Washington CNN  — 

The Senate on Tuesday passed legislation to protect same-sex and interracial marriage, called the Respect for Marriage Act, in a landmark bipartisan vote.

The final vote was 61-36. The bill was supported by all members of the Democratic caucus and 12 Republicans, the same dozen GOP members who backed the bill for a procedural vote earlier this month.

The House will now need to approve the legislation before sending it to President Joe Biden’s desk to be signed into law.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/29/politics/same-sex-marriage-vote-senate/index.html

You learn something everyday. I had no idea whatsoever interracial marriages were forbidden in the USA up until this bill, how backwards, and great job Mr Biden, I hope to start seeing interracial marriages soon.

It goes much quicker than here in Thailand.... the readings are ready but the Government has threw them in a drawer and doesn't do anything with it...Delaying for the next Government probably with new ministers and new readings and again start from the beginning..... Shameful

11 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

You learn something everyday. I had no idea whatsoever interracial marriages were forbidden in the USA up until this bill, how backwards, and great job Mr Biden, I hope to start seeing interracial marriages soon.

We won’t have to put up with Republicans telling us the Democrats failed to protect the right to marry whoever you wish.

 

So yes, well done Joe Biden, the Democrats and the 47 Republicans who put protecting people’s rights above Party politics and religious zealotry.

1 hour ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

You learn something everyday. I had no idea whatsoever interracial marriages were forbidden in the USA up until this bill, how backwards, and great job Mr Biden, I hope to start seeing interracial marriages soon.

So why was a big majority of the Republican senators opposed to it?

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

So why was a big majority of the Republican senators opposed to it?

Oh dear here we go again. If you are claiming a "big majority of Republican senators" are opposed to interracial marriage being legal then you are once again propagating disinformation. 

 

2 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

You learn something everyday. I had no idea whatsoever interracial marriages were forbidden in the USA up until this bill, how backwards, and great job Mr Biden, I hope to start seeing interracial marriages soon.

Rather disingenuous of you.  You know darn well why they pushed this bill, especially after SCOTUS justice Thomas made comments that personal rights were in jeopardy after Roe V Wade was taken down.  And by the way, it was a bipartisan Senate that passed this bill, not Joe Biden. 

5 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Oh dear here we go again. If you are claiming a "big majority of Republican senators" are opposed to interracial marriage being legal then you are once again propagating disinformation. 

 

And if you ignore the fact that the bill protects gay people from discrimination, then you are in denial about the bigotry that reigns in the Republican party.

Good work legislating this as the Supreme Court has gone off the rails.

A tragedy this wasn't done to codify Roe when it was possible. 

But at least a lesson was learned.

18 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Oh dear here we go again. If you are claiming a "big majority of Republican senators" are opposed to interracial marriage being legal then you are once again propagating disinformation. 

 

Why did 36 vote against it and only 12 for then?

Full List of Republicans Who Voted Against Interracial Marriage Law

https://www.newsweek.com/senate-passes-respect-marriage-act-1763282

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Why did 36 vote against it and only 12 for then?

Full List of Republicans Who Voted Against Interracial Marriage Law

https://www.newsweek.com/senate-passes-respect-marriage-act-1763282

Bigots

33 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Bigots

Perhaps. Or perhaps they believe in the Constitution, which many feel gives regulating marriage to the individual states. 

 

In any case, this is a big waste of time.  The court isnt going to overturn either gay marriage or inter-racial marriage.    Just a bit of virtue signalling on the part of the politicans involved.  They have far more pressing issues to deal but are studiously avoiding them. 

9 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Perhaps. Or perhaps they believe in the Constitution, which many feel gives regulating marriage to the individual states. 

 

In any case, this is a big waste of time.  The court isnt going to overturn either gay marriage or inter-racial marriage.    Just a bit of virtue signalling on the part of the politicans involved.  They have far more pressing issues to deal but are studiously avoiding them. 

Certainly not a big waste of time to those who it affects and who were actively campaigning for this.

12 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Perhaps. Or perhaps they believe in the Constitution, which many feel gives regulating marriage to the individual states. 

