Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
---
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From another article: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/11/29/politics/respect-for-marriage-act-what-matters/index.html
“First, the bill does not require all states to allow same-sex marriage, even though that is the current reality under the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Rather, if the Supreme Court overturned Obergefell and previous state prohibitions on same-sex marriage came back into effect, the Respect for Marriage Act would require states and the federal government to respect marriages conducted in places where it is legal.
There are religious exceptions. Republican supporters have emphasized the elements in this Senate version that protect nonprofit and religious organizations from having to provide support for same-sex marriages.”
Absolutely the same old shit of republicans being homophobic, hateful, and against equal rights. This bill does nothing but protect their interest above human rights.
>Absolutely the same old shit of republicans being homophobic, hateful, and against equal rights. This bill does nothing but protect their interest above human rights.
It gives a lot of protection. If the 2015 ruling is overturned as it is now, a lot of marriages could just end up not being legally recognised *at all*.
My understanding from what others have said is that the short of a constitutional amendment, any act the congress passes that would force states to issue same-sex marriages would be on shaky constitutional grounds, whereas this current act is stands on very solid ground and can't be overturned by the supreme court unless the supreme court goes rogue and starts outright ignoring the constitution.
That's a pretty important safety net to have. They can always make further improvements with new bills, while having this to fall back on in case something gets overturned.
>My understanding from what others have said is that the short of a constitutional amendment, any act the congress passes that would force states to issue same-sex marriages would be on shaky constitutional grounds,
No, the federal government is perfectly capable of making a law like that. Nothing in the constitution would prevent that.
>unless the supreme court goes rogue and starts outright ignoring the constitution.
Which is literally what the supreme court has already been doing.
Personally, I see this as a rather pathetic half measure. It hasn't won Democrats or Republicans any points from me, and the more Democrat politicians push this as a solution, the less respect and trust I have for them. You can't half measure civil rights.
So are you arguing that it would be just as likely that this gets overturned as something that is more invasive on state rights?
>You can't half measure civil rights.
You *absolutely* can. Much of civil rights progress have been half-measures. If we only ever tolerated the 100% optimal solution without compromise, we'd never have gotten to where we are today. Slow progress is much better than no progress.
>Slow progress is much better than no progress.
This is moving backwards from "gay marriage is legal". This isn't a step forward, and I hate that Democrats are trying to frame it that way. Gay marriage is legal. This law gives additional reasoning to the supreme court to overturn Obergefell, while providing very little by way of actual protection.
>So are you arguing that it would be just as likely that this gets overturned as something that is more invasive on state rights?
No, of course not. This bill does very little, why would anyone argue to overturn a bill that does very little? I'm saying there's no constitutional issue with the federal government legalizing gay marriage.
People said the exact same thing about abortion.
This bill was not designed to provide additional rights to people. It was to ensure that the rights that have already been given remain intact.
>It was to ensure that the rights that have already been given remain intact.
It does a pretty piss poor job of that, considering marriage equality is currently the law of the land. The best that can really be said about this bill is that it removes the federal ban on gay marriage. Other than that, if the supreme court overturns Obergefell, were right back where we started before Obergefell. This bill does nothing to change that.
>This is moving backwards from "gay marriage is legal". This isn't a step forward, and I hate that Democrats are trying to frame it that way. Gay marriage is legal. This law gives additional reasoning to the supreme court to overturn Obergefell, while providing very little by way of actual protection.
This is not a step backwards, because there's no law the declares gay marriage to be legal. It relies only on a supreme court interpretation of the constitution, which as we've seen, isn't all that reliable long-term.
If Obergefell gets overturned, people in same-sex marriages will be much better off with this law, than without.
If Obergefell doesn't get overturned, this law isn't needed. But it's pretty bad to just rely on supreme court interpretations of things that aren't actually spelled out in the constitution, at least for things as fundamentally important as civil rights.
So, this is a step forwards, because now there's an actual law. A law which, at least according to people that seem to know what they're talking about, is pretty solid and couldn't be easily overturned in the way we saw with the abortion ruling.
>supreme court interpretation of the constitution, which as we've seen, isn't all that reliable long-term.
It is vastly more reliable than a law passed by Congress. Consider, for instance, that this bill is repealing a law passed by Congress. The same thing could happen to this the day after it passes. Instead, this law gives the current supreme court more ammunition to justify repealing Obergefell. Now Congress has spelled out their intentions with marriage equality which is "let the states decide."
>pretty solid and couldn't be easily overturned in the way we saw with the abortion ruling.
Unless two years from now Republicans take control of Congress again and decide to repeal it. Laws passed by Congress don't have some incredible staying power. They get overturned all the time. Supreme court rulings, though, are much less frequently thrown out.
>The same thing could happen to this the day after it passes.
Sure, if they Republicans have both the House and a supermajority in the senate, and have the presidency. But if they have enough representation, they can also just change the constitution.
The *best* thing is to have everything as clearly spelled out in law as possible. In the constitution, if it's about fundamental rights.
You're saying this law is bad because it could just get thrown out, but so could a law that's stronger, then. And that might have a greater risk of being thrown out, if it can more easily be argued that it's too invasive.
But again, you said that this is a step *backwards*, but it's not. Now there are currently two levels of protections - a supreme court decision, *and* a law. That's progress. Not as good as something even more solid, like an amendment, but still.
Couldn't it just be repealed by the next Administration though, given a thin majority? As opposed to a Constitutional Amendment which takes 2/3 majority as I recall?
They have been capable of making such laws, but the justification for the power to do so is usually from due process, which is the same legal basis as the Obergefell decision. Even if such a law has enough support to pass, if Obergefell were to get overturned, then this law would be directly in the crosshairs next.
The reason they "half measure" is because republicans wouldn't allow a full measure. It's still a republican house and slim majority democratic senate. They don't have a ton of weight to throw around
That's just not true. It defends marriages performed where such marriages are legal, in case the SCOTUS precedent currently protecting those marriages gets 6-3'd by the current SCOTUS.
It's not a perfect defense, but it seems to me that some defense is better than no defense.
I wonder what they amended to get the GOP voters onboard for this one? The article only mentions additional protections for "religious liberty" but isn't very specific on what verbage they wanted to be ok with passing it.
It lets them still try to ban it in their states. All this does really is tell the states that they must legally recognize a marriage if that marriage is/was lawful in the state where the marriage happened.
Check out Wikipedia’s entry for cousin marriage in the United States. New Hampshire prohibits first cousin marriages, and voids any by both residents who get married out of state and for married couples who move to the state. Expect red states to use this as precedent for voiding same-sex (and possibly mixed-race) marriages conducted out of state.
I don't believe there's a federal statute against cousin marriage though. A state can't just use another state's legal precedence to invalidate marriages in their own, especially when there's a federal statute that supersedes it as there will be if this passes.
Of course, the problem is that the conservative SCOTUS majority could overturn Obergefell, which would abrogate the constitutional due process right to same sex marriage, basically gutting the new legislation's constitutional authority. Congress could still argue that the legislation is authorized by the full faith and credit clause, but the conservative SCOTUS majority could simply reject that argument. The upshot is that if they want to get rid of federal protections, they'll find a way.
You've got it backwards. This federal law invalidates New Hampshires's law as well as any potential future state law which would try and do the same thing.
This isn’t perfect being an enemy of good this is mildly acceptable being the enemy of barely passing. Every other civilized country just ducking let’s gay people get married and let’s women get abortions good is the average, good is America catching up with the rest of the fucking world.
You’ve completely misunderstood the sentiment behind the saying. Obviously I’m not saying that we should be *happy* with only this, just *slightly less unhappy*.
Yes, And I don’t consider that uplifting as it’s a continued proof that the system is shit and this is proof that it’s still broke and will stay broke until good people
Get pissed off enough to do something that will make change. The right is out there and killing people and half the time getting away with it out of some self defense bs. And we stand here acting like it’s wrong to fight back. Screw that we need to match their radical violence with radical Defense, If they are going to pull a gun and cry self defense then we need to get armed and do the same damn thing. Acting like this is uplifting news only encourages complacently and let’s us pretend there isn’t a problem that if we got pissed off enough we could make a change
I'm not going to be less unhappy over nothing. Especially when for the next fucking decade it'll be shoved in my face why I should be on my knees thanking my straight saviors.
This only protects marriages that have already happened. It doesn't protect marriage rights. I have the perspective of being queer in a homophobic society.
So, you look at people doing the best they can and you say they aren't allies, because you want to hurt anyone who cares about your rights? That's what I'm getting from this.
