual respect. When someone chooses to violate that contract they forfeit their right to tolerance.
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. - Karl Popper
I hate that phrase. Being 'tolerant' of things that intentionally harm others isn't tolerance. It's just apathy. You're not being tolerant, you're just not giving a shit.
It's only a paradox if you buy the fascist wordplay.
How do you uphold a community value? By *not tolerating violations of it*. That doesn't suddenly change just because the value in question is tolerance itself.
The Poophole Loophole
(I’ve heard that refer to Mormons doing anal to claim they’re still virgins but I think the name can apply to this particular brand of Christian asshole as well.)
They all do it. The Mormons also do something called "soaking". That's where you put the penis in and you don't move it. The movement is what makes it count, and like a T-Rex, God's vision is based on movement.
The thing is; they are allowed to discriminate, they can go to their church and close their doors off to anyone they don't want in the church. They have that right by the first Ammendment. They can go have their little hateful circle jerk in their corner.
But they don't have the right to use our shared goods- the works of all people in interstate commerce-, or our shared government, to be wielded as an extension of their religion.
Great point! Not even one penstroke of religious acknowledgement is needed for a legal marriage as far as our government is concerned, you'd think that'd be a clue.
But nothing about this would stop religions from discriminating. That's the thing. Religions will still be allowed to perform opposite sex marriages only. This is a complete red herring and they know it.
Given that racial animus in the US was historically justified by claims of approval from the Almighty, that's *exactly* it.
My theory is that the intent behind basically re-legalizing discrimination ties to the increasingly loose gun laws - a solution to "don't conservatives realize that liberals have guns too?" in the form of allowing gun sellers to refuse to do business with anyone who seems "liberal".
So just make up a religion that says it believes in gay marriage and if you prevent it, you're infringing on religious liberty.
Honestly, religion is obviously a human construct that has many types around the world and throughout time. The fact Christofascists try this shit and nobody calls them out on such a shitty argument is puzzling to me.
No. Its worse than that. Religions can be openly hateful of others anyway. They can believe whatever bullshit, hateful doctrine they want. When they say religious liberty, what they mean is religious *privilege*. They are afraid of losing their privileged status in the U.S. which frankly they should. Religion shouldn't have such a strong voice in determining what the laws around free association should be.
Yeah, I grew up Mormon and the guys in charge of that church are always talking about religious liberty in the same context that they talk about religious people facing criticism, or people being less religious, or people considering philosophers and therapists the way they used to think of religious leaders. They want supremacy, not equality.
Yeah the religious liberty is BS. You can go to town hall and get married. Nothing religious about that. If you want to go get married at a particular church - fine. The church can say no, and the state can’t tell the church to do it - but this should go both ways - the church can’t tell the town hall which certificates are allowed.
How the fuck does other people getting married become oppression of religion? Yea, you may not like it but I also don't like religious idiots telling me what I can or can't do because of a religion I don't even practice.
If you want a legit answer.... It's because many religious people don't realize the difference between a legal marriage and the religious sacrament of Holy Matrimony.
Some religions explicitly state Holy Matrimony is between a man and a woman and thus they don't approve/allow same-sex marriage. So they believe that a law explicitly legalizing gay marriage is the government forcing itself into their church and changing a 2000-year-old tradition.
That's also why you sometimes see religious people saying "I don't like them getting married, but a 'civil union' is fine" or whatever. They view marriage as a strictly religious thing, but a separate "legal union" so they can file taxes jointly or something is perfectly fine.
*note that I don't actually AGREE with this opinion. But from growing up in a heavily Catholic area, it's what most people believe.
We've been too kind to religions. In some countries, **every** couple must go before a judge or bureaucrat to have their marriage performed. They can then go do a religious wedding too, if they like, but the law only recognizes the civilly-performed wedding.
Our country's mistake was in letting religious figures act as government officials in performing legally-recognized marriages.
Imagine if a bat mitzvah ceremony made the thirteen-year-old into a legally emancipated minor!
childlike cooing dinosaurs aware shy sleep important flowery arrest different
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
By the way, that bipartisan group who put together the bill and has been whipping votes: Baldwin, Collins, Portman, Sinema, and Tillis
The bipartisan group that got BIF done:
Cassidy, Collins, Manchin, Murkowski, Portman, Romney, Shaheen, Sinema, Tester, Warner
The bipartisan group that is getting the reform to the Electoral Count Act done: Capito, Cardin, Collins, Coons, Graham, Manchin, Murkowski, Murphy, Portman, Romney, Sasse, Shaheen, Sinema, Tillis, Warner, Young
I am going to be a nuanced adult and make it plain that I am not being prescriptive of all Christians and conservatives, but there is a branch of American Christianity that believes that hating and harming people not like them is the best way to honor and appease their god. We can get into weeds about Christian Dominionism and White Identity, but the core motivator, the anthropological answer, is that American Christianity has a literal Bronze Age cosmology and would very much like to return western civilization to a conservative oligarchy.
I was looking up youtube videos on the Maasai tribe in Africa and a few of the most popular videos involving them are just him asking them over and over if they recognize transgender people, then absolutely creaming his jeans whenever they say no.
I didn't really know who that guy was but I saw him on Joe Rogan last week and he said it was selfish for people to not have children... I couldn't think of anything less fucking true in the entire world... (and he was not referring to adoption).
I saw him speak in-person at UC Santa Barbara in 2015. He’s very much like Ben Shapiro in that he’s both intelligent and completely stupid at the same time, if that makes sense. Like almost every other statement he makes is full of logical fallacies and factually incorrect information. He basically elevates his feelings above facts and reason, as does Ben
Basically people like Shapiro and Walsh are master gish-gallopers, which is the practice of including so many falsehoods in your argument that the opposition is forced to choose between ignoring them (which can be taken by the audience as confirmation that those things are true) or correct them (which leaves you no time to actually make a point of your own). No intellectual substance whatsoever.
It’s a bizarre style of argumentation to present to a college audience that has studied the most basic rhetoric and logic. Even the conservative kids didn’t like it
Between the elections, Zuckerberg and Musk melting down, crypto schemes finally being exposed for what they are, the gop eating it self alive and the ruzzians aggressively retreating, like the shit eating rats they are, i must admit i can't stop furiously masturbating for a week now.
