Will same sex marriage be codified in Congress?

[Doc Brown]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3566470-house-passes-bill-protecting-marriage-equality-with-47-gop-members-voting-yes/

 

The House passed a bill on Tuesday to protect marriage equality, a direct response to an opinion from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas last month that called for reversing multiple decisions that enshrined LGBTQ rights.

 

The legislation, titled the Respect for Marriage Act, passed in a 267-157 vote, with 47 Republicans joining all Democrats in supporting the measure. Seven Republicans did not vote.

 

Will be interesting to see if this gets pushed through the Senate with 22% of Republicans backing the bill in the House.  If that percentage holds for the Senate they'll have enough votes to get to that 60 vote threshold.  A recent gallup polled showed 71% of Americans support same sex marriage.  

 

Rising national support for legal same-sex marriage reflects steady increases among most subgroups of the population, even those who have traditionally been the most resistant to gay marriage. Adults aged 65 and older, for example, became mostly supportive in 2016 -- as did Protestants in 2017 and Republicans in 2021.

 

Americans who report that they attend church weekly remain the primary demographic holdout against gay marriage, with 40% in favor and 58% opposed.

[TH3]

No

 

[ALF]

I think the Senate will leave it to each state to decide like abortion.

 

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex marriages and recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states. The Court overruled its prior decision in Baker v. Nelson, which the Sixth Circuit had invoked as precedent.

 

With the present court it could be reversed like Roe/Wade

Edited July 20, 2022 by ALF

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3566470-house-passes-bill-protecting-marriage-equality-with-47-gop-members-voting-yes/

 

The House passed a bill on Tuesday to protect marriage equality, a direct response to an opinion from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas last month that called for reversing multiple decisions that enshrined LGBTQ rights.

 

The legislation, titled the Respect for Marriage Act, passed in a 267-157 vote, with 47 Republicans joining all Democrats in supporting the measure. Seven Republicans did not vote.

 

Will be interesting to see if this gets pushed through the Senate with 22% of Republicans backing the bill in the House.  If that percentage holds for the Senate they'll have enough votes to get to that 60 vote threshold.  A recent gallup polled showed 71% of Americans support same sex marriage.  

 

Rising national support for legal same-sex marriage reflects steady increases among most subgroups of the population, even those who have traditionally been the most resistant to gay marriage. Adults aged 65 and older, for example, became mostly supportive in 2016 -- as did Protestants in 2017 and Republicans in 2021.

 

Americans who report that they attend church weekly remain the primary demographic holdout against gay marriage, with 40% in favor and 58% opposed.

It would be nice, in an issue as important and impactful as this one, if the bill would be clear, concise and straightforward with no language designed as a poison pill for purely political purposes.  
 

I’m not confident, but I guess we’ll see.  

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

2 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3566470-house-passes-bill-protecting-marriage-equality-with-47-gop-members-voting-yes/

 

The House passed a bill on Tuesday to protect marriage equality, a direct response to an opinion from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas last month that called for reversing multiple decisions that enshrined LGBTQ rights.

 

The legislation, titled the Respect for Marriage Act, passed in a 267-157 vote, with 47 Republicans joining all Democrats in supporting the measure. Seven Republicans did not vote.

 

Will be interesting to see if this gets pushed through the Senate with 22% of Republicans backing the bill in the House.  If that percentage holds for the Senate they'll have enough votes to get to that 60 vote threshold.  A recent gallup polled showed 71% of Americans support same sex marriage.  

 

Rising national support for legal same-sex marriage reflects steady increases among most subgroups of the population, even those who have traditionally been the most resistant to gay marriage. Adults aged 65 and older, for example, became mostly supportive in 2016 -- as did Protestants in 2017 and Republicans in 2021.

 

Americans who report that they attend church weekly remain the primary demographic holdout against gay marriage, with 40% in favor and 58% opposed.

With house margins like that, we should expect the politicians to amend the constitution and call it a day.
 

I’d imagine the democrats wouldn’t want that though, I suspect this bill is intended to polarize voters, not codify something most people are in agreement with. 

[TH3]

23 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

With house margins like that, we should expect the politicians to amend the constitution and call it a day.
 