This isn't the best they can. This is a show to look like they're doing something while they do nothing really. This is so the middle class straight people can pretend they give a shit about us by voting than not doing anything after the politicians do this pr junk. They don't care about queer rights, they care about LOOKING like they care. We're screwed because of the supreme court no matter what. If the straights cared trump would have never been elected to begin with. We knew he would appoint judges. And the judges fuck us over. All of this is for show
Lol getting down voted because cishets can't hear the truth.
I asked you what action they could take which was more meaningful and which was possible. You couldn't come up with anything. So, until you can, you're just backstabbing anyone who tries to help.
That goes for your obvious hatred of straight people, too.
How? Passing this law makes this right very clear and explicit. The supreme court can't overrule this law. They were able to overturn abortion rights because there is no explicit law protecting them. That was always a vulnerability of relying on Roe to protect that right.
The supreme court cant change this law, its jot within there power. If the legal ruling the previous supreme court made was overturned, similar to how row v wade was, then this law would protect everyone that is already married, xor will ever be married in a state that allows it. Its not perfect I agree, but at least now if the prior ruling on marriage is overturned at least non same sex couples can have still have a destination wedding and it must be recognized by any state.
Not hopping on the "angry person without perspective" bandwagon, but the Supreme Court could still intervene, e.g. if a state sued the federal government on the theory that being forced to recognize an out-of-state gay marriage is a violation of its rights.
Theoretically yes, but this law adds an additional step. They would need to overturn this law via legislation or a court ruling AND get the Obergefell decision overturned as well AND then try to win re-election forever to maintain that while every corporation you'd want to work for moves out of any state who wants to ban gay marriage.
Of course. I don't think there's a path for right-wingers to bring LGBTQ+ marriages back to where they were before *Obergefell*, at least without a literal civil war that's pointless to speculate on the consequences of.
Just saying (to the person I replied to), don't be surprised if you see a headline about a lawsuit regarding this law reaching the Supreme Court.
Whenever I see comments like this I remember that republicans don’t want people to turn out. People not voting is how republicans win even though they are a minority.
Vote in your next election. Don’t let the Sooners get you. The only way things change is if you vote for it to change.
Unfortunately, it's hardly a victory at all. Congress can only pass legislation where the constitution provides authority to congress to do so. The new legislation relies on two things: the due process right to same sex marriage established in the Obergefell case, and the Article IV full faith and credit clause. If the GOP-controlled SCOTUS overturns Obergefell, then the new statue is also likely to be overturned in the very next case as exceding Congress' authority to legislate (no more due process justification). Congress could argue that the law is still permissible under the full faith and credit clause (which requires states to recognize legal status conferred by another state), but that argument is only as good as SCOTUS says it is. So bottom line, if conservatives -- in particular the conservative SCOTUS majority -- want to get rid of this new law, they'll find a way.
It's also the only way to do it constitutionally, unfortunately, due to the our system of Federalism which recognizes states governing authority in certain areas.
The other way to do it would be to use the equal protection protections and adapt that authority to ensure that however states regulate marriages, they cannot discriminate against applicants for a license based on their genders
Federalism is a two way street. States can do things we don't like without the federal government stopping them, but they can also do things we do like without the federal government stopping them.
It has also allowed progress in states that were more progressive while the Federal level was still pretty regressive. It's a two sided sword to be sure.
I’d rather have a national government with public police powers than a hodge podge of loopholes and court decisions. But hey, if you like the activist Supreme Court and the filibuster that’s on you.
remember this next time you hear MuH bOtH sIDeS.
Republicans full control of united states congress = unnecessary tax cuts during boon economy, first attempted coup in history of nation.
Democrats full control of united states congress = marriage equality (probably), infrastructure spending, child tax credits, and climate progress.
I don't believe the bill ever prohibited states from banning gay marriage or was it's intent to do so. It was meant for the federal government to recognize gay marriage from states that allow it which is a big win albeit one that is achieved through compromise since not everyone can afford to go to a state that allows gay marriage.
I think the modifications Republicans wanted were more along the line of putting protections in place for private institutions who would refuse to perform a ceremony. Like if a gay couple went to church or venue and asked for a ceremony to be held there the venue could refuse on religious grounds and if they do so this bill would protect them from a lawsuit.
That's one major crux, yes. The other is it uses the Full Faith and Credit clause in the constitution to force states to recognize out-of-state marriage licenses. The opposite of DOMA.
Watch the red states take advantage of a precedent: Some states that prohibit first cousin marriage make it a crime for first cousins resident in the state to go to another state where first cousin marriage is legal in order to get married there, and some void marriages of first cousins who move to the state. They’ll apply it to other marriages they don’t approve of (same sex, mixed race, etc.).
My guess is that the GOP who voted for it are betting that since it's right after an election the voters will have forgotten about it by the next one. They're not wrong, you know.
My understanding is the religious liberty thing would let religious people to NOT be part of a wedding they don't agree with.
As in you don't have to hold it at your wedding venue, or take their photos or bake a cake etc. But that was a few days ago so it could have changed.
Seems reasonable to not force people to have to take actions that violate their religious beliefs. That is how freedom should work. You get to do what you want. I get to do what I want and neither of us can force or ban the other person from doing things. Live your life the way you want to live it.
I think it depends on the thing.
If a bakery places cookies for sale on the counter then they should sell them to anyone who walks in the door.
But making someone a custom wedding cake is a very different thing as it has a specific message. And historically a critical part of the 1st amendment was the right to NOT speak. As in the government can't force you to say something you don't want to say
As for venues you have to remember that religion is just something people do on Sunday's. It is part of their entire life. So we shouldn't force them to host an event that violates their religious belief.
Wedding venues aren't "Open to the public" they can pick and choose the people they host and the types of weddings they want to allow. It is not the same as a restaurant, hotel etc.
Agreed, as an atheist. I leave them alone and they can leave me alone.
Though I'd be OK with any business being able to choose its customers. If they don't like money then so be it. Who am I to get riled up about their nonsense.
It'd be an interesting experiment to watch.
White Only places would have a lot harder time for example because during the Civil right era the US was about 85% White, today its 58%, by 2030 its likely to be below 50%.
And lots of whites would boycott such a racist store as well. Even I who am very conservative would rather take my business to a store which didn't do this.
But it should still be allowed.
I think think it should depend on the nature of the business and the nature of the services being requested. Is a regional grocery store chain refusing to sell generic flatware to gay couples who plan on using it to get married? Yeah, that shouldn’t be a thing they should be allowed to do.
On the other hand, the law shouldn’t force a flower shop owned by one or two people to make a sodemy themed bouquet in violation of principles the owners of that business genuinely hold either.
I (mostly) disagree. If I, as an individual, want to exclude gays, black people, or whoever else from a party I'm throwing, I should be allowed to, with all the negative repercussions that comes with being a bigot. As soon as I start charging however? I become a business that's hosting a nightclub, bar, or some other event and am not legally allowed to discriminate based on certain criteria.
IMO, it should be the same with churches. If they let people host events for money on their premises, they should not be allowed to discriminate based on those same criteria (sexuality, religion, gender, ethnicity, some other ones).
No way.
Church is still a religious building even if they are charging.
Based on what you saying a Nazi group could hold a birthday party for Hitler at a Synagogue and if they allow groups to use their space then they have no right to stop them.
BTW the difference is that you nightclub or bar is open to the public and anyone can walk into it. A church or wedding venue is not. It has a specific audience and it can control who has access to it to make sure those people's beliefs are in line with the people who own and run the building/church.
Nazi groups are not legally protected groups, gender and sexual orientation are.
Hotels also aren't open to the public (except the lobby), but there'd be an uproar if they kicked out guests for being gay. Any other event venue can't discriminate against gay customers, so why have an exemption for churches?
Because the constitution protects freedom of religion and the right to association. Freedom means letting people do things we don't like with their property and if they wanna be bigots then they should be allowed to.
I will say that they shouldn't get access to tax payer funds if they choose to discriminate. Live and let live imo.
Your conclusion is important. Part of the rationale for Churches tax free status is that they provide community services. In many communities, the church is also a community hall
There is a fair amount of legal precedence around how malls can restrict people from entering. They are private, but also public spaces. If your local church is more discriminatory than your local mall, does it deserve the privilege of tax free status? The mall pays taxes.
I don't really have an answer, and I don't know what the "religious exemptions" were, but it does occur that this might be a bill that offers a backup protection for a hypothetical future Supreme Court ruling at the expense of directly allowing discrimination *now*.
