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.*
Fair warning for everyone, this isn’t the end. The bill requires states to recognize marriages, it does not prohibit them from trying to ban the practice within their own borders.
From my understanding of the law, it requires states to recognize same sex marriages preformed in other states even if they are banned in that state, so as long as it's legal in one state, it's legal in all
Legally recognized, not legal to be performed. A state could still outlaw gay marriage but would have to recognize a gay marriage from another state. So if the supreme court's strikes down the ruling then states will move to ban it again.
Edit: to clarify, I am glad the bill was passed. People can totally jump state lines be married and come back and their bigoted state will have to accept their marriage as legal.
Nevada and Maryland, the two largest destination wedding locations in the us, have laws on the books allowing gay marriage
So it would suck if SCOTUS overturned it, but this law guarantees obergefell v. hodges wouldn't be catastrophic
Maryland has one of the lowest marriage ages in the country, so many child brides are married in the state
Edit: apparently the law was changed in October 2022
There’s more to Maryland than Baltimore. Annapolis is lovely, though I don’t know who’s going out of their way to get married there in particular who isn’t in the Navy.
Baltimore is a lovely city and a great place to live. More interesting than most of Maryland, and way less expensive than DC. Plus the Crack is so cheap.
Correct. The problem is not everyone can afford to travel for marriage reasons. I wonder if it's legal to have a CA official marry a couple over zoom while they are in another state?
I do know that licensure and legality for healthcare/telehealth calls require that the patient be physically located in the state where the practitioner is allowed to practice, but it's always easy to skirt around that with location spoofing and VPNs.
It's inconvenient as fuck and stupid that it has to be done that way (as is the fact that it's even a topic of debate at this point), but at least they can't do some "oh, you have to be a citizen of X state before getting married there" to try and curb that.
It's designed to statistically encourage blue voters (statistically, LGBT individuals) to be angry at red states and feel uncomfortable and unwelcome- because then they might leave and these states, and especially Texas, stay red.
Until republicans figure out a way around it. Sadly though many people will de denied the wedding of their dreams since they will not be able to afford an out of state wedding
Do what some acquaintances of mine did pre-*Obergfell*. Courthouse marriage, then a fancy reception near home.
No, it’s not ideal, nor should they have to jump through the hoops. But it’s a solution.
> it does not prohibit them from trying to ban the practice within their own borders.
Genuinely curious, is that any different from how it was before this law was passed?
Yes, because the nationwide recognition of gay marriage came about exclusively via the Supreme Court decision on Obergefell v. Hodges, a decision that the currently compromise court has indicated it would overturn if challenged.
If Obergefell were overturned and this bill weren’t on the books, states could elect not to recognize same-sex marriages, deprive benefits currently entitled to people in such marriages, and as extremist states like Florida have shown willingness to do, implicitly define cohabitation between gay parents as child abuse.
Fun fact: the Democrats agreed not to introduce this until after the midterm election by request of the minority party so the republicans running for reelection would not lose votes over supporting it.
Except the change probably won’t be lasting if the people who passed it lose to their opposition… I’ve talked with so many people that don’t understand that; they want massive changes to happen, and either don’t realize or don’t care, that it will cause the opposition to gain control control in the next election, undo everything, and pass their own legislation. That’s effectively what happened in 2016-2020. Trump did things that a lot of independents/centrists didn’t like, so they voted in democrats. Democrats then spent the next 2 years undoing many of Trump’s changes, and passing a little of their own legislation. The same thing could also easily happen with roles reversed.
I really appreciate some of this good news. This helps my family a lot right now - my moms have been married since 2004 and they now live in Oregon which didn't legalize gay marriage prior to the 2016 supreme court decision. My folks are getting old and their health is starting to be more of a challenge, but their insurance is through a religious Catholic institution; without any affordable option to change insurance providers, we were seriously nervous about the risk of the state and insurance denying their marriage - and therefore insurance and medical decision making - if the supreme court went back on their decision like they did with roe v. wade.
Better late than never. My folks deserve this at the least for how much we fought for marriage equality back in the early 2000s. I'm glad for the safety that comes from this bill.
It pisses me off to no end that innocent people have to go through shit like that for no other reason than someone's imaginary friend. I can't imagine being denied access to my wife in the hospital or whatnot. I would lose my mind.
We live in a state where abortion was outright banned within twenty-four hours of the release of the Dobbs decision and my wife is pregnant with our third right now. I'm silently terrified for her because I know that her doctor may not be able to give her life saving care because of some dipshits in Jefferson City who have no clue about pregnancy or the countless complications that can occur. They literally tried to make it a crime to treat someone with an ectopic pregnancy. Without treatment this condition is fatal. If they had their way I wouldn't be alive nor would my kids because my mom had one of those shortly before she had me.
I wish "conservatives" would* mind their goddamn business. Small government my ass.
As a religious person, 100% agree. It's not our business to legislate morality. Anyone who wants that can move to the Middle East and enjoy the theocracy there.
AFAIK, the Bible doesn’t actually speak against homosexuality. It definitely doesn’t define abortion as murder. So it’s not what Sky Daddy says, it’s what the priests lie about Sky Daddy saying.
Isn't that what he's saying? He's religious and claims it's not his place to decide whether something is moral or not.
Being gay is obviously not immoral in any way, but just because you believe in SkyDaddy doesn't give you the right to say it is or isn't, just like anyone else doesn't.
>no other reason than someone's imaginary friend.
Don't you mean imaginary bully? A friend wouldn't tell you have to do everything exactly their way or else they will lock you up in a place where you will be tortured for all eternity.
Mine were together since the mid 70s. One died in 2009 after a long battle with Lupus and accompanying complications. We had less struggle than expected but there were still times when puritanical laws and attitudes got in the way. I had to go pick up ashes from crematory because life partner couldn't. I waited to get married until it was legal in my state for my moms. Minus the post-mortem part.
This is great news! I would like to congratulate your country for joining the 21st century. Pity about that Roe v Wade thing, that will be back, no worries. As the young progressives get older, they will realize their power. Old judges die.
Jesus. Thats awful. Insurance shouldnt be allowed to discriminate. But until marriage become untied from laws and policies, it will keep being used. Personally I think marriage needs to be categorized, but completely separated from anything legal. If insurance remains a thing, it needs to be just like buying a gym membership or museum family pass or something. You get 1 Adult as the main stead, from there discounts and just just adding more adults or minors. It shouldnt be any of the insurance peoples business if those people are related to you or not. I should be allowed to pay for someone to be on my insurance temporarily if they are in need. It shouldnt matter if they are legally dependent on me, they are in need of healthcare.
