Same-Sex Marriage Bill Passes Senate After Bipartisan Breakthrough

[Joe (SoCal)]

The 61-to-36 vote sends the legislation back to the House, which is expected to approve it and send it to President Biden.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/29/u...f46ded2ab676f8

[SKIP KILPATRICK]

Does it come with a warning label?

Just kidding love you Ken!

[Rich Jones]

If the Court now reverses the 2015 decision, same-sex marriage could be illegal in states that don't allow it but those already married would be safe.
That's how I understand it.

[Brian Palmer]

I am sorry to see that Pat Toomey didn't support it, but not entirely surprised.

[CWSmith]

I am both surprised and encouraged.

[dutchpp]

A bit late.

• Netherlands
• Germany
• Brazil
• Colombia
• France
• Danmark
• Belgium
• Malta
• Spain
• Portugal
• Norway
• Sweden
• Iceland
• Canada
• South Africa
• Argentinia
• Australia
• USA? but better late then never

[Peerie Maa]

A bit late.

• Netherlands
• Germany
• Brazil
• Colombia
• France
• Danmark
• Belgium
• Malta
• Spain
• Portugal
• Norway
• Sweden
• Iceland
• Canada
• South Africa
• Argentinia
• Australia
• USA? but better late then never

I know we left the EU, but we did not leave the planet.

Same-sex marriage is legal in all parts of the United Kingdom. As marriage is a devolved legislative matter, different parts of the UK legalised at different times; it has been recognised and performed in England and Wales since March 2014, in Scotland since December 2014, and in Northern Ireland since January 2020.

[john welsford]

A bit late.

• Netherlands
• Germany
• Brazil
• Colombia
• France
• Danmark
• Belgium
• Malta
• Spain
• Portugal
• Norway
• Sweden
• Iceland
• Canada
• South Africa
• Argentinia
• Australia
• USA? but better late then never

Add new Zealand to that list.
One of the kids that regularly visits my graddaughters has two "mums" and in the youngest ones class there is a girl with two "dads".
Its never raised an eyebrow among the school staff or any of the other parents.
Thats good to see.

John Welsford

[Breakaway]

This is a good thing.

I can't help but think that the legislation forcing the train workers union to accept the terms offered by Big Rail was the chip played to get the 12 reeps to vote for this same sex marriage bill. The timing can't be coincidental.

Kevin

[dutchpp]

Sorry Nick, I looked at the list and didn't miss the UK, must be Freudian.
To John, I didn't know NZ ratified the legislation, sorry.

[Peerie Maa]

^ No wukkas. Your point was well-made.

[George Jung]

What I found most interesting that a significant number of Reps joined the Democrats in passing this - out of step with most of Red Congress. Apparently very concerned that the corrupted USSC was going to reverse this, esp after Dobbs.

Wouldn't it be sad were the Republican Party to implode? Man... I'd have to have a lil' wine, just to buffer the blow!

[Rich Jones]

Am I correct in assuming that future same sex marriages will not be safe in GOP controlled states if the
Supreme Court reverses it's 2015 ruling? This bill will protect those already married, but not future marriages if that right is reversed.

[Keith Wilson]

As I understand it, federal law can't require a state to allow same-sex marriages to be performed, but this bill does require states to recognize marriages from other states. A same-sex couple living in Alabama could get married in California, and they'd be legally married in their home state. Way better than nothing.

[dutchpp]

It must be a coincidence that these two items are presented underneath each other, or is the overlord punishing hypocrisy?

IMG_1446.jpg

[Too Little Time]

As I understand it, federal law can't require a state to allow same-sex marriages to be performed, but this bill does require states to recognize marriages from other states. A same-sex couple living in Alabama could get married in California, and they'd be legally married in their home state. Way better than nothing.

Yes. Much different than making same sex marriage legal. And some are upset with what is passed not going far enough.

[CWSmith]

It must be a coincidence that these two items are presented underneath each other, or is the overlord punishing hypocrisy?

"Apophenia", or patternicity, is characterized by seeing patterns in unrelated things.

[dutchpp]

"Apophenia", or patternicity, is characterized by seeing patterns in unrelated things.

It was a joke

[Keith Wilson]

Yes. Much different than making same sex marriage legal. And some are upset with what is passed not going far enough.

Well, not all that different. Still legal, just harder to do in some places. The obligatory recognition of marriages from other states is very important.

And no, it doesn't go far enough, but it goes as far as a federal law can go. Going further would require a constitutional amendment to make it impossible to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, and that's in the sparkly pink unicorn class.

"Apophenia", or patternicity, is characterized by seeing patterns in unrelated things.

A near-universal human fault; some just have it worse than others. We've evolved very active pattern-recognition modules.

[Too Little Time]

Well, not all that different. Still legal, just harder to do in some places. The obligatory recognition of marriages from other states is very important.

And no, it doesn't go far enough, but it goes as far as a federal law can go. Going further would require a constitutional amendment to make it impossible to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, and that's in the sparkly pink unicorn class.

A federal law could be passed indicating that anyone issuing marriage "permission" (I guess that is an appropriate term.) must do so without out regard to sexual preferences. 14th amendment also seems to provide the required legal authority. But I don't have standing.

[Osborne Russell]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not a Consitutional Amendment. It prohibits racial discrimination in interstate commerce as an exercise of the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, provided for in the Constitution of 1789 and in force continuously since then. Racial discrimination burdens interestate commerce.

So does discrimination against partners in a same-sex marriage.