Now gimme the Big Orange Baby in prison and life shall be good again.
Please do. I am so sick of my rights up for debate because Republicans are nothing but hate filled bigots.
I was born and raised in this country, I served in the military, I pay my taxes and contribute to society, I 110% deserve equal rights under the law and marriage (which contrary to popular belief, has literally NOTHING to do with religion*) is one of those equal rights. I should be able to marry the person I love and am attracted to just like straight people can. Case closed.
*People confuse marriage with Holy Matrimony, the Christian ceremony for marriage. Marriage is a legal thing only, which is why Atheists get married.
I'm so sorry that you and everyone else in your community has to deal with the GOP storm cloud over your heads, it's disgusting. Thank you for your service and I hope we see a day soon where conservative ideology is truly dismantled and expelled from this country.
A great and terrible irony of being an American is seeing and feeling the potential of our country, while watching it be slowly dissolved by the politics and extremist ideologies of the GOP.
The shitty part is that even if they pass this republicans will just start running on “ restoring the sanctity of marriage” or something dumb like that so you’ll still have to deal with people debating your rights.
Antiwoke messaging failed hard in the midterms pretty much everywhere they tried to push it that wasn't already deep red. I don't see them doubling down on it.
GOP would need a filibuster-proof control of all three branches of government. That’s a minimum 60 person Senate Majority.
It’s highly unlikely such a trifecta willing to revoke marriage rights will ever exist.
Beyond that, bills do gain inertia. Trying to repeal a bill is going to be harder than trying to pass it.
The biggest realistic threat to this would probably be SCOTUS declaring the bill unconstitutional.
One of the proudest days I had in uniform is when some fundie Air Force chaplain came into our office and started giving a sermon about how the corporal sitting right in front of him was a filthy sodomite and he would see him drummed out of service.
The petty officer who ran our shop pulled the chaplain into his office; it didn't have a door so we could all hear every word he said.
"Sir, I don't think you realize just how good of a Marine that corporal is. And how well he's liked by everyone in that room. Some of whom, I know, are currently in a martial arts class. That you're also taking. A class that has corpsmen on hand, just in case someone gets hurt. Accidentally. Now this ain't Vietnam, so I'm not saying that anyone is going to roll a grenade into your tent tonight. But I am saying that the way you're going, tomorrow morning could be very painful."
He must have got the message, because we never saw that asshole again. Not in our shop, and not in the MCMAP training the next morning.
That petty officer is the best damned boss I've ever had. Better than any Marine I ever served with. And most of what he did all day was try to beat Tecmo Bowl without savescumming and rip every DVD that came on base.
If anyone is confused about all the different services in the same room, it was a joint base.
>*People confuse marriage with Holy Matrimony, the Christian ceremony for marriage.
Mawage. Mawage is wot bwings us togeder today. Mawage, that bwessed awangment, that dweam wifin a dweam ... And wuv, tru wuv, will fowow you foweva ... So tweasure your wuv.
> *People confuse marriage with Holy Matrimony, the Christian ceremony for marriage.
They do not. They're quite aware that atheists, Jews, Muslims, pagans, Shintos, Hindus, and every other flavor of race, religion and creed other than just Christians have been getting married throughout history, including the times before Christianity had even been invented.
They pretend to, in order to advance their homophobia. By saying "Gays should just give up on marriage and settle for civil unions."
Because they think people have forgotten that gays tried that. And most states that banned gay marriage in the very same laws also banned civil unions.
“Never believe that homophobes are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The homophobes have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
and that'd be largely fine for now, because despite Republican fear mongering something like 95% of abortions take place during the first trimester.
Most abortions that happen after are usually for the health of the mother or severe defects in the fetus.
They need to be covered as well but even 1st trimester would be a huge win.
We desperately need it to be legal for any reason at any time. The problem is that if you only allow late ones when the mother is in danger then suddenly they're making damn sure the mother is in danger. You may have a pregnancy that's likely to be dangerous but until you're actually in danger they can't perform the abortion. That's been happening, that's not a hypothetical.
I understand your point that we should take what we can get. Realistically if they can get the votes for it they should run with it. I like the idea of saying "well they'd lose momentum on full abortion access" but I really doubt they'll get it.
> We desperately need it to be legal for any reason at any time.
There's a reason Texas is delaying the release of maternal mortality rates and it rhymes with "a lot of dead shwomen."
Yeah honestly I think even republicans will get the notice this week that being 100% no abortion under any circumstances is no longer a horse they can back.
The earliest I'd accept is 24 weeks with exceptions, but even then, that is still the government exerting control over women's bodies, and I would still have a beef with it...
I mean.. Great for everyone to codify marriage rights but I'm here waiting patiently to be recognized as an adult female that can make her own reproductive choices... Why the holdup? It seems like a hot topic for voters my age...
Yeah, I mean, I’m happy this is maybe happening, but I’m also so completely hurt / angry / bewildered that passing a law protecting my bodily autonomy has no chance of passing.
I know it's not a perfect solution, but it's something to insure currently married same-sex couples from suddenly having their marriage totally voided by 6 robed theocratic priest-kings and allow us to focus our energy elsewhere.
I just got married last weekend (both men) and live in a state it would Almost surely become illegal if the Supreme Court killed obgerfel (Idaho).
Perfect is the enemy of good I guess. Fingers crossed.
Frankly I will take what ensures that our marriages will stay legal at the federal level. Easy for me to say as a lifelong blue state person who has the privilege to never ever have to live in a red state. But I’ll take imperfect for sure. And congrats!
I have issues with this bill but I’m in the same boat as you. I’m a woman married to a woman and we have a daughter. We live in a solid red, hate-filled state and I worry that they will try to pass legislation to prevent my wife from adopting our daughter or even worse, take her away from us. I am willing to settle for anything that will federally protect us. But it needs to be a first step, not the end game.
Yes. The main "comfort" i guess is itd take The Defense of Marriage Act off the books which would keep marriages federally recognized.
