r/MadeMeSmile
•
u/DaviJohnsYT
•
Nov 30 '22
•
5
4
10
1
1
YES (OC) LGBT+
/img/dr5hybicd13a1.jpg
[removed] — view removed post
577
u/Silversun5 Nov 30 '22
What’s the next step? President’s desk?
964
Nov 30 '22 •
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies240
u/str4nger-d4nger Nov 30 '22
Nah, let Mitch McConnell's wife do that for you.
*for those out of the loop, his wife is Asian.
116
→ More replies15
→ More replies111
u/DaviJohnsYT Nov 30 '22
I think its the house then the prez
I dunno I could be wrong though
→ More replies166
u/DragonMiltton Nov 30 '22
It looks like it passed the house already
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1172/vote_117_2_00362.htm
The next step is conference committee
Then presidents desk
180
u/EVOSexyBeast Nov 30 '22
It's got to pass the house again because the senate made changes. House will vote next week and president will sign shortly after. It's all but guaranteed law though.
39
→ More replies16
→ More replies14
5.4k
u/CrustyJuggIerz Nov 30 '22
Wait, interracial couples weren't listed before this? Jesus
5.2k
u/RandoRoc Nov 30 '22 •
There was a case - Loving vs. Virginia - that set precedence that interracial marriage couldn’t be made illegal. With the Supreme Court demonstrating that they’re willing to throw out decades worth of case law to overturn protections as they see fit, the legislature decided to act to codify the rights into law.
1.7k
u/soaring-arrow Nov 30 '22
VIRGINIA IS FOR LOVERS
the state slogan
1.1k
u/Scherzer4Prez Nov 30 '22
NO NOT THOSE LOVERS
358
u/soaring-arrow Nov 30 '22
For real that was the case til the 60s
53
u/hookydoo Nov 30 '22
Unfortunately not long after the famous case one of them died and they never got their happily ever after :(
49
u/Dadfite Nov 30 '22
They gave a lot of other people an opportunity at a happy endings though. That's a decent silver lining in my eyes.
→ More replies167
u/payne_train Nov 30 '22
I’m from Virginia and yeah… that’s about it. Honestly still this way when you’re more than 30 miles from DC or 10 from any other city across the state.
29
u/FireDestroyer52 Nov 30 '22
I'm in Virginia too. Charlottesville area and most people are very supportive.
→ More replies8
u/SACGAC Nov 30 '22
Richmond too... but yeah, all-sorts of crazy just outside the city as well. And it's definitely not NoVA.
→ More replies→ More replies242
u/John_EightThirtyTwo Nov 30 '22
Don't feel bad. The entire country is like that. People talk about red and blue states, but rural areas are racist, hateful, and backwards wherever they are, and they're in every state in the union. Some states just have fewer urban areas.
54
u/GeneralLynx3 Nov 30 '22
Washington State has loads of issues with racism, and it’s politically very blue. I grew up in the Western side and no one wanted to talk about it because it was supposedly an Eastern side problem.
I’m looking at you Issaquah!!!
25
u/anothertimesometime Nov 30 '22
Grew up in eastern WA and 100% agree. I wasn’t aware of it until I moved for college in a very progressive metro area. What’s worse is that it’s so ingrained that most don’t even realize they are being racist and have zero desire to change.
17
u/arelath Nov 30 '22
Never thought I'd see Issaquah mentioned here. But looking at my daughter's class, everyone is white or Asian. Usually a white father with an Asian wife. Our daughter is probably the darkest skin person in her class, and she's almost passing for white.
Issaquah is becoming more diverse just because the housing market is pushing tech people out this far, but only recently. People still treat Renton like it's crime ridden, but really it's just more black and brown. It's practically across the street, but I've heard so many people say how dangerous it is. I almost wish they would say that it's where the darker skin people live rather than "a poor crime ridden area." For God sake, most of the houses are still selling for over a million dollars, it's not the ghettos.
→ More replies→ More replies16
u/GORILLAGOOAAAT Nov 30 '22
I once made a wrong turn in the panhandle of Idaho and found myself in a tornado of confederate flags. Far worse than I ever saw in the three years I lived in North Carolina. The irony is I’m pretty sure there wasn’t a brown person for 200 miles in any direction.