I’d imagine the democrats wouldn’t want that though, I suspect this bill is intended to polarize voters, not codify something most people are in agreement with. 

This doesn't amend the constitution....that's called an AMENDMENT

 

Polarize? This is the standard GOP reaction to a proposal that most people want ...but they pull the "polarize" card to futher brainwash people like you ...and it works

[The Frankish Reich]

2 hours ago, TH3 said:

Polarize? This is the standard GOP reaction to a proposal that most people want ...but they pull the "polarize" card to futher brainwash people like you ...and it works

True. There are some bills that are out there solely to make a political point. But this wouldn’t be one of them. There is value in making members of Congress stand and be counted. Yes or no. This is your chance. 

[Doc Brown]

2 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

 

I’d imagine the democrats wouldn’t want that though, I suspect this bill is intended to polarize voters, not codify something most people are in agreement with. 

No.  The bill as written will codify something most people are in agreement with.

[BillStime]

 

[ChiGoose]

3 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

It would be nice, in an issue as important and impactful as this one, if the bill would be clear, concise and straightforward with no language designed as a poison pill for purely political purposes.  
 

I’m not confident, but I guess we’ll see.  

 

Here's the text:

 

A BILL

To repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

     This Act may be cited as the “Respect for Marriage Act”.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SECTION ADDED TO TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, BY SECTION 2 OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT.

     Section 1738C of title 28, United States Code, is repealed.

SEC. 3. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN TO MARRIAGE EQUALITY.

     Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, as amended by this Act, is further amended by inserting after section 1738B the following:

“§ 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

     “(a) In General.—No person acting under color of State law may deny—

          “(1) full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals; or

          “(2) a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.

     “(b) Enforcement By Attorney General.—The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against any person who violates subsection (a) for declaratory and injunctive relief.

     “(c) Private Right Of Action.—Any person who is harmed by a violation of subsection (a) may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against the person who violated such subsection for declaratory and injunctive relief.

     “(d) State Defined.—In this section, the term ‘State’ has the meaning given such term under section 7 of title 1.”.

SEC. 4. MARRIAGE RECOGNITION.

     Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

“§ 7. Marriage

     “(a) For the purposes of any Federal law, rule, or regulation in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.

      “(b) In this section, the term ‘State’ means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.

     “(c) For purposes of subsection (a), in determining whether a marriage is valid in a State or the place where entered into, if outside of any State, only the law of the jurisdiction applicable at the time the marriage was entered into may be considered.”.

SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.

     If any provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision to any person, entity, government, or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or any amendment made thereby, or the application of such provision to all other persons, entities, governments, or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

3 hours ago, TH3 said:

This doesn't amend the constitution....that's called an AMENDMENT

 

Polarize? This is the standard GOP reaction to a proposal that most people want ...but they pull the "polarize" card to futher brainwash people like you ...and it works

No too much TH3, I’m suggesting WITH margins like that they should execute a thing called an amendment. Sheesh.
 

Sorry not stating the obvious 3rd grade history inferred leads you to believe you have some epiphany. 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

No.  The bill as written will codify something most people are in agreement with.

I’m good with that but, but federal law can be changed back and forth more easily and states can also override federal laws more easily than constitutional rights, which is why roe v wade made it ubiquitous because it was an interpretation of a constitutional right as opposed to some federal law. 
 

that’s the real point. Make it a constitutional right to marry whatever adult you want, which likely has the support and it makes it almost impossible to ever go back. 
 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

28 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Here's the text:

 

A BILL

To repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

     This Act may be cited as the “Respect for Marriage Act”.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SECTION ADDED TO TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, BY SECTION 2 OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT.

     Section 1738C of title 28, United States Code, is repealed.

SEC. 3. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN TO MARRIAGE EQUALITY.

     Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, as amended by this Act, is further amended by inserting after section 1738B the following:

“§ 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

     “(a) In General.—No person acting under color of State law may deny—

          “(1) full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals; or

          “(2) a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.

     “(b) Enforcement By Attorney General.—The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against any person who violates subsection (a) for declaratory and injunctive relief.