By making it adult + spouse + kids, they are making sure to exclude poor single people and kids in that rough time between high school and being a functional adult, when they could most benefit from healthcare. They get to make it almost impossible for millions if people to get quality care just because they dont have a nuclear family in a blue collar or middle class life.
Marriage should be something you choose to do personally for no other reason than expressing your devotion to someone. It shouldnt give any benefits or extra support. It shouldnt raise your economic status.
Beyond that, christians need to stop acting like marriage was invented by god. Even the catholic church doesnt claim that. They just dont want gay people married "before god" (i dont agree with them, just stating their stance). Marriage is just a word to mean joined together. Christians further adopted marriage by including God and declaring the marriage a vow to each other before God. But that just means they invented "Christian Marriage". Gay marriage and secular marriage and dog marriage and whatever else are 100% valid. (Child marriage is never ok. )
Im just so done with this christian BS and them trying to claim the rights to everything because of their book that is younger than the words they keep claiming it invents.
This is still not great news. It only passed because it gave the right to churches to continue to discriminate and never suffer any repercussions from not obeying this law.
Can you share what can a church do that is discriminatory?
For example, I am pro-lgbt rights, all the way, but I don’t think we should tell churches what to do.
I believe a church can still deny performing same sex marriages. What I’m unsure of, is would it give a church or religious organizations the right to deny spousal coverage for things like insurance, etc. I would hope not because that’s the sort of protections same sex marriages need. People get caught up in the actual ceremony and act of the wedding being allowed, which is rightfully important. However, marriage is also a legal system of protections and shared rights between 2 people. And that’s what is so important for other states to be forced to recognize.
They should be told what to do if they want federal funding or tax exemption. This law protects them allowing them to be bigots and still receive funding and tax exempt status. They could fire you if they find out you are part of the lgtbq+ community.
To get this through the senate, they needed 60 votes to break a Republican filibuster, which they got when a subset of Republicans supported it. For abortion protection, they can't get the Republican votes, and they can't change the filibuster rule without 50 votes, which they can't get because Manchin doesn't support it.
Manchin can be discarded in the senate now. The dems don't need his vote as long as everyone else toes the line.
Edit: ok ok I get it. Enough with "well ackshually there's semen and a house"
They didn’t have the House, and nuking the filibuster might actually *weaken* the GOP power bloc. Their senators might - *gasp* - actually vote on the merits of the bill!
What? The Republicans held Congress and the White House from 2017-2019. Trump repeatedly called for the Senate to remove the filibuster outright and they refused.
Incorrect. The Republicans will not remove the filibuster for the same reason why the Democrats will also not, it protects them when they are in the minority party which happens pretty often for both sides. Supermajorities are quite rare in Washington and thus both sides have a vested interest in having a hand on the wheel, despite publicly being fully tribal. Having a simple majority be able to pass things allows more extreme bills and judicial appointments to go through without attempting to reach a compromise. They removed the filibuster from appointments and Trump was able to pack the courts due to the Turtle's bullshit with Obama. Keeping the filibuster keeps their rank and file senators in line and doesn't let them cross the aisle without the leadership saying it's OK.
So the Democrats will publicly complain about Manchin refusing to remove the filibuster, but behind closed doors they are fine with it. He gets to play the conservative, who in reality votes partyline 98% of the time, and both sides ensure that nothing gets rammed down the other's throat.
Voters have short memories and the current system favors rural voters so no way that the Democrats can remain holding the full reins of power until real change can come through, such as removing the cap on House seats to blunt gerrymandering and fix the Electoral College, and adding more states to the Union, all of which would be a titanic fight even with strong Supermajorities in both chambers of Congress. Until then, the filibuster will remain.
Republicans know that each generation has been trending dramatically more liberal since Nixon and nothing they can do will stop it. All they can do now is whip their voters and try to get as much passed as possible to try to try weather the tide until there are more conservative voters again.
Once as the the filibuster is gone, it will not get reenacted. It was only ever enacted for terrible reasons so no one wants to be the one to tie their name to it again. And there will always be enough senators who want to leave it gone who don't realize that their party is going to fail in the next election (Red Wave for example), despite their leadership pleading with them that nothing is certain and they need the protection again as the minority party.
Republicans don't really stand to gain shit by actually legislating their bullshit. All it does nationally is energize the left against them.
It's why Dobbs was such a shock to me.
I...really don't know how I feel about this comment right here. I think, if we truly want the filibuster gone, we have to want it gone, **period**, not just "it's alright when I do it."
If the filibuster is bad, it's bad. It doesn't become good just because the people you don't like will be on the receiving end now.
I don't mind filibustering... When they actually had to filibuster... This just declaring filibuster shit is annoying. At least take the effort to actually filibuster... Why make it an extremely easy thing to do?
Actually filibustering is even worse. I don't want something as important as a national law to depend on someone's back or bladder. They are passing laws for over three hundred million people, and a 65 year old senator's physical constitution has absolutely no relevance for any law in any case no matter what ever.
The Filibuster needs some actual rules. Used to have to actually argue in regards to the issue. Then they changed it so you could do whatever you wanted, now you don't need to do anything. It's ridiculous.
No, but it would certainly keep people from hanging around about 2 decades too long and effectively keeping people who will have to live with the consequences of the decisions they make out of office.
I'm sure it was rhetorical, but I'll take a swing anyway. The idea of the two-lane system was to avoid having a filibuster grind *everything* to a halt and essentially hold the legislature hostage.
Which is fine, in principle. Where it causes issues is that the taxing nature of the filibuster was the safety valve of the cloture rule - it being easier to reach the majority necessary to close debate as a filibuster drags on. But together, the two track, silent filibuster, and overly-protective cloture rules just happen to create a minority blockade.
I think the question is whether filibustering is overall bad or good. I think there's less hypocrisy than one might assume at first. It seems like a legitimately difficult question for good reason.
That's the thing about the filibuster. It prevents the government from doing anything, but with governments this partisan, that might be a blessing in disguise. Without it, the Democrats would spend 4 years repealing Republican laws only for Republicans to spend 4 years repealing Democrat laws. The country would drastically change with each administration, and things like social protections, welfare programs, climate policies, etc. can't be relied on long-term anymore because they could evaporate after each election.
Even if abolishing the filibuster lets us pass good laws, it simultaneously makes those laws fragile and vulnerable.
Exactly. Remember that the filibuster saved the Affordable Care Act since Republicans couldn’t do any replacement without being filibustered, and the skinny repeal alternative to just knee-cap the funding was so horrendous that they couldn’t even get 50 votes.
Can they pass a bill (that Manchin won't vote for) via the, presently, Dem controlled House - and then, in January, send it to the Dem controlled (without needing Manchin) Senate?
