47 Republicans Vote With Democrats to Protect Same-Sex Marriage

[Hank77]

Thanks thats some good protections for religious organizations.

The downside to this since they have now codified protections they can in the future remove them. They shouldn't have had to codify this in the first place. It should have been understood from the start that religious organizations are exempt from this.

But wishes are horses. So this is probably good in the long run. I wish they would have offered religious artistic expression as another protection.

We'll soon see how the SCOTUS addresses this issue of speech through artistic expression.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Biden signs into law same-sex marriage bill, 10 years after his famous Sunday show answer on the issue​

 

[WolfGate]

We'll soon see how the SCOTUS addresses this issue of speech through artistic expression.

A very different issue, so it will be interesting to see what they do. Lots of gray area between commissioned copyrighted art and generic commodity works. Yet somehow as black and white a line as possible will have to be drawn somewhere.

 

[WolfGate]

Thanks thats some good protections for religious organizations.

The downside to this since they have now codified protections they can in the future remove them. They shouldn't have had to codify this in the first place. It should have been understood from the start that religious organizations are exempt from this.

But wishes are horses. So this is probably good in the long run. I wish they would have offered religious artistic expression as another protection.

Honestly, I think it was a good idea to go ahead and add it specifically anyways. If it was not there, the courts would still have decided it correctly based on the Constitution, but that would only be after lawsuits were brought which would cause stress and expense to those who were sued. Makes it much clearer IMHO.

On a bit of a sidebar, I was on the elder board for a large evangelical church when the original Supreme Court ruling came down. We weren't so concerned with the ruling itself but rather we were concerned about potential lawsuits or possible state legislation that might be in place for a while until Constitutional issues were worked out. We had reached the decision that if any of those happened, though unlikely, we would simply continue to do the religious marriage ceremony but have the couple go to the courthouse for the legal part. The reality is, the church has long been fulfilling two different definitions for marriage, the covenant of believers and the state law portion. While theoretically a law might require us for a time to do the legal part of same sex marriage if we did the legal part of heterosexual marriages, they couldn't require us to do that for a religious only covenant ceremony. While we never had to implement that, we were OK with that solution and honestly since we have a secular government, we were OK with same sex couples being able to get the legal marriage, just not sanctioned by our church.

 

[Tuur]

Biden signs into law same-sex marriage bill, 10 years after his famous Sunday show answer on the issue​

Question:

Wasn't the contents of the bill already guaranteed by Article IV, Section 1, of the US Constitution?

 

[mark46]

Question:

Wasn't the contents of the bill already guaranteed by Article IV, Section 1, of the US Constitution?

You would think so.

Congress is just making sure, as they might have with regard to abortion.

 

[WolfGate]

Question:

Wasn't the contents of the bill already guaranteed by Article IV, Section 1, of the US Constitution?

Wasn’t what Congress did fulfilling the second sentence of that Article IV Section 1, or am I missing something?

 

[Tuur]

Wasn’t what Congress did fulfilling the second sentence of that Article IV Section 1, or am I missing something?

Wouldn't think so, unless the bill addresses how marriage could be proved and "the effects thereof."

Seriously: By Article IV, Section 1, it would seem that if a couple enters into a legal marriage in State A, then State B must recognize that marriage even if State B prohibits it. That was part of the old practice of a couple going into another state to be wed.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Wasn't the contents of the bill already guaranteed by Article IV, Section 1, of the US Constitution?

Before Obergefell, gay marriages performed in one state were not necessarily recognized by other states.

For instance, in Missouri:

In August 2004, 71% of Missouri voters ratified Amendment 2, which restricted the validity and recognition of marriage in Missouri to the "union of one man and one woman".[3][4] State statutes also banned same-sex marriage.[5]

Recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions[edit]​

Missouri statutes prohibited the recognition of same-sex marriages validity performed in other jurisdictions.

After some couples were denied this recognition, a court order forced Missouri to do so, but I think it's just as well that it be spelled out in federal law.

 

[Tuur]

Missouri statutes prohibited the recognition of same-sex marriages validity performed in other jurisdictions.

After some couples were denied this recognition, a court order forced Missouri to do so, but I think it's just as well that it be spelled out in federal law.

Missouri statute or not, no law, federal or state, can override the constitution. I don't think a law like the Missouri statute could stand in light of Article IV, Section 1.

The new Federal law strikes me as political virtue signaling by passing a law that was already in force. That new law won't prevent a head-on collision with the Missouri statute should the US Supreme Court return same-sex marriage back to the states. There' would be a court battle whether or not the law was passed.

