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

[alex8912]

9 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

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.

Just wondering what you would do if their grass was not cut for awhile? 

[Hanaguma]

1 minute ago, alex8912 said:

Just wondering what you would do if their grass was not cut for awhile? 

Probabaly offer to cut it myself. I'm a good neighbour. 

[Chomper Higgot]

11 hours ago, placnx said:

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

I’m sorry too.

 

Sorry that other people’s right to marry whoever they happen to love is something so few Republicans feel worthy of protection.

 

 

[Tropposurfer]

22 hours 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. 

 

12 yay's as opposed to 36 Republican nay's ... what would you call that then? 75% voted against the bill. Please enlighten us all on AN.

[Tropposurfer]

Do not be fooled ... across the entire nation Republican political appointees are working openly and very actively, to make same sex marriage illegal and a criminal offence, and to strip human rights from both the LGBTGI and heterosexual humans as well. 

Edited December 1, 2022 by Tropposurfer

[Hanaguma]

14 minutes ago, Tropposurfer said:

Do not be fooled ... across the entire nation Republican political appointees are working openly and very actively, to make same sex marriage illegal and a criminal offence, and to strip human rights from both the LGBTGI and heterosexual humans as well. 

Really?  Wow, that sounds terrible.  Can you give some details?

 

Also, the correct acronym is 2SLGBTQQI+.  Do try to keep up. 

[Bkk Brian]

Fortunately this act came in before he could lay his hands on it.

 

In Concurring Opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas Writes Court 'Should Reconsider' Rulings Legalizing Gay Marriage and Birth Control

[EVENKEEL]

35 minutes ago, Tropposurfer said:

Do not be fooled ... across the entire nation Republican political appointees are working openly and very actively, to make same sex marriage illegal and a criminal offence, and to strip human rights from both the LGBTGI and heterosexual humans as well. 

I would assume some proof is needed for such a statement. Link please or else you're trolling.

[pegman]

5 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.

You act like being gay is a bad thing. It's not. Trying to hide the fact you are is  hilarious and should be treated that way. Graham has taken a terrible position on gay marriage so his being vilified in a humourous manner is well earned. 

Edited December 1, 2022 by pegman

[alex8912]

3 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Probabaly offer to cut it myself. I'm a good neighbour. 

Sounds more like a nosy one buddy. "Hello would you mind if I cut your grass. It's a few centimeters over how I like it?" ( sound of door slam) ????

[Hanaguma]

42 minutes ago, alex8912 said:

Sounds more like a nosy one buddy. "Hello would you mind if I cut your grass. It's a few centimeters over how I like it?" ( sound of door slam) ????

I'll bring a couple of brown pops over at the same time, so all is good.  

 

But seriously I was thinking more like, "my neighbors are going on vacation for a month, if they want I can cut the grass when they are gone so their house doesn't look deserted and therefore a target for thieves".

[Phoenix Rising]

17 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

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

I'm not horribly surprised.

[Chomper Higgot]

I can’t see any bad news in this story (well apart that  from the list of those that voted against this).

 

Its as simple as protecting the rights of everyone to marry who they happen to love.

It’s a move that creates more freedom and liberty to Perdue happiness.

 

Which begs a couple of questions.

 

Why the outrage?

 

Why is it the rightwing that are outraged?

 

 

[placnx]

16 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.

Since Trump was in power there have been quite a few cases that were designed to reach the Supreme Court. Cases under the remit of the 5th Circuit Appeals Court (e.g. Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas), whose decisions reliably support the reactionary line. Trump appointed 6, Bush Jr appointed 4, and Reagan appointed 2 of the 16 current judges. Especially where there would be competing cases brought in other (liberal) circuits, the Supreme Court has to get involved to resolve contradictory decisions.

 

With the newly installed reactionaries on the Supreme Court, the Court has killed two birds with one stone. Besides not deciding the issue at hand and opting to overturn Roe outright, they have elevated states' rights to a new level. This turns the clock back to the 1890's and the Jim Crow era.

 

The gay marriage law was worded in such a way as not to give the Court the opportunity to declare it unconstitutional, based on their originalism line giving the states sovereignty over matters that were previously subsumed under the Commerce clause of the Constitution. So now we may have states where God's law is sovereign over secular law. The gay marriage law does not block states from prohibiting gay marriage in their law even though they have to recognize gay and interracial marriages performed in other states.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text

[placnx]

11 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.