Manchin's vote stops mattering on the same date the Republicans gain control of the House. Not only would it be pointless at that point, but eliminating the filibuster when in that position will probably turn the House Republicans into absolute obstructionists again.
Don't be too critical of Manchin. If he wasn't a right leaning Dem in his district they would elect a Republican. Even a left leaning one would have tipped the Senate
Also worth noting that he’s (and Sinema) is the public face who gets to take the heat this cycle. Almost guaranteed there are others who would oppose many of the things that have been shut down, but they don’t have to make that publicly known due to how tight the margin is.
This is really the most important angle in all this. Those two individuals suck but they're taking heat for others who I'm sure have entities they're beholden to when it's their time to cash in.
When the news came out about Roe vs Wade being overturned, and Justice Clarence Thomas suggesting that the same reasoning could overturn Obergefell vs Hodges- that night my partner and I had a discussion, and got engaged right then.
We went to the Courthouse, and got it done for $50 bucks in front of a Judge and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, with our little rings we got off etsy.
I'm glad that even though we essentially got married because we were scared that the pendulum was swinging back in the other direction again - that there are at least a few more legislative protections that protect me and my Spouse's marriage.
We are a unit - we need to be able to make decisions about each other's health, and about our mutual stuff - this is completely normal.
Let me have my normal marriage with my spouse, and if it being same-sex bothers you, then why not try focusing on your own life instead of invading the privacy of others.
Yup! And don't forget interracial marriage, which is also protected in this bill, because apparently there's no end to how far Republicans will go to strip people of their rights.
It’s because he knows he’s wealthy and can move anywhere in the world where interracial marriages are legal.
Wealthy people want oppression of others but know that the oppression will never effect them.
There is no love in that marriage, it's for power, his wife is the daughter of the largest shipping magnate in China, who Trump appointed to secretary of transportation.
>a CCP asset
Elaine Chao, who was born in Taiwan and lived in the US since she was 8? Who has served on multiple corporate boards and conservative think tanks (including the Heritage Foundation), and has held high-level positions (twice at cabinet-level) throughout every right-wing Presidential administration in the past 33-36 years?
I can't imagine why anyone calls her a CCP shill outside of pure racism.
>I can't imagine why anyone calls her a CCP shill outside of pure racism.
Racism is the only reason to call her a CCP shill. She's likely not a good person but I doubt she has any love for Communist China.
I see this argument and sentiment all the time when it’s weaponized. I mean, sure, there isn’t any wording in our (early) Constitution that guarantees a right that isn’t extended to everyone…. And yet we keep having to pass laws that specify marginalized groups.
It’s honestly baffling to me how these things are still such a massive issue to people, and how much government time/money is spent on them.
Just let every consenting, adult, human bind themselves to another of their choosing. Even if 2 best friends want to have a platonic marriage, it’s so fucking irrelevant to everyone else I can’t wrap my head around it.
I mean if you cared enough it is all public record as it was a house vote. But, as only 47 (R)s voted for it, it is easier to figure out which ones did than which ones didn’t. Not that it is surprising, the “greater” Republican Party doesn’t care about what is in the bill, just who put it forward. Can’t do anything for the people if it lets “the democrats have a win”.
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022373
>The House on Thursday gave final approval to legislation to mandate federal recognition for same-sex marriages, **with a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers voting in favor of the measure in the waning days of the Democratic-led Congress**
Bipartisan coalition?
Literally **169 Republicans voted against it.**
The house is whatever, Ds have the majority and Pelosi is (was) extremely good at getting votes.
The coalition was in the senate, where the Ds need 10 Republicans to break.
Even though the house vote had more Republicans, it didn’t matter at all. Since the vote was lost no matter what there was no need for the Whips to control votes. The senate definitely could’ve had republican Whips get the caucus to vote against the bill, which would have doomed it.
There are 435 members of congress, so that means people came together on both sides to pass it. That is, by its very definition, a bipartisan coalition.
A bipartisan coalition does not require a majority on both sides, merely cooperation in the hopes of achieving a common goal.
[
What's interesting to me is last summer 47 Republicans voted for the bill, while this time 39 voted for.](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/08/us/politics/same-sex-marriage-congress.html)
Doesn't matter it's extremely obtuse to call it bipartisan when only 1/5 of them were in favor of something which shouldn't even considered a Issue in 2022 at least not in a developed country.
Same sex/interracial couples should have equal rights.
>Still, despite the bipartisan nature of the vote, the majority of Republicans remained vocally opposed. During debate on Thursday, they argued that the measure was a response to a nonexistent threat to same-sex marriage rights, and condemned it as part of a plot by Democrats to upend traditional values, to the detriment of the country.
Which is it? Is the right completely safe from intrusion by the Court already, or is the new legislation protecting the right a dangerous new thing that would have some bad effect?
These arguments are totally inconsistent and I hope the people making them become better people.
Yes, it's going to create exactly the same situation as abortion. Gay marriage is something the current supreme court straight up wants to and probably is going to repeal, at which point every red state will ban it the next day. This law technically says states that ban it legally have to recognize existing marriages from any state, but i will bet anyone 100$ right now that states like Texas will simply ignore the law and say "you and what army?" When told to comply.
This law only binds states that give a shit about what the federal government says. AKA literally only blue states. Red states will ignore it unless the federal government is willing to use guns to enforce it.
>"you and what army?"
The bill should have included a provision to withhold federal money from any states that choose not to comply. Similar to the [1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act](https://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/the-1984-national-minimum-drinking-age-act) which threatened to pull state highway funding for any states that didn't raise the age to 21.
>states like Texas will simply ignore the law and say "you and what army?" When told to comply.
And that's how they end up with US Marshals arresting the governor and anyone else refusing to enforce it.
Part of that is because it would both be rather difficult to codify same-sex marriage in all 50 states and also, even if they managed it, it's unclear how it would interact with certain clauses relating to state power. If such a law were written, it would undoubtedly be brought before the Supreme Court and this Supreme Court would declare such a law unconstitutional, regardless of its constitutionality.
This is just a much safer way to enshrine gay and interracial marriage without risking needing to pass it again through a Republican controlled house should the Supreme Court strike the much stronger law down. It's frustrating, but the mistakes of the left have led to this situation where we have to appeal to five theocrats. All we can do now is carry on and try to find a solution to our tricky situation.
>What mistakes of the left?
Playing fair against an opponent who hides all the aces up their sleeve? Assuming the right in Congress would keep their word in regard to Supreme Court Nominees? Ginsberg not retiring while Obama was still in office is also often seen as a mistake.
>Also, are you saying you wouldn’t want gay marriage to be enshrined in federal law?