12
u/Zombie_SiriS Nov 30 '22
There are TONS within 100 miles between the colleges, and the migrant farm workers. Racists are just stupid; Idahoans moreso.
89
u/OhDiablo Nov 30 '22
*coughcough Nevada coughcough*
Two major urban areas and the rest of the place just bleeds.
→ More replies88
u/tenaciousdeev Nov 30 '22
St. Louis and New Orleans are also little blue islands floating in a giant red ocean.
Some of the most conservative and anti-government groups are in very blue states like Oregon, Washington, and Colorado. It’s crazy when you leave the major cities.
63
u/WitchInYourGarden Nov 30 '22
I moved from a big city to a small one because the housing prices are so reasonable here, but it's crazy how casually racist some people are during normal conversations.
I'm already planning on moving back to a bigger city.
30
u/Funny_Nerve4523 Nov 30 '22
I know how you feel. I spent about 18 years of my youth in a southern state. No one was blatantly racist towards me but enough to be subtle. When I moved to NYC I loved it. I don’t regret paying what I did to live in a shoebox. I leaned about so many cultures. People are more accepting of race, religion, sexual orientation than people in small towns.
14
→ More replies11
u/atasteofpb Nov 30 '22
If you’ve ever driven down the 5 through Farmland, CA, it’s really obvious how red parts of the state are. You can’t drive 5 miles without seeing a bank of “Another Farmer for Trump” signs
39
u/golf_trousers Nov 30 '22 edited Nov 30 '22
You go outside any of the major cities in California and you’re in Trump-land.
→ More replies4
u/Mollybrinks Nov 30 '22
Grew up very rural, moved to city for a decade-ish, moved home, can confirm. Even growing up in small town, I knew people of the community who were terrified and seriously repressed. Lived in a city for a while where it was more acceptable and learned their stories, which really allowed me to hear stories in a "safe space" where they could speak and live and love openly and made some absolutely amazing friends. Moved back to rural and holy shit, it became more noticeable the issues and trauma. People here think I'm insane, but I make zero apologies for supporting anyone who needs the support and I'm not bashful about standing on my morals when the topic comes up.
5
u/lickahineyhole Nov 30 '22
Hey, I feel you that rural areas are racist. I moved from a city to a super rural place. Boebert country. I am seeing so many good people in these rural areas push against it. Have faith (have faith in humans doing the right thing) that there are good people everywhere. We just have to mobilize them to vote.
→ More replies6
u/ChubblesMcgee103 Nov 30 '22
Which is a damn shame too because I really like the idea of living in a quiet, boring, small town. I just wouldn't be able to deal with the right wing nut jobs around every corner.
61
96
→ More replies8
123
u/Pika_Fox Nov 30 '22
Codify some rights. Iirc this just means states need to recognize the marriages, but doesnt make states need to allow them to marry in said state. So still not what it should be, but better than nothing.
→ More replies41
u/ezrs158 Nov 30 '22
Yes. This, sadly, was the compromise that got enough Senate Republicans on board to pass it (along with some token protections for religious liberty). They weren't willing to make the federal government force states to perform them.
→ More replies6
u/lepron101 Nov 30 '22
Doesn't that mean that AT WORST everyone can still get married in Washington?
229
u/IronTangerine Nov 30 '22
I haven’t read the text of what was passed, but CNN reported that (paraphrasing bc I don’t have the article up) this just forces states that choose to ban same-sex and interracial marriages to honor marriages conducted by other states. Which is both great protection to offer and still feels to me like we’re just falling short of where we should be again.
114
u/Deucer22 Nov 30 '22
I'm no constituational law expert but my layman's understanding is that congress controls interstate commerce, so this is directly withing their constitutional purview.
→ More replies32
u/Beautiful-Musk-Ox Nov 30 '22
aren't they saying "it's falling short of where we should be which is that same sex and interracial marriage is legal in all states, as it stands it can be illegal in certain states but now those states have to honor OTHER state's same sex/interracial marriages"
42
u/Deucer22 Nov 30 '22
Sure, but Congress can't necessarily do that. So the wording of this law in itself isn't indicative of a lack of political support for federally extending those protections. It's just the most they can do, legally.