It's ironic that Graham was pushing a Federal law so that all states would have to limit abortions to the first 15 weeks. That logic would be unconstituional under the Court's thinking.

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, placnx said:

It's ironic that Graham was pushing a Federal law so that all states would have to limit abortions to the first 15 weeks. That logic would be unconstituional under the Court's thinking.

I don't know that it would be unconstitutional according to the right wing extremists on the Supreme Court.. As I understand it, they claimed that since abortion wasn't recognized as a right at the time the 14th Amendment was written, it doesn't qualify. for Constitutional protection. It says nothing about whether the Feds can regulate it. I think that Constitutionally it probably can be prohibited or limits placed on it at the national level.

Edited December 1, 2022 by placeholder

[placnx]

14 hours ago, placeholder said:

I don't know that it would be unconstitutional according to the right wing extremists on the Supreme Court.. As I understand it, they claimed that since abortion wasn't recognized as a right at the time the 14th Amendment was written, it doesn't qualify. for Constitutional protection. It says nothing about whether the Feds can regulate it. I think that Constitutionally it probably can be prohibited or limits placed on it at the national level.

The Court just threw out Federal regulation of abortion with the rationale that you mention, among other reasons. It has devolved law regarding abortion to the states. It's the same issue whether the time frame is 15 or 26 weeks. I must admit not having seen the text of Graham's bill. It could contain a workaround, but then that would open the door for the states to override this proposed law, as some have preemptively done in their state constitutions. It was anyway grandstanding to get out the vote for the midterms.

[placeholder]

9 hours ago, placnx said:

The Court just threw out Federal regulation of abortion with the rationale that you mention, among other reasons. It has devolved law regarding abortion to the states. It's the same issue whether the time frame is 15 or 26 weeks. I must admit not having seen the text of Graham's bill. It could contain a workaround, but then that would open the door for the states to override this proposed law, as some have preemptively done in their state constitutions. It was anyway grandstanding to get out the vote for the midterms.

It is an interesting question whether states' rights would trump a federal law in this case. I would think, based purely on principles that the conservate majority claims to adhere to, they would not support such a law. On the other hand, when it came to voting rights, the conservatives openly admitted that they were takiing matters into their own hands and overriding the law because for political reasons Congress was unable to do so. This from justices who complained that courts were usurping legislative functions.

[placnx]

16 hours ago, placeholder said:

It is an interesting question whether states' rights would trump a federal law in this case. I would think, based purely on principles that the conservate majority claims to adhere to, they would not support such a law. On the other hand, when it came to voting rights, the conservatives openly admitted that they were takiing matters into their own hands and overriding the law because for political reasons Congress was unable to do so. This from justices who complained that courts were usurping legislative functions.

Just to maintain the context, we are discussing Lindsey Graham's proposed Federal law limiting abortion to 15 weeks. The Court could just as well declare an Act of Congress unconstitutional as declare a previous opinion of the Court as wrongly decided, since it has now created a precedent based on originalism and the power to regulate abortion now goes to the states by default (10th Amendment). So the law formalizing a right for same-sex marriage was drafted so as not to infringe on the newly created Dobbs precedent.

 

The debate about states' rights go back to the beginning. The original attempt to unite the states was the Articles of Confederation, in which the states were sovereign. During the drafting of the Constitution, there were concerns about the Federal government being a threat to individual rights, so the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, were passed in 1791. While the main concern was individual rights, the 2nd and 10th Amendments clearly concerned the rights of the states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#To_maintain_slavery

Court decisions (until recently) and Federal law have generally tended to protect individual rights, in conflict with state laws that were/are oppressive. This is a total turnaround from the expectations when the Constitution was promulgated.

 

After all the machinations of the Republican-controlled Senate in preventing Obama from appointing to two Court vacancies, I suggest that it's no longer the GOP but rather the ROP, the Reactionary Opportunist Party. Just as with the Senate, the "principles" that you mention, can be flipped by the Court depending on the opportunity presented by lower courts.

 

I'm not clear which decision you are thinking of when you mention "voting rights" (Voting Rights Act of 1965?).