House to vote on same-sex marriage, push back against court

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

https://news.yahoo.com/house-vote-same-sex-marriage-040638491.html


Associated Press
House to vote on same-sex marriage, push back against court

FILE - House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., leads a hearing on the future of abortion rights following the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court, at the Capitol in Washington, July 14, 2022. The House is set to vote to protect same-sex and interracial marriages, a direct confrontation with the Supreme Court, whose conservative majority in overturning Roe v. Wade abortion access signaled that other rights enjoyed by countless Americans may be in jeopardy. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File) (ASSOCIATED PRESS)
More
LISA MASCARO
Mon, July 18, 2022 at 11:06 PM
In this article:

Jerry Nadler
American politician

Samuel Alito
Samuel Alito
US Supreme Court justice since 2006 (born 1950)
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House is set to vote to protect same-sex and interracial marriages, a direct confrontation with the Supreme Court, whose conservative majority in overturning Roe v. Wade abortion access has sparked concerns that other rights enjoyed by countless Americans may be in jeopardy.

Tuesday's vote in the House is part political strategy setting up an election-year roll call that will force all lawmakers, Republicans and Democrats, to go on the record with their views on the high-profile social issue. It's also part of the legislative branch asserting its authority, pushing back against an aggressive court that appears intent on revisiting many settled U.S. laws.

“As this Court may take aim at other fundamental rights, we cannot sit idly by," Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement.

While the Respect for Marriage Act is expected to pass the House, it is almost certain to stall in the Senate, where most Republicans would surely block it. It's one of several bills, including those enshrining abortion access, that Democrats are pushing to confront the court's conservative majority. Another bill, guaranteeing access to contraceptive services, is set for a vote later this week.

The Respect for Marriage Act would repeal a leftover law still on the books from the Clinton era that defines marriage as a heterogeneous relationship between man and woman. It would also provide legal protections for interracial marriages by prohibiting any state from denying out-of-state marriage licenses and benefits on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity or national origin.

The 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act, had basically been sidelined by Obama-era court rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, which established the rights of same-sex couples to marry nationwide, a landmark case for gay rights.

But last month, in doing away with the Roe v. Wade constitutional right to an abortion, the conservative court majority put in place during the Trump era left critics concerned there may be more to come.

In writing for the majority overturning Roe, Justice Samuel Alito argued for a more narrow interpretation of the rights guaranteed to Americans, saying the right to an abortion is not spelled out in the Constitution.

"We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion,” Alito wrote.

In a concurring opinion, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas went further, saying other rulings similar to Roe, including those around same-sex marriage and the right for couples to use contraception, should be reconsidered.

While Alito insisted in the majority opinion that “this decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” others have taken notice.

Jim Obergefell, the plaintiff in the landmark ruling legalizing same-sex marriage and now running as a Democrat for the Ohio House, said after the court's ruling on abortion, "When we lose one right that we have relied on and enjoyed, other rights are at risk.”

I tell you, one and all - that this political party(the lovers of perverseness and evil) is not only a champion of darkness, stupidity, perverseness but also a party that so adamantly stands against this nation, its Constitution and our freedoms.
The party that has spent at least 5 decades now brainwashing our kids and grandkids by way of its liberally, socialistic and very manipulative designed public education system.
If this nation falls, it will be because of that imho.
History clearly shows us that the mighty Roman empire fell because of the massive decay from within.
The same kind of decay(and advancement of darkness and stupidity) that we now see the dem party has promoted since the 1960's..
A true enemy of this nation == the leftist inspired, totally corrupted , American Dem party. A fact...- :saluting2:-Tyr

[Gunny]

Interesting, depending on the view of the court. There is no Constitutional Right to marriage at all. Marriage is a State-run deal.

So the House is set to codify same-sex and interracial (how archaic, the latter:rolleyes:) just "marriage" period? Discriminatory. It definitely would open a HUGE can of worms insofar as the industry state-run marriage is concerned.

My guess is we're going to see a lot of crap like this that'll go nowhere. It'll put Republicans on record and the Dems will rev up their propaganda machine in their desperate bid for votes.

[BoogyMan]

What I read here is that Nadler is running an influence operation. He is holding hearings on straw men and nothing more. They are pushing back against things the court has not done anything about or changed.