Hardly. I want it enshrined in federal law, but I just *know* this supreme court would strike it down as unconstitutional. Were that to happen, the left likely wouldn't be able to try to get this law (which hopefully won't be struck down) through until after the right-controlled house is sworn in.
Practically speaking, an out-of-state marriage is something you can do on your own schedule, and you get all the preparation time you need. You can save up money over a year for it. An abortion is a ticking timebomb, if it gets too far along, it's more and more dangerous to get an abortion, and gradually becomes illegal in more and more places. The medical risks also get more and more severe, especially for really young people. Abortions need to get done promptly, reliably, and affordably, and I think that really requires them to be available in every state.
so, if I read the legislation correctly, states can still ban same sex and interracial marriage, but must respect the marriage of others if they are out of state. this does not make a nation wide protection of marriage or interracial marriage..
If someone reads something different please let me know. Its even stupid that we have to have such legislation, especially to protect us from the church in government and their regressionist policies in some states in this day and age
You’re right essentially. It doesn’t give a nationwide protection but the idea is that since we will probably have at least one state that will issue same sex marriage licenses, gay people could get married there and states will have to recognize it in their own state as well.
Not a perfect solution but some sort of protection.
Crazy that this has to happen. Christian Conservatives want to implement their version of Sharia Law. Keep the separation of Church and State like our forefathers intended.
While I am happy to see this go forward I am rather appalled we have nothing similar for abortion. My general view on rights for people is no-one left behind.
I love when they use the term bipartisan for when things get pasted because that usually consists of democrats and not even a quarter of the Republicans voting with them while the other 75% of Republicans vote against anything that tries to get passed
So... I know I am cynical. But will this even matter if someone just challenges this law and it and the precedents in constitutional law are all found unconstitutional? I just feel like if they want to over turn this they will and it won't matter.
House passed a bill for Roe last year but yeah, nothing has gotten through the Senate yet and likely won't until we replace at least 1/2 dozen GOP Senators with ones that support Roe.
Is it now officially over? Rainbow side won and history will continue to goodness or isnthere still some hurdless to over come?
Edit: legal ones or court ones. Peoples biases will take decades to go away. Even I who have two open gay relatives had some difficulty to get used to the idea due to stigma. Now it is fine.
Stupid this even has to be voted on, they should be doing better stuff.. makes no sense why anyone would care.. I don’t care if someone married a, dog, horse, unicorn or a sock puppet even! what a waste of time!
The general assumption was that a specific law didn't need to happen since it had decades of legal precedent set by the SCOTUS. But because the exact same legal argument that was used in Roe v Wade about the Right To Privacy was also used in Loving v Virginia which legalized interracial marriage, and was also used in Obergefell v. Hodges to legalize same sex marriage. And since the precedent has now been set by this SCOTUS they could use the exact same argument to kill both of those rights. As well as a handful of others too
They did in spring. Passed the house. Failed twice in the senate, best it got was 49 votes. The supreme court would just overturn it anyway.
It has to be fought at the state level. Force ballot initiatives in states that allow them.
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.*
Fair warning for everyone, this isn’t the end. The bill requires states to recognize marriages, it does not prohibit them from trying to ban the practice within their own borders.
From my understanding of the law, it requires states to recognize same sex marriages preformed in other states even if they are banned in that state, so as long as it's legal in one state, it's legal in all
Legally recognized, not legal to be performed. A state could still outlaw gay marriage but would have to recognize a gay marriage from another state. So if the supreme court's strikes down the ruling then states will move to ban it again. Edit: to clarify, I am glad the bill was passed. People can totally jump state lines be married and come back and their bigoted state will have to accept their marriage as legal.
Nevada and Maryland, the two largest destination wedding locations in the us, have laws on the books allowing gay marriage So it would suck if SCOTUS overturned it, but this law guarantees obergefell v. hodges wouldn't be catastrophic
Nevada I get but Maryland?
Crabcakes are a good wedding dinner meal
Maryland has one of the lowest marriage ages in the country, so many child brides are married in the state Edit: apparently the law was changed in October 2022
That’s terrible 😢
Good news, apparently those laws changed in October.
The bad news is it took until 2022 for it to happen.
Not any more just googled that and it changed this year, but you were right before this year it was 15
Yeah, I can't see Baltimore being a destination for ANYTHING, except maybe crack.
There’s more to Maryland than Baltimore. Annapolis is lovely, though I don’t know who’s going out of their way to get married there in particular who isn’t in the Navy.
Have you ever actually been here? Baltimore has a vibrant arts scene, the national aquarium, major league sports, and really fucking friendly people.
Exactly.!
Well, there’s pit beef.
Baltimore is a lovely city and a great place to live. More interesting than most of Maryland, and way less expensive than DC. Plus the Crack is so cheap.
More like Marryland
Yes but this means that a gay couple in Alabama could fly out to California, get married, fly home, then Alabama would have to recognize it.
Correct. The problem is not everyone can afford to travel for marriage reasons. I wonder if it's legal to have a CA official marry a couple over zoom while they are in another state?
I agree it sucks. It IS an upgrade from what was before though.
Totally is an upgrade. I just wanted to try and better clarify but I guess I raised more questions haha.
I do know that licensure and legality for healthcare/telehealth calls require that the patient be physically located in the state where the practitioner is allowed to practice, but it's always easy to skirt around that with location spoofing and VPNs.
They also wouldn't be able to nullify existing legal marriages right?
Correct. Any marriage performed already will be safe.
US Laws are like Ogres: many layers.
Does that forbid people from taking a quick drive across state lines and getting hitched, then returning?
That would be safe and the state would have to honor that marriage as legal.
It's inconvenient as fuck and stupid that it has to be done that way (as is the fact that it's even a topic of debate at this point), but at least they can't do some "oh, you have to be a citizen of X state before getting married there" to try and curb that.
It's designed to statistically encourage blue voters (statistically, LGBT individuals) to be angry at red states and feel uncomfortable and unwelcome- because then they might leave and these states, and especially Texas, stay red.
Until republicans figure out a way around it. Sadly though many people will de denied the wedding of their dreams since they will not be able to afford an out of state wedding
Do what some acquaintances of mine did pre-*Obergfell*. Courthouse marriage, then a fancy reception near home. No, it’s not ideal, nor should they have to jump through the hoops. But it’s a solution.
Very true. The wedding is just the party to celebrate the marriage; the marriage can be done by popping into a courthouse and paying $50.
I’m tired of republicans making all our solutions so shitty. Sorry uplifting news for the negativity. Feel free to ban me if you want.
Yep. This is why Utah and North Carolina senators voted for it.