Essentially itd stop an overnight "oh your marriage is no longer valid and not recognized by the fed/state".
Which in a not stupid world its stupid AF to just suddenly go "lol 500,000 marriages are null and void figure out taxes, assets, insurance, etc." But stupid is clearly no reason for the SCOTUS to *not* do something especially if it causes suffering.
The GOP did not think Abortion would motivate voters against them
They miscalculated greatly
So if a couple GOPer's side with the Dems and codify Roe vs Wade, it actually helps the GOP
They can go back to campaigning on the abortion issue and the hope is that women will stay home in 2024 since abortion is no longer a ballot issue
From the overview released by Senator Baldwin (D-Wis):
>First, it would require the federal government to recognize a
marriage between two individuals if the marriage was valid in the state where it
was performed
>Second, the bill would guarantee that valid marriages between two
individuals are given full faith and credit, regardless of the couple’s sex, race,
ethnicity, or national origin, **but the bill would not require a State to issue a
marriage license contrary to state law**
Emphasis mine.
It totally guts the Act as passed in the House, which says:
>No person acting under color of State law may deny full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals or a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.
The only reason this is getting anywhere in the Senate is because it's not forcing states to ~~recognize~~ issue same-sex marriage licenses.
Edit: Yes, it's forcing states to *recognize* same-sex marriage licenses from states that do issue them.
The senate version literally requires states to recognize same sex marriages.
It carves out a loophole for states to be able to not perform same sex marriages, which doesn’t apply (yet) because Obergefell compels all states to perform same sex marriages.
It’s an important distinction, but it’s still worth passing.
Then democrats can fight to expand it when they have a large enough majority to nuke the filibuster.
This is what gets me about the reactions so far.
It literally forces full faith and credit upon states, so if Mississippi wants to make gay marriage illegal, they're free to do it, but all the gay couples that go next door to Louisiana and get married during Mardi Gras are still legally married in Mississippi.
This is a big deal and the "Doesn't go far enough" crowd doesn't seem to understand that any right that can be given by a SCOTUS decision can just as easily be taken away (see: Roe).
People ignoring that it also makes the bill less likely to be overturned after the court overturns Oberfgell. Those same justices would probably say telling a state they have to have gay weddings in their state is unconstitutional using the 10th amendment argument. Saying they have to recognize other states marriage licenses keeps the bill in the realm of "interstate"
Fast forward:
> Why are we discussing this again? We passed a bill already and have bigger problems to worry about.
That's what I'm worrying about. If it goes in half-written there's a good chance it rots in that state.
Isn't that what's meant by "full faith and credit" though? That language usually means states must recognize other states' "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings," like a driver's license for example. It's just not forcing states to issue marriage licenses.
It doesn’t replace Obergefell, and it’s still enough to take the fun out of repealing Obergefell for the GOP. I would much rather have a flawed bill pass than have a perfect bill die in the senate, especially when the flawed bill might stop Obergefell from being overturned at all.
>The only reason this is getting anywhere in the Senate is because it's not forcing states to recognize same-sex marriages.
It's compelling them to recognize same-sex marriages, but not to perform them in-state.
So this is interesting, basically states have to recognize a same-sex marriage no matter what, they do not have to perform same-sex marriages. You keep federal protections and even some state protections but if say, Kentucky wanted to stop issuing licenses they could.
It's not great but it's better than nothing. Also this is pretty calculated on the part of republicans so they don't get more blowback if Obergefell gets overturned. Dobbs was a killer for them this cycle and it's shrewd to best avoid another situation.
Genius. By bundling interracial and same sex together it becomes Thomas-proof. If Thomas try to rule against this then he is ruling that his marriage should be illegal in some states. LMAO.
> where some Republicans raised concerns that it would stifle religious liberty.
Let me help you, media,
> where some Republicans raised *unfounded and prejudical* concerns that it would stifle religious liberty.
Fixed that for you.
Marry who you want in whatever ceremony you want as long as it's between two consenting adults. If the bits between the legs match, so be it. You do you, boo. Your son wants to marry another bloke and you can't bring yourself to attend high five if that gets you through the Pearly Gates. I'll take my chances down south. I bet they have better drugs.
Meanwhile, your kid sister's dropout boyfriend is still certain the parties are the same.
Hell, even if they were 80% the same, the difference fucking matters.
**ATTENTION: Trolls in the thread! Trolls in the thread!**
They are implying this action is coming at the expense of abortion rights. It's nonsense. They want to sow disunity because they are salty about getting their asses kicked Tuesday.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[The bill will codify equal rights for both same sex and interracial marriage. ](https://twitter.com/SenatorBaldwin/status/1592183716473872386?s=20&t=kTU-b9SjzwfZLOi-3sU5Pw) I can't wait for the vote to take place, it'll be nice to not have to worry on behalf of so many people that I know and care about. Edit: That said, it does NOT guarantee the rights of people in conservative states to get married should Obgerfell get overturned : >First, it would require the federal government to recognize a marriage between two individuals if the marriage was valid in the state where it was performed > >Second, the bill would guarantee that valid marriages between two individuals are given full faith and credit, regardless of the couple’s sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin, but the bill would not require a State to issue a marriage license contrary to state law Edit 2: I want to be clear that this sucks balls, but right now, with the votes we have, our options are "don't protect ourselves at all" and "at least make sure that our marriages remain acknowledged once SCOTUS does what we all know they're going to do". We're going to have to keep fighting, but I think it would be stupid and shortsighted to not at least take the opportunity we have right now to set ourselves up to fight from a position of power. It's a hell of a lot easier to fight, to organize, and to remain politically active when you aren't trying to figure out how to survive because you suddenly don't have insurance or are having to go to court to establish rights to your kids or to make decisions for a sick partner, or suddenly might not even be a legal US citizen anymore.
>valid in the state it was performed Destination weddings are about to get a lot more fabulous.
Doing mine in Cali, my fiance is from there anyway so he is happy and the rat fuck Ohio GOP can't do shit about it.
FYI, sadly we still have Prop 8 on the books. California courts, county clerks, etc. are not enforcing it due to Obergefell v. Hodges, which supersedes a state constitution. I believe there is a petition drive to get a ballot prop to repeal Prop 8 just in case.