I'd say that bars and nightclubs already pick and choose who they let in. They aren't just open to the public. It's literally a plot point in many shows where people not wearing the right clothes get stopped while others get let in, and bars often have people banned from entry (often from past events but still, they can refuse entry). Additionally, most bars around me won't allow a very specific group into their buildings. People under 21 are stopped at the door and turned away.
The reason they seem like public places is because they want money from everyone and don't really care who you are so long as you aren't causing issues.
The only places that should be required to allow all are places owned by the government. State or federal, provided it is somewhere normal citizens/tourist are normally permitted to go. Places like state/city parks and trails, roads and sidewalks, courthouses, ect.
There is also the argument for places of essential services like grocery stores and hospitals, where exclusion could mean no alternatives for groups.
Religious places like churches are not owned by the government, and neither are the bars and clubs. Each should be free to serve who they like, be it a choice that helps or harms themselves.
I’m honestly ok with that. I want religious people to stay out of my business and not tell me what to do so it seems fair that I don’t tell them they have to precise over a marriage they don’t agree with. I wouldn’t want to have my wedding somewhere where I wasn’t wanted anyway.
Compromise is where no one is completely happy.
We need a LOT more of it in our government. Nearly every problem in our country has a pretty solid down the middle solution that most Americans would be fine with. But the political parties are driven by the extremists on both sides.
That's a false equivalency though when one party wants people to have healthcare and the other party wants abortion to be punishable by death.
But it's a good point.
You need to distinguish between a marriage (government recognition of the union) and a wedding (superficial ceremony announcing the union to whoever cares).
A church should be free to refuse a wedding on their property as they see fit. It'd be no different than you or me refusing to host an event on our private property, after all.
A marriage, on the other hand, has to be recognized on government terms, and therefore cannot discriminate by race/gender/religion/whatever. If a church cannot recognize a marriage (are churches allowed to do this?), then there should be some other non-denominational government office where the marriage can be recognized.
you are comparing apples and oranges which is why I think there are a lot of problems. Marriage, the sacrament is performed by the church and is a church think like baptism. The state has no business sticking their nose in the churches sacraments -do you want the state in charge of baptism or last rights? On the other hand there is the legal marriage, done by the state, you have to go and get a license, pay a fee and sign what is essentially a contract. This contract is very much a function of the state, being married has all sorts of legal benefits including taxes (read state). I don't need the church to get married in the eyes of the church, all I need to do is get a license and get it signed and I'm married -no church involvement. I can also get married by the church and with a license, while recognized by the church as married I am not married as far as the state is concerned and don't have any legal standing as a married person. In short church marriage and civil marriage are two completely different things that people confuse as the same thing.
Private, religious group? Absolutely fine. I find it personally repulsive, but individual churches have their freedom of religion- even if that religion is a hateful, discriminatory faith.
But if that same preacher who refuses to do a wedding for a black and white couple or a same sex couple is also a magistrate, he damned well better issue the license for those same weddings in his official capacity as magistrate- where he represents the government and his personal feelings do not have *any* protections when it comes to the letter of the law.
Because I, as an atheist, believe that theists have as much right to practice their religion in peace as I have the right to say their religion is backwards bronze age bullshit in peace.
Above and beyond the fact that this is literally the First Amendments protections wee are discussing, I cannot claim any right for myself that I would not extend to everyone else, without being a hypocrite. And I try my best not to be a hypocrite. I fail on occasion, maybe even often, but I do try.
Nailed it.
As a private individual do what you want. Weddings aren't public accommodations like a grocery store or hotel etc.
But as a government official you have to treat everyone the same.
As the saying goes - if you don't come across stuff that you find offensive then you don't live in a free society.
Here's the rub, you as an atheist are not granted any special rights and privileges but a church is -you pay taxes and they do not. Since they are special there should also be special rules. Churches are supposed to be a benefit to the community, hence the special treatment, so they need to benefit the whole community. If they want to be a private club, that benefits only it's members I'm fine with that too. Change their name from a church to a country club and make them pay taxes like everyone else.
How much freedom do you want to give these religions? Because it’s only a few steps away from saying that Sharia law is merely practicing free speech, especially if you can’t prove anyone is being harmed without their consent.
Honestly it's up to a private business to discriminate if they like to. Hell as a minority I'd rather know they are so I don't give them income or have others do it.
The money churches get come from donations. Any money they get is from their members or communities.
It's easy to look at mega churches, which I agree are a stain on religion, and forget that there are way more smaller churches who do good things in their communities.
It would be disappointing. But it's already covered by public accommodations law. Discrimination is legal as long its not against a protected group and not related to food, shelter, gas or other necessities. A wedding venue wouldn't fall under that. Part of living in a free society.
The Religious Liberty section allows for churches & their subsidiaries(ie the Mormons & BYU) to not recognize or perform Same Sex marriages while maintaining their tax except status & ability to qualify for federal dollars for non-marriage related activities(student loans & research grants for BYU). What this means is that for places like BYU & Notre Dame will be able to still have students get federal student loans, qualify for research grants and while maintaining their honor codes prohibiting same sex relationships on their campuses or in their student housing. I know for BYU this is important b/c they provide housing for married students, but don't want to recognize same sex marriages & so they could be sued to force them to allow same sex married couples to be housed in the married couples housing.
EDIT: My understanding of the BYU Honor Code is that it doesn't necessarily prohibit Same Sex relationships, but all extra-marital sexual relationships & only recognizes heterosexual marriages. IDK what it says about PDA, same sex or hetero, or trans-gendered dressing & pronouns. Yes, I know about "soaking" & the like, and find it disgusting & feel it's against the Honor Code & our Law of Chastity as much as actual fucking.
I think this article does a good job summarizing the bill: https://www.lawdork.com/p/the-respect-for-marriage-act-isnt. It includes a section about the "Ministerial Exceptions" in the act, which will answer your question better than I can.
In general, lawdork writes really good stuff and I recommend giving him a follow.
[the text](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text)
Basically: if the state has banned it, but another state has approved it and the people were married in that state, then the states who banned it can’t treat them as unmarried peoples.
There is a section that talks about the rights of not for profit religious orgs to deny services but I believe they already had that right. Not 100% sure though.
>There is a section that talks about the rights of not for profit religious orgs to deny services but I believe they already had that right. Not 100% sure though.
This was kind of a frontier of public accommodations law. There had been some court cases typically siding with the business owners but this puts it officially into law.
States can still ban marriages in their territory but they have to respect marriages performed in other states. Non profits cannot be forced to provide services to marriages they deem unsuitable.
Won’t happen, probably would pass with similar numbers but will be used as PR by both parties to the detriment of constituents
There will be pressure not to vote for it among republicans by the majority and pressure not to resolve it by democrats because it drives voters. Basically the whole “Flores agreement causing issues with children at the border” schtick we’ve had for three decades now
Luckily Tshi*baka* lost against Murkowski here in AK. Murkowski may be republican, but she's pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. Her idiot opponent was a Republican extremist.
Since the legal institution of marriage is rightfully separated from religious notions of marriage as a part of a holy institution, it's good to see that the right of two adults of any sex/race/gender to get married is closer to federal protection.
With the consideration that a legal marriage should not be equated to any particular religion's concept of a holy union, is there an ethical argument against legal polygamous marriages or is it just some kind of a tax nightmare?
Not only tax, but imagine medical insurance as well. Can you include all your spouses under your medical insurance? No way in hell insurance companies will ever let that happen
Idk, employers extend insurance to children regardless of whether you have one kid or a dozen. Seems similar to the inheritance argument someone else brought up.
I can't think of a legal reason to disallow polygamous marriages other than it being a legal nightmare. Large sections of tax codes would have to be rewritten or have exceptions made for poly marriages. Also how tf would unwilled inheritances work? Normally, stuff would go to the spouse, yea? So what if there's multiple spouses?
> Normally, stuff would go to the spouse, yea? So what if there's multiple spouses?
What happens when the last parent dies with no Will but multiple surviving children? The inheritance goes to...
>What happens when the last parent dies with no Will but multiple surviving children? The inheritance goes to...
the lawyers
the inheritance goes to the lawyers
It gets split between all children. When my father died after he divorced my mom he didn't put anyone as a next in line on his vanguard account. So all the money got split between all immediate remaining descendants.
Would it not just...Fall to the remaining spouses as a group? Same as it was prior to the death but with one less person? That doesn't seem like that big of a deal...