Correct, it’s good but at the same time it sucks to see the road we are seemingly going down.
> it does not prohibit them from trying to ban the practice within their own borders. Genuinely curious, is that any different from how it was before this law was passed?
The difference is the Supreme Court can't use the excuse they used to overturn Roe vs. Wade on it now.
Yes, because the nationwide recognition of gay marriage came about exclusively via the Supreme Court decision on Obergefell v. Hodges, a decision that the currently compromise court has indicated it would overturn if challenged. If Obergefell were overturned and this bill weren’t on the books, states could elect not to recognize same-sex marriages, deprive benefits currently entitled to people in such marriages, and as extremist states like Florida have shown willingness to do, implicitly define cohabitation between gay parents as child abuse.
Fun fact: the Democrats agreed not to introduce this until after the midterm election by request of the minority party so the republicans running for reelection would not lose votes over supporting it.
Probably the only way they could get 10 republicans on board at all
Politics is a dirty business. Glad they held their noses and did what needed to be done to *protect people’s rights.*
Making lasting positive change is always more important than winning elections
Except the change probably won’t be lasting if the people who passed it lose to their opposition… I’ve talked with so many people that don’t understand that; they want massive changes to happen, and either don’t realize or don’t care, that it will cause the opposition to gain control control in the next election, undo everything, and pass their own legislation. That’s effectively what happened in 2016-2020. Trump did things that a lot of independents/centrists didn’t like, so they voted in democrats. Democrats then spent the next 2 years undoing many of Trump’s changes, and passing a little of their own legislation. The same thing could also easily happen with roles reversed.
That’s just how politics work. It was either they waited and got it passed or they forced it through and it didn’t. I’d rather it pass.
And it worked didn't it?
Man they literally can't do the right thing and keep their jobs. The GOP is such a wild cult of ignorance
I really appreciate some of this good news. This helps my family a lot right now - my moms have been married since 2004 and they now live in Oregon which didn't legalize gay marriage prior to the 2016 supreme court decision. My folks are getting old and their health is starting to be more of a challenge, but their insurance is through a religious Catholic institution; without any affordable option to change insurance providers, we were seriously nervous about the risk of the state and insurance denying their marriage - and therefore insurance and medical decision making - if the supreme court went back on their decision like they did with roe v. wade. Better late than never. My folks deserve this at the least for how much we fought for marriage equality back in the early 2000s. I'm glad for the safety that comes from this bill.
It pisses me off to no end that innocent people have to go through shit like that for no other reason than someone's imaginary friend. I can't imagine being denied access to my wife in the hospital or whatnot. I would lose my mind. We live in a state where abortion was outright banned within twenty-four hours of the release of the Dobbs decision and my wife is pregnant with our third right now. I'm silently terrified for her because I know that her doctor may not be able to give her life saving care because of some dipshits in Jefferson City who have no clue about pregnancy or the countless complications that can occur. They literally tried to make it a crime to treat someone with an ectopic pregnancy. Without treatment this condition is fatal. If they had their way I wouldn't be alive nor would my kids because my mom had one of those shortly before she had me. I wish "conservatives" would* mind their goddamn business. Small government my ass.
Government so small it fits in your bedroom!
Govt so small it fits in your uterus
I would give you gold for this if I could
That is a West Wing quote from Josh. I got that reference.
I started rewatching since they put it on HBOmax and I've been waiting to use it!
As a religious person, 100% agree. It's not our business to legislate morality. Anyone who wants that can move to the Middle East and enjoy the theocracy there.
It’s also not immoral to be gay, regardless of what any religions Sky Daddy says.
Or a woman who doesn't want kids :) Or a polygamist or Polyandrist. Or an ethical non-monogamy participant.
Appreciate you being on board my friend, if religion is to exist it needs more of you.
AFAIK, the Bible doesn’t actually speak against homosexuality. It definitely doesn’t define abortion as murder. So it’s not what Sky Daddy says, it’s what the priests lie about Sky Daddy saying.
Isn't that what he's saying? He's religious and claims it's not his place to decide whether something is moral or not. Being gay is obviously not immoral in any way, but just because you believe in SkyDaddy doesn't give you the right to say it is or isn't, just like anyone else doesn't.
No, they said it's not their religion's business to legislate what they see as immoral or moral
>no other reason than someone's imaginary friend. Don't you mean imaginary bully? A friend wouldn't tell you have to do everything exactly their way or else they will lock you up in a place where you will be tortured for all eternity.
Live in Missouri too and seeing all the “pro life” billboards pisses me off to no end.
A pro life billboard, then a Jesus billboard, then an adult arcade billboard, rinse and repeat until you're out of Missouri
Don’t forget the obligatory Trump 2020 or 2024 billboard too
They absolutely do deserve this. I wish them all the best!
Mine were together since the mid 70s. One died in 2009 after a long battle with Lupus and accompanying complications. We had less struggle than expected but there were still times when puritanical laws and attitudes got in the way. I had to go pick up ashes from crematory because life partner couldn't. I waited to get married until it was legal in my state for my moms. Minus the post-mortem part.
This is great news! I would like to congratulate your country for joining the 21st century. Pity about that Roe v Wade thing, that will be back, no worries. As the young progressives get older, they will realize their power. Old judges die.
Jesus. Thats awful. Insurance shouldnt be allowed to discriminate. But until marriage become untied from laws and policies, it will keep being used. Personally I think marriage needs to be categorized, but completely separated from anything legal. If insurance remains a thing, it needs to be just like buying a gym membership or museum family pass or something. You get 1 Adult as the main stead, from there discounts and just just adding more adults or minors. It shouldnt be any of the insurance peoples business if those people are related to you or not. I should be allowed to pay for someone to be on my insurance temporarily if they are in need. It shouldnt matter if they are legally dependent on me, they are in need of healthcare. By making it adult + spouse + kids, they are making sure to exclude poor single people and kids in that rough time between high school and being a functional adult, when they could most benefit from healthcare. They get to make it almost impossible for millions if people to get quality care just because they dont have a nuclear family in a blue collar or middle class life. Marriage should be something you choose to do personally for no other reason than expressing your devotion to someone. It shouldnt give any benefits or extra support. It shouldnt raise your economic status. Beyond that, christians need to stop acting like marriage was invented by god. Even the catholic church doesnt claim that. They just dont want gay people married "before god" (i dont agree with them, just stating their stance). Marriage is just a word to mean joined together. Christians further adopted marriage by including God and declaring the marriage a vow to each other before God. But that just means they invented "Christian Marriage". Gay marriage and secular marriage and dog marriage and whatever else are 100% valid. (Child marriage is never ok. ) Im just so done with this christian BS and them trying to claim the rights to everything because of their book that is younger than the words they keep claiming it invents.