 

In any case, this is a big waste of time.  The court isnt going to overturn either gay marriage or inter-racial marriage.    Just a bit of virtue signalling on the part of the politicans involved.  They have far more pressing issues to deal but are studiously avoiding them. 

Protecting people’s rights is pretty important.

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Good work legislating this as the Supreme Court has gone off the rails.

A tragedy this wasn't done to codify Roe when it was possible. 

But at least a lesson was learned.

A very very costly lesson. 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Protecting people’s rights is pretty important.

Absolutely, except there is nothing to protect them from. The Court will not do anything about marriage rights, it is not on the agenda.  

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

We won’t have to put up with Republicans telling us the Democrats failed to protect the right to marry whoever you wish.

 

So yes, well done Joe Biden, the Democrats and the 47 Republicans who put protecting people’s rights above Party politics and religious zealotry.

In particular before the 'Supreme Court' gets its grubby claws on them. As they have already hinted darkly and strongly.

 

Haters gonna hate.

17 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Absolutely, except there is nothing to protect them from. The Court will not do anything about marriage rights, it is not on the agenda.  

They weren't going to touch RvW either were they? 'I respect precedent' as one (at seat) of their number said to get instated.

 

Fool me once ...

This article from July 2022 gives a good insight into why the Republicans were opposed to it and why this was such an important bill to pass.

 

Republicans’ Cowardly Excuses for Not Protecting Marriage Equality

There is absolutely no reason to believe that fundamental rights of same-sex couples are safe.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/07/gop-respect-for-marriage-act-obergefell-supreme-court/670985/

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

Absolutely, except there is nothing to protect them from. The Court will not do anything about marriage rights, it is not on the agenda.  

Let’s distinguish between two different things. 
 

‘Court Docket’ and ‘Agenda’

 

Equality of marriage rights are not currently on the ‘Court Docket’ but removing equality marriage rights is absolutely on the ‘Agenda’ of the extreme rightwing religious zealots that are driving much of Republican policies these days.

 

I’ll remind you ‘Roe v Wade’ was in the words of a SCOTUS appointee, ‘settled case law’, until she got the opportunity to ‘un-settle it’.

 

 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Let’s distinguish between two different things. 
 

‘Court Docket’ and ‘Agenda’

 

Equality of marriage rights are not currently on the ‘Court Docket’ but removing equality marriage rights is absolutely on the ‘Agenda’ of the extreme rightwing religious zealots that are driving much of Republican policies these days.

 

I’ll remind you ‘Roe v Wade’ was in the words of a SCOTUS appointee, ‘settled case law’, until she got the opportunity to ‘un-settle it’.

 

 

I think you are being a bit hysterical about an issue that really isnt important to the vast majority of Americans.  Support for same sex marriage has been climbing steadily and is now over 70%  As for interracial marriage, well over 90%. These are not nearly as contentious as abortion on a purely practical level. 

 

Who exactly is against them?  "Extreme right wing religious zealots" just doesn't cut it.  

Yaa!

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

I think you are being a bit hysterical about an issue that really isnt important to the vast majority of Americans.  Support for same sex marriage has been climbing steadily and is now over 70%  As for interracial marriage, well over 90%. These are not nearly as contentious as abortion on a purely practical level. 

 

Who exactly is against them?  "Extreme right wing religious zealots" just doesn't cut it.  

I’m not being ‘hysterical’ at all, I’m delighted this vote has past with a measure of bipartisan support.

 

It appears to me however, it’s you that is offended by the news

——

The vast majority of Americans support the right of women to hold dominion over their own bodies, but that doesn’t stop extreme rightwing religious zealots doing everything they can to remove that right.

 

I mean when was the last time the GOP represented even a minor majority of Americans?

Edited November 30, 20223 yr by Chomper Higgot

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m not being ‘hysterical’ at all, I’m delighted this vote has past with a measure of bipartisan support.

 

It appears to me however, it’s you that is offended by the news

——

The vast majority of Americans support the right of women to hold dominion over their own bodies, but that doesn’t stop extreme rightwing religious zealots doing everything they can to remove that right.