8
u/LoveFishSticks Nov 30 '22
Well they could make it a constitutional right, but I see what you mean
22
Nov 30 '22
https://westportlibrary.libguides.com/amendment
They didn't have the votes to pass even this bill with 2/3 of the Senate. They would likely not have 2/3 of the house. And then pretty sure we don't have 3/4ths of the state ratifying it.
This is the best they could do. And they're able to have it become law by the end of the year.
If a constitutional amendment had the required support (which I don't think we even come close, sadly) it would still likely take years to be ratified.
→ More replies8
u/OrganizationPublic91 Nov 30 '22
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Commerce Clause is the most wildly inconsistent thing that’s ever existed
According to the Supreme Court, growing a marijuana plant in your own home for your own use (medically) in a state where it is legal is interstate commerce
→ More replies→ More replies26
u/ZoraksGirlfriend Nov 30 '22
Currently, same-sex and interracial marriage are legal in all states, due to Supreme Court decisions. The law that was just passed will codify that all states need to recognize same-sex and interracial marriages if the Supreme Court decides to undo the decisions in those cases, like they chose to undo Roe v Wade.
This law will offer some protection to same-sex and interracial couples just in case the Supreme Court overturns those decisions, like many alt-right lobbyists want them to do. Even Justice Thomas, who is in an interracial marriage has said that Loving v Virginia (interracial marriage case) is unconstitutional and should have gone the other way.
→ More replies72
u/Iohet Nov 30 '22
If you can't pass the perfect legislation, you shouldn't pass up an opportunity to pass good legislation. Some people would have you believe that there is no value in compromise, but there's a reason the Green Party hasn't accomplished jack fucking shit other than giving us George W Bush
→ More replies43
→ More replies19
u/CircusMasterKlaus Nov 30 '22
My white husband and I had to have a very serious discussion about what we would do if our 15 year marriage was suddenly illegal in our state. In 2022. Absolutely mind boggling.
→ More replies85
u/redrumWinsNational Nov 30 '22
Justice Thomas is pissed , now he will have to divorce that bitch
→ More replies268
u/IAdoreAnimals69 Nov 30 '22
I'm neither American nor have any useful opinion on US law but the fact that 36 individual human beings voted against this just makes me fucking sad.
→ More replies33
u/thisisntarjay Nov 30 '22
It's important to remember that one of our political parties is extremely openly racist.
243
u/ddoogiehowitzerr Nov 30 '22
Damn I didn’t know that either, and I’m in an interracial marriage.
→ More replies136
u/DrothReloaded Nov 30 '22
Like you, it sucks I even have to think about this.
80
u/_Bill_Huggins_ Nov 30 '22
Why is this even a topic today? It's been over 50 years since the end of Jim Crow. It should be nothing worth commenting on but here we are having to actively protect something because some people can't leave others alone.
64
u/SenseisSifu Nov 30 '22
Right. It's only been 50 yrs. The kids of all those racist assholes are alive and breathing today
29
u/hugglesthemerciless Nov 30 '22
A lot of those assholes themselves are still alive and voting today
9
→ More replies72
u/David-S-Pumpkins Nov 30 '22
because extremists installed extremist fuckbois into lifetime appointments on the bench and they started blastin' precedent
→ More replies→ More replies14
u/InnocentPerv93 Nov 30 '22
In fairness tho, now you don't as it is likely to be codified. It all starts somewhere.
173
u/tiggertom66 Nov 30 '22
Both same-sex and interracial marriages were protected by Supreme Court decisions acknowledging their protections under existing laws.
This is to specifically codify those protections preemptively, because the Supreme Court has now shown that they don’t intend to respect “settled law”
It’s worth noting, that while this law is inherently good, it’s also flawed.
The protection it offers is largely redundant.
It requires that states must recognize marriages from other states.
This is already supposed to be protected by Article 4, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State…
While the additional protection certainly doesn’t hurt, it’s not enough to stop states from preventing these marriages from happening within their borders.