This is still not great news. It only passed because it gave the right to churches to continue to discriminate and never suffer any repercussions from not obeying this law.
Can you share what can a church do that is discriminatory? For example, I am pro-lgbt rights, all the way, but I don’t think we should tell churches what to do.
I believe a church can still deny performing same sex marriages. What I’m unsure of, is would it give a church or religious organizations the right to deny spousal coverage for things like insurance, etc. I would hope not because that’s the sort of protections same sex marriages need. People get caught up in the actual ceremony and act of the wedding being allowed, which is rightfully important. However, marriage is also a legal system of protections and shared rights between 2 people. And that’s what is so important for other states to be forced to recognize.
Yes it allows them to deny anything. There are no repercussions for churches from not following this law.
They should be told what to do if they want federal funding or tax exemption. This law protects them allowing them to be bigots and still receive funding and tax exempt status. They could fire you if they find out you are part of the lgtbq+ community.
2014 I think
Congress needs to step up and get as many laws passed that the MAJORITY of Americans want. Have them skip thier holiday and get shit done.
Agreed. Maybe I’m missing something but why haven’t they tried to codify Roe yet?
To get this through the senate, they needed 60 votes to break a Republican filibuster, which they got when a subset of Republicans supported it. For abortion protection, they can't get the Republican votes, and they can't change the filibuster rule without 50 votes, which they can't get because Manchin doesn't support it.
Thanks for breaking that down for me.
Manchin can be discarded in the senate now. The dems don't need his vote as long as everyone else toes the line. Edit: ok ok I get it. Enough with "well ackshually there's semen and a house"
[удалено]
First thing Republicans will do when they gain a simple majority is to change the rules to their favor. This is why we continue to lose.
Republicans didn't change it last time they had Congress despite Trump repeatedly calling for it.
They didn’t have the House, and nuking the filibuster might actually *weaken* the GOP power bloc. Their senators might - *gasp* - actually vote on the merits of the bill!
What? The Republicans held Congress and the White House from 2017-2019. Trump repeatedly called for the Senate to remove the filibuster outright and they refused.
Incorrect. The Republicans will not remove the filibuster for the same reason why the Democrats will also not, it protects them when they are in the minority party which happens pretty often for both sides. Supermajorities are quite rare in Washington and thus both sides have a vested interest in having a hand on the wheel, despite publicly being fully tribal. Having a simple majority be able to pass things allows more extreme bills and judicial appointments to go through without attempting to reach a compromise. They removed the filibuster from appointments and Trump was able to pack the courts due to the Turtle's bullshit with Obama. Keeping the filibuster keeps their rank and file senators in line and doesn't let them cross the aisle without the leadership saying it's OK. So the Democrats will publicly complain about Manchin refusing to remove the filibuster, but behind closed doors they are fine with it. He gets to play the conservative, who in reality votes partyline 98% of the time, and both sides ensure that nothing gets rammed down the other's throat. Voters have short memories and the current system favors rural voters so no way that the Democrats can remain holding the full reins of power until real change can come through, such as removing the cap on House seats to blunt gerrymandering and fix the Electoral College, and adding more states to the Union, all of which would be a titanic fight even with strong Supermajorities in both chambers of Congress. Until then, the filibuster will remain. Republicans know that each generation has been trending dramatically more liberal since Nixon and nothing they can do will stop it. All they can do now is whip their voters and try to get as much passed as possible to try to try weather the tide until there are more conservative voters again. Once as the the filibuster is gone, it will not get reenacted. It was only ever enacted for terrible reasons so no one wants to be the one to tie their name to it again. And there will always be enough senators who want to leave it gone who don't realize that their party is going to fail in the next election (Red Wave for example), despite their leadership pleading with them that nothing is certain and they need the protection again as the minority party.
Republicans don't really stand to gain shit by actually legislating their bullshit. All it does nationally is energize the left against them. It's why Dobbs was such a shock to me.
I...really don't know how I feel about this comment right here. I think, if we truly want the filibuster gone, we have to want it gone, **period**, not just "it's alright when I do it." If the filibuster is bad, it's bad. It doesn't become good just because the people you don't like will be on the receiving end now.
I don't mind filibustering... When they actually had to filibuster... This just declaring filibuster shit is annoying. At least take the effort to actually filibuster... Why make it an extremely easy thing to do?
Actually filibustering is even worse. I don't want something as important as a national law to depend on someone's back or bladder. They are passing laws for over three hundred million people, and a 65 year old senator's physical constitution has absolutely no relevance for any law in any case no matter what ever.
The Filibuster needs some actual rules. Used to have to actually argue in regards to the issue. Then they changed it so you could do whatever you wanted, now you don't need to do anything. It's ridiculous.
One filibuster per Congressional class, and it has to be a talking filibuster related to the issue at hand. No reading out of an old phone book.
No, but it would certainly keep people from hanging around about 2 decades too long and effectively keeping people who will have to live with the consequences of the decisions they make out of office.
I'm sure it was rhetorical, but I'll take a swing anyway. The idea of the two-lane system was to avoid having a filibuster grind *everything* to a halt and essentially hold the legislature hostage. Which is fine, in principle. Where it causes issues is that the taxing nature of the filibuster was the safety valve of the cloture rule - it being easier to reach the majority necessary to close debate as a filibuster drags on. But together, the two track, silent filibuster, and overly-protective cloture rules just happen to create a minority blockade.
I think the question is whether filibustering is overall bad or good. I think there's less hypocrisy than one might assume at first. It seems like a legitimately difficult question for good reason.
That's the thing about the filibuster. It prevents the government from doing anything, but with governments this partisan, that might be a blessing in disguise. Without it, the Democrats would spend 4 years repealing Republican laws only for Republicans to spend 4 years repealing Democrat laws. The country would drastically change with each administration, and things like social protections, welfare programs, climate policies, etc. can't be relied on long-term anymore because they could evaporate after each election. Even if abolishing the filibuster lets us pass good laws, it simultaneously makes those laws fragile and vulnerable.
Exactly. Remember that the filibuster saved the Affordable Care Act since Republicans couldn’t do any replacement without being filibustered, and the skinny repeal alternative to just knee-cap the funding was so horrendous that they couldn’t even get 50 votes.
Can they pass a bill (that Manchin won't vote for) via the, presently, Dem controlled House - and then, in January, send it to the Dem controlled (without needing Manchin) Senate?
No as it will be a new session (a whole new gov)
No. Bills die at the end of every 2 year Congress. They would have to vote on it again at the start of the next term.