Nadler lies like a cheap rug.

[Gunny]

What I read here is that Nadler is running an influence operation. He is holding hearings on straw men and nothing more. They are pushing back against things the court has not done anything about or changed.

Nadler lies like a cheap rug.Everything the left sensationalizes is pretty-much strawman. They invent the fear of whatever, spread it whil promising only they care and will fix it. This is more of the same.

[revelarts]

47 Republicans supporting it.

Stuff like this is why I never claim either party as a friend or supporter.
And we just have to ask which one is less bad today?
Or which one is actually doing something decent?

And OH YEAH which 3rd party or "fringe" candidates might actually move the needle in the right direction. And make the RNC & DNC piss their pants.

[fj1200]

47 Republicans supporting it.

Good. Should be more. It's a small government position.

[revelarts]

Good. Should be more. It's a small government position.

Small gov't would mean they'd stay OUT IF IT.

[fj1200]

Small gov't would mean they'd stay OUT IF IT.

Small government would mean that they'd stay out of it except for the 200+ years that they injected themselves INTO IT. Thus the recent actions. Look up "marriage" in the Federal code and tell me how that is small government.

[revelarts]

Small government would mean that they'd stay out of it except for the 200+ years that they injected themselves INTO IT. Thus the recent actions. Look up "marriage" in the Federal code and tell me how that is small government.
So making it smaller = ADDING NEW immoral marriage law to the already unwanted/unneeded load from the past 200 years?

[fj1200]

So making it smaller = ADDING NEW immoral marriage law to the already unwanted/unneeded load from the past 200 years?

A. They didn't have to add any new law; just make sure equal protection applies.
B. Small government folks should have been clamoring for removing marriage from the books for 200 years rather than being happy it was there and applying to themselves. Big government conservatism is an oxymoron.

[icansayit]

So making it smaller = ADDING NEW immoral marriage law to the already unwanted/unneeded load from the past 200 years?


Though I follow and obey the Bible, and our Constitution.

We need to accept how the moral decay of an entire portion of non-believers, ared also the same people who Intentionally FAIL to observe, or follow the Laws they claim not to like.
My reasoning is as follows. IF Someone says they do not believe in the 10 Commandments. They ASSUME that gives them the freedom to IGNORE our laws as well.
Just my opinion

[Gunny]

Good. Should be more. It's a small government position.?

Obviously you are referring to something I missed. I thought this is about the Federal government codifying Constitutional "Rights" that do not exist in a discriminatory manner?

[fj1200]

?

Obviously you are referring to something I missed. I thought this is about the Federal government codifying Constitutional "Rights" that do not exist in a discriminatory manner?

I was just referencing why I think more Republicans should have signed on to the bill. I do think the bill is an overreaction to Roe because apparently all "rights" are under attack :rolleyes: but it does functionally repeal a dead law (DOMA) and strengthen interracial marriage protections. But yes, I think it's a do-nothing law but sometimes that's not bad.

[Gunny]

A. They didn't have to add any new law; just make sure equal protection applies.
B. Small government folks should have been clamoring for removing marriage from the books for 200 years rather than being happy it was there and applying to themselves. Big government conservatism is an oxymoron.

Marriage is an institution as old as Man and Woman. My question would be: What is the State's interest in a religious union? The answers of course are personal regulation and accountability and money. IMO, marriage does not need nor require a permission slip from the state. Except the State needs to ensure one is taxed appropriately and not getting an undeserved (single people) "perks":rolleyes:

[Gunny]

I was just referencing why I think more Republicans should have signed on to the bill. I do think the bill is an overreaction to Roe because apparently all "rights" are under attack :rolleyes: but it does functionally repeal a dead law (DOMA) and strengthen interracial marriage protections. But yes, I think it's a do-nothing law but sometimes that's not bad.It offers discriminatory protection to only 1 or 2 elements of society.

If current law is enforced, there is no need for special protection; which, is what this is all about. The "Right" they want isn't marriage -- it's to flaunt their aberrant behavior in the faces of normal people. Just my opinion :)

Based on the throwing our of Roe, wouldn't that also throw back to the States any other law guaranteeing a nonexistent Right?