And so while it’s nice that a married couple from Colorado will still be recognized in Mississippi, a couple in Mississippi shouldn’t have to travel out of state to get married.
97
u/IKnowUThinkSo Nov 30 '22
While I’m with you, this is all the federal government can do. They can’t force states to change laws that apply only within their borders. I’m gay in California so my rights are pretty secure, but this will ensure that if I get married, it’ll be valid everywhere. It’s something and it’s really all they can do.
States have a ton of autonomy and this is one example.
→ More replies55
u/tiggertom66 Nov 30 '22
If the federal government can force states to integrate schools, and end policies of open discrimination like with the civil rights act, why can’t they do the same here?
34
u/Title26 Nov 30 '22
All the other replies to you are misinformed on constitutional law. The federal government can force states to integrate schools because it is specifically empowered by the 14th Amendment to enforce it against the states. SCOTUS ruled in Brown that school segregation violates the 14th Amendment, ergo, the feds can enforce it. Under current SCOTUS doctrine not allowing gay or interracial marriage is also a violation of the 14th amendment but the fear is they will go back on that.
→ More replies23
u/IKnowUThinkSo Nov 30 '22
I am not a lawyer, but I imagine it’s because marriage is treated as a state issue. You register with the state when you marry, not the federal government. SCOTUS can say “this law is unconstitutional” but only after they’ve been called in to make a decision and, even then, it’s only applicable as precedent outside of the specific lawsuit.
Obergefell and Loving were decisions based on current laws. If they said tomorrow that, actually, the Obergefell decision is no longer valid, state laws passed to specifically deny gay marriage would then be applicable.
→ More replies→ More replies16
u/Just_Another_Scott Nov 30 '22
This is to specifically codify those protections preemptively, because the Supreme Court has now shown that they don’t intend to respect “settled law”
Except this law explicitly does not codify them.
The law only requires states to recognize marriages made in other states. This law does not prevent states from banning gay marriage nor does it prevent states from nullifying existing gay marriages in the event that Obergefell v. Hodges is overturned.
Furthermore, the law does not explicitly grant a protection for sexuality. Currently the Supreme Court held that discrimination based on sexuality was the same as sex based discrimination. However, this interpretation can be changed by the Supreme Court at will.
A law ACTUALLY protecting gay marriage would explicitly stated that states cannot ban marriages between two individuals regardless of race, Creed, religion, ethnicity, sex, gender, or sexuality. This law does not enumerate several of these and the Conservatives in the Court will absolutely take that into account as they claim to be textualists. Even this approach would be flawed as the Supreme Court could rule that the Federal Government has no Constitutional power to regulate marriage within the states.
The only way to truly protect gay and interracial marriage is through a Constitutional Amendment.
→ More replies86
u/Guido_Sarducci1 Nov 30 '22
Nope, the Supreme Court ruled IR marriage was legal way back in 1967. But with our current member of the SC, many were worried that IR and same sex marriage were on the line. after the Dobbs ruling which effectively overturned Roe v Wade which was also was considered " settled law" as well.
53
u/PM_ME_SUMDICK Nov 30 '22
It should be noted that Clarence Thomas specifically brought up Obergfell as something that could be overturned. And he was co-signed by many right-wing talking heads who tacked Loving v Virginia on to that list.
→ More replies41
u/landbob11 Nov 30 '22
They’re all after the big prize: griswold v Connecticut. Which gives us a right to privacy. They need to erode Roe, Obergfell, and the rest to get to Griswold.
With Griswold overturned it all goes out the window. They can regulate sex. They can make cowgirl illegal. They can outlaw same sex… sex. They can make sex outside of marriage illegal. All of that was law before Griswold.
→ More replies6
u/Zantej Nov 30 '22
At that point it makes you wonder if they care about the sex stuff at all and not everything else a person could have in their home.
→ More replies14
1.0k
u/CryptographerLess144 Nov 30 '22
Very cool! Sure as hell made me smile
352
u/thebrittaj Nov 30 '22
Very cool but why the fuck is this even a thing that needed to be done?
