US Senate Votes to Protect Same Sex Marriage

Occams Barber

Newbie
Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,286
7,421
75
Northern NSW
✟981,266.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
US Senate votes to protect same-sex marriage

Story by AFP • 3h ago


The US Senate passed a landmark bill Tuesday protecting same-sex marriage, as lawmakers from both parties moved to forestall the possibility of the conservative-led Supreme Court taking away this right as it did with abortion.

"With today's bipartisan Senate passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, the United States is on the brink of reaffirming a fundamental truth: love is love, and Americans should have the right to marry the person they love," President Joe Biden said in a statement released after the 61-36 vote.

The Senate vote sends the bill back to the House of Representatives, which Speaker Nancy Pelosi said would approve it next week before sending it to Biden to sign.

Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer hailed a "momentous step forward for greater justice for LGBTQ Americans."

Twelve Republicans joined Democrats to pass the legislation on what had for decades been a deeply divisive issue in America.

In the United States, same-sex unions have been guaranteed by the Supreme Court since 2015. But after the court's historic overturning of a longstanding ruling protecting the right to abortion in June, many progressives feared that same-sex marriage may also be under threat.

Democrats have worked with urgency to get the bill passed while they still control Congress.

They held on to the Senate in this month's mid-term elections but lost the House to the Republicans, although the latter eked out a much thinner majority than they had expected. So when the new Congress takes power in January, gridlock is expected.

The bill passed Tuesday does not require states to legalize same-sex marriage.

But it repeals previous legislation defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and does require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

So if the Supreme Court were to overturn the 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriages, a state that bans them will still have to recognize such unions carried out in other states. The bill also applies to inter-racial marriages.

"Today’s vote is deeply personal for many of us in this chamber," said Schumer, who wore the same tie he had on at his lesbian daughter's wedding.

A similar bill was already passed in June by the House of Representatives. All the chamber's Democrats voted in favor, along with 47 Republicans.

The new vote in the House is needed to reconcile the two bills but this is seen as a formality.

The powerful American Civil Liberties Union hailed the "historic step forward" but denounced the rise of laws attacking the right of transgender people in several states.

"While we welcome the historic vote on this measure, members of Congress must also fight like trans lives depend on their efforts because trans lives do," James Esseks, director of the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project, said in a statement.

Polls show a strong majority of Americans back same-sex marriage but it is still contentious. Thirty-six Republicans voted 'no' on Tuesday and the religious right remains mostly opposed to such unions.

Link:

US Senate votes to protect same-sex marriage (msn.com)

OB
 

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
US Senate votes to protect same-sex marriage

Story by AFP • 3h ago


The US Senate passed a landmark bill Tuesday protecting same-sex marriage, as lawmakers from both parties moved to forestall the possibility of the conservative-led Supreme Court taking away this right as it did with abortion.

"With today's bipartisan Senate passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, the United States is on the brink of reaffirming a fundamental truth: love is love, and Americans should have the right to marry the person they love," President Joe Biden said in a statement released after the 61-36 vote.

The Senate vote sends the bill back to the House of Representatives, which Speaker Nancy Pelosi said would approve it next week before sending it to Biden to sign.

Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer hailed a "momentous step forward for greater justice for LGBTQ Americans."

Twelve Republicans joined Democrats to pass the legislation on what had for decades been a deeply divisive issue in America.

In the United States, same-sex unions have been guaranteed by the Supreme Court since 2015. But after the court's historic overturning of a longstanding ruling protecting the right to abortion in June, many progressives feared that same-sex marriage may also be under threat.

Democrats have worked with urgency to get the bill passed while they still control Congress.

They held on to the Senate in this month's mid-term elections but lost the House to the Republicans, although the latter eked out a much thinner majority than they had expected. So when the new Congress takes power in January, gridlock is expected.

The bill passed Tuesday does not require states to legalize same-sex marriage.