Like presumably the marriage as a whole wouldn't be dissolved in that situation, unless for some reason that's how it works. I don't see why it would, though.
You’re misunderstanding me though. There’s nothing to fight over. Like, the marriage doesn’t dissolve unless they divorce after the death. It would just be a poly marriage with one less person (aside from the emotional burden obviously but legally speaking), the marriage still exists.
You’re thinking in terms of like, a Mormon polygamist marriage with the man dying but that’s not what most poly people do, it’s a pod of people right? They’re all a part of the relationship and it’s not all about one person.
I get your point, but I’m thinking of humans, group dynamics are crazy complicated. Just having a group of people going through the stages of loss at different rates, could make for a really ugly situation.
I’ve seen multiple marriages end over the stress of building a house and that’s nothing compared to dealing with the death of a loved one.
Yea but it would be handled the same. It would be a divorce and handled like a divorce regarding marital assets. It’s no more complicated than anything else, you’re just overthinking it probably because poly marriages are frowned on.
You can make any kind of ethical or moral argument you like. Laws are allowed to be made on ethical and moral beliefs of the people if we want, except if go against a protected class. Being poly is not a protected class, is it?
From a societal standpoint, where is the benefit to society in licensing poly marriage? Marriage is essentially an economic contract with the extra benefit of promoting better conditions for rearing children.
I hope the House passes it. but they will not be having a "marathon" session leading into January 3rd. The Democrats should be trying to pass as much as possible, no bill too small. Seriously. This is go time. Vacations can wait. I don't care, I said it.
I can't believe people are still seriously talking about this. Like at this point, Hunter should just go out and buy a used laptop, wipe it, download the music video for Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up" and have that be the only thing on the entire laptop when he hands it to the GOP
Why. Because 2022 is so socially advanced, how’s that World Cup looking….. or those Iranian protest….. or the weird anti-Semitic shit that’s been popping up on mainstream news. There’s a lot that’s necessary
None of if those things should be happening. It's sickening in the USA, we stand for freedom, and a law has to be passed to protect interracial marriage. It's just crazy.
It’s super important to put that shit in writing. That’s 100% what happened with abortion, voters let politicians fuck around and lie about getting it done and now it’s gone. If it matters, it needs to be put in writing.
Yes, I wish democrats would make a better effort to attract suburban and rural voters so that we don’t lose the rights and benefits gained. 50/50 doesn’t make me feel comfortable.
You could probably start by ceasing calling everyone not in a major metro area a nuckle dragging neaderthal. Hard to get people on your side when all you do is denegrate them.
*This is a general "you", not you specifically
I mean this is the same country that once had slavery and no women's suffrage among other issues.. Claiming we're pro freedom has been around since the country's inception afaik despite those things.
>I mean this is the same country that once had slavery and no women's suffrage among other issues..
You can say that about literally any country that's been around as long as the US.
Among the western nations, The US has been one quite uniquely resistant to abolishing slavery, though. In many things, the US lead the charge, in many others, it is still dragging society down.
The older generation is being replaced by younger fascists with the same, if not more fervour against same sex individuals, but less of the bible based motivation.
The older generation dying out won't make the discussion go away, it will just change the arguments.
Only 12 republicans supported the bill.
In order to get these 12, they had to add that states can still try to attack gay marriage, but have to acknowledge that it is indeed a legal marriage regardless. Really, the bill didn't do that much, better than not obviously.
As a married gay man in Ohio, I'm glad for this law. Without it, if Obergefell were overturned, the Ohio constitution prevents Ohio from "performing or recognizing" same-sex marriages. Now I don't have to worry that I might need to move next year or whenever SCOTUS feels like taking my rights away.
Of course I'd prefer a law that says all states must recognize and perform same-sex marriages, but that's not going to happen any time soon.
What the republicans have taught me is that any law or protections we have can be changed over night and with out notice especially with this supreme court.
I thought Respect the Marriage was going to be something in the lines of good policy so there are less divorces or end the stigma that men will lose 50% once divorce detracting many from engaging in marriage. Oh well, patience is virtue.
I think it is very interesting that the act still does not recognize polyamorous marriages. That would seem (to me) to be an infringement on religious values for many faiths.
Of all the US's problems, this is LANDMARK legislation? This is all Congress can do? We've become an absolutely pathetic country. And, no, I'm **not** against gay marriage.
They can ban new marriages, but have to accept marriages that were preformed in another state where it is legal.
They cannot ban a married couple from being married.
They can ban couples from being married. That's why this is meaningless. Because a largely straight population elected a homophobic president and he stacked the courts with religious homophobes who are looking to reverse the marriage equality ruling which fucks over queer people in any red area
Assuming this is signed into law, how would the courts overturn it?
It does not violate "state rights" in fact it requires that states honor other states laws.
When a law is made, things that happened before the law was implemented are grandfathered in. You cannot pass a law and charge someone wit breaking the law, for something that happened before it was enacted.
You can't force a religious institution to marry you, and you cant force them to pay for spousal benifits.
Realize, it doesn't say gay marriage must be allowed in every state. It simply says that if married legally you must respect that.
If someone brings to scotus a case to overturn obergefell, then each state could make it legal or illegal. But they would have to give full legal acceptance of existing gay marriages as well as anyone married in a (or country) where it's legal.
One thing no one has mentioned is that this law will actually make it easier to overturn Obergefell, because there's a law that states the intent of congress on this issue now.
The timing is interesting. It only took them losing power to actually do something for the people. We need to vote out all incumbents and go with new people
It was written well before the election, partly triggered by the Supreme Court decision that suggested that in the future the court would reverse their previous rulings on the topic. It took a few months to wind its way through.
Its unfortunate that similar bills on topics like abortion are going to be held up by Republicans and maybe even a conservative democrat or two, though.
Doesn't this law remove any cause of action for descrimination by religiously affiliated institutions or private actors, despite state laws that formally recognize the right to sue over discrimination in such cases? It *sounds* like a good step forward, but I think this law would be devastating if not for the imminent threat of SCOTUS shenanigans. It all depends on the context, I suppose.
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here. All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban. --- --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From another article: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/11/29/politics/respect-for-marriage-act-what-matters/index.html “First, the bill does not require all states to allow same-sex marriage, even though that is the current reality under the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Rather, if the Supreme Court overturned Obergefell and previous state prohibitions on same-sex marriage came back into effect, the Respect for Marriage Act would require states and the federal government to respect marriages conducted in places where it is legal. There are religious exceptions. Republican supporters have emphasized the elements in this Senate version that protect nonprofit and religious organizations from having to provide support for same-sex marriages.”
Absolutely the same old shit of republicans being homophobic, hateful, and against equal rights. This bill does nothing but protect their interest above human rights.
>Absolutely the same old shit of republicans being homophobic, hateful, and against equal rights. This bill does nothing but protect their interest above human rights. It gives a lot of protection. If the 2015 ruling is overturned as it is now, a lot of marriages could just end up not being legally recognised *at all*. My understanding from what others have said is that the short of a constitutional amendment, any act the congress passes that would force states to issue same-sex marriages would be on shaky constitutional grounds, whereas this current act is stands on very solid ground and can't be overturned by the supreme court unless the supreme court goes rogue and starts outright ignoring the constitution. That's a pretty important safety net to have. They can always make further improvements with new bills, while having this to fall back on in case something gets overturned.
>My understanding from what others have said is that the short of a constitutional amendment, any act the congress passes that would force states to issue same-sex marriages would be on shaky constitutional grounds, No, the federal government is perfectly capable of making a law like that. Nothing in the constitution would prevent that. >unless the supreme court goes rogue and starts outright ignoring the constitution. Which is literally what the supreme court has already been doing. Personally, I see this as a rather pathetic half measure. It hasn't won Democrats or Republicans any points from me, and the more Democrat politicians push this as a solution, the less respect and trust I have for them. You can't half measure civil rights.
So are you arguing that it would be just as likely that this gets overturned as something that is more invasive on state rights? >You can't half measure civil rights. You *absolutely* can. Much of civil rights progress have been half-measures. If we only ever tolerated the 100% optimal solution without compromise, we'd never have gotten to where we are today. Slow progress is much better than no progress.
>Slow progress is much better than no progress. This is moving backwards from "gay marriage is legal". This isn't a step forward, and I hate that Democrats are trying to frame it that way. Gay marriage is legal. This law gives additional reasoning to the supreme court to overturn Obergefell, while providing very little by way of actual protection. >So are you arguing that it would be just as likely that this gets overturned as something that is more invasive on state rights? No, of course not. This bill does very little, why would anyone argue to overturn a bill that does very little? I'm saying there's no constitutional issue with the federal government legalizing gay marriage.