154
u/CryptographerLess144 Nov 30 '22
Honestly, yeah. It’s a fucking bummer
→ More replies56
u/EmpRupus Nov 30 '22
Yeah, TBH, the feeling is more of a relief, that the SC can't mess this up now.
Since Roe vs Wade overturning, the general sentiment was "Don't take anything for granted. Shit can hit the fan anytime."
→ More replies→ More replies50
u/shawster Nov 30 '22
They are doing it to try to protect it from the Supreme Court which seems to be down to try and undo social progress from the last century.
→ More replies→ More replies107
3.3k
u/tyson_3_ Nov 30 '22
The fact that 12 republicans voted for this is both awesome.. and terrifying. It says so much about our society that getting 12 people from across the aisle to acknowledge a basic human right is a huge thing.
But, it is huge. And who am I to look a gift horse in the mouth. 🥳
465
u/cylemmulo Nov 30 '22
I’m going to be honest I thought there were a bunch of other things thrown in here that were giving reasons to vote no. But good lord it’s a short and concise bill
211
u/hippoCAT Nov 30 '22
https://pca.st/episode/b5b53fa4-bc8d-4fb2-b1ce-f67843d61cff
Opening Arguments did a really in depth breakdown of the bill
17
128
Nov 30 '22 edited Dec 03 '22
[deleted]
119
u/adamcmorrison Nov 30 '22
Funny cause Matt Gaetz said in a recent video that he wants to pass a law outlawing bills that have stuff crammed in them instead of single issue. Yet the hey vote against basic single issue anyway.
→ More replies71
u/Nolis Nov 30 '22
Hey this wasn't a single issue, they could be either homophobic OR racist while voting no to this bill! It included interracial marriage as well, I would like for the Republicans who voted no to have to go on record with what about this bill they were against, it would be very illuminating to get their blatant excuses for homophobia and racism on the record
→ More replies35
u/-Ashera- Nov 30 '22
Pretty sure most of them would be happy to admit they're against gay marriage. Their base would love them for it. Some might be against interracial marriages too but it's not cool to say that out loud anymore, even among their own base
10
u/Nolis Nov 30 '22
We know they're homophobic, but I'd still like them to be on record with their specific excuse on why they want to trample the rights of other people and which hateful excuse they choose to use to explain why they want to put their nose in other people's business to strip them of those rights.
Can they justify their hatred with an excuse better than it might upset a magical sky wizard
→ More replies→ More replies5
u/Taako_tuesday Nov 30 '22
my personal conspiracy theory is that there was some negotiation where it was agreed that enough republicans would sign off on the bill, and in exchange the democrats would force an end to the railroad strike. The room where it happens and all that.
323
u/DaviJohnsYT Nov 30 '22
🎉🎉🎉 A HUGE VICTORY IM ECSTATIC
→ More replies99
u/Apprehensive_Hat8986 Nov 30 '22
Momentous, vital, critically and ethically important. Not nearly as huge as it should have been. This should be unanimous in the third millennium. But let's take the win and be on guard
→ More replies99
Nov 30 '22 •
[removed] — view removed comment
214
u/tyson_3_ Nov 30 '22
“To be clear, there is no effort in Congress or the courts to overturn Loving v. Virginia, which recognizes interracial marriages, or Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognizes same-sex marriages. I don’t believe the Supreme Court would reverse these cases even if they were challenged, and I don’t believe it is prudent for politicians to imply otherwise in order to fabricate unnecessary discontent in our nation.”
I won’t even address the insanity that is the fear of religious freedom lawsuits. That has never been an issue and never will be one. To date, no one has been successfully sued in a way to restrict their religious freedom.
Clarence Thomas just issued a concurring opinion in Dobbs that expressly called for overturning the line of equal protection and substantive due process cases, including Obergefell.
People like Grassley who are straight up lying and/or feeding the misunderstanding and fear of people that don’t know any better… and he has the gall to call out others for fabricating discontent. Unreal.
149
u/tagrav Nov 30 '22
Chuck Grassley is 89 years old and Iowa re-elected him for another 6 year term.
