47 Republicans Vote With Democrats to Protect Same-Sex Marriage

[rturner76]

? Exactly what "logic" is that? What "logic" forces interracial marriages? Or do you mean the "logic" which concludes that Catholic doctors in a Catholic hospital should not be forced to perform sterilization operations?

It's all up for grabs when you make religion the basis of your national laws. That's why I gave the example of interracial marriage. Even after the civil rights law passed, many churches still taught that it was wrong. If we used that church's statute to decide our national law, interracial marriage may not have been included in the civil rights law.

Secular laws are for people of all faiths. Not all faiths live by the same statutes. What you seem to advocate for is a theocracy. That is the kind of government the Taliban and ISIS wants.

No thank you. I want freedom applied equally across all religions or lack thereof. The separation of church and state is a founding principle the USA was built on.

 

[o_mlly]

It's all up for grabs when you make religion the basis of your national laws.

No one has proposed that. We tried Christendom ~ 500 years ago; it didn't end well.

That's why I gave the example of interracial marriage. Even after the civil rights law passed, many churches still taught that it was wrong.

The Civil Rights Act did not make interracial marriages legal. What does it matter what any church teaches? What matters is what the state prohibits or mandates.

Secular laws are for people of all faiths. Not all faiths live by the same statutes. What you seem to advocate for is a theocracy. That is the kind of government the Taliban and ISIS wants.

Nonsense. Read the posts. The only change I've advocated and argued for in this thread is that government remove itself from the promotion or regulation of marriages.

No thank you. I want freedom applied equally across all religions or lack thereof. The separation of church and state is a founding principle the USA was built on.

Nope. The principle in the First Amendment regarding religion is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Freedom to is not the same as freedom from. The point is important in this thread as it relates to same-sex couples imposing on people of faith to force their active participation in a manner incompatible with their faith's values to support the same-sex union.

 

[rturner76]

The Civil Rights Act did not make interracial marriages legal. What does it matter what any church teaches? What matters is what the state prohibits or mandates.

THat's what I'm getting at. We shouldn't be making laws based on what the church teaches.

Nonsense. Read the posts. The only change I've advocated and argued for in this thread is that government remove itself from the promotion or regulation of marriages.

There are legal implications concerning taxes and property that are determined by a legal registered marriage. Any church can have a wedding at any time but they must get a license from the state for it to be legal. Registering with the state allows nonreligious people to be married as well.

Nope. The principle in the First Amendment regarding religion is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Freedom to is not the same as freedom from. The point is important in this thread as it relates to same-sex couples imposing on people of faith to force their active participation in a manner incompatible with their faith's values to support the same-sex union.

Because homosexuals are protected by the civil rights act, you can't discriminate against them. It would be the same as refusing to cater an interracial or Muslim wedding. It's just not legal in a secular society with civil rights laws.

 

[o_mlly]

THat's what I'm getting at. We shouldn't be making laws based on what the church teaches.

There are legal implications concerning taxes and property that are determined by a legal registered marriage. Any church can have a wedding at any time but they must get a license from the state for it to be legal. Registering with the state allows nonreligious people to be married as well.

Because homosexuals are protected by the civil rights act, you can't discriminate against them. It would be the same as refusing to cater an interracial or Muslim wedding. It's just not legal in a secular society with civil rights laws.

??? If you say so, rt.

 

[jayem]

THat's what I'm getting at. We shouldn't be making laws based on what the church teaches.

There are legal implications concerning taxes and property that are determined by a legal registered marriage.

True. And legally recognized marriage confers other benefits, such as spousal immunity from testifying in court, and medical decision-making if a spouse is lacks decisional capacity.

Because homosexuals are protected by the civil rights act, you can't discriminate against them. It would be the same as refusing to cater an interracial or Muslim wedding. It's just not legal in a secular society with civil rights laws.

That may be true in some state laws. But under federal law, LGBTQ persons are only protected under Title VII. Which addresses employment discrimination. Unfortunately, they're not a federally protected class in regard to public accommodations. And federal law overrides state laws. If you recall that wedding cake case in CO, SCOTUS ruled that even though the bakeshop violated the state's non-discrimination law, the bakery owner's religiously based refusal to design and bake a wedding cake for a gay couple was protected under federal law.