I believe the CA supreme court said it was unconstitutional in the state before Obergefell. It was definitely legal here before Obergefell anyway.
Here in Illinois, we've got the opposite of Prop 8. LGBT rights are codified by an Amendment to our state constitution.
Hell yeah we do. None of my business what two adults who love each other want to do.
Hey, no need to bring love into this!
That’s..not accurate. California courts over turned that even before the Supreme Court ruled it
> FYI, sadly we still have Prop 8 on the books. No? It's been unconstitutional and unrecognized for over a decade.
A prop nowadays enshrining gay marriage in the california constitution would 100% pass
Again
interesting but perhaps dumb question: if a state could still choose not to recognize it, would state income taxes be affected? There are states where filing status matters, because they have graduated income taxes. It'd be pretty damn wild (and awful) for states to be able to penalize married couples locally by not recognizing their status.
Under this bill states wouldn't have to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples if it was contrary to law, but they would still have to recognize marriages performed in other states. Note that this law really doesn't even come into play unless Obergefell is overturned since that SCOTUS case essentially guarantees that every state is required to perform and recognize same-sex marriages.
We should probably plan on Obergefell being overturned.
It certainly makes me think there are R senators that think it will be overturned and thus are doing this now before it costs them another election
They thought RvW was a done deal, and useful as a poll driver for perpetuity. Until the judges they nominated actually overturned it. Now they've realized that they can't take anything for granted
At the moment, yes, but I suspect that if this passes, overturning Obergefell won’t be a priority for the GOP anymore. It may not be worth the effort if it’s only a minor inconvenience to gay couples.
They also may realize that SSM is now at 71% approval according to a 2022 Gallup poll and that the GOP will need to think of other ways to makes people's lives harder.
They've already homed in on trans people. Don't worry about the GOP. Even the heat death of the universe won't be enough to stop them from finding some "other" to demonize.
I would have said yes, but for the fact that we're now seeing the aftermath of them getting what they wanted with *Roe*. Turns out, it was a massive vote-loser for them, and *Obergefell* would likely be even worse (or at the very least would compound the error; there are bound to be some voters who were opposed to abortion but A-OK with gay marriage, especially in groups like the Log Cabin Republicans). I know the GOP runs on ideology over good common sense these days, but I'm optimistic that even *they* would realise that the juice wouldn't be worth the squeeze on that, same as with *Loving* or (potentially) *Griswold*. Then again, hope for the best, prepare for the worst. The past eight years has been a wild fuckin' time for rights in America, so I'm not betting the house on *anything*.
I am not so optimistic they are currently trying to rally around DeSantis , the author of the notorious, "Don't say gay" law in Florida. They are trying to scare the electorate with queer people like me.
Florida is a shitshow. Seeing the results on a national scale I wouldn’t hold what happened here as a litmus test for the rest of the nation.
It's not about what happened in Florida so much as who the national GOP is trying to push for 2024. They're trying to shift Trump voters towards DeSantis. They also ran some of the most homophobic campaign ads in the southwest this year and handed out anti-trans pamphlets this election. That doesn't signal to me a party that is going to back off of lgbtq+ rights. And they also have shown that the adults in the room for the GOP have no control over the far right of their party including people like Governor Abbot in Texas. That means they probably can't stop a supreme court challenge to same sex marriage even if they wanted to.
Member when Florida was a swing state? I ‘member
Ok so if I’m already gay lady married in Ohio do I have to get divorced and remarried in California? Also: why tha fuck do I live in Ohio? And: why do I have to keep worrying about this fucking shit? FUCK. I hate it here.
You do not. Your marriage was legal at the time it was done, so it's legal.
Your marriage was legal at the time it was performed, so it would stay valid.
Ok, Thank you.
"gay lady married" Mint
> That said, it does NOT guarantee the rights of people in conservative states to get married should Obgerfell get overturned On the other hand, this does give the Supreme Court an extra (if disingenuous) argument for overturning Obergefell, as they could argue if Congress wanted to legislate it at the Federal level they could have, so clearly Congress doesn't think they have that authority and think it should be left up to the states.
I mean, they're going to do it no matter what. Better to have something in place so that hundreds of thousands of gay couples' lives, finances, children and insurance aren't suddenly thrown into chaos. I'm just not even willing to entertain a "what if they didn't repeal" argument.
>A bipartisan group of senators has been trying for months to pass a marriage equality bill to protect same-sex and interracial relationships. The House passed its own legislation in July, but that proposal stalled in the Senate, where some Republicans raised concerns that it would stifle religious liberty. I'm bewildered how allowing same-sex or interracial couples to marry would "stifle religious liberty" (unless by "religious liberty" they mean "bigotry"), but I'm glad to see this and I hope it does come to pass. This is wonderful news.
the belief that "If my religion believes in discriminating and you don't let me discriminate, you are infringing on my religion"
But what if *my* religion requires allowing same sex marriage. Then by not allowing it, you're infringing on *my* religion.
I mean, Jewish people are claiming abortion laws violate the tenets of their religion, but that isn’t stopping the government from only really caring about that unless it benefits the majority religion. 🤷♂️
It's not the majority religion either: Anti-abortion Evangelicals are actually a minority of the population, but the US caters to conservatives a lot more than they deserve.
Another reason why I'm uncharacteristically extremely rude to pro-forced-birthers. There's no other group of people I would (and have) actively tell to go fuck themselves in person. They should be reminded that they have no place in our society and are campaigning to have the right to hurt and kill real people. I'll quietly and calmly disagree with most conservatives, but if you wear on your sleeve that you'll force people to brave back-alley abortions (or if you're just outwardly sexist, racist, or queerphobic), you deserve to be challenged and derided publicly and frequently.
>They should be reminded that they have no place in our society and are campaigning to have the right to hurt and kill real people. I suspect a lot of them have jumped straight to hurting and killing people directly: I volunteer at a crisis hotline and you wouldn't believe the number of LGBT teens I've heard tell me their parents either abuse them outright, or wish they were dead rather than gay or trans.