     “(c) Private Right Of Action.—Any person who is harmed by a violation of subsection (a) may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against the person who violated such subsection for declaratory and injunctive relief.

     “(d) State Defined.—In this section, the term ‘State’ has the meaning given such term under section 7 of title 1.”.

SEC. 4. MARRIAGE RECOGNITION.

     Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

“§ 7. Marriage

     “(a) For the purposes of any Federal law, rule, or regulation in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.

      “(b) In this section, the term ‘State’ means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.

     “(c) For purposes of subsection (a), in determining whether a marriage is valid in a State or the place where entered into, if outside of any State, only the law of the jurisdiction applicable at the time the marriage was entered into may be considered.”.

SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.

     If any provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision to any person, entity, government, or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or any amendment made thereby, or the application of such provision to all other persons, entities, governments, or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.

Thank you, Goose.  So, one has to wonder what the objection would be beyond the people who do not agree that same-sex or interracial couples should not be afforded protection under federal law.  That is, of course, beyond the people that clearly feel that they shouldn't.  I'm not one of those people, but they obviously exist.  I'd suggest more than a few democrat voters feel this way, and certainly acknowledge republicans, independents and agnostics do as well.  People are complicated.  

 

I decided to check the official record on which Republican's might have voted 'no'.  I was prepared to call a couple representatives as necessary, but here is the statement from the lone NY congressperson who voted 'no'.    I really don't know the rules on posting articles, so I'll just add the link.  

 

https://tenney.house.gov/media/press-releases/congresswoman-tenneys-statement-houses-passage-respect-marriage-act

 

Summary:  She supports precedent, supports love is love, and feels the Democrats pulled a cheap stunt to create a narrative that doesn't exist, bypassed traditional rules of Congress, and represents 'fear-mongering' designed to distract from the serious and substantive issues of the day.  She seems quite unlikely and unwilling to cast people to the fiery pits of hell, and assuming she's correct on the established protocol for such things, she raises an interesting and unquestionably political point.  

 

Personally, I think people should have a right to marry in the eyes of the law, and I don't really think congress can be trusted blindly on any issue. I'm quite certain we can find similar objections to similar bills submitted by Rs.  

 

[ChiGoose]

Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Thank you, Goose.  So, one has to wonder what the objection would be beyond the people who do not agree that same-sex or interracial couples should not be afforded protection under federal law.  That is, of course, beyond the people that clearly feel that they shouldn't.  I'm not one of those people, but they obviously exist.  I'd suggest more than a few democrat voters feel this way, and certainly acknowledge republicans, independents and agnostics do as well.  People are complicated.  

 

I decided to check the official record on which Republican's might have voted 'no'.  I was prepared to call a couple representatives as necessary, but here is the statement from the lone NY congressperson who voted 'no'.    I really don't know the rules on posting articles, so I'll just add the link.  

 

https://tenney.house.gov/media/press-releases/congresswoman-tenneys-statement-houses-passage-respect-marriage-act

 

Summary:  She supports precedent, supports love is love, and feels the Democrats pulled a cheap stunt to create a narrative that doesn't exist, bypassed traditional rules of Congress, and represents 'fear-mongering' designed to distract from the serious and substantive issues of the day.  She seems quite unlikely and unwilling to cast people to the fiery pits of hell, and assuming she's correct on the established protocol for such things, she raises an interesting and unquestionably political point.  

 

Personally, I think people should have a right to marry in the eyes of the law, and I don't really think congress can be trusted blindly on any issue. I'm quite certain we can find similar objections to similar bills submitted by Rs.  

 

 

I think you've nailed what will be the most common objection to it: that it's not immediately necessary. I think Romney and Rubio just made similar statements.

 

It's not entirely wrong: SCOTUS's term has ended so there isn't a danger in the next couple of months. I have not read through all of the cases they granted cert to, so I do not know if there is a case on point for Obergefell in there. If there is, Obergefell might be gone by next summer. If not, it's probably safe for another year.

 

However, we know at least one justice who believes Obergefell should be overturned and the holding in Dobbs is that unenumerated rights only exist if they are deeply rooted in our history, which gay marriage (and interracial marriage) obviously is not.