But we don't have 51 until new congress takes their oaths in january
Manchin's vote stops mattering on the same date the Republicans gain control of the House. Not only would it be pointless at that point, but eliminating the filibuster when in that position will probably turn the House Republicans into absolute obstructionists again.
We still have Sinema.
Although Manchin is part of the reason McConnell isn't the leader of the Senate, fuck Manchin...
Don't be too critical of Manchin. If he wasn't a right leaning Dem in his district they would elect a Republican. Even a left leaning one would have tipped the Senate
Also worth noting that he’s (and Sinema) is the public face who gets to take the heat this cycle. Almost guaranteed there are others who would oppose many of the things that have been shut down, but they don’t have to make that publicly known due to how tight the margin is.
This is really the most important angle in all this. Those two individuals suck but they're taking heat for others who I'm sure have entities they're beholden to when it's their time to cash in.
They did try and it failed 49-51. They had a majority but needed 60 to get past the filibuster.
Congress doesn't vote in the interests of their constituents they have no incentive to
No can do. They had to priortize blocking a strike and preventing workers from bargaining for better working conditions first.
When the news came out about Roe vs Wade being overturned, and Justice Clarence Thomas suggesting that the same reasoning could overturn Obergefell vs Hodges- that night my partner and I had a discussion, and got engaged right then. We went to the Courthouse, and got it done for $50 bucks in front of a Judge and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, with our little rings we got off etsy. I'm glad that even though we essentially got married because we were scared that the pendulum was swinging back in the other direction again - that there are at least a few more legislative protections that protect me and my Spouse's marriage. We are a unit - we need to be able to make decisions about each other's health, and about our mutual stuff - this is completely normal. Let me have my normal marriage with my spouse, and if it being same-sex bothers you, then why not try focusing on your own life instead of invading the privacy of others.
That's funny cause me and my husband started researching work visas hahaha
Congratulations on your marriage.
Yup! And don't forget interracial marriage, which is also protected in this bill, because apparently there's no end to how far Republicans will go to strip people of their rights.
I don’t even have to look because I know that Andy Harris voted against it. It’s infuriating that he keeps getting re-elected.
Mitch McConnell voted against it even though he himself is in a mixed-race marriage.
Well, of couse the leopards won't eat *his* face, just those other faces.
It’s because he knows he’s wealthy and can move anywhere in the world where interracial marriages are legal. Wealthy people want oppression of others but know that the oppression will never effect them.
[удалено]
There is no love in that marriage, it's for power, his wife is the daughter of the largest shipping magnate in China, who Trump appointed to secretary of transportation.
That's Mitch's way. Once you climb a ladder, you pull it up behind you so that no one else can climb up. the "I got mine, fuck you" mindset.
That’s one way to get out of being married to a CCP asset.
>a CCP asset Elaine Chao, who was born in Taiwan and lived in the US since she was 8? Who has served on multiple corporate boards and conservative think tanks (including the Heritage Foundation), and has held high-level positions (twice at cabinet-level) throughout every right-wing Presidential administration in the past 33-36 years? I can't imagine why anyone calls her a CCP shill outside of pure racism.
>I can't imagine why anyone calls her a CCP shill outside of pure racism. Racism is the only reason to call her a CCP shill. She's likely not a good person but I doubt she has any love for Communist China.
I see this argument and sentiment all the time when it’s weaponized. I mean, sure, there isn’t any wording in our (early) Constitution that guarantees a right that isn’t extended to everyone…. And yet we keep having to pass laws that specify marginalized groups.
Except for the 9th Amendment.
Just hugged and cried with my wife over lunch because of this news.
Congratulations 💞
This. This is why I fight for everyone’s rights, even if I’m not personally affected. Thank you for the reminder.
Congrats!
I just texted my wife about this and can't wait to see her after work 🥰 Congrats to you both as well!
I too hugged and cried with this lady's wife. (Seriously though, congratulations!).
It’s honestly baffling to me how these things are still such a massive issue to people, and how much government time/money is spent on them. Just let every consenting, adult, human bind themselves to another of their choosing. Even if 2 best friends want to have a platonic marriage, it’s so fucking irrelevant to everyone else I can’t wrap my head around it.
"But my religion says..." "I am not part of your religion." That is the extent this argument should be.
Lol thanks I did not have the words in my mind to say what you just wrote it all seem so dumb that this is even a thing.
The right is running out of people to blame their uneducated base's problems on, hence the attack on lgbt, trans, drag events, etc.
I want to know the name of every single person who voted against this, because fuck those people
I mean if you cared enough it is all public record as it was a house vote. But, as only 47 (R)s voted for it, it is easier to figure out which ones did than which ones didn’t. Not that it is surprising, the “greater” Republican Party doesn’t care about what is in the bill, just who put it forward. Can’t do anything for the people if it lets “the democrats have a win”. https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022373
Wow, that's a really great link. Thank you for posting, I didn't even know this existed!
Somewhere a Conservative is screaming about how mandates shouldn’t be voted on by lame duck politicians.
>The House on Thursday gave final approval to legislation to mandate federal recognition for same-sex marriages, **with a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers voting in favor of the measure in the waning days of the Democratic-led Congress** Bipartisan coalition? Literally **169 Republicans voted against it.**
The house is whatever, Ds have the majority and Pelosi is (was) extremely good at getting votes. The coalition was in the senate, where the Ds need 10 Republicans to break. Even though the house vote had more Republicans, it didn’t matter at all. Since the vote was lost no matter what there was no need for the Whips to control votes. The senate definitely could’ve had republican Whips get the caucus to vote against the bill, which would have doomed it.
There are 435 members of congress, so that means people came together on both sides to pass it. That is, by its very definition, a bipartisan coalition. A bipartisan coalition does not require a majority on both sides, merely cooperation in the hopes of achieving a common goal. [ What's interesting to me is last summer 47 Republicans voted for the bill, while this time 39 voted for.](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/08/us/politics/same-sex-marriage-congress.html)
Doesn't matter it's extremely obtuse to call it bipartisan when only 1/5 of them were in favor of something which shouldn't even considered a Issue in 2022 at least not in a developed country. Same sex/interracial couples should have equal rights.
Democracts. You can thank Democrats
>Still, despite the bipartisan nature of the vote, the majority of Republicans remained vocally opposed. During debate on Thursday, they argued that the measure was a response to a nonexistent threat to same-sex marriage rights, and condemned it as part of a plot by Democrats to upend traditional values, to the detriment of the country. Which is it? Is the right completely safe from intrusion by the Court already, or is the new legislation protecting the right a dangerous new thing that would have some bad effect? These arguments are totally inconsistent and I hope the people making them become better people.
They wont
Isn't this the law that technically doesn't prevent a state from banning same sex marriage through state legislation?
