Historic same-sex marriage bill advances in Senate - ABC News

Historic same-sex marriage bill advances in Senate - ABC News (go.com)

Senate advances Respect for Marriage Act in bipartisan 62-37 vote - CBS News

The measure advanced in a 62-37 vote, with 12 Republicans voting in favor, allowing it to clear the required 60-vote hurdle to prevent a filibuster.

The Republican Senators who voted in favor of advancing the Respect for Marriage Act include: Mitt Romney, Joni Ernst, Cynthia Lummis, Roy Blunt, Shelley Moore Capito, Lisa Murkowski, Rob Portman, Dan Sullivan, Thom Tillis, Todd Young, Susan Collins.

Good news.

@zaryia: After Dobbs I suspect both parties want this to pass.

Yeah, which is why I was surprised there was only 12 Republicans in favor of. Maybe there will be more in future votes. Any stance against this is deeply unpopular, just like on Abortion. And we know how that turned out last week.

I just saw this and it's fantastic that it passed the senate. Hopefully it passes the House one more time and is signed into law very quickly.

I thought this was already legal ...

SCOTUS wanted to challenge this after Roe v Wade

Odd that Moscow Mitch was against it.

So it's the same reasoning for abortion. According to some legal and political scholars it was built on shaky legal grounds, and doing it through "proper" political processes is better.

Rather than resolve the issue, the court’s broad ruling “halted a political process that was moving” to liberalize abortion already, she said, and instead launched “the mobilization of the right-to-life movement” that changed American politics.

After the recent abortion ruling they see this as a pressing issue.

Same-sex marriage would be illegal in 25 to 32 states if the Supreme Court overturned Obergefell - Poynter

Although the odd part about Republicans saying it (and things like it) should be made legal through the "proper" methods.....but when you try the "proper" methods Republicans still vote against.

They basically pretend it's about legal procedure, which they have a point on, but everyone knows it's usually just about their religion.

Well, they say it should be made legal through legislation, not that they are for making it legal, big difference. Politicians demand specific processes for things they are against to make them legal all the time.

With that said, this actually pretty damn bipartisan, so credit to the republicans who supported this where it's due.

True they do deserve credit. But I'd thought there would be more.

This passed the House today and is officially heading to Biden's desk.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/08/us/politics/same-sex-marriage-congress.html

Update:

Biden set to sign same-sex marriage bill at White House ceremony (nbcnews.com)

President Joe Biden is set to sign legislation to codify federal protections for same-sex and interracial marriages in a ceremony at the White House on Tuesday.

Vice President Kamala Harris, first lady Jill Biden and second gentleman Doug Emhoff are also expected to attend.

The legislation, passed by Congress last week, was drafted by a bipartisan group led by Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., the first openly gay person elected to the Senate. It will ensure that the federal government recognizes marriages and guarantee full benefits “regardless of the couple’s sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin.” The bill will not, however, require states to issue marriage licenses contrary to state laws.

The House voted 258-169 to pass the bill last week, sending the legislation to the president. The Senate passed it late last month by a vote of 61-36.

Also,

Democrats unanimously voted to support the bill, while most Republicans in both chambers opposed it. The bill was revised by Baldwin in an effort to gain some Republican votes, with language saying that religious organizations would not be required to perform same-sex marriages and that the federal government wouldn’t be required to protect polygamous marriages.

So most Republicans voted against it even after that amendment? If true, why?

This is good. I hope we can move on from this in our political process, I'm tired of it always being a topic of debate and so are most people.

Glad some GOP members voted to pass, but not surprising most did not; just shows how much power the evangelicals still have.

I'm sure we'll still see fear mongering from some on the left regarding the Supreme Court and this topic, but at least majority of it will go to the wayside.

@Stevo_the_gamer: Why is that? Isn't it a Constitutional right?

Biden is winning so hard right now.

Yeah for sure. We might still get and have fear mongering from the left. But then on the right we currently have this loony bullshit:

'Misguided And Dangerous Bill': Hartzler Gets Emotional Speaking Against Same-Sex Marriage Bill - YouTube

WTF!? 😂🤣🤣🤣🤣

Yup

@zaryia: When the religious right complain about religiosity declining, just share them that footage.

People like her are why people are leaving religion, not because of the theory of evolution.

Edit: @mrbojangles25 doubt it. As long as there is a 2 party system, culture wars will continue to dominate. It doesnt leave much room for anything other than political contrarianism. Abortion had been a contentious political issue for almost half a century after Roe v Wade.

Great to see.

If the SCOTUS had ruled to strip marriage rights away, democrats would have elections in the bag for years to come.

I'm starting to wonder about how the right doesn't get that their policies are unpopular with the majority. You still need a majority win thankfully.

It is indeed, but that hasn't stopped many from fear mongering about it. We've seen quite a few mentions about it on this forum as well.

@Stevo_the_gamer: Huh, I wonder why they'd be concerned about losing a Constitutional right.

Meh. I suppose the sc could just declare it unconstitutional in the future.

"You should try to go about doing these through proper legislation. This is why Roe went away."

Tries to do thing through proper legislation so it doesn't end up like Roe.

"You're fear mongering, we don't need this."

Yeah this is the actual concern and what set this off.

Bizarre we see so many Republicans vote against it after what happened with Roe and the Midterms.

Good. No reason this shouldn't be codified.

People have real reasons to be concerned with LGBT rights being taken away.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/12/09/revolutionary-conservative-legal-philosophy-courts-00069201

Hardly fearmongering.

Yeah, I'm assuming Stevo isn't serious. He can't be, right?

You tell me.