 

I mean when was the last time the GOP represented even a minor majority of Americans?

Again you are speaking in platitudes: "the right of women to hold dominion over their own bodies"... generally the side that uses the most euphemisms is the one that has the most to hide. If you mean "abortion", then just say "abortion". It makes the discussion a lot easier.  

 

But then again that would require some precision.  Many  Americans DO favor some form of availability for women to have abortions, but where they draw the line is a bit more difficult to suss out. Few favor it after viability for example. Most favor it in the first trimester. Some would restrict it to emergencies only (rape, incest, physical danger to the mother). It helps if you speak more plainly and clearly. 

10 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Again you are speaking in platitudes: "the right of women to hold dominion over their own bodies"... generally the side that uses the most euphemisms is the one that has the most to hide. If you mean "abortion", then just say "abortion". It makes the discussion a lot easier.  

 

But then again that would require some precision.  Many  Americans DO favor some form of availability for women to have abortions, but where they draw the line is a bit more difficult to suss out. Few favor it after viability for example. Most favor it in the first trimester. Some would restrict it to emergencies only (rape, incest, physical danger to the mother). It helps if you speak more plainly and clearly. 

I don’t need to say ‘Abortion’ when I mean ‘Dominion over their own bodies’ of which ‘Abortion’ is only one sub issue.

 

In the spirit of speaking more plainly, why don’t you mention the vociferous many within the rightwing who want to ban abortion completely, including in cases of rape, incest and when a woman’s life is endangered by a continuing pregnancy?

 

Just let women enjoy the same dominion over their own bodies as men enjoy - keeping Government out of the lives of citizens and all that.

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I don’t need to say ‘Abortion’ when I mean ‘Dominion over their own bodies’ of which ‘Abortion’ is only one sub issue.

 

In the spirit of speaking more plainly, why don’t you mention the vociferous many within the rightwing who want to ban abortion completely, including in cases of rape, incest and when a woman’s life is endangered by a continuing pregnancy?

 

Just let women enjoy the same dominion over their own bodies as men enjoy - keeping Government out of the lives of citizens and all that.

At risk of derailing the topic, the number of people who want a total abortion ban (including rape etc) is very small- something like 10% of the population. So hardly a "vociferous many".  It is a similar number to the issues mentioned in this discussion, as I wrote above. Speaking personally, I consider them all to be morons.

 

Just curious. What other "dominion" issues are there, other than abortion, for women?

5 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Perhaps. Or perhaps they believe in the Constitution, which many feel gives regulating marriage to the individual states. 

 

In any case, this is a big waste of time.  The court isnt going to overturn either gay marriage or inter-racial marriage.    Just a bit of virtue signalling on the part of the politicans involved.  They have far more pressing issues to deal but are studiously avoiding them. 

Really? Why wouldn't the court overturn the right to gay marriage? Gay marriage was decided by a five to four vote. The one conservative Justice who supported that, Anthony Kennedy, has now retired. There are three far more conservative judges now on the court. They have shown no reluctance to overturn other major presidents. Why not this one? Especially given that it's so recent. What does it even mean to say they have far more pressing issues?

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Really? Why wouldn't the court overturn the right to gay marriage? Gay marriage was decided by a five to four vote. The one conservative Justice who supported that, Anthony Kennedy, has now retired. There are three far more conservative judges now on the court. They have shown no reluctance to overturn other major presidents. Why not this one? Especially given that it's so recent. What does it even mean to say they have far more pressing issues?

Well, first a case needs to be brought relating to it. Is there one in the pipeline at any level?  The court can't just make a ruling without a case to refer to.  Plus, as I said, there isn't the public support or even interest in re-litigating gay marriage.  Even such a right wing ogre like Ted Cruz doesn't think it will be threatened.

I had no idea interracial marriage was against any law in the USA.

1 minute ago, EVENKEEL said:

I had no idea interracial marriage was against any law in the USA.

Really. Did you know that abortion was legal in all states until it wasn't anymore?