47 Republicans Vote With Democrats to Protect Same-Sex Marriage

[Hammster]

they certainly aren't biblical

Okay. But that’s not the discussion.

 

[Fantine]

The GOP can't afford to lose too many votes.

 

[Desk trauma]

It may have a chance to pass the Senate. 2 GOP senators, Rob Portman of Ohio and Susan Collins of Maines, are cosponsors of the Senate version of the bill. At least 2 other GOP senators have said they would vote for it.

Senators expect GOP support to grow for same-sex marriage bill in bid to overcome filibuster


Also, a slim majority of registered Republicans support same-sex marriage.

In this monkeys paw time line this passes the senate and in response Texas books a Lowrance Vs Texas rematch fight that it wins.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Nothing. But I implore you to repent of your sins.

Why implore when you can compel? You've got the government on your side, remember?

 

[mark46]

I would be surprised if any significant number of the republicans voting for this bill were up for reelection.

???
Unless they are retiring, all House members are up for re-election.

 

[mark46]

The GOP can't afford to lose too many votes.

Yes.

It is wise for Republicans to allow this bill to pass the Senate.

They will likely do the same on a voting rights bill that protects the count made by voters in federal elections. Such a bill would not allow the state to certify any result other than that based on the actual votes. This bill may wait until the lame duck session in NOV or DEC.

 

[TLK Valentine]

???
Unless they are retiring, all House members are up for re-election.

Now might be as good a time as any for GOP congresspeople to announce retirement. When a certain ex-President discovers during the midterm elections that he doesn't have as much clout as he used to, his tantrums -- and his loyalists' attempts to assuage him by echoing baseless fraud claims -- might cause the party to implode.

 

[mark46]

I was thinking about the legislature -- the OP is one example of Congress actually (*gasp*) doing its job and writing laws to protect the rights of the people, rather than rely on SCOTUS rulings.

Shame on them for not doing this in the past regarding Roe v Wade, but at least we see they can learn from their mistakes.

Had the Democrats taken this approach under Clinton or Obama, abortion rules as defined by Roe and following decisions would be the law of the land.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes.

It is wise for Republicans to allow this bill to pass the Senate.

Counting on GOP wisdom is a little too Matthew 7:26 for my liking... I'm betting the bill gets filibustered.

 

[mark46]

They aren’t secular. They are right from scripture.

Are you under the impression that there were no laws before Scripture. Many laws that we have discussed were in the Hammurabi Code, hundreds of years before the Christian, Hebrew and Muslim scriptures.

 

[mark46]

Counting on GOP wisdom is a little too Matthew 7:26 for my liking... I'm betting the bill gets filibustered.

I expect a filibuster. I also expect 10 Republican votes in favor, probably including McConnell's.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I expect a filibuster. I also expect 10 Republican votes in favor, probably including McConnell's.

So... not only are we counting on GOP wisdom, but on McConnell voting to stop a Republican filibuster...

 

[mark46]

Some Republicans do NOT want state legislators reverse election results. The Democrats could have gotten this bill passed months ago if the left didn't insist on so many provisions that were unacceptable to Republican senators.

Senators reach deal to clarify 1887 law at center of Jan. 6 attempt to overturn election - ABC News (go.com)

 

[mark46]

So... not only are we counting on GOP wisdom, but on McConnell voting to stop a Republican filibuster...

Indeed.

Senators reach deal to clarify 1887 law at center of Jan. 6 attempt to overturn election - ABC News (go.com)

 

[TLK Valentine]

Indeed.

Senators reach deal to clarify 1887 law at center of Jan. 6 attempt to overturn election - ABC News (go.com)

That's nice -- but I'm referring to the Respect for Marriage Act.

 

[Fantine]

Yes.

It is wise for Republicans to allow this bill to pass the Senate.

They will likely do the same on a voting rights bill that protects the count made by voters in federal elections. Such a bill would not allow the state to certify any result other than that based on the actual votes. This bill may wait until the lame duck session in NOV or DEC.

I sure hope so. I guess there are enough Republicans who aren't stop the stealers to help ot squeak through.

 

[variant]

The GOP can't afford to lose too many votes.

It's a good sign. In the past being relentlessly bigoted towards gay people was good for their vote total.

 

[disciple Clint]

Can you fault them for wanting it enshrined in law after all that conservative crowing of "haha, they thought they had a right that they hadnt and now we have taken that imaginary right from them!"?

1. it was never a right
2. it was not taken away
3. it has been left to the people in each state to decide.

 

[disciple Clint]

But the court made it clear that "re-examining" those decisions are next...

No that was not at all what the "court" said, it is what one Justice said. It is simply an observation. The Court made it clear that the decision was not intended in any way to apply to anything outside of abortion.

 

[Nithavela]

1. it was never a right
2. it was not taken away
3. it has been left to the people in each state to decide.

And now you complain that people also want to decide on same-sex marriage.