The ironic thing is that I think same-sex marriage is a sin. Yet the US Constitution says what it says, and on this point is clear. If State A allows same-sex marriage, then State B is legally bound by the constitution to recognize it even it if doesn't permit it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The new Federal law strikes me as political virtue signaling by passing a law that was already in force.

Ah ah ah, there is no law in force. There is a Supreme Court ruling.

Once upon a time, that seemed like a precedent, but it turned out to not be so.

The left (well me) has been chided for not enacting abortion rights into law, so we won't make that mistake again.

 

[Tuur]

Ah ah ah, there is no law in force. There is a Supreme Court ruling.

Once upon a time, that seemed like a precedent, but it turned out to not be so.

The left (well me) has been chided for not enacting abortion rights into law, so we won't make that mistake again.

I assume the ruling you're talking about is the one about same-sex marriage. That got into interpreting what was not explicitly written. Article IV, Section 1, is more straight forward than the General Welfare Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1).

Something we haven't asked is whether the Missouri statute you cited is still on the books. It could be, even though the US Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriage made it of no effect. If so, and if the US Supreme Court reversed the ruling on same sex marriage, returning it to the states, that would mean that the Missouri statute would be back into effect. With the new Federal law, it would be heading to court, and nothing would be resolved until it went through legal channels. Without the Federal law, it would be heading to court, and nothing would be resolved until it went through legal channels, all because of Article IV, Section 1. It's made no difference here.

 

[KCfromNC]

Missouri statute or not, no law, federal or state, can override the constitution. I don't think a law like the Missouri statute could stand in light of Article IV, Section 1.

The new Federal law strikes me as political virtue signaling by passing a law that was already in force.

Look to the activists justices on the Supreme Court's willingness to re-try the settled ruling on this issue for an explanation why this law is needed.

 

[Desk trauma]

Look to the activists justices on the Supreme Court's willingness to re-try the settled ruling on this issue for an explanation why this law is needed.

Come now, we have been over this, it’s now an activist legislature defying the sacred will of the court.

 

[essentialsaltes]

They fell right into the big gay trap to take these religious rights away.

Speaking of tricks and traps. via @patriottakes

Marjorie Taylor Greene claimed “gay marriage is not anywhere under attack in this country,” and the Respect for Marriage Act is “a trick” to “turn the gay community against the Republican Party.”

 

[Desk trauma]

Speaking of tricks and traps. via @patriottakes

Marjorie Taylor Greene claimed “gay marriage is not anywhere under attack in this country,” and the Respect for Marriage Act is “a trick” to “turn the gay community against the Republican Party.”

Indeed, there could not be any reason that a gay voter could be turned off to voting republican. That's just crazy talk.

 

[Tuur]

Look to the activists justices on the Supreme Court's willingness to re-try the settled ruling on this issue for an explanation why this law is needed.

An interesting statement because of two things:

1. Roe vs Wade was based on the concept of legal penumbra. A legal penumbra is a right not directly protected by the US Constitution but deduced to exist. The problem with legal penumbras is that since a derived right isn't directly stated, subsequent rulings can reverse them. For your statement to have any basis, you would have to show an example of a US Supreme Court ruling against a right directly stated in the US Constitution. In this case, it's a clearly stated restrictions on the states courtesy of US Constitution: Article IV, Section 1.

2. If a US Supreme Court ruling argues that various things are left to the states, then merely passing a Federal law won't magically return it to the Federal government. For that you have to introduce a constitutional amendment and have enough states ratify it. For all the hype surrounding the new law, notice that no one seems to have introduced an amendment that would actually accomplish what they claim to the new law does.

 

[WolfGate]

An interesting statement because of two things

2. If a US Supreme Court ruling argues that various things are left to the states, then merely passing a Federal law won't magically return it to the Federal government. For that you have to introduce a constitutional amendment and have enough states ratify it. For all the hype surrounding the new law, notice that no one seems to have introduced an amendment that would actually accomplish what they claim to the new law does.

I am not sure I can think of a Supreme Court ruling that argued the Constitution gave State law authority over federal law. Do you have an example?

 

[KCfromNC]

2. If a US Supreme Court ruling argues that various things are left to the states, then merely passing a Federal law won't magically return it to the Federal government.

I don't remember the Supremacy Clause being repealed. When did that happen?

 

[Pommer]

I am not sure I can think of a Supreme Court ruling that argued the Constitution gave State law authority over federal law. Do you have an example?

In the cases that involve 9th & 10th Amendment issues, a State’s Highest Court ruling will stand, SCOTUS won’t even entertain the idea of granting certiorari.

This doctrine extends to “state election laws” that do not otherwise impinge on other Rights.