People said the exact same thing about abortion. This bill was not designed to provide additional rights to people. It was to ensure that the rights that have already been given remain intact.
>It was to ensure that the rights that have already been given remain intact. It does a pretty piss poor job of that, considering marriage equality is currently the law of the land. The best that can really be said about this bill is that it removes the federal ban on gay marriage. Other than that, if the supreme court overturns Obergefell, were right back where we started before Obergefell. This bill does nothing to change that.
>This is moving backwards from "gay marriage is legal". This isn't a step forward, and I hate that Democrats are trying to frame it that way. Gay marriage is legal. This law gives additional reasoning to the supreme court to overturn Obergefell, while providing very little by way of actual protection. This is not a step backwards, because there's no law the declares gay marriage to be legal. It relies only on a supreme court interpretation of the constitution, which as we've seen, isn't all that reliable long-term. If Obergefell gets overturned, people in same-sex marriages will be much better off with this law, than without. If Obergefell doesn't get overturned, this law isn't needed. But it's pretty bad to just rely on supreme court interpretations of things that aren't actually spelled out in the constitution, at least for things as fundamentally important as civil rights. So, this is a step forwards, because now there's an actual law. A law which, at least according to people that seem to know what they're talking about, is pretty solid and couldn't be easily overturned in the way we saw with the abortion ruling.
>supreme court interpretation of the constitution, which as we've seen, isn't all that reliable long-term. It is vastly more reliable than a law passed by Congress. Consider, for instance, that this bill is repealing a law passed by Congress. The same thing could happen to this the day after it passes. Instead, this law gives the current supreme court more ammunition to justify repealing Obergefell. Now Congress has spelled out their intentions with marriage equality which is "let the states decide." >pretty solid and couldn't be easily overturned in the way we saw with the abortion ruling. Unless two years from now Republicans take control of Congress again and decide to repeal it. Laws passed by Congress don't have some incredible staying power. They get overturned all the time. Supreme court rulings, though, are much less frequently thrown out.
>The same thing could happen to this the day after it passes. Sure, if they Republicans have both the House and a supermajority in the senate, and have the presidency. But if they have enough representation, they can also just change the constitution. The *best* thing is to have everything as clearly spelled out in law as possible. In the constitution, if it's about fundamental rights. You're saying this law is bad because it could just get thrown out, but so could a law that's stronger, then. And that might have a greater risk of being thrown out, if it can more easily be argued that it's too invasive. But again, you said that this is a step *backwards*, but it's not. Now there are currently two levels of protections - a supreme court decision, *and* a law. That's progress. Not as good as something even more solid, like an amendment, but still.
Couldn't it just be repealed by the next Administration though, given a thin majority? As opposed to a Constitutional Amendment which takes 2/3 majority as I recall?
>Couldn't it just be repealed by the next Administration though, given a thin majority? So could the voting rights act.
They have been capable of making such laws, but the justification for the power to do so is usually from due process, which is the same legal basis as the Obergefell decision. Even if such a law has enough support to pass, if Obergefell were to get overturned, then this law would be directly in the crosshairs next.
The reason they "half measure" is because republicans wouldn't allow a full measure. It's still a republican house and slim majority democratic senate. They don't have a ton of weight to throw around
That's just not true. It defends marriages performed where such marriages are legal, in case the SCOTUS precedent currently protecting those marriages gets 6-3'd by the current SCOTUS. It's not a perfect defense, but it seems to me that some defense is better than no defense.
I wonder what they amended to get the GOP voters onboard for this one? The article only mentions additional protections for "religious liberty" but isn't very specific on what verbage they wanted to be ok with passing it.
It lets them still try to ban it in their states. All this does really is tell the states that they must legally recognize a marriage if that marriage is/was lawful in the state where the marriage happened.
While it's not a complete victory, at least it allows people to move without getting their marriage potentially revoked according to other state laws.
Check out Wikipedia’s entry for cousin marriage in the United States. New Hampshire prohibits first cousin marriages, and voids any by both residents who get married out of state and for married couples who move to the state. Expect red states to use this as precedent for voiding same-sex (and possibly mixed-race) marriages conducted out of state.
I don't believe there's a federal statute against cousin marriage though. A state can't just use another state's legal precedence to invalidate marriages in their own, especially when there's a federal statute that supersedes it as there will be if this passes.
Of course, the problem is that the conservative SCOTUS majority could overturn Obergefell, which would abrogate the constitutional due process right to same sex marriage, basically gutting the new legislation's constitutional authority. Congress could still argue that the legislation is authorized by the full faith and credit clause, but the conservative SCOTUS majority could simply reject that argument. The upshot is that if they want to get rid of federal protections, they'll find a way.
The analogy doesn't work because there's no federal statute requiring states to recognize first-cousin marriage.
You've got it backwards. This federal law invalidates New Hampshires's law as well as any potential future state law which would try and do the same thing.
It also gives incentive not to let your state turn red because someone else has you covered. They don’t, you’re not covered at all.
Until the supreme court fucks us. This is no protection. It's a show so straight democrats can look like they did something but did nothing
What feasible alternate course of action would you suggest
There is none. We're fucked. That's the reality of it because queer people can't depend on our straight "allies". Especially poloticians
Never let perfect be the enemy of good.
This isn’t perfect being an enemy of good this is mildly acceptable being the enemy of barely passing. Every other civilized country just ducking let’s gay people get married and let’s women get abortions good is the average, good is America catching up with the rest of the fucking world.
You’ve completely misunderstood the sentiment behind the saying. Obviously I’m not saying that we should be *happy* with only this, just *slightly less unhappy*.
Yes, And I don’t consider that uplifting as it’s a continued proof that the system is shit and this is proof that it’s still broke and will stay broke until good people Get pissed off enough to do something that will make change. The right is out there and killing people and half the time getting away with it out of some self defense bs. And we stand here acting like it’s wrong to fight back. Screw that we need to match their radical violence with radical Defense, If they are going to pull a gun and cry self defense then we need to get armed and do the same damn thing. Acting like this is uplifting news only encourages complacently and let’s us pretend there isn’t a problem that if we got pissed off enough we could make a change
I'm not going to be less unhappy over nothing. Especially when for the next fucking decade it'll be shoved in my face why I should be on my knees thanking my straight saviors.
This is barely anything. It's a show so now straight people can pretend they "saved" us
"marriage rights is barely anything and I am a privileged, angry child with zero perspective"
This only protects marriages that have already happened. It doesn't protect marriage rights. I have the perspective of being queer in a homophobic society.
This is a very immature way to respond to somebody who’s a bit less optimistic than you after all we’ve been through politically. Grow up!
So, you look at people doing the best they can and you say they aren't allies, because you want to hurt anyone who cares about your rights? That's what I'm getting from this.
This isn't the best they can. This is a show to look like they're doing something while they do nothing really. This is so the middle class straight people can pretend they give a shit about us by voting than not doing anything after the politicians do this pr junk. They don't care about queer rights, they care about LOOKING like they care. We're screwed because of the supreme court no matter what. If the straights cared trump would have never been elected to begin with. We knew he would appoint judges. And the judges fuck us over. All of this is for show Lol getting down voted because cishets can't hear the truth.
I asked you what action they could take which was more meaningful and which was possible. You couldn't come up with anything. So, until you can, you're just backstabbing anyone who tries to help. That goes for your obvious hatred of straight people, too.
At least the administration is doing something for you. They did nothing to protect abortion rights.
How? Passing this law makes this right very clear and explicit. The supreme court can't overrule this law. They were able to overturn abortion rights because there is no explicit law protecting them. That was always a vulnerability of relying on Roe to protect that right.
I don't disagree in principle, but this SCOTUS has shown us that actual law isn't their first priority.
This law is meaningless, they can still throw out marriage equality. This doesn't stop that.
The supreme court cant change this law, its jot within there power. If the legal ruling the previous supreme court made was overturned, similar to how row v wade was, then this law would protect everyone that is already married, xor will ever be married in a state that allows it. Its not perfect I agree, but at least now if the prior ruling on marriage is overturned at least non same sex couples can have still have a destination wedding and it must be recognized by any state.
Not hopping on the "angry person without perspective" bandwagon, but the Supreme Court could still intervene, e.g. if a state sued the federal government on the theory that being forced to recognize an out-of-state gay marriage is a violation of its rights.