 

Given the fact that the Dems are likely to lose control of Congress and that GOP congressmembers generally do not support gay marriage, there is a very real scenario where the GOP takes control of one or both houses of Congress, SCOTUS overturns Obergefell, but Congress does not act to ensure marriage rights. That is an utterly chaotic scenario in which millions of couples in many states will no longer know if their marriages are valid or if they will retain all of their rights (adoption, legal benefits, tax breaks, etc).

 

So a quick fix like this bill to just ensure that we're all set on this and avoid that very real potential scenario makes sense to me. It obviously is also beneficial for the Dems if the GOP largely votes against it, but ultimately I think it's more important that it passes and I'm glad that many GOP members of Congress seem to support it.

[TH3]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I think you've nailed what will be the most common objection to it: that it's not immediately necessary. I think Romney and Rubio just made similar statements.

 

It's not entirely wrong: SCOTUS's term has ended so there isn't a danger in the next couple of months. I have not read through all of the cases they granted cert to, so I do not know if there is a case on point for Obergefell in there. If there is, Obergefell might be gone by next summer. If not, it's probably safe for another year.

 

However, we know at least one justice who believes Obergefell should be overturned and the holding in Dobbs is that unenumerated rights only exist if they are deeply rooted in our history, which gay marriage (and interracial marriage) obviously is not.

 

Given the fact that the Dems are likely to lose control of Congress and that GOP congressmembers generally do not support gay marriage, there is a very real scenario where the GOP takes control of one or both houses of Congress, SCOTUS overturns Obergefell, but Congress does not act to ensure marriage rights. That is an utterly chaotic scenario in which millions of couples in many states will no longer know if their marriages are valid or if they will retain all of their rights (adoption, legal benefits, tax breaks, etc).

 

So a quick fix like this bill to just ensure that we're all set on this and avoid that very real potential scenario makes sense to me. It obviously is also beneficial for the Dems if the GOP largely votes against it, but ultimately I think it's more important that it passes and I'm glad that many GOP members of Congress seem to support it.

Here is the REAL problem. If this passes it is a "win" for Democrats - and that is unacceptable for enough GOP to stop it. Damn the citizens. 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

5 hours ago, TH3 said:

Here is the REAL problem. If this passes it is a "win" for Democrats - and that is unacceptable for enough GOP to stop it. Damn the citizens. 

😂

 

See you are playing checkers while the politicians play chess. Dems are praying the Rs block this because if they don’t, they lose a topic to rally their moderates.
 

if republicans support the L’s G’s and B’s, then they must not hate them after all…

 

/narrative 😭 

[TH3]

1 hour ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

😂

 

See you are playing checkers while the politicians play chess. Dems are praying the Rs block this because if they don’t, they lose a topic to rally their moderates.
 

if republicans support the L’s G’s and B’s, then they must not hate them after all…

 

/narrative 😭 

Dude….take a break from the media and this board and go get some bearings back….if you are posting multiple times a day …everyday….here trying to flex your hot take nuances….you surely should have better things to do….

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

😂

 

See you are playing checkers while the politicians play chess. Dems are praying the Rs block this because if they don’t, they lose a topic to rally their moderates.
 

if republicans support the L’s G’s and B’s, then they must not hate them after all…

 

/narrative 😭 

One of my friends works for the local Dems. They have been texting me quotes from GOP senators supporting the legislation all day. They are hoping against hope that there are enough GOP votes to get this to pass.

 

I guarantee you that if you polled Dems, they would much rather the GOP helps them pass this than it tank. 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

3 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

One of my friends works for the local Dems. They have been texting me quotes from GOP senators supporting the legislation all day. They are hoping against hope that there are enough GOP votes to get this to pass.

 

I guarantee you that if you polled Dems, they would much rather the GOP helps them pass this than it tank. 

That would be refreshing. Let’s see

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

4 hours ago, TH3 said:

Dude….take a break from the media and this board and go get some bearings back….if you are posting multiple times a day …everyday….here trying to flex your hot take nuances….you surely should have better things to do….

Woah…. Dude….. yo chat board stop moving so fast…. 😂 

the world moves fast. Step out of the basement. I’ve done 78 better things than you today