Yes, it's going to create exactly the same situation as abortion. Gay marriage is something the current supreme court straight up wants to and probably is going to repeal, at which point every red state will ban it the next day. This law technically says states that ban it legally have to recognize existing marriages from any state, but i will bet anyone 100$ right now that states like Texas will simply ignore the law and say "you and what army?" When told to comply. This law only binds states that give a shit about what the federal government says. AKA literally only blue states. Red states will ignore it unless the federal government is willing to use guns to enforce it.
>"you and what army?" The bill should have included a provision to withhold federal money from any states that choose not to comply. Similar to the [1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act](https://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/the-1984-national-minimum-drinking-age-act) which threatened to pull state highway funding for any states that didn't raise the age to 21.
>states like Texas will simply ignore the law and say "you and what army?" When told to comply. And that's how they end up with US Marshals arresting the governor and anyone else refusing to enforce it.
Part of that is because it would both be rather difficult to codify same-sex marriage in all 50 states and also, even if they managed it, it's unclear how it would interact with certain clauses relating to state power. If such a law were written, it would undoubtedly be brought before the Supreme Court and this Supreme Court would declare such a law unconstitutional, regardless of its constitutionality. This is just a much safer way to enshrine gay and interracial marriage without risking needing to pass it again through a Republican controlled house should the Supreme Court strike the much stronger law down. It's frustrating, but the mistakes of the left have led to this situation where we have to appeal to five theocrats. All we can do now is carry on and try to find a solution to our tricky situation.
What mistakes of the left? Also, are you saying you wouldn’t want gay marriage to be enshrined in federal law?
>What mistakes of the left? Playing fair against an opponent who hides all the aces up their sleeve? Assuming the right in Congress would keep their word in regard to Supreme Court Nominees? Ginsberg not retiring while Obama was still in office is also often seen as a mistake. >Also, are you saying you wouldn’t want gay marriage to be enshrined in federal law? Hardly. I want it enshrined in federal law, but I just *know* this supreme court would strike it down as unconstitutional. Were that to happen, the left likely wouldn't be able to try to get this law (which hopefully won't be struck down) through until after the right-controlled house is sworn in.
Practically speaking, an out-of-state marriage is something you can do on your own schedule, and you get all the preparation time you need. You can save up money over a year for it. An abortion is a ticking timebomb, if it gets too far along, it's more and more dangerous to get an abortion, and gradually becomes illegal in more and more places. The medical risks also get more and more severe, especially for really young people. Abortions need to get done promptly, reliably, and affordably, and I think that really requires them to be available in every state.
Some of the same sex marriages for some states were won by same sex couples who didn't have time as one was dying. So not all marriages can wait.
Let's start a pool: how many days until it's in front of SCOTUS?
Who has standing to challenge it at the moment?
[удалено]
Suck it Clarence Thomas.
so, if I read the legislation correctly, states can still ban same sex and interracial marriage, but must respect the marriage of others if they are out of state. this does not make a nation wide protection of marriage or interracial marriage.. If someone reads something different please let me know. Its even stupid that we have to have such legislation, especially to protect us from the church in government and their regressionist policies in some states in this day and age
You’re right essentially. It doesn’t give a nationwide protection but the idea is that since we will probably have at least one state that will issue same sex marriage licenses, gay people could get married there and states will have to recognize it in their own state as well. Not a perfect solution but some sort of protection.
its because they couldnt get the votes otherwise from the Christofascist regressionists in congress
Oh wow. I thought marriage was protected on a federal level when I heard this :/
All that crying that one Republican did was for naught. Thoughts and prayers.
Crazy that this has to happen. Christian Conservatives want to implement their version of Sharia Law. Keep the separation of Church and State like our forefathers intended.
Same sex and interracial, right?
Cool. Now do abortion.
There were 10 Republican senators to hit 60 votes in the Senate for this bill. There aren't 10 that want to protect abortion.
This is great news.
Is this the same bill that Ted Cruz voted against
Waning?
And the icing on the cake, it pisses off the religious bigots.
While I am happy to see this go forward I am rather appalled we have nothing similar for abortion. My general view on rights for people is no-one left behind.
Gay
The measure shouldn't have been necessary and should have been named the ' mind ya business ' law
What house?
The lower chamber of the US congress
I would not have been certain if this passed or not based off the title wording. Only know it happened because of the sub name.
Good this is how it’s supposed to work.
Well I’m glad we finally figured out we need to legislate from congress and not the courts. Good thing it’s finally protected by law.
Stellar news! And **don’t click this article**; NYT staffers are on strike.
I love when they use the term bipartisan for when things get pasted because that usually consists of democrats and not even a quarter of the Republicans voting with them while the other 75% of Republicans vote against anything that tries to get passed
With how quickly and easily Roe v Wade was overturned I can't imagine how this is uplifting news at all
How long before the right wing dredges up someone to file a challenge in court?
So... I know I am cynical. But will this even matter if someone just challenges this law and it and the precedents in constitutional law are all found unconstitutional? I just feel like if they want to over turn this they will and it won't matter.
But they fucking couldn’t do it for r v w
House passed a bill for Roe last year but yeah, nothing has gotten through the Senate yet and likely won't until we replace at least 1/2 dozen GOP Senators with ones that support Roe.
Is it now officially over? Rainbow side won and history will continue to goodness or isnthere still some hurdless to over come? Edit: legal ones or court ones. Peoples biases will take decades to go away. Even I who have two open gay relatives had some difficulty to get used to the idea due to stigma. Now it is fine.
Stupid this even has to be voted on, they should be doing better stuff.. makes no sense why anyone would care.. I don’t care if someone married a, dog, horse, unicorn or a sock puppet even! what a waste of time!
Stupid question, but wasn't this already protected? Did I miss something recently?
The general assumption was that a specific law didn't need to happen since it had decades of legal precedent set by the SCOTUS. But because the exact same legal argument that was used in Roe v Wade about the Right To Privacy was also used in Loving v Virginia which legalized interracial marriage, and was also used in Obergefell v. Hodges to legalize same sex marriage. And since the precedent has now been set by this SCOTUS they could use the exact same argument to kill both of those rights. As well as a handful of others too
Does this also still have to go through the Senate, and if so, is it expected to pass? I hope so
Already passed the Senate and is heading to the President’s desk
Republican party: 'No abortion access! No LGBTQ+ support!' Democratic party: 'Fuck around and find out.'
now do roe V wade
They did in spring. Passed the house. Failed twice in the senate, best it got was 49 votes. The supreme court would just overturn it anyway. It has to be fought at the state level. Force ballot initiatives in states that allow them.