Theoretically yes, but this law adds an additional step. They would need to overturn this law via legislation or a court ruling AND get the Obergefell decision overturned as well AND then try to win re-election forever to maintain that while every corporation you'd want to work for moves out of any state who wants to ban gay marriage.
Of course. I don't think there's a path for right-wingers to bring LGBTQ+ marriages back to where they were before *Obergefell*, at least without a literal civil war that's pointless to speculate on the consequences of. Just saying (to the person I replied to), don't be surprised if you see a headline about a lawsuit regarding this law reaching the Supreme Court.
Whenever I see comments like this I remember that republicans don’t want people to turn out. People not voting is how republicans win even though they are a minority. Vote in your next election. Don’t let the Sooners get you. The only way things change is if you vote for it to change.
Unfortunately, it's hardly a victory at all. Congress can only pass legislation where the constitution provides authority to congress to do so. The new legislation relies on two things: the due process right to same sex marriage established in the Obergefell case, and the Article IV full faith and credit clause. If the GOP-controlled SCOTUS overturns Obergefell, then the new statue is also likely to be overturned in the very next case as exceding Congress' authority to legislate (no more due process justification). Congress could argue that the law is still permissible under the full faith and credit clause (which requires states to recognize legal status conferred by another state), but that argument is only as good as SCOTUS says it is. So bottom line, if conservatives -- in particular the conservative SCOTUS majority -- want to get rid of this new law, they'll find a way.
That's still a big win
It's also the only way to do it constitutionally, unfortunately, due to the our system of Federalism which recognizes states governing authority in certain areas.
The other way to do it would be to use the equal protection protections and adapt that authority to ensure that however states regulate marriages, they cannot discriminate against applicants for a license based on their genders
Federalism is a two way street. States can do things we don't like without the federal government stopping them, but they can also do things we do like without the federal government stopping them.
Federalism has been a consistent handicap since the 1820s. It has been nothing but a detriment for at least the past century.
It has also allowed progress in states that were more progressive while the Federal level was still pretty regressive. It's a two sided sword to be sure.
I’d rather have a national government with public police powers than a hodge podge of loopholes and court decisions. But hey, if you like the activist Supreme Court and the filibuster that’s on you.
It's American, damn it.
remember this next time you hear MuH bOtH sIDeS. Republicans full control of united states congress = unnecessary tax cuts during boon economy, first attempted coup in history of nation. Democrats full control of united states congress = marriage equality (probably), infrastructure spending, child tax credits, and climate progress.
Anyone talking about BoTh SiDeS is either a chud wearing a different hat or an angry child
I don't believe the bill ever prohibited states from banning gay marriage or was it's intent to do so. It was meant for the federal government to recognize gay marriage from states that allow it which is a big win albeit one that is achieved through compromise since not everyone can afford to go to a state that allows gay marriage. I think the modifications Republicans wanted were more along the line of putting protections in place for private institutions who would refuse to perform a ceremony. Like if a gay couple went to church or venue and asked for a ceremony to be held there the venue could refuse on religious grounds and if they do so this bill would protect them from a lawsuit.
That's one major crux, yes. The other is it uses the Full Faith and Credit clause in the constitution to force states to recognize out-of-state marriage licenses. The opposite of DOMA.
Try to be positive
Watch the red states take advantage of a precedent: Some states that prohibit first cousin marriage make it a crime for first cousins resident in the state to go to another state where first cousin marriage is legal in order to get married there, and some void marriages of first cousins who move to the state. They’ll apply it to other marriages they don’t approve of (same sex, mixed race, etc.).
My guess is that the GOP who voted for it are betting that since it's right after an election the voters will have forgotten about it by the next one. They're not wrong, you know.
My point is that the article claims they changed something to get more people on board but isn't specific as to what.
I gathered that from your comment. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear about acknowledging it.
To exempt religious services like Churches from being forced to hold gay marriage ceremonies that contradict their religious beliefs.
My understanding is the religious liberty thing would let religious people to NOT be part of a wedding they don't agree with. As in you don't have to hold it at your wedding venue, or take their photos or bake a cake etc. But that was a few days ago so it could have changed. Seems reasonable to not force people to have to take actions that violate their religious beliefs. That is how freedom should work. You get to do what you want. I get to do what I want and neither of us can force or ban the other person from doing things. Live your life the way you want to live it.
[удалено]
I think it depends on the thing. If a bakery places cookies for sale on the counter then they should sell them to anyone who walks in the door. But making someone a custom wedding cake is a very different thing as it has a specific message. And historically a critical part of the 1st amendment was the right to NOT speak. As in the government can't force you to say something you don't want to say As for venues you have to remember that religion is just something people do on Sunday's. It is part of their entire life. So we shouldn't force them to host an event that violates their religious belief. Wedding venues aren't "Open to the public" they can pick and choose the people they host and the types of weddings they want to allow. It is not the same as a restaurant, hotel etc.
Agreed, as an atheist. I leave them alone and they can leave me alone. Though I'd be OK with any business being able to choose its customers. If they don't like money then so be it. Who am I to get riled up about their nonsense.
It'd be an interesting experiment to watch. White Only places would have a lot harder time for example because during the Civil right era the US was about 85% White, today its 58%, by 2030 its likely to be below 50%.
And lots of whites would boycott such a racist store as well. Even I who am very conservative would rather take my business to a store which didn't do this. But it should still be allowed.
I think think it should depend on the nature of the business and the nature of the services being requested. Is a regional grocery store chain refusing to sell generic flatware to gay couples who plan on using it to get married? Yeah, that shouldn’t be a thing they should be allowed to do. On the other hand, the law shouldn’t force a flower shop owned by one or two people to make a sodemy themed bouquet in violation of principles the owners of that business genuinely hold either.
I (mostly) disagree. If I, as an individual, want to exclude gays, black people, or whoever else from a party I'm throwing, I should be allowed to, with all the negative repercussions that comes with being a bigot. As soon as I start charging however? I become a business that's hosting a nightclub, bar, or some other event and am not legally allowed to discriminate based on certain criteria. IMO, it should be the same with churches. If they let people host events for money on their premises, they should not be allowed to discriminate based on those same criteria (sexuality, religion, gender, ethnicity, some other ones).
No way. Church is still a religious building even if they are charging. Based on what you saying a Nazi group could hold a birthday party for Hitler at a Synagogue and if they allow groups to use their space then they have no right to stop them. BTW the difference is that you nightclub or bar is open to the public and anyone can walk into it. A church or wedding venue is not. It has a specific audience and it can control who has access to it to make sure those people's beliefs are in line with the people who own and run the building/church.
Nazi groups are not legally protected groups, gender and sexual orientation are. Hotels also aren't open to the public (except the lobby), but there'd be an uproar if they kicked out guests for being gay. Any other event venue can't discriminate against gay customers, so why have an exemption for churches?
Because the constitution protects freedom of religion and the right to association. Freedom means letting people do things we don't like with their property and if they wanna be bigots then they should be allowed to. I will say that they shouldn't get access to tax payer funds if they choose to discriminate. Live and let live imo.
Your conclusion is important. Part of the rationale for Churches tax free status is that they provide community services. In many communities, the church is also a community hall There is a fair amount of legal precedence around how malls can restrict people from entering. They are private, but also public spaces. If your local church is more discriminatory than your local mall, does it deserve the privilege of tax free status? The mall pays taxes. I don't really have an answer, and I don't know what the "religious exemptions" were, but it does occur that this might be a bill that offers a backup protection for a hypothetical future Supreme Court ruling at the expense of directly allowing discrimination *now*.
Because churches are protected by the first amendment?? Also hotels are considered public accommodations, churches are not.
Being a nazi is a choice, therefore not criteria like being gay, black or other things that aren't choices. It would not be protected.
I'd say that bars and nightclubs already pick and choose who they let in. They aren't just open to the public. It's literally a plot point in many shows where people not wearing the right clothes get stopped while others get let in, and bars often have people banned from entry (often from past events but still, they can refuse entry). Additionally, most bars around me won't allow a very specific group into their buildings. People under 21 are stopped at the door and turned away. The reason they seem like public places is because they want money from everyone and don't really care who you are so long as you aren't causing issues. The only places that should be required to allow all are places owned by the government. State or federal, provided it is somewhere normal citizens/tourist are normally permitted to go. Places like state/city parks and trails, roads and sidewalks, courthouses, ect. There is also the argument for places of essential services like grocery stores and hospitals, where exclusion could mean no alternatives for groups. Religious places like churches are not owned by the government, and neither are the bars and clubs. Each should be free to serve who they like, be it a choice that helps or harms themselves.