→ More replies95
u/SushiGato Nov 30 '22
Iowa is so dumb that someone could run in 6 years named Charlie Grasser and he'd probably win.
→ More replies17
20
u/Azu_Creates Nov 30 '22
I’m pretty sure that republicans were saying not too long ago that the Supreme Court wouldn’t overturn Roe, but here we are. The whole “it will never happen here” bs is nothing but dismissive of actually legitimate concerns in most cases.
4
31
u/master-shake69 Nov 30 '22
I don’t believe the Supreme Court would reverse these cases even if they were challenged, and I don’t believe it is prudent for politicians to imply otherwise in order to fabricate unnecessary discontent in our nation.”
I'd pay to see someone spin his own logic here and see how he responds. We create laws for these things because we believe in them and want to protect them. If we shouldn't pass a law saying same sex marriage must be recognized because we can't imagine a world where SCOTUS overturns an old case, then we don't need the 2nd Amendment to guarantee gun ownership because there's no way anyone would try to take our guns.
→ More replies77
u/jdash Nov 30 '22
If you're ever in doubt about what they say, remember all the Justices that voted to overturn Roe lied under oath in the confirmation hearings by saying they considered it "settled law" and "precedent" which cannot be changed.
It's simple - they lie. Get it in writing and get it signed by the President is the only way you can be sure the Courts can't change anything.
→ More replies11
u/tyson_3_ Nov 30 '22
The Supreme Court has final say on all legislative and constitutional issues, including those that are co-signed by Presidents.
But, I hear you.
→ More replies18
u/cylemmulo Nov 30 '22
So what’s he saying? I’m trying to think what legal trouble religious people would be in. Can they like not deny to marry someone?
28
u/jpterodactyl Nov 30 '22
“It’s not under threat so there’s no reason to make sure it can’t be threatened in the future”
Which is dumb. Because, if you cared about t being under threat, you’d want to protect it in the future. And further, Roe was also “safe”, and we saw where that went.
→ More replies39
u/IKnowUThinkSo Nov 30 '22
The religious right likes to talk and talk about how making gay marriage legal will force churches to host gay marriages, as if I have any desire to step foot in a church.
→ More replies15
u/InnocentPerv93 Nov 30 '22
I mean many do. And also there are many churches who would happily marry them.
7
u/Successful_Ad8403 Nov 30 '22
I mean, they get to choose who they perform a marriage ceremony for. But you can always go somewhere else, or get married at the courthouse. Marriage isn’t necessarily a religious ritual.
→ More replies59
u/Md37793 Nov 30 '22
No one “seriously thought” Roe would be overturned either Chuck….and then what happened?
→ More replies18
u/pudgy_lol Nov 30 '22
Yes, they did.
23
u/Successful_Ad8403 Nov 30 '22
I’m honestly surprised at how many people weren’t aware. They’ve literally been talking about overturning Roe for decades. That’s one of their major criteria for membership…
→ More replies12
u/mathmanmathman Nov 30 '22
Anyone who was paying attention knew it was coming, but I think a lot of people, even leading Republicans, were surprised by how quickly it happened. Honestly, I think a few of them were looking forward to another election cycle using that as their rallying cry.
→ More replies→ More replies10
u/SupercarEnjoyer Nov 30 '22
To concede* a basic human right
They vote straight down party lines against some incredibly reasonable legislation. GOP voters should more cautiously research their local candidates (for federal office) in order to kick out the more dishonest and bad faith representatives.. we deserve better as an increasingly-educated first-world society.
→ More replies
499
u/manhatim Nov 30 '22
And Mitch voted AGAINST it…he’s married to an Asian woman FFS…if Clarence Thomas could vote…..
216
u/Cynical_Cabinet Nov 30 '22
To be fair, Mitch and his wife probably hate each other. They are both terrible people and their marriage is mostly a business arrangement.
96
u/Telefundo Nov 30 '22
I don't know much about his wife, but I can't imagine Mitch having a happy marriage with anyone.