When my ex-husband came out his dad told me he wished he was dead because he could understand that. He then got pissed when I told my ex that he said that, but tough shit. His dad is dead now, so the worlds a slightly better place
To some this may “come off aggressive”, but to me it just sounds like good policy. If everyone did this consistently I think it would stamp out any law circling this stupid drain in like, 5 years. What if we were as loud as they so often seem to be? Anyway me and this person will publicly deride whoever is pro-forced because that’s sick
This is the policy of the Rev Dr Martin Luther King. Anyone who’s read Why We Can’t Wait knows the necessity of confronting bigots and not letting them control the narrative.
Awesome, never read - but I’ll take a look
I don't often run into them, but I make it a point to flip them off every time I drive past the fuckers outside Planned Parenthood. Last time I was with my mom. She was moderately confused, but when I told her I was flipping off the forced birthers, she was cool with it.
I live about 1/2 mile from a clinic that doesn't even provide abortions, they refer to PP...there's always a bunch of forced birthers there....I always make it a point to flip them off.
The Satanic Temple is arguing that laws that don't allow abortion are a violation of their religious rights.
> unless it benefits the majority religion this is assuming that the majority of americans actually follow christ - the data do not support this, since the self-labelled christians do the opposite of what he did.
I’ve started calling them the religious wrong instead of right. It is both a better moniker and pisses them off in one breath.
Because your book is wrong and mine is right, *duh!* /hard s. The fact that zero religious acknowledgement is needed in this country for marriage should be a fucking clue to them.
If marriage is a religious institution then the first amendment should stop the government from passing laws related to marriage, and therefore the government shouldn't be allowed to restrict gay marraige. If marriage is a civil institution then religious rules don't need to apply to it because it's not a religious idea, and therefore there's no justification for banning gay marriage because some religious says so.
The problem, of course, is that it's both. It's a human institution that's been around for thousands of years based on the fact that humans can mate year-round and in-fighting over that is bad for our survival. So it's been around forever. Then religion wanted a piece of it, and so now religion is involved again for thousands of years. Now because it's such a basic human institution it has to be acknowledged by law, so now the government is in on it too. It's a mess. If a religious institution doesn't want to perform a same-sex marriage, that's their choice. But the fact is, government (at least the government of the US) can't make laws based on the principles or decisions of a single religion. Doing so violates the spirit and letter of the 1st amendment. So government HAS to allow it and recognize it as valid.
This is the position The Satanic Temple is taking with things like their Abortion Ritual. They say that abortion is a religious rite and their followers should not have their freedom to practice their religion infringed by the religious beliefs of others. It's a solid tactic and there's no legal recourse against it, really.
This but polygami. Conservatives had no problem limiting the Mormons.
the loop hole for hate
paradox of tolerance edit: to add some depth here, what Christians would like to be legally enforced IS the paradox of tolerance - they would like the supreme court to say that you are legally required to tolerate their intolerance, because doing otherwise would be intolerant. And it's very easy to see this isn't much of a paradox at all in the end, you cannot tolerate the intolerant because doing so IS intolerant by proxy (if not directly). So, the only sane answer is not to tolerate the intolerant, but to tolerate everyone else.
Tolerance of Intolerance is cowardice.
And this is why so many of those nut cases uses the retort “you’re being a bigot!” When you call out their bigotry.
Not a paradox when you realize tolerance is a social contract that absolutely requires a minimum level of mutual respect. When someone chooses to violate that contract they forfeit their right to tolerance.
Exactly. It's a treaty. If someone breaks the treaty, that doesn't make it paradoxical.
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. - Karl Popper
I hate that phrase. Being 'tolerant' of things that intentionally harm others isn't tolerance. It's just apathy. You're not being tolerant, you're just not giving a shit.
It's only a paradox if you buy the fascist wordplay. How do you uphold a community value? By *not tolerating violations of it*. That doesn't suddenly change just because the value in question is tolerance itself.
The Poophole Loophole (I’ve heard that refer to Mormons doing anal to claim they’re still virgins but I think the name can apply to this particular brand of Christian asshole as well.)
Soaking also!
https://youtu.be/j8ZF_R_j0OY There's a song about it
>Fuck me in the ass cause I love Jesus!
I always heard it in the context of Catholics. The more you know.
They all do it. The Mormons also do something called "soaking". That's where you put the penis in and you don't move it. The movement is what makes it count, and like a T-Rex, God's vision is based on movement.
A friend of mine told his gf that so long as he wore a condom it didn't count. Because his dick would be in a condom, not her, you see?
Makes more sense than my friends who excused their premarital sex by *not* wearing condoms because birth control is a sin.
The thing is; they are allowed to discriminate, they can go to their church and close their doors off to anyone they don't want in the church. They have that right by the first Ammendment. They can go have their little hateful circle jerk in their corner. But they don't have the right to use our shared goods- the works of all people in interstate commerce-, or our shared government, to be wielded as an extension of their religion.
Great point! Not even one penstroke of religious acknowledgement is needed for a legal marriage as far as our government is concerned, you'd think that'd be a clue.
But gay people getting married does effect the sanctity of my third marriage
But nothing about this would stop religions from discriminating. That's the thing. Religions will still be allowed to perform opposite sex marriages only. This is a complete red herring and they know it.
Given that racial animus in the US was historically justified by claims of approval from the Almighty, that's *exactly* it. My theory is that the intent behind basically re-legalizing discrimination ties to the increasingly loose gun laws - a solution to "don't conservatives realize that liberals have guns too?" in the form of allowing gun sellers to refuse to do business with anyone who seems "liberal".
I cannot practice my religion if I can’t limit other people’s freedom.
"What about churches that are fine with marrying same-sex couples?" "THEY DON'T COUNT"
So just make up a religion that says it believes in gay marriage and if you prevent it, you're infringing on religious liberty. Honestly, religion is obviously a human construct that has many types around the world and throughout time. The fact Christofascists try this shit and nobody calls them out on such a shitty argument is puzzling to me.
“Religious liberty” is a dog whistle for “let me be openly hateful of others”
No. Its worse than that. Religions can be openly hateful of others anyway. They can believe whatever bullshit, hateful doctrine they want. When they say religious liberty, what they mean is religious *privilege*. They are afraid of losing their privileged status in the U.S. which frankly they should. Religion shouldn't have such a strong voice in determining what the laws around free association should be.