[fj1200]

Marriage is an institution as old as Man and Woman. My question would be: What is the State's interest in a religious union? The answers of course are personal regulation and accountability and money. IMO, marriage does not need nor require a permission slip from the state. Except the State needs to ensure one is taxed appropriately and not getting an undeserved (single people) "perks":rolleyes:

I've asked that many a time here.


It offers discriminatory protection to only 1 or 2 elements of society.

If current law is enforced, there is no need for special protection; which, is what this is all about. The "Right" they want isn't marriage -- it's to flaunt their aberrant behavior in the faces of normal people. Just my opinion :)

Based on the throwing our of Roe, wouldn't that also throw back to the States any other law guaranteeing a nonexistent Right?

There were valid reasons for extending marriage to gay folks.

Lots of things should be at the States but state's rights are malleable these days; Each side gives it lip service when it serves them and decries it when it doesn't.

[Gunny]

I've asked that many a time here.



There were valid reasons for extending marriage to gay folks.

Lots of things should be at the States but state's rights are malleable these days; Each side gives it lip service when it serves them and decries it when it doesn't.You are correct. Thing is, there shouldn't be. It's going back a not-so-few years, but the biggest bitch I recall was "not having the same financial Rights as heterosexual couples ", the biggest culprit being insurance/who you can legally claim as next of kin.

My opinion is, as above, the States' are the bad guys. None of the above is any of their business as far as I'm concerned. Always about the Benjamins.

On the other hand, from the secular POV, a personal servitude contract between the two parties and the state doesn't require blaspheming the religious institution/term "marriage".

It STILL boils down to being recognized above normal people for aberrant behavior. I basically thing BOTH sides suck :)

We've become a nation of paperwork.

[revelarts]

A. They didn't have to add any new law; just make sure equal protection applies.
B. Small government folks should have been clamoring for removing marriage from the books for 200 years rather than being happy it was there and applying to themselves. Big government conservatism is an oxymoron.

Small gov't types should be clamoring for a LOT of things.
What I , as a small government voter, DO NOT want is MORE BAD marriage regs on the books from our corrupt perverted congress.
What i want as a constitutionalist is the Supreme Court NOT making homosexual marriage "equal" to real marriage by court fiat.
When marriage is not in the constitution. And homosexual marriage has NEVER in our history, or culture been considered the same a real marriage. until just a few years ago.
If the culture really thinks differently now let there be referendums LOCALLY or at the state levels. not federal.
As a local gov't advocate I'm in support of that.

What some folks want to do is to put a perverse minority view onto the rest of the tolerant but ultimately unconvinced public.
And asserting that it's for "equally" is not going to fly here. I'm done letting stuff slide by legally, or pretending that there's some room for compromise. Nope it's gone to far.
Others may not agree but that's fine.
But do not PRETEND that homosexual marriage is a FORGONE conclusion we have to allow for... to be fair.
LOL can we start a list of ways the gov't is not "fair"?

[fj1200]

Small gov't types should be clamoring for a LOT of things.
What I , as a small government voter, DO NOT want is MORE BAD marriage regs on the books from our corrupt perverted congress.
What i want as a constitutionalist is the Supreme Court NOT making homosexual marriage "equal" to real marriage by court fiat.
When marriage is not in the constitution. And homosexual marriage has NEVER in our history, or culture been considered the same a real marriage. until just a few years ago.
If the culture really thinks differently now let there be referendums LOCALLY or at the state levels. not federal.
As a local gov't advocate I'm in support of that.

What some folks want to do is to put a perverse minority view onto the rest of the tolerant but ultimately unconvinced public.
And asserting that it's for "equally" is not going to fly here. I'm done letting stuff slide by legally, or pretending that there's some room for compromise. Nope it's gone to far.
Others may not agree but that's fine.
But do not PRETEND that homosexual marriage is a FORGONE conclusion we have to allow for... to be fair.
LOL can we start a list of ways the gov't is not "fair"?