 

[rturner76]

True. And legally recognized marriage confers other benefits, such as spousal immunity from testifying in court, and medical decision-making if a spouse is lacks decisional capacity.



That may be true in some state laws. But under federal law, LGBTQ persons are only protected under Title VII. Which addresses employment discrimination. Unfortunately, they're not a federally protected class in regard to public accommodations. And federal law overrides state laws. If you recall that wedding cake case in CO, SCOTUS ruled that even though the bakeshop violated the state's non-discrimination law, the bakery owner's religiously based refusal to design and bake a wedding cake for a gay couple was protected under federal law.

SO what are people upset about when it would seem that in certain instances, you are allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation? Is discrimination legal in things like government services? That would be the area of gay marriage and adoption.

 

[jayem]

SO what are people upset about when it would seem that in certain instances, you are allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation? Is discrimination legal in things like government services? That would be the area of gay marriage and adoption.

SCOTUS ensured that marriage pf same-sex couples must be recognized in every state by the Obergefell v. Hodges decision of 2015. But it was a close 5-4 ruling, which the current conservative court may or may not revisit. Hopefully, they’ll realize they’ve done enough damage by overturning Roe v. Wade.

 

[Pommer]

SCOTUS ensured that marriage pf same-sex couples must be recognized in every state by the Obergefell v. Hodges decision of 2015. But it was a close 5-4 ruling, which the current conservative court may or may not revisit. Hopefully, they’ll realize they’ve done enough damage by overturning Roe v. Wade.

Deciding what laws we agree to live under is the very basis of all politics, (I worked at one place where you used ONE one-tablespoon full of coffee for an ENTIRE pot of coffee, even if you brought your own coffee to brew it [I don’t trust coffee I can see through]. Boss’ joint, boss’ rule.)
The divide with gay folk being able to marry seems to be:
“Homosexuals exist, therefore we must respect that they have the exact same rights as human beings and citizens as the rest of of us*” and “We would very much like it if homosexuals did not exist and to show them that we feel that way, we should not allow them to ‘marry’*…that’s how they’ll know that they are bad for loving ‘the wrong people’*!”


*all quotes are from Pommer’s fevered imagination

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I worked at one place where you used ONE one-tablespoon full of coffee for an ENTIRE pot of coffee, even if you brought your own coffee to brew it

I'm sorry, what? Are you sure your boss was human?

 

[Pommer]

I'm sorry, what? Are you sure your boss was human?

My work-around was to buy unground coffee beans and chew them on the job.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

My work-around was to buy unground coffee beans and chew them on the job.

Chocolate covered? great buzz. I on the other hand had a 1 cup coffee maker. Only people I liked got to enjoy my tablespoon of high quality coffee.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Senator Tammy Baldwin says that, although only 5 GOP senators have publicly announced support, others have privately said they are yes votes if the bill is brought to a vote.

Ron Johnson of Wisconsin had previously given some tepid support to the bill, saying he wouldn't oppose it. But he seems to have discovered a particularly illogical way to become more opposed, in light of SCOTUS ruling on abortion.

Ron Johnson calls gay marriage protections bill "completely unnecessary"

In an appearance at the Kenosha County Fair last week, Johnson said the Supreme Court would never overturn its 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges because it "would impact millions of people."

 

[Hank77]

And federal law overrides state laws.

I don't think so. A state must abide by federal law but may provide further protections beyond the federal law and those laws are upheld by the courts, including the SCOTUS.

If you recall that wedding cake case in CO, SCOTUS ruled that even though the bakeshop violated the state's non-discrimination law, the bakery owner's religiously based refusal to design and bake a wedding cake for a gay couple was protected under federal law.

That isn't what the court determined. It was a very narrow ruling in the baker's favor finding that the committee had been overly biased against him and his Christian faith and sent it back to the lower court.
Phillips still cannot make wedding cakes unless he agrees to make them for s-s weddings.

 

[DaisyDay]

I don't think so. A state must abide by federal law but may provide further protections beyond the federal law and those laws are upheld by the courts, including the SCOTUS.

That isn't what the court determined. It was a very narrow ruling in the baker's favor finding that the committee had been overly biased against him and his Christian faith and sent it back to the lower court.
Phillips still cannot make wedding cakes unless he agrees to make them for s-s weddings.

Wedding | MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP

Masterpiece Cakeshop is not currently accepting requests to create custom wedding cakes. Please check back in the future.