But it repeals previous legislation defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and does require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

So if the Supreme Court were to overturn the 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriages, a state that bans them will still have to recognize such unions carried out in other states. The bill also applies to inter-racial marriages.

"Today’s vote is deeply personal for many of us in this chamber," said Schumer, who wore the same tie he had on at his lesbian daughter's wedding.

A similar bill was already passed in June by the House of Representatives. All the chamber's Democrats voted in favor, along with 47 Republicans.

The new vote in the House is needed to reconcile the two bills but this is seen as a formality.

The powerful American Civil Liberties Union hailed the "historic step forward" but denounced the rise of laws attacking the right of transgender people in several states.

"While we welcome the historic vote on this measure, members of Congress must also fight like trans lives depend on their efforts because trans lives do," James Esseks, director of the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project, said in a statement.

Polls show a strong majority of Americans back same-sex marriage but it is still contentious. Thirty-six Republicans voted 'no' on Tuesday and the religious right remains mostly opposed to such unions.

Link:

US Senate votes to protect same-sex marriage (msn.com)

OB
If the Supreme Court were disposed to overturn their previous decision declaring government approved same sex marriage a right (something extremely unlikely to occur) this bill would not keep that from happening. Further, should the Supreme Court do that it would likely include the grounds that deciding who is allowed to receive government approval for a marriage is the sole purview of the individual States. In that case, his law would then be ruled unconstitutional. In reality, this law does nothing to protect same sex marriage from the actions of the Supreme Court and is simply political posturing. Admittedly I would rather that the Senate spend the rest of the year in political posturing so that nothing really dangerous passes out of that chamber while it might still have a chance to be put into law.
 
Upvote 0

SimplyMe

Senior Veteran
Jul 19, 2003
9,612
9,329
the Great Basin
✟325,868.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If the Supreme Court were disposed to overturn their previous decision declaring government approved same sex marriage a right (something extremely unlikely to occur) this bill would not keep that from happening. Further, should the Supreme Court do that it would likely include the grounds that deciding who is allowed to receive government approval for a marriage is the sole purview of the individual States. In that case, his law would then be ruled unconstitutional. In reality, this law does nothing to protect same sex marriage from the actions of the Supreme Court and is simply political posturing. Admittedly I would rather that the Senate spend the rest of the year in political posturing so that nothing really dangerous passes out of that chamber while it might still have a chance to be put into law.

You seem to misunderstand what this law does. First, it repeals DOMA -- the law that stated that the federal government recognizes only marriages between one man and one woman. It changes it so that the federal government now recognizes any two people legally married, regardless of the gender or race of the couple. The Supreme Court overturning the same sex marriage rulings would have no effect on this part of the law, since it doesn't set requirements for a legal marriage, merely the standards for the US government to recognize a marriage.

Second, it makes clear that marriages are protected by the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution -- that if a couple is legally married in one state that other states, under this clause of the US Constitution, are required to recognize this marriage. The law does not decide who "is allowed to receive government approval," it leaves that decisions to the states. Again, the Supreme Court is unlikely to rule on this clause of the Constitution and, since the Federal government isn't telling states what they must define as marriage, it shouldn't have any issue with the Supreme Court.

I haven't reread the Senate version of the bill that was passed but they didn't change those two parts above. Instead, most of what the Senate added was protection for religions.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You seem to misunderstand what this law does. First, it repeals DOMA -- the law that stated that the federal government recognizes only marriages between one man and one woman. It changes it so that the federal government now recognizes any two people legally married, regardless of the gender or race of the couple. The Supreme Court overturning the same sex marriage rulings would have no effect on this part of the law, since it doesn't set requirements for a legal marriage, merely the standards for the US government to recognize a marriage.

Second, it makes clear that marriages are protected by the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution -- that if a couple is legally married in one state that other states, under this clause of the US Constitution, are required to recognize this marriage. The law does not decide who "is allowed to receive government approval," it leaves those decisions to the states. Again, the Supreme Court is unlikely to rule on this clause of the Constitution and, since the Federal government isn't telling states what they must define as marriage, it shouldn't have any issue with the Supreme Court.