Dude, it's been decided. Once society says marriage needs to be on the legal books, and once a state decides that gays can be married, then it violates equal protection because citizens are then treated differently based on a societally non-critical characteristic. A different court might have decided differently but different courts have decided many issues differently. There were referendums and various states decided by various methods and society has decided that gay marriage is OK (https://news.gallup.com/poll/393197/same-sex-marriage-support-inches-new-high.aspx) and it will only grow in acceptance. Once that occurred change was inevitable.

Gay marriage is a foregone conclusion; I'm not sure how you see it otherwise from a societal viewpoint but how about we work to make things more "fair" as in a more perfect union. If it was my choice from a small-government voter then nobody is "married" by the government but is "married" by their choice. I think the outcome is the same. I'm not sure what your next step would be if you're "done letting stuff slide by legally."

[Gunny]

Small gov't types should be clamoring for a LOT of things.
What I , as a small government voter, DO NOT want is MORE BAD marriage regs on the books from our corrupt perverted congress.
What i want as a constitutionalist is the Supreme Court NOT making homosexual marriage "equal" to real marriage by court fiat.
When marriage is not in the constitution. And homosexual marriage has NEVER in our history, or culture been considered the same a real marriage. until just a few years ago.
If the culture really thinks differently now let there be referendums LOCALLY or at the state levels. not federal.
As a local gov't advocate I'm in support of that.

What some folks want to do is to put a perverse minority view onto the rest of the tolerant but ultimately unconvinced public.
And asserting that it's for "equally" is not going to fly here. I'm done letting stuff slide by legally, or pretending that there's some room for compromise. Nope it's gone to far.
Others may not agree but that's fine.
But do not PRETEND that homosexual marriage is a FORGONE conclusion we have to allow for... to be fair.
LOL can we start a list of ways the gov't is not "fair"?

The only place government at any level is "fair" is on paper, if they even bother with that. These assclown Dems aren't (bothering anymore with trying to appear fair).

People justifying their existence and paycheck at taxpayer expense by contriving dilemmas and throwing paper at it as a solution. Who'd have ever thought?:rolleyes:

[revelarts]

Dude, it's been decided. Once society says marriage needs to be on the legal books, and once a state decides that gays can be married, then it violates equal protection because citizens are then treated differently based on a societally non-critical characteristic. A different court might have decided differently but different courts have decided many issues differently. There were referendums and various states decided by various methods and society has decided that gay marriage is OK (https://news.gallup.com/poll/393197/same-sex-marriage-support-inches-new-high.aspx) and it will only grow in acceptance. Once that occurred change was inevitable.

Gay marriage is a foregone conclusion; I'm not sure how you see it otherwise from a societal viewpoint but how about we work to make things more "fair" as in a more perfect union. If it was my choice from a small-government voter then nobody is "married" by the government but is "married" by their choice. I think the outcome is the same. I'm not sure what your next step would be if you're "done letting stuff slide by legally."

Abortion was a forgone conclusion,
Slavery was aforgone conclusion.
Heck, heterosexual Marriage was a forgone conclusion,
with Bill and Hillary Clinton Joe Biden and most democrats for "traditional marriage".
and it had been decided apon in state after state before the supreme court decided it needed to Unconstitutionally rule on it.

FJ nothings settled or inevitable.
Stop pretending that it is.
No ones buying it.

[Black Diamond]

Abortion was a forgone conclusion,
Slavery was aforgone conclusion.
Heck, heterosexual Marriage was a forgone conclusion,
with Bill and Hillary Clinton Joe Biden and most democrats for "traditional marriage".
and it had been decided apon in state after state before the supreme court decided it needed to Unconstitutionally ruled on it.

FJ nothings settled or inevitable.
Stop pretending that it is.
No ones buying it.

Well said.

[fj1200]

Abortion was a forgone conclusion,
Slavery was aforgone conclusion.
Heck, heterosexual Marriage was a forgone conclusion,
with Bill and Hillary Clinton Joe Biden and most democrats for "traditional marriage".
and it had been decided apon in state after state before the supreme court decided it needed to Unconstitutionally ruled on it.

FJ nothings settled or inevitable.
Stop pretending that it is.
No ones buying it.

The tide of history is not the same. The tide of US history is towards freedom and liberty. Slavery is a crime against humanity. Abortion is a crime against humanity. Allowing a group of people to be looked upon equally in the eyes of the law is not a crime against humanity. And equal protection was the basis for the decision. Much more solid legal grounding than abortion ever was.