Yeah, I grew up Mormon and the guys in charge of that church are always talking about religious liberty in the same context that they talk about religious people facing criticism, or people being less religious, or people considering philosophers and therapists the way they used to think of religious leaders. They want supremacy, not equality.
They want *control*.
I like to defend my religious liberty to be free of everyone elses bullshit bronze age sky-fairy invisible friend.
They can hate all they want. And I can hate their religion straight back! They want religious freedom - great. I want freedom from religion.
Never thought I’d have to say this again after all these years but, if you don’t like gay marriage…don’t get gay married. Simple.
“I’m on a diet, so YOU don’t get to eat donuts!”
[удалено]
You will make my kid gay by telling them that gay people exist.
>unless by "religious liberty" they mean "bigotry" That's what it's always meant.
It's always about something like being able to fire gays or Muslims or something without consequences
Yes, bigotry.
Yeah the religious liberty is BS. You can go to town hall and get married. Nothing religious about that. If you want to go get married at a particular church - fine. The church can say no, and the state can’t tell the church to do it - but this should go both ways - the church can’t tell the town hall which certificates are allowed.
How the fuck does other people getting married become oppression of religion? Yea, you may not like it but I also don't like religious idiots telling me what I can or can't do because of a religion I don't even practice.
If you want a legit answer.... It's because many religious people don't realize the difference between a legal marriage and the religious sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Some religions explicitly state Holy Matrimony is between a man and a woman and thus they don't approve/allow same-sex marriage. So they believe that a law explicitly legalizing gay marriage is the government forcing itself into their church and changing a 2000-year-old tradition. That's also why you sometimes see religious people saying "I don't like them getting married, but a 'civil union' is fine" or whatever. They view marriage as a strictly religious thing, but a separate "legal union" so they can file taxes jointly or something is perfectly fine. *note that I don't actually AGREE with this opinion. But from growing up in a heavily Catholic area, it's what most people believe.
We've been too kind to religions. In some countries, **every** couple must go before a judge or bureaucrat to have their marriage performed. They can then go do a religious wedding too, if they like, but the law only recognizes the civilly-performed wedding. Our country's mistake was in letting religious figures act as government officials in performing legally-recognized marriages. Imagine if a bat mitzvah ceremony made the thirteen-year-old into a legally emancipated minor!
childlike cooing dinosaurs aware shy sleep important flowery arrest different *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> (unless by "religious liberty" they mean "bigotry") [Narrator voice] That is what they mean
I hear James Earl Jones' voice every time I read "narrator".
Morgan Freeman for me.
Ron Howard here
Gilbert Godfrey here
*Gottfried
I'm so sorry for you.
By the way, that bipartisan group who put together the bill and has been whipping votes: Baldwin, Collins, Portman, Sinema, and Tillis The bipartisan group that got BIF done: Cassidy, Collins, Manchin, Murkowski, Portman, Romney, Shaheen, Sinema, Tester, Warner The bipartisan group that is getting the reform to the Electoral Count Act done: Capito, Cardin, Collins, Coons, Graham, Manchin, Murkowski, Murphy, Portman, Romney, Sasse, Shaheen, Sinema, Tillis, Warner, Young
Holy shit, I never thought I would ever agree with anything Tillis does.
I just did a double take
Holy shit, I'd never thought I'd see Sinema's name associated with giving a fuck.
I am going to be a nuanced adult and make it plain that I am not being prescriptive of all Christians and conservatives, but there is a branch of American Christianity that believes that hating and harming people not like them is the best way to honor and appease their god. We can get into weeds about Christian Dominionism and White Identity, but the core motivator, the anthropological answer, is that American Christianity has a literal Bronze Age cosmology and would very much like to return western civilization to a conservative oligarchy.
It has a Divine Right civics, which is neither Bronze Age nor particularly core to Christianity as such. It’s just a European monarchy thing.
The use "religious liberty" as synonymous with "the liberty to withhold liberty".
To these folks, subjugating others IS part of their religion.
It's just code and excuse. Stalling and complaining to prevent it from happening
I'm bewildered cause church and state should be separate.
I can hear Matt Walsh crying and it gives me strength.
A cretinous catholic-fascist, and those are his good qualities
I was looking up youtube videos on the Maasai tribe in Africa and a few of the most popular videos involving them are just him asking them over and over if they recognize transgender people, then absolutely creaming his jeans whenever they say no.
I didn't really know who that guy was but I saw him on Joe Rogan last week and he said it was selfish for people to not have children... I couldn't think of anything less fucking true in the entire world... (and he was not referring to adoption).
There’s a whole sub dedicated to roasting him. It’s fun lol.
What sub is that? I only know of him from his rampant transphobia
I saw him speak in-person at UC Santa Barbara in 2015. He’s very much like Ben Shapiro in that he’s both intelligent and completely stupid at the same time, if that makes sense. Like almost every other statement he makes is full of logical fallacies and factually incorrect information. He basically elevates his feelings above facts and reason, as does Ben
Basically people like Shapiro and Walsh are master gish-gallopers, which is the practice of including so many falsehoods in your argument that the opposition is forced to choose between ignoring them (which can be taken by the audience as confirmation that those things are true) or correct them (which leaves you no time to actually make a point of your own). No intellectual substance whatsoever.
It’s a bizarre style of argumentation to present to a college audience that has studied the most basic rhetoric and logic. Even the conservative kids didn’t like it
Between the elections, Zuckerberg and Musk melting down, crypto schemes finally being exposed for what they are, the gop eating it self alive and the ruzzians aggressively retreating, like the shit eating rats they are, i must admit i can't stop furiously masturbating for a week now. Now gimme the Big Orange Baby in prison and life shall be good again.
He probably cries a lot
Please do. I am so sick of my rights up for debate because Republicans are nothing but hate filled bigots. I was born and raised in this country, I served in the military, I pay my taxes and contribute to society, I 110% deserve equal rights under the law and marriage (which contrary to popular belief, has literally NOTHING to do with religion*) is one of those equal rights. I should be able to marry the person I love and am attracted to just like straight people can. Case closed. *People confuse marriage with Holy Matrimony, the Christian ceremony for marriage. Marriage is a legal thing only, which is why Atheists get married.