I haven't reread the Senate version of the bill that was passed but they didn't change those two parts above. Instead, most of what the Senate added was protection for religions.
Nothing you posted actually poses a true contradiction of what I posted. The Supreme Court has no restraint from ruling anyway it chooses. So, if the controlling faction in the Supreme Court decided that its goal was to do away with same sex marriage, it could rule that such marriages were unconstitutional just as easily as it ruled that denying same sex marriages was unconstitutional. I do not see that there is any desire on the part of the controlling faction of the SC to change the current status quo on same sex marriage. Nor do I believe anyone in Congress is actually concerned that same sex marriage would be in danger from a Supreme Court ruling. Therefore, I reiterate my conclusion that this is all just political posturing and nothing more. The only outcome that I can see that might come from the passage of this law is political posturing lawsuits by some states challenging it that will cost the taxpayers of the states and the country unnecessarily. The supreme court ruled on this issue a while back and using a throwaway remark by one Justice to waste legislative time and money on a completely unnecessary bill is I guess what the voters deserve for electing a group of less than useful idiots to positions of power.
 
Upvote 0

Desk trauma

Front row at the dumpster fire of the republic
Supporter
Dec 1, 2011
20,189
16,168
✟1,172,964.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I do not see that there is any desire on the part of the controlling faction of the SC to change the current status quo on same sex marriage.
Other than them having explicitly saying so in part of the Dobbs ruling.
 
Last edited:

SimplyMe

Senior Veteran
Jul 19, 2003
9,612
9,329
the Great Basin
✟325,868.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Nothing you posted actually poses a true contradiction of what I posted. The Supreme Court has no restraint from ruling anyway it chooses. So, if the controlling faction in the Supreme Court decided that its goal was to do away with same sex marriage, it could rule that such marriages were unconstitutional just as easily as it ruled that denying same sex marriages was unconstitutional. I do not see that there is any desire on the part of the controlling faction of the SC to change the current status quo on same sex marriage. Nor do I believe anyone in Congress is actually concerned that same sex marriage would be in danger from a Supreme Court ruling. Therefore, I reiterate my conclusion that this is all just political posturing and nothing more. The only outcome that I can see that might come from the passage of this law is political posturing lawsuits by some states challenging it that will cost the taxpayers of the states and the country unnecessarily. The supreme court ruled on this issue a while back and using a throwaway remark by one Justice to waste legislative time and money on a completely unnecessary bill is I guess what the voters deserve for electing a group of less than useful idiots to positions of power.

You are moving the goalposts. You are changing your reply from letting the states determine what marriage is, to the Supreme Court somehow finding something in the Constitution to not only deny same sex couples marriage (something the Constitution doesn't cover) to removing the right from States completely. You are arguing almost the exact opposite of what you claimed in your previous post.
 
Upvote 0

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Other than them having explicitly saying so in part of the Dobbs ruling.

Perhaps you can provide a quote from the part of the ruling where you saw such explicit language expressing a desire to change the status quo on same sex marriage by the majority? AFAIK no such language exists.
 
Upvote 0

Desk trauma

Front row at the dumpster fire of the republic
Supporter
Dec 1, 2011
20,189
16,168
✟1,172,964.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Perhaps you can provide a quote from the part of the ruling where you saw such explicit language expressing a desire to change the status quo on same sex marriage by the majority? AFAIK no such language exists.
Whole ruling here, section I was referencing below:
n future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold [v. Connecticut], Lawrence [v. Texas], and Obergefell [v. Hodges]. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous”

The bolded case was the one that nation wide same sex marriage rested on prior to the passage of the bill the others are the ones that established a right to contraception and overturned sodomy laws.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: KCfromNC
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,213
5,604
Erewhon
Visit site
✟923,105.00
Faith
Atheist
  • Agree
Reactions: john23237
Upvote 0