Maybe you're not buying it but the majority are I believe based on polling over time. Will be even more so.

[revelarts]

The tide of history is not the same. The tide of US history is towards freedom and liberty. Slavery is a crime against humanity. Abortion is a crime against humanity. Allowing a group of people to be looked upon equally in the eyes of the law is not a crime against humanity. And equal protection was the basis for the decision. Much more solid legal grounding than abortion ever was.

Maybe you're not buying it but the majority are I believe based on polling over time. Will be even more so.
1st.
People with Homosexual tendencies have all the same rights as others.
They can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want to.

2nd
Sorry I'm a wholistic (or obsessive?) thinker. I know others have been upset when I do this but we're talking about the constitution here right?
FJ From another thread being a stickler for the constitution:

....
NOW the 25th is relevant? :slap: Actually if it were just short term he would temporarily invoke the 25th, Section III....

So NOW the constitution and amendments are relevant? :slap:
But where's that same-sex marriage section of the constitution again? what amendment? :slap:
Or that "tide of history" amendment? :slap:
Or that "based on polling over time" sectionIII ? :slap:


Some things the feds have NO jurisdiction over FJ.

[Gunny]

Abortion was a forgone conclusion,
Slavery was aforgone conclusion.
Heck, heterosexual Marriage was a forgone conclusion,
with Bill and Hillary Clinton Joe Biden and most democrats for "traditional marriage".
and it had been decided apon in state after state before the supreme court decided it needed to Unconstitutionally ruled on it.

FJ nothings settled or inevitable.
Stop pretending that it is.
No ones buying it.Channeling Putin now? That's what he said about the World thinking the it was "settled" when the Cold War ended in regard to invading Ukraine.

Big-picture wise, I guess he made himself correct and nothing is settled.

Nothing will ever be settled in a (this) country as long as government keeps us at each other's throats over shit that means nothing to survival of the Nation and its people.

However, from a legal standpoint in a Nation of laws, once something is signed into law it is settled, or taken up the chain. It's not fair and it's never going to be. There's never a balance between tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority. But it does is give the bureaucracy ways to keep us divided while they go about raping the land and fleecing the people.

I'm fine with getting caught up petty-ass bullshit with ONE caveat: I never take my eyes off the damned prize. I don't see many who get that last part correct. They're too caught up in their personal crusades.

Look at who is President as a result.

[fj1200]

1st.
People with Homosexual tendencies have all the same rights as others.
They can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want to.

We're not talking about rights here. The Federal government doles out benefits based on the privilege of being married based on what the states say. Various states have said that gays can marry whom they choose (an aside that you get to marry whom you choose but a gay person does not?). Obergfell was decided based on Equal Protection. EP says that everyone needs to be equal under the laws and since the Federal government defined benefits by being married and that definition had changed at the state level then the Federal rules need to be equal. Constitutionally speaking I think the argument ends there. Your opinion may vary but make it a constitutional opinion. :)


2nd
Sorry I'm a wholistic (or obsessive?) thinker. I know others have been upset when I do this but we're talking about the constitution here right?
FJ From another thread being a stickler for the constitution:

So NOW the constitution and amendments are relevant? :slap:
But where's that same-sex marriage section of the constitution again? what amendment? :slap:
Or that "tide of history" amendment? :slap:
Or that "based on polling over time" sectionIII ? :slap:


Some things the feds have NO jurisdiction over FJ.

The Constitution is always relevant. How about we both point out where marriage is defined in the Constitution. I've already done it actually. ;)

Do you think slavery was ended because of an amendment? Was abortion a Constitutional right, and then not, because of an amendment? Do we have the same definition of cruel and unusual now or did that get changed by an amendment? Each of those were changed by history and changing attitudes. There are thousands of things that the feds have no jurisdiction over but magically they have jurisdiction over. Do I like each one of those things? No, but there are things that they have no jurisdiction over but they still need to decide.

A fun thought experiment would be to discuss what you would do tomorrow if same-sex marriage was overturned today. Are a million marriages null and void? Would you happily give up your marriage "benefits" so that everyone would be equal federally speaking?