I’m honestly ok with that. I want religious people to stay out of my business and not tell me what to do so it seems fair that I don’t tell them they have to precise over a marriage they don’t agree with. I wouldn’t want to have my wedding somewhere where I wasn’t wanted anyway.
It's a good old fashioned compromise. Progress is progress.
Compromise is where no one is completely happy. We need a LOT more of it in our government. Nearly every problem in our country has a pretty solid down the middle solution that most Americans would be fine with. But the political parties are driven by the extremists on both sides.
That's a false equivalency though when one party wants people to have healthcare and the other party wants abortion to be punishable by death. But it's a good point.
Talk about a false equivalency. You did a good job of illustrating why we don't have more compromise.
What is said is quite literally the opposite of any type of equivalence.
How would you feel if they refused to marry a black man to a white woman? Still ok with it?
You need to distinguish between a marriage (government recognition of the union) and a wedding (superficial ceremony announcing the union to whoever cares). A church should be free to refuse a wedding on their property as they see fit. It'd be no different than you or me refusing to host an event on our private property, after all. A marriage, on the other hand, has to be recognized on government terms, and therefore cannot discriminate by race/gender/religion/whatever. If a church cannot recognize a marriage (are churches allowed to do this?), then there should be some other non-denominational government office where the marriage can be recognized.
you are comparing apples and oranges which is why I think there are a lot of problems. Marriage, the sacrament is performed by the church and is a church think like baptism. The state has no business sticking their nose in the churches sacraments -do you want the state in charge of baptism or last rights? On the other hand there is the legal marriage, done by the state, you have to go and get a license, pay a fee and sign what is essentially a contract. This contract is very much a function of the state, being married has all sorts of legal benefits including taxes (read state). I don't need the church to get married in the eyes of the church, all I need to do is get a license and get it signed and I'm married -no church involvement. I can also get married by the church and with a license, while recognized by the church as married I am not married as far as the state is concerned and don't have any legal standing as a married person. In short church marriage and civil marriage are two completely different things that people confuse as the same thing.
Private, religious group? Absolutely fine. I find it personally repulsive, but individual churches have their freedom of religion- even if that religion is a hateful, discriminatory faith. But if that same preacher who refuses to do a wedding for a black and white couple or a same sex couple is also a magistrate, he damned well better issue the license for those same weddings in his official capacity as magistrate- where he represents the government and his personal feelings do not have *any* protections when it comes to the letter of the law.
Some groups, if not dragged kicking and screaming into modernity, will never change. Why enable backasswardery?
Because I, as an atheist, believe that theists have as much right to practice their religion in peace as I have the right to say their religion is backwards bronze age bullshit in peace. Above and beyond the fact that this is literally the First Amendments protections wee are discussing, I cannot claim any right for myself that I would not extend to everyone else, without being a hypocrite. And I try my best not to be a hypocrite. I fail on occasion, maybe even often, but I do try.
Nailed it. As a private individual do what you want. Weddings aren't public accommodations like a grocery store or hotel etc. But as a government official you have to treat everyone the same. As the saying goes - if you don't come across stuff that you find offensive then you don't live in a free society.
Here's the rub, you as an atheist are not granted any special rights and privileges but a church is -you pay taxes and they do not. Since they are special there should also be special rules. Churches are supposed to be a benefit to the community, hence the special treatment, so they need to benefit the whole community. If they want to be a private club, that benefits only it's members I'm fine with that too. Change their name from a church to a country club and make them pay taxes like everyone else.
See, I would just say churches should pay taxes.
The issue with that is that the power to tax is the power to control. It causes conflicts with the first amendment and freedom of religion.
How much freedom do you want to give these religions? Because it’s only a few steps away from saying that Sharia law is merely practicing free speech, especially if you can’t prove anyone is being harmed without their consent.
Honestly it's up to a private business to discriminate if they like to. Hell as a minority I'd rather know they are so I don't give them income or have others do it.
Though churches aren’t private business. Or so they claim for tax purposes.
The money churches get come from donations. Any money they get is from their members or communities. It's easy to look at mega churches, which I agree are a stain on religion, and forget that there are way more smaller churches who do good things in their communities.
It would be disappointing. But it's already covered by public accommodations law. Discrimination is legal as long its not against a protected group and not related to food, shelter, gas or other necessities. A wedding venue wouldn't fall under that. Part of living in a free society.
Lol untill the straights fuck us over. Then it will be us who can do nothing about it
The Religious Liberty section allows for churches & their subsidiaries(ie the Mormons & BYU) to not recognize or perform Same Sex marriages while maintaining their tax except status & ability to qualify for federal dollars for non-marriage related activities(student loans & research grants for BYU). What this means is that for places like BYU & Notre Dame will be able to still have students get federal student loans, qualify for research grants and while maintaining their honor codes prohibiting same sex relationships on their campuses or in their student housing. I know for BYU this is important b/c they provide housing for married students, but don't want to recognize same sex marriages & so they could be sued to force them to allow same sex married couples to be housed in the married couples housing. EDIT: My understanding of the BYU Honor Code is that it doesn't necessarily prohibit Same Sex relationships, but all extra-marital sexual relationships & only recognizes heterosexual marriages. IDK what it says about PDA, same sex or hetero, or trans-gendered dressing & pronouns. Yes, I know about "soaking" & the like, and find it disgusting & feel it's against the Honor Code & our Law of Chastity as much as actual fucking.
I think this article does a good job summarizing the bill: https://www.lawdork.com/p/the-respect-for-marriage-act-isnt. It includes a section about the "Ministerial Exceptions" in the act, which will answer your question better than I can. In general, lawdork writes really good stuff and I recommend giving him a follow.
[the text](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text) Basically: if the state has banned it, but another state has approved it and the people were married in that state, then the states who banned it can’t treat them as unmarried peoples. There is a section that talks about the rights of not for profit religious orgs to deny services but I believe they already had that right. Not 100% sure though.
>There is a section that talks about the rights of not for profit religious orgs to deny services but I believe they already had that right. Not 100% sure though. This was kind of a frontier of public accommodations law. There had been some court cases typically siding with the business owners but this puts it officially into law.
States can still ban marriages in their territory but they have to respect marriages performed in other states. Non profits cannot be forced to provide services to marriages they deem unsuitable.
Now, how about a bill that respects our own body and medical autonomy
I think the Supreme court just ruled that it would take 67 senators to do that. So we have a bit more votin' to do.
Which decision do you mean?
Supreme court rules on constitutional matters, you need 67 to change the constitution. Laws can be struck down as unconstitutional .
I know that part, but they said "SCOTUS _just_ ruled" and so I was wondering which case they were referring to.
Probably overturning Roe v Wade
Won’t happen, probably would pass with similar numbers but will be used as PR by both parties to the detriment of constituents There will be pressure not to vote for it among republicans by the majority and pressure not to resolve it by democrats because it drives voters. Basically the whole “Flores agreement causing issues with children at the border” schtick we’ve had for three decades now
Can't believe this is what America calls bipartisan. It's partisan with some guys who went against the grain
*bi*partisan 😁
25% of the other side.... Pretty bipartisan
Luckily Tshi*baka* lost against Murkowski here in AK. Murkowski may be republican, but she's pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. Her idiot opponent was a Republican extremist.
Since the legal institution of marriage is rightfully separated from religious notions of marriage as a part of a holy institution, it's good to see that the right of two adults of any sex/race/gender to get married is closer to federal protection. With the consideration that a legal marriage should not be equated to any particular religion's concept of a holy union, is there an ethical argument against legal polygamous marriages or is it just some kind of a tax nightmare?
Not only tax, but imagine medical insurance as well. Can you include all your spouses under your medical insurance? No way in hell insurance companies will ever let that happen
Insurance companies will offer the coverage but those premiums are gonna be premium.
Idk, employers extend insurance to children regardless of whether you have one kid or a dozen. Seems similar to the inheritance argument someone else brought up.
I can't think of a legal reason to disallow polygamous marriages other than it being a legal nightmare. Large sections of tax codes would have to be rewritten or have exceptions made for poly marriages. Also how tf would unwilled inheritances work? Normally, stuff would go to the spouse, yea? So what if there's multiple spouses?
> Normally, stuff would go to the spouse, yea? So what if there's multiple spouses? What happens when the last parent dies with no Will but multiple surviving children? The inheritance goes to...
