47 Republicans Vote With Democrats to Protect Same-Sex Marriage

[Nithavela]

The House overwhelmingly approved legislation Tuesday to protect same-sex and interracial marriages amid concerns that the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade abortion access could jeopardize other rights criticized by many conservative Americans. In a robust but lopsided debate, Democrats argued intensely and often personally in favor of enshrining marriage equality in federal law, while Republicans steered clear of openly rejecting gay marriage. Instead, leading Republicans portrayed the bill as unnecessary amid other issues facing the nation.

47 Republicans Vote With Democrats to Protect Same-Sex Marriage

Dont worry, dear conservatives, it will die in the senate, as is the fate of all bills.

 

[disciple Clint]

47 Republicans Vote With Democrats to Protect Same-Sex Marriage

Dont worry, dear conservatives, it will die in the senate, as is the fate of all bills.

It is nothing but foolishness and a waste of money since the court made it clear that the decision was not intended to affect same sex or interracial marriage, maybe they should start a bill to confirm gravity while they are wasting our money making political statements.

 

[Hammster]

Biblically, interracial marriage is marriage because there is no race in scripture. So-called same sex marriage is just an abomination.

 

[Nithavela]

It is nothing but foolishness and a waste of money since the court made it clear that the decision was not intended to affect same sex or interracial marriage, maybe they should start a bill to confirm gravity while they are wasting our money making political statements.

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!"?

 

[TLK Valentine]

It is nothing but foolishness and a waste of money since the court made it clear that the decision was not intended to affect same sex or interracial marriage,

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

 

[SilverBear]

Biblically, interracial marriage is marriage because there is no race in scripture. So-called same sex marriage is just an abomination.

Which didn't stop opponents of interracial marriage or opponents of racial equality from quoting scripture in support of discrimination

 

[TLK Valentine]

Biblically, interracial marriage is marriage because there is no race in scripture. So-called same sex marriage is just an abomination.

The First Amendment to the Constitution (in theory, anyway) makes such Biblical distinctions irrelevant.

Banning interracial marriage served no secular purpose except to preserve Jim Crow (which is certainly no purpose worth serving) -- banning SSM serves no secular purpose whatsoever.

 

[Hammster]

Which didn't stop opponents of interracial marriage or opponents of racial equality from quoting scripture in support of discrimination

I’m sure that is true, but it’s not relevant to my post.

 

[Hammster]

The First Amendment to the Constitution (in theory, anyway) makes such Biblical distinctions irrelevant.

Banning interracial marriage served no secular purpose except to preserve Jim Crow (which is certainly no purpose worth serving) -- banning SSM serves no secular purpose whatsoever.

Sorry, but the first amendment does no such thing.

 

[Desk trauma]

The First Amendment to the Constitution (in theory, anyway) makes such Biblical distinctions irrelevant.

Banning interracial marriage served no secular purpose except to preserve Jim Crow (which is certainly no purpose worth serving) -- banning SSM serves no secular purpose whatsoever.

You think the Lemon test is important to this court? I admire such optimism!

 

[TLK Valentine]

Sorry, but the first amendment does no such thing.

Are you suggesting that the First Amendment allows the Legislature to establish laws based on religious beliefs?

 

[SilverBear]

I’m sure that is true, but it’s not relevant to my post.

how is it not relevant?
Opponents to interracial marriage were all to happy to biblically condemn the practice exactly as you are condemning same sex marriage

 

[TLK Valentine]

You think the Lemon test is important to this court? I admire such optimism!

Certainly not to this court, but things change...

 

[Desk trauma]

Certainly not to this court, but things change...

I’m sure they will, decades from now when seats on the court are pried from the cold dead hands of the current majority.

 

[TLK Valentine]

how is it not relevant?
Opponents to interracial marriage were all to happy to biblically condemn the practice exactly as you are condemning same sex marriage

Indeed -- which means we may possibly see an overturning of Loving v Virginia using a "religious freedom" excuse defense.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I’m sure they will, decades from now when seats on the court are pried from the cold dead hands of the current majority.

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.

 

[essentialsaltes]

See, this is what can bring the two sides together.

 

[Nithavela]

See, this is what can bring the two sides together.

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

 

[essentialsaltes]

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

Elise Stefanik, the #3 House GOP leader, voted for it.

 

[Fantine]

In the House everyone runs every two.years.