Senate passes bill to protect same-sex and interracial marriage in landmark vote

[EVENKEEL]

3 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

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

I'm posting about interracial marriage, not sure what you're on about. 

[placnx]

10 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.

The Supreme Court declared state laws forbidding mixed-race marriage unconstitutional in 1967. After their recent anti-abortion decision where Thomas opined that under the same logic mixed-race marriage, same-sex marriage, and contraception decisions could be similarly reversed, Congress is now moving to make laws to protect these rights.

[placnx]

10 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.

Sorry, only 12 Republicans voted for this bill. Of the other 47, 36 voted against.

Edited November 30, 2022 by placnx

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

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.

Given the rage of so many on the Christian right, what makes you think that there wouldn't have been a case brought before the courts? 

The thing is, though, that you seem to misunderstand this bill and the Constitution. If any bill was in violation of the Constitution it was the DOMA statute that allowed states not to recognize gay marriages performed in other states despite the existence of the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution. 

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. U.S. Const. art."

This new bill eliminates the exception authorized by DOMA. It requires states to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. It does not require states to all gay marriages to be performed within their jurisdiction. The states were purposely not required out of the very rational fear that the Supreme Court would jump on such a requirement to invalidate the bill.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

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.

What Ted Cruz says and what Ted Cruz does is not to be trusted when the rights of others are at risk.

 

Hence the need for this law.

 

Thankfully it had a level of bipartisan support, but of course others object to it.

 

Sorry if that’s repeating something you already understand.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, EVENKEEL said:

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

It’s definitely not now.

[Hanaguma]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Given the rage of so many on the Christian right, what makes you think that there wouldn't have been a case brought before the courts? 

The thing is, though, that you seem to misunderstand this bill and the Constitution. If any bill was in violation of the Constitution it was the DOMA statute that allowed states not to recognize gay marriages performed in other states despite the existence of the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution. 

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. U.S. Const. art."

This new bill eliminates the exception authorized by DOMA. It requires states to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. It does not require states to all gay marriages to be performed within their jurisdiction. The states were purposely not required out of the very rational fear that the Supreme Court would jump on such a requirement to invalidate the bill.

 

Where is the rage on the Christian right that you are talking about?  I simply do not see it. As I posted before, only about 30% of Americans disagree with gay marriage.  Of that group, how many would be feeling this "rage"?  How many are attempting to roll back the laws currently in place?

 

Tempest in a teapot. 

[placnx]

6 hours 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.  

Marriage rights could not be on the agenda while Rowe was still out there. Until now, challenges to gay couples were limited to whether a bakery had to serve gay people wanting a wedding cake.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Hanaguma said:

Where is the rage on the Christian right that you are talking about?  I simply do not see it. As I posted before, only about 30% of Americans disagree with gay marriage.  Of that group, how many would be feeling this "rage"?  How many are attempting to roll back the laws currently in place?

 

Tempest in a teapot. 

And according to your own percentage that means  10's of millions of Americans are opposed. All it would take is one lawsuit. Why would that be unlikely? Why wouldn't the Supreme Court reverse Obergefell?

[placnx]

5 hours 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’.

 

 

There was a great program on BBC World recently about Christian Nationalism. Evangelicals in the program said that US laws should conform to the injunctions of the Bible, so will Barrett, Alito et al stop at their Dobbs coup?

[coolcarer]

Justice. The  bill gives clarity and comfort to millions of families across the country. Shame on those Republican senators who opposed it. Enshrining this act into law finally does away with the remnants of the old discriminatory  D.O.M.A.

 

Although it had already been invalidated by the Supreme Court there were discriminatory areas still left including for some benefits and benefits for veterans.

[placnx]

3 hours 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.  

Support for upholding a woman's right to choose was 77% (including some who favor additional restrictions).

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/730183531/poll-majority-want-to-keep-abortion-legal-but-they-also-want-restrictions

[RichardColeman]

8 hours ago, Jingthing said:

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

Why ? Show me where it is in the constitution it says freedom to have an abortion and kill an unborn baby, next to right to own a gun. Most people would agree with some form of abortion, the judges got it right, not wrong. Make abortion legal to a certain time throughout usa  , sure, in constitution, no.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

Where is the rage on the Christian right that you are talking about?  I simply do not see it. As I posted before, only about 30% of Americans disagree with gay marriage.  Of that group, how many would be feeling this "rage"?  How many are attempting to roll back the laws currently in place?

 

Tempest in a teapot. 

That’s about 100,000,000 people who disagree with the right of other people to marry the person they love.

 

 

[Hanaguma]

1 hour ago, placnx said:

Support for upholding a woman's right to choose was 77% (including some who favor additional restrictions).

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/730183531/poll-majority-want-to-keep-abortion-legal-but-they-also-want-restrictions

There is another euphemism, "the right to choose".  Why not just say the right to have an abortion?

 

"Some who favor additional restrictions" is simply not true.  Like I said, once the numbers are broken down, the article you quoted stated that only 9% fully supported "the right to choose" without limits.  That seems an extreme position to me. More than 60% support at least some restrictions. So the majority actually believe "the right to limit", don't they?

[Hanaguma]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

And according to your own percentage that means  10's of millions of Americans are opposed. All it would take is one lawsuit. Why would that be unlikely? Why wouldn't the Supreme Court reverse Obergefell?

Opposed but not extreme or even care that much about it.  For most people it is just not that important.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

Where is the rage on the Christian right that you are talking about?  I simply do not see it. As I posted before, only about 30% of Americans disagree with gay marriage.  Of that group, how many would be feeling this "rage"?  How many are attempting to roll back the laws currently in place?

 

Tempest in a teapot. 