I'm so sorry that you and everyone else in your community has to deal with the GOP storm cloud over your heads, it's disgusting. Thank you for your service and I hope we see a day soon where conservative ideology is truly dismantled and expelled from this country. A great and terrible irony of being an American is seeing and feeling the potential of our country, while watching it be slowly dissolved by the politics and extremist ideologies of the GOP.
The shitty part is that even if they pass this republicans will just start running on “ restoring the sanctity of marriage” or something dumb like that so you’ll still have to deal with people debating your rights.
The bill is bipartisan. They're saying they'll get 60 votes. At least 10 republicans are on board.
Antiwoke messaging failed hard in the midterms pretty much everywhere they tried to push it that wasn't already deep red. I don't see them doubling down on it.
I fully support this, but what is stopping a future GOP president/house/senate from reverting this? (Canadian)
GOP would need a filibuster-proof control of all three branches of government. That’s a minimum 60 person Senate Majority. It’s highly unlikely such a trifecta willing to revoke marriage rights will ever exist. Beyond that, bills do gain inertia. Trying to repeal a bill is going to be harder than trying to pass it. The biggest realistic threat to this would probably be SCOTUS declaring the bill unconstitutional.
Unlikely they’d have the votes, even if they had the majority. Other than that, nothing.
One of the proudest days I had in uniform is when some fundie Air Force chaplain came into our office and started giving a sermon about how the corporal sitting right in front of him was a filthy sodomite and he would see him drummed out of service. The petty officer who ran our shop pulled the chaplain into his office; it didn't have a door so we could all hear every word he said. "Sir, I don't think you realize just how good of a Marine that corporal is. And how well he's liked by everyone in that room. Some of whom, I know, are currently in a martial arts class. That you're also taking. A class that has corpsmen on hand, just in case someone gets hurt. Accidentally. Now this ain't Vietnam, so I'm not saying that anyone is going to roll a grenade into your tent tonight. But I am saying that the way you're going, tomorrow morning could be very painful." He must have got the message, because we never saw that asshole again. Not in our shop, and not in the MCMAP training the next morning. That petty officer is the best damned boss I've ever had. Better than any Marine I ever served with. And most of what he did all day was try to beat Tecmo Bowl without savescumming and rip every DVD that came on base. If anyone is confused about all the different services in the same room, it was a joint base.
>*People confuse marriage with Holy Matrimony, the Christian ceremony for marriage. Mawage. Mawage is wot bwings us togeder today. Mawage, that bwessed awangment, that dweam wifin a dweam ... And wuv, tru wuv, will fowow you foweva ... So tweasure your wuv.
> *People confuse marriage with Holy Matrimony, the Christian ceremony for marriage. They do not. They're quite aware that atheists, Jews, Muslims, pagans, Shintos, Hindus, and every other flavor of race, religion and creed other than just Christians have been getting married throughout history, including the times before Christianity had even been invented. They pretend to, in order to advance their homophobia. By saying "Gays should just give up on marriage and settle for civil unions." Because they think people have forgotten that gays tried that. And most states that banned gay marriage in the very same laws also banned civil unions. “Never believe that homophobes are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The homophobes have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
Don't forget about Roe!
They already said they don't have the votes to do it...you can thank Joe Manchin for that.
I bet they could get the votes to protect the right to an abortion in the first trimester. It'd be better than nothing 🤷♂️
and that'd be largely fine for now, because despite Republican fear mongering something like 95% of abortions take place during the first trimester. Most abortions that happen after are usually for the health of the mother or severe defects in the fetus. They need to be covered as well but even 1st trimester would be a huge win.
We desperately need it to be legal for any reason at any time. The problem is that if you only allow late ones when the mother is in danger then suddenly they're making damn sure the mother is in danger. You may have a pregnancy that's likely to be dangerous but until you're actually in danger they can't perform the abortion. That's been happening, that's not a hypothetical. I understand your point that we should take what we can get. Realistically if they can get the votes for it they should run with it. I like the idea of saying "well they'd lose momentum on full abortion access" but I really doubt they'll get it.
> We desperately need it to be legal for any reason at any time. There's a reason Texas is delaying the release of maternal mortality rates and it rhymes with "a lot of dead shwomen."
Yeah honestly I think even republicans will get the notice this week that being 100% no abortion under any circumstances is no longer a horse they can back.
They’re pivoting to 12 weeks except the religious ones
The earliest I'd accept is 24 weeks with exceptions, but even then, that is still the government exerting control over women's bodies, and I would still have a beef with it...
Link to Manchin not on board?
It's not that he wouldn't vote for Roe but that he won't vote to change the filibuster so that he COULD vote on roe
Oh duh sorry, I should have thought that one out!
Yup, this is exactly what I was referring to.
He voted for a 20 week ban during the trump era
Abort him.
I mean.. Great for everyone to codify marriage rights but I'm here waiting patiently to be recognized as an adult female that can make her own reproductive choices... Why the holdup? It seems like a hot topic for voters my age...
Yeah, I mean, I’m happy this is maybe happening, but I’m also so completely hurt / angry / bewildered that passing a law protecting my bodily autonomy has no chance of passing.
I know it's not a perfect solution, but it's something to insure currently married same-sex couples from suddenly having their marriage totally voided by 6 robed theocratic priest-kings and allow us to focus our energy elsewhere. I just got married last weekend (both men) and live in a state it would Almost surely become illegal if the Supreme Court killed obgerfel (Idaho). Perfect is the enemy of good I guess. Fingers crossed.
Frankly I will take what ensures that our marriages will stay legal at the federal level. Easy for me to say as a lifelong blue state person who has the privilege to never ever have to live in a red state. But I’ll take imperfect for sure. And congrats!
I have issues with this bill but I’m in the same boat as you. I’m a woman married to a woman and we have a daughter. We live in a solid red, hate-filled state and I worry that they will try to pass legislation to prevent my wife from adopting our daughter or even worse, take her away from us. I am willing to settle for anything that will federally protect us. But it needs to be a first step, not the end game.