They are, however, continuing to accept donations!

 

[Hank77]

Wedding | MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP

They are, however, continuing to accept donations!

That may be because he has been sued two more times.

 

[jayem]

I don't think so. A state must abide by federal law but may provide further protections beyond the federal law and those laws are upheld by the courts, including the SCOTUS.

Correct. But what I meant—and did not phrase properly-is that if a state law clearly conflicts with federal law, the latter prevails. Federal law overrides state law in this situation.

 

[FireDragon76]

Ron Johnson of Wisconsin had previously given some tepid support to the bill, saying he wouldn't oppose it. But he seems to have discovered a particularly illogical way to become more opposed, in light of SCOTUS ruling on abortion.

Ron Johnson calls gay marriage protections bill "completely unnecessary"

In an appearance at the Kenosha County Fair last week, Johnson said the Supreme Court would never overturn its 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges because it "would impact millions of people."

Which is rich irony considering Dobbs impacted millions of people. Unless maybe he's letting his misogyny show, and he doesn't consider women to be people.

 

[JSRG]

Which is rich irony considering Dobbs impacted millions of people. Unless maybe he's letting his misogyny show, and he doesn't consider women to be people.

So, first off, here's what the article being quoted (Ron Johnson Calls Gay Marriage Protections Bill 'Completely Unnecessary' for anyone who doesn't want to scroll back up) said:

In an appearance at the Kenosha County Fair last week, Johnson said the Supreme Court would never overturn its 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges because it "would impact millions of people," whereas the Court's recent decision to overturn the landmark protections for abortion rights established under the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling served to protect "life in the future."

The portion essentialsaltes quoted only included the first ("would impact millions of people") but cut off the rest of the sentence where he made the "life in the future" which I assume was meant as part of a differentiation by Johnson.

Actually, even the article provides those quotes with very little context. I would much prefer to see the full context of those quotes in order to evaluate them. Frustratingly, the article gives no link as to where we can see these things in greater context. Without seeing full context, I wonder if this is like that Tim Michels quote where he said "Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin after I’m elected governor." This got represented by a ton of liberal leaning outlets as him threatening voter suppression, but the actual context was he was saying that he'd do such a great job as governor if elected that Republicans would never lose again (which is perhaps an arrogant claim, but is nevertheless very different from how people represented it). If a full sentence can be misrepresented like this, I'm especially hesitant to accept a sentence fragment.

 

[FireDragon76]

So, first off, here's what the article being quoted (Ron Johnson Calls Gay Marriage Protections Bill 'Completely Unnecessary' for anyone who doesn't want to scroll back up) said:

In an appearance at the Kenosha County Fair last week, Johnson said the Supreme Court would never overturn its 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges because it "would impact millions of people," whereas the Court's recent decision to overturn the landmark protections for abortion rights established under the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling served to protect "life in the future."

The portion essentialsaltes quoted only included the first ("would impact millions of people") but cut off the rest of the sentence where he made the "life in the future" which I assume was meant as part of a differentiation by Johnson.

Actually, even the article provides those quotes with very little context. I would much prefer to see the full context of those quotes in order to evaluate them. Frustratingly, the article gives no link as to where we can see these things in greater context. Without seeing full context, I wonder if this is like that Tim Michels quote where he said "Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin after I’m elected governor." This got represented by a ton of liberal leaning outlets as him threatening voter suppression, but the actual context was he was saying that he'd do such a great job as governor if elected that Republicans would never lose again (which is perhaps an arrogant claim, but is nevertheless very different from how people represented it). If a full sentence can be misrepresented like this, I'm especially hesitant to accept a sentence fragment.

That doesn't really reassure me, considering the rhetoric of Obergefell opponents.

 

[JSRG]

That doesn't really reassure me, considering the rhetoric of Obergefell opponents.

I wasn't trying to "reassure" anyone about anything--I was objecting to the claim that it doesn't make sense for Johnson to say Obergefell won't be overturned because it would affect millions of people, but was saying that after Dobbs which affected millions of people. The problem is that the "would affect millions of people" quote was attributed to him with absolutely no context offered (we don't even get the full sentence it was from), and no link given to anyplace that could offer context. And even the article excerpt that was quoted here didn't even give the full context from the article, as it cut it off mid sentence and didn't include the other fragmented quote it attributed to Johnson.