Well to be honest, you don’t seem too happy about it all.

[Hanaguma]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well to be honest, you don’t seem too happy about it all.

No problem at all. If my neighbors are a gay married couple, more power to them. As long as they pay their taxes and keep their grass cut, I say yahoo. Let's have a beer and a barbecue and watch football on Sundays. 

 

I am not happy about political hysteria and public servants wasting their valuable time on virtue signalling when they should be dealing with far more pressing issues. I could name 10 things more important than this which should ALL demand more attention.

[placeholder]

20 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Opposed but not extreme or even care that much about it.  For most people it is just not that important.

Give it up already. All that matters is for one person to bring the case to a Supreme Court that has shifted even further right than it was when Obergefell was decided. As I noted before the one conservative judge who voted with the progessives is now gone, and 3 far more right wing judges have taken his place. Maybe you're fine with gay people being entitled to marry but there are still lots who aren't. Your claim only makes sense if there is absolutely no one willing to bring a case to court. And that supposition is clearly ridiculous.

[Hanaguma]

11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Give it up already. All that matters is for one person to bring the case to a Supreme Court that has shifted even further right than it was when Obergefell was decided. As I noted before the one conservative judge who voted with the progessives is now gone, and 3 far more right wing judges have taken his place. Maybe you're fine with gay people being entitled to marry but there are still lots who aren't. Your claim only makes sense if there is absolutely no one willing to bring a case to court. And that supposition is clearly ridiculous.

Not that easy to get a case to the Supremes. Less than 2% of cases sent for review even make the cut onto their docket. And these are appellate court cases that have already been through a thorough judicial process to even merit consideration. I would be surprised if there are any lower court decisions that are even in the pipeline to go through so many levels of appeal before even being considered for the Supremes.

[Tug]

Good 

[Scott Tracy]

Why give a court the ammunition to overturn a 'right'?I

 

Make it law, passed by a body authorised to do so. Congress is not supreme, the Supreme Court is supreme, if it's not on the statute book. Mind you, it's about Federal law, not state law. If a state decides marriage between more than 2 people of any sex is legal and the Supreme Court decides that states are supreme on that score, well, that's what's going to happen. Then it's up to other states to recognise the sovereignty of that other state.

My state does not recognise inter racial marriage, so we don't recognise that you and she are married, off to jail with you....but my state recognises gay marriage, but yours doesn't, so when I go to your state with my 'legally ' married same sex spouse, off to jail with us both.

Well done Congress, Make it federal law, don't give SCOTUS the chance to strike it down.

 

Ps. I'm in a legal, (in my country), inter racial same sex marriage, so we have no chance in many places in the world.

[Scott Tracy]

3 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Not that easy to get a case to the Supremes. Less than 2% of cases sent for review even make the cut onto their docket. And these are appellate court cases that have already been through a thorough judicial process to even merit consideration. I would be surprised if there are any lower court decisions that are even in the pipeline to go through so many levels of appeal before even being considered for the Supremes.

That's what they thought about Roe v Wade....until Dobbs v Jackson came along. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

[pegman]

No surprise Ms Graham voted no or did she miss it while  hiding in the senatorial cloakroom?

[SunnyinBangrak]

2 hours ago, pegman said:

No surprise Ms Graham voted no or did she miss it while  hiding in the senatorial cloakroom?

Just so sad to see this again. Last time it was Chomper intentionally misgendering Senator Graham clearly a bigotted hate crime yet somehow not against forum rules, now another forum far leftie deciding that hate speech is good and valid in civilized discussion. As I pointed out - this ALWAYS comes from the left yet they are the ones falsely calling conservatives bigots and haters. We are living in crazy times.

[SunnyinBangrak]

9 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

I'm posting about interracial marriage, not sure what you're on about. 

illegal interracial marriage to be precise! 

 

5555 at the ridiculousness of their latest narrative. 

[Jingthing]

 

9 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s definitely not now.

But it was not that long ago in many states.

A good friend when growing up had an Appalachian Dad and a Japanese war bride Mom.

They were forced to move from his home redneck state to a state where the marriage was legal. 

Not exactly ancient history.

Loving vs. Virginia

Loving v. Virginia: 1967 & Supreme Court Case - HISTORY - HISTORY

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Just so sad to see this again. Last time it was Chomper intentionally misgendering Senator Graham clearly a bigotted hate crime yet somehow not against forum rules, now another forum far leftie deciding that hate speech is good and valid in civilized discussion. As I pointed out - this ALWAYS comes from the left yet they are the ones falsely calling conservatives bigots and haters. We are living in crazy times.

Are you stalking me?

 

It sure seems like it.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

illegal interracial marriage to be precise! 

 

5555 at the ridiculousness of their latest narrative. 

And yet:

 

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

 

But it was not that long ago in many states.

A good friend when growing up had an Appalachian Dad and a Japanese war bride Mom.

They were forced to move from his home redneck state to a state where the marriage was legal. 

Not exactly ancient history.

Loving vs. Virginia

Loving v. Virginia: 1967 & Supreme Court Case - HISTORY - HISTORY

 

[Hanaguma]

2 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Just so sad to see this again. Last time it was Chomper intentionally misgendering Senator Graham clearly a bigotted hate crime yet somehow not against forum rules, now another forum far leftie deciding that hate speech is good and valid in civilized discussion. As I pointed out - this ALWAYS comes from the left yet they are the ones falsely calling conservatives bigots and haters. We are living in crazy times.

Exactly.  The rampant homophobia and racism of the left on full display.   So often people disparage what they truly are in their hearts.  I guess in the well brainwashed leftist mind there can be no reasons to oppose their political agenda other than racism or homophobia.  Seems to be the "go to" complaint.