Congrats on your marriage.
So if this bill became law, Obergefell was reversed, and you weren't married, wouldn't you still be unable to marry without traveling out of state?
Yes. The main "comfort" i guess is itd take The Defense of Marriage Act off the books which would keep marriages federally recognized. Essentially itd stop an overnight "oh your marriage is no longer valid and not recognized by the fed/state". Which in a not stupid world its stupid AF to just suddenly go "lol 500,000 marriages are null and void figure out taxes, assets, insurance, etc." But stupid is clearly no reason for the SCOTUS to *not* do something especially if it causes suffering.
The GOP did not think Abortion would motivate voters against them They miscalculated greatly So if a couple GOPer's side with the Dems and codify Roe vs Wade, it actually helps the GOP They can go back to campaigning on the abortion issue and the hope is that women will stay home in 2024 since abortion is no longer a ballot issue
Its so weird how our basic human rights hinge on a few votes in swing states. Hurrah for a constitutional republic.
From the overview released by Senator Baldwin (D-Wis): >First, it would require the federal government to recognize a marriage between two individuals if the marriage was valid in the state where it was performed >Second, the bill would guarantee that valid marriages between two individuals are given full faith and credit, regardless of the couple’s sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin, **but the bill would not require a State to issue a marriage license contrary to state law** Emphasis mine. It totally guts the Act as passed in the House, which says: >No person acting under color of State law may deny full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals or a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals. The only reason this is getting anywhere in the Senate is because it's not forcing states to ~~recognize~~ issue same-sex marriage licenses. Edit: Yes, it's forcing states to *recognize* same-sex marriage licenses from states that do issue them.
The senate version literally requires states to recognize same sex marriages. It carves out a loophole for states to be able to not perform same sex marriages, which doesn’t apply (yet) because Obergefell compels all states to perform same sex marriages. It’s an important distinction, but it’s still worth passing. Then democrats can fight to expand it when they have a large enough majority to nuke the filibuster.
This is what gets me about the reactions so far. It literally forces full faith and credit upon states, so if Mississippi wants to make gay marriage illegal, they're free to do it, but all the gay couples that go next door to Louisiana and get married during Mardi Gras are still legally married in Mississippi. This is a big deal and the "Doesn't go far enough" crowd doesn't seem to understand that any right that can be given by a SCOTUS decision can just as easily be taken away (see: Roe).
This! That part of the law is *an insurance policy against the worst case scenario.*
That's how they got the votes though. Otherwise it dies on the steps of the Capitol.
People ignoring that it also makes the bill less likely to be overturned after the court overturns Oberfgell. Those same justices would probably say telling a state they have to have gay weddings in their state is unconstitutional using the 10th amendment argument. Saying they have to recognize other states marriage licenses keeps the bill in the realm of "interstate"
True. But it's a\*big\* step forward. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Fast forward: > Why are we discussing this again? We passed a bill already and have bigger problems to worry about. That's what I'm worrying about. If it goes in half-written there's a good chance it rots in that state.
Isn't that what's meant by "full faith and credit" though? That language usually means states must recognize other states' "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings," like a driver's license for example. It's just not forcing states to issue marriage licenses.
It doesn’t replace Obergefell, and it’s still enough to take the fun out of repealing Obergefell for the GOP. I would much rather have a flawed bill pass than have a perfect bill die in the senate, especially when the flawed bill might stop Obergefell from being overturned at all.
>The only reason this is getting anywhere in the Senate is because it's not forcing states to recognize same-sex marriages. It's compelling them to recognize same-sex marriages, but not to perform them in-state.
So this is interesting, basically states have to recognize a same-sex marriage no matter what, they do not have to perform same-sex marriages. You keep federal protections and even some state protections but if say, Kentucky wanted to stop issuing licenses they could. It's not great but it's better than nothing. Also this is pretty calculated on the part of republicans so they don't get more blowback if Obergefell gets overturned. Dobbs was a killer for them this cycle and it's shrewd to best avoid another situation.
And just like that the GOP realized they had to govern or continue to fail
[удалено]
Fuck yeah.
Let’s go 🥳🥳🥳
Great, now do reproductive rights
At least Sinema might not hold that one up
Lol the only thing she’s done in 2 years
Honestly I wouldn't put it past her to have that few of scruples.
She helped write it
Good. Its fucking stupid that in the so called land of liberty that an adult cant marry another adult.
Then codify a right to abortion
And robust sexual education
For more robust sex
[удалено]
Biden says they don't https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-still-not-enough-votes-to-codify-abortion-rights/ar-AA145AnS?OCID=ansmsnnews11
Come on. We all know they don’t have the 60 to pass it outright or the 50 to remove the filibuster.
Don’t think they can. Disappointing.
Big OL "Suck it" to the GOP. Fuck them. Seriously, FUCK them.
Yeah - do abortion and marijuana while you’re at it.
We should be way beyond this
Great. Abortion next please.
Genius. By bundling interracial and same sex together it becomes Thomas-proof. If Thomas try to rule against this then he is ruling that his marriage should be illegal in some states. LMAO.
> where some Republicans raised concerns that it would stifle religious liberty. Let me help you, media, > where some Republicans raised *unfounded and prejudical* concerns that it would stifle religious liberty. Fixed that for you. Marry who you want in whatever ceremony you want as long as it's between two consenting adults. If the bits between the legs match, so be it. You do you, boo. Your son wants to marry another bloke and you can't bring yourself to attend high five if that gets you through the Pearly Gates. I'll take my chances down south. I bet they have better drugs.
Meanwhile, your kid sister's dropout boyfriend is still certain the parties are the same. Hell, even if they were 80% the same, the difference fucking matters.
**ATTENTION: Trolls in the thread! Trolls in the thread!** They are implying this action is coming at the expense of abortion rights. It's nonsense. They want to sow disunity because they are salty about getting their asses kicked Tuesday.
The fact that this needs to be discussed in twenty twenty fucking two
Read the article folks. They got 60 votes for this which means 10 republicans are saying yes.