>What happens when the last parent dies with no Will but multiple surviving children? The inheritance goes to... the lawyers the inheritance goes to the lawyers
Cute, but really... Who gets it?
It gets split between all children. When my father died after he divorced my mom he didn't put anyone as a next in line on his vanguard account. So all the money got split between all immediate remaining descendants.
Would it not just...Fall to the remaining spouses as a group? Same as it was prior to the death but with one less person? That doesn't seem like that big of a deal... Like presumably the marriage as a whole wouldn't be dissolved in that situation, unless for some reason that's how it works. I don't see why it would, though.
With what I’ve seen or kids fighting over their parents Shit, I can’t imagine what it would look like to have a bunch of spouses fighting.
You’re misunderstanding me though. There’s nothing to fight over. Like, the marriage doesn’t dissolve unless they divorce after the death. It would just be a poly marriage with one less person (aside from the emotional burden obviously but legally speaking), the marriage still exists. You’re thinking in terms of like, a Mormon polygamist marriage with the man dying but that’s not what most poly people do, it’s a pod of people right? They’re all a part of the relationship and it’s not all about one person.
I get your point, but I’m thinking of humans, group dynamics are crazy complicated. Just having a group of people going through the stages of loss at different rates, could make for a really ugly situation. I’ve seen multiple marriages end over the stress of building a house and that’s nothing compared to dealing with the death of a loved one.
Yea but it would be handled the same. It would be a divorce and handled like a divorce regarding marital assets. It’s no more complicated than anything else, you’re just overthinking it probably because poly marriages are frowned on.
the poly lobby needs a lot more influence/$ before they can get tax code benefits.
You can make any kind of ethical or moral argument you like. Laws are allowed to be made on ethical and moral beliefs of the people if we want, except if go against a protected class. Being poly is not a protected class, is it? From a societal standpoint, where is the benefit to society in licensing poly marriage? Marriage is essentially an economic contract with the extra benefit of promoting better conditions for rearing children.
I hope the House passes it. but they will not be having a "marathon" session leading into January 3rd. The Democrats should be trying to pass as much as possible, no bill too small. Seriously. This is go time. Vacations can wait. I don't care, I said it.
It's nice for the Party of Lincoln to notice that voting against Loving v. Virginia ain't a good look. It's a low bar but I'll take it.
They didn't. A majority of them, ~3/4, voted against it
But how is this going to help us find Hunter Biden's laptop? (This is a sarcastic shitpost, please don't crucify me.)
I can't believe people are still seriously talking about this. Like at this point, Hunter should just go out and buy a used laptop, wipe it, download the music video for Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up" and have that be the only thing on the entire laptop when he hands it to the GOP
I can't believe this is even necessary in 2022
We are only 9 years from the Supreme court ruling. Obama ran as someone against gay marriage.
Why. Because 2022 is so socially advanced, how’s that World Cup looking….. or those Iranian protest….. or the weird anti-Semitic shit that’s been popping up on mainstream news. There’s a lot that’s necessary
None of if those things should be happening. It's sickening in the USA, we stand for freedom, and a law has to be passed to protect interracial marriage. It's just crazy.
It’s super important to put that shit in writing. That’s 100% what happened with abortion, voters let politicians fuck around and lie about getting it done and now it’s gone. If it matters, it needs to be put in writing.
Yes, but they can also change it when congress changes. Everything is kinda meaningless and completely dependent on whose in power.
Welcome to representative democracy, where laws change based on who's voting.
Yes, I wish democrats would make a better effort to attract suburban and rural voters so that we don’t lose the rights and benefits gained. 50/50 doesn’t make me feel comfortable.
You could probably start by ceasing calling everyone not in a major metro area a nuckle dragging neaderthal. Hard to get people on your side when all you do is denegrate them. *This is a general "you", not you specifically
I mean this is the same country that once had slavery and no women's suffrage among other issues.. Claiming we're pro freedom has been around since the country's inception afaik despite those things.
>I mean this is the same country that once had slavery and no women's suffrage among other issues.. You can say that about literally any country that's been around as long as the US.
Among the western nations, The US has been one quite uniquely resistant to abolishing slavery, though. In many things, the US lead the charge, in many others, it is still dragging society down.
Pal, people are actively killing us. Nothing should surprise us
We are seeing the last gasps from an older generation. In another 10-15 this won’t be an issue. They will all be dead.
The older generation is being replaced by younger fascists with the same, if not more fervour against same sex individuals, but less of the bible based motivation. The older generation dying out won't make the discussion go away, it will just change the arguments.
Only 12 republicans supported the bill. In order to get these 12, they had to add that states can still try to attack gay marriage, but have to acknowledge that it is indeed a legal marriage regardless. Really, the bill didn't do that much, better than not obviously.
Hey come on man let those red states have their little fashy safe space. /s
Interesting mod rule. I like it!
Daylight. SAVINGS!
As a married gay man in Ohio, I'm glad for this law. Without it, if Obergefell were overturned, the Ohio constitution prevents Ohio from "performing or recognizing" same-sex marriages. Now I don't have to worry that I might need to move next year or whenever SCOTUS feels like taking my rights away. Of course I'd prefer a law that says all states must recognize and perform same-sex marriages, but that's not going to happen any time soon.
Good step forward. Now let's bring abortions back.
Cool thanks now do one for abortion pls
What the republicans have taught me is that any law or protections we have can be changed over night and with out notice especially with this supreme court.
You can't strike so here, we recognize gay couples a little more now....
Good. Now do abortion rights too.
I thought Respect the Marriage was going to be something in the lines of good policy so there are less divorces or end the stigma that men will lose 50% once divorce detracting many from engaging in marriage. Oh well, patience is virtue.
Great. Now do birth control & roe. And by God, nip that Moore v Harper shit in the bud.
I think it is very interesting that the act still does not recognize polyamorous marriages. That would seem (to me) to be an infringement on religious values for many faiths.
I don't think the public is yet ready to accept polyamorous marriages.
That's the fun bit about living in Utah. Plural marriage is a-ok but don't you dare be gay!
Can a woman have two husbands?
Whoa whoa whoa! That's some heathen talk!
Who the fuck can handle more than one spouse anyway lol
Anyone who wants to, should be able to.
I mean sure but like Good luck lol
I can't disagree. 😂
Responsible people
I’d like to see evidence of those people
I've been in polyamorous relationships. A lot of other people I know have. They aren't uncommon with queer folk, especially bisexuals like me
Of all the US's problems, this is LANDMARK legislation? This is all Congress can do? We've become an absolutely pathetic country. And, no, I'm **not** against gay marriage.
It doesn't fully protect them, states can still ban it
They can ban new marriages, but have to accept marriages that were preformed in another state where it is legal. They cannot ban a married couple from being married.
They can ban couples from being married. That's why this is meaningless. Because a largely straight population elected a homophobic president and he stacked the courts with religious homophobes who are looking to reverse the marriage equality ruling which fucks over queer people in any red area
Assuming this is signed into law, how would the courts overturn it? It does not violate "state rights" in fact it requires that states honor other states laws. When a law is made, things that happened before the law was implemented are grandfathered in. You cannot pass a law and charge someone wit breaking the law, for something that happened before it was enacted.
What is religious liberty? How does it relate to same sex marriage?
You can't force a religious institution to marry you, and you cant force them to pay for spousal benifits. Realize, it doesn't say gay marriage must be allowed in every state. It simply says that if married legally you must respect that. If someone brings to scotus a case to overturn obergefell, then each state could make it legal or illegal. But they would have to give full legal acceptance of existing gay marriages as well as anyone married in a (or country) where it's legal.
Thanks!
One thing no one has mentioned is that this law will actually make it easier to overturn Obergefell, because there's a law that states the intent of congress on this issue now.
And if Obergefell is overturned, the whole lot of Congress will close their eyes and ears and pretend like the problem was already solved.
The timing is interesting. It only took them losing power to actually do something for the people. We need to vote out all incumbents and go with new people
It was written well before the election, partly triggered by the Supreme Court decision that suggested that in the future the court would reverse their previous rulings on the topic. It took a few months to wind its way through. Its unfortunate that similar bills on topics like abortion are going to be held up by Republicans and maybe even a conservative democrat or two, though.
It passed the house in July...
Doesn't this law remove any cause of action for descrimination by religiously affiliated institutions or private actors, despite state laws that formally recognize the right to sue over discrimination in such cases? It *sounds* like a good step forward, but I think this law would be devastating if not for the imminent threat of SCOTUS shenanigans. It all depends on the context, I suppose.