@Stevo_the_gamer: It seems Zaryia and Maroxad properly covered why they should be concerned.

What did they say? Who is they and why should they be concerned?

@Stevo_the_gamer: If you don't know, then I'm not going to tell you!

I will add in 3 questions of my own to make my post more comprehensive and flow better. My added questions will be in italics. Yours are in bold.

Who are concerned? The LGBT community, Progressives, Secularists, Libertarian Conservatives.

Who are they concerned about? Generally young conservatives, oftentimes of the fundamentalist type. Generally upset that Originalism isnt giving them the results they want. The primary proponent however is Harvard Law School professor Adrian Vermule.

What did they say? That the Common Good Interpretion is deeply authoritarian, theocratic and couild potentially undermine and remove all LGBT rights if the fundamentalists wishes to do so.

What is this interpretion? It is known as the Common Good Interpetion. Which is a more assertive take on legal interpretion than the Originalism. Generally speaking, it often can be interpreted as The Constitution means what we want it to say (usually to favor a heirarchy and those in power). Rather than the sort of originalism which is literal interpretion of the constitution, and living document, which is more lawyery and implicit.

But don't take my word for anything here, I am very much biased here, and I think we both would agree it is better if you would get your information from the primary source rather than a biased poster such as myself. But the book I would recommend is Common Good Constitutionalism by Adrian Vermule. ISBN: 9781509548880. There is also this article https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/common-good-constitutionalism/609037/

What is it we are concerned about in particular? The conservatives who adhere to this legal interpretion end up winning the legal debate over Originalism. And this new legal interpretion becomes the dominant political interpretion on the right.

Why should they be concerned? Because this interpretion of the constitution means they can remove all their rights at a whim. We are already seeing this interpretion being more or less tested out in the debate following Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health.

@Maroxad: He's playing dumb. He knows the concerns, as he was involved in the prior Dobbs discussions.

@mattbbpl: Perhaps, either way, it will be interesting to see his take on this. Not to mention, hopefully someone out there learnt something from my post.

@Maroxad: I'm surprised to see you mention the Common Good Interpretation, I didn't think it was on anyone else's radar yet.

It's just spin. There's very little ways to find this as a con for Dems and not a con for Republicans. Both politically and logically.

Ah, the "removing all their rights at a whim" angle--I certainly enjoy a good end-is-nigh gimmick, especially the alarmist stuff. As I said previously, I don't expect that sort of mindset to go completely to the wayside but at least the majority of it will. It is entertaining to see the term "whim" thrown around following Dobbs or any Supreme Court cases, especially when litigation goes through a maze of courts and lawyers for many years.

Heh, it is very bizarre.

I asked for your input on the matter, didn't know that was "playing dumb."

How is my post spin?

This is your opinion and I disagree with it. To me it seems justified and appropriate. I'm glad the bill advanced.

I honestly can't believe you guys are STILL against it on a purely political level, after what happened in the mid terms. It's just unwise.

61% of Americans say same-sex marriage legalization is good for society | Pew Research Center

Why did you type this after @Maroxad gave a comprehensive and very good answer? I should have linked that article first, but I thought everyone knew by now.

@zaryia said:

This is your opinion and I disagree with it. To me it seems justified and appropriate. I'm glad the bill advanced.

I honestly can't believe you guys are STILL against it on a purely political level, after what happened in the mid terms. It's just unwise.

61% of Americans say same-sex marriage legalization is good for society | Pew Research Center

Why did you type this after @Maroxad gave a comprehensive and very good answer? I should have linked that article first, but I thought everyone knew by now.

You disagree that someone who says *all their rights* are going to taken on a whim is alarmist? lol Do explain why you disagree in your opinion.

Huh? You guys? What sort of tribalistic thinking is this? I'm also glad the bill passed and it's what we should have done years ago to prevent Roe v Wade from being overturned.

You really have no clue on following context. Lol

*crickets*

@Stevo_the_gamer: Hardly an End-Is-Nigh mentality when this is more or less effectively written in Common Good Constitutionalist writings. Specifically downplaying the role of the Constitution itself, and instead giving significant power to the ruler.

Thankfully it doesn't mean that they are winning the legal debate on the right. The fact that it is not on a lot of people's radar. Means we don't have to worry, but there are reasons to be cautious.

Just like when you see a 1% crit in Fire Emblem... (RIP at least 5 of my people in an Ironman Run I did).

@Stevo_the_gamer: Considering you and I had this conversation during Dobbs I'm assuming you're just playing. I hope you're just playing.

You watched a Constitutional right get stripped away in the last session, and heard those same justices bring up other rights they though should be challenged. Calling the possibility of another being removed in that environment "alarmist" is stupid, yes.

When the argument rests on nullification of all rights in relation to the Supreme Court, yes, I will call that end-is-nigh alarmism every single time.

I don't recall any conversation?

I recall the lead opinion specifically call out this item and saying it's not on the same page actually. But I understand the need for many to gravitate towards shouting-at-the-sky via righteous anger though.

@Stevo_the_gamer:

Justice Clarence Thomas argued in a concurring opinion released on Friday that the Supreme Court “should reconsider” its past rulings codifying rights to contraception access, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.

What about it?

From the prior post you responded to:

So you understand the concern now, yes? Or do you still consider concern over losing marriage rights to be fear mongering?

What concern is there, exactly? It's a concurring opinion. Besides, what is the context of that concurring opinion in relation to those cases as well? As in, what was said specifically? What did the actual opinion say about marriage? What did the other concurring opinions say?

I see you're hemmed on one specific view, which clearly loses the forest among the trees. Cue the yelling at the clouds.