→ More replies15
→ More replies23
2.3k
u/Potanko_Prime
Nov 30 '22
•
Considering I'm in a gay interracial marriage, I see this as an absolute win
478
u/DaviJohnsYT Nov 30 '22
CONGRATS!!! 🎉🎉🎉
→ More replies160
u/Potanko_Prime Nov 30 '22
Thanks! 3 years ago far!
→ More replies65
u/Amphibian_Born Nov 30 '22
Also gay, also interracial relationship, also 3 years, also call self potato…are we the same person?
→ More replies9
136
u/godspareme Nov 30 '22
Sadly this bill doesn't require all states make/keep gay/interracial marriage legal (should SC overturn precedent).
It just says that state and federal government must respect the marriage of couples who were married in a state where it IS legal.
Still a win because you theoretically can travel somewhere it's legal, become married, and the home state which (theoretically) made it illegal must respect your marriage. Kind of like where abortion currently stands... for now. Not a great solution but I'm surprised we even got 12 Republicans for this.
→ More replies39
u/regoapps Nov 30 '22
I'm surprised we even got 12 Republicans for this.
But I'm not surprised that none of the senators from the "Don't Say Gay" state of Florida voted for it.
→ More replies71
u/TragasaurusRex Nov 30 '22
I am in a white, straight marriage and also see this as an absolute win, I am just saddened it took so long.
→ More replies15
169
u/cookiecookiejuice Nov 30 '22
This isn’t over, I’m disgusted to say. This doesn’t stop the Supreme Court from overturning Obergefell or Loving.
This just means that state and federal governments have to respect these marriages as legal so long as they were performed where (and when) they were legal.
If the two decisions are overturned, states can still ban those marriages and then future marriages won’t be able to be legally performed in those states.
→ More replies26
633
u/left-of-the-jokers Nov 30 '22
Sweet... but for a moment I was wondering what happens to those older than 61 or younger than 36
91
u/kai-ol Nov 30 '22
I was imagining the most strangely complicated age discrimination policy. "Man, they REALLY want the 36 to 61 age demographic."
223
u/Mal-Nebiros Nov 30 '22
I'm glad it wasn't just me who read that as an age bracket initially
11
u/TanglyBinkie Nov 30 '22
Wait what was it then? I'm dense
20
u/Hingl_McCringleberry Nov 30 '22
The Senate Votes 61+36=97 Senate seats of 100 (I guess 3 abstained or "not present")
8
→ More replies53
u/Jakethered_game Nov 30 '22
35 to be president, 36 to be gay. No exceptions.
6
u/kaeji Nov 30 '22
Church-goers to 35 year old homosexuals: "Are you SURE you don't want to change your mind?"
→ More replies
128
u/Noblerook Nov 30 '22
Reminder that this had to be passed because of the real possibility that the Supreme Court was considering repealing protections for same-sex couples and interracial couples on the federal level.
31
u/omninode Nov 30 '22
This bill doesn’t exactly protect against that. If I’m not mistaken, it would still be left to the individual states if the Supreme Court decision gets reversed. This bill only covers federal recognition of marriages in states where they are legal.
Please correct me if I’m wrong.
20
u/0bxyz Nov 30 '22
Wrong. The bill requires the states where it’s not legal to recognize the marriages.
→ More replies→ More replies6
u/Noblerook Nov 30 '22
Correct, I think. It's kinda hard to see an updated version of the proposed bill, but my understanding is that states can still ban same sex marriage and interracial marriage if the Supreme Court removes protections. The bill really just ratifies the legitimacy of the states that want to keep those protections on the Federal level.
So if Obergefell v. Hodges is overturned, we'll still see states overturn human rights for minorities.
→ More replies→ More replies35
150
u/swennergren11 Nov 30 '22 edited Nov 30 '22
Early Christmas present for Clarence Thomas!! /s
→ More replies
18
u/Sorry_Masterpiece Nov 30 '22
I'm beyond happy this passed, but the fact it's 1), up for a fucking vote in two thousand goddamned twentytwo and that 2) more than a third of the senate voted against it, is a terror on a bone chilling level.
5
u/CEU17 Nov 30 '22
If it makes you feel better this issue wasn't really up for a vote since both interracial and same sex marriage are protected by Supreme Court decisions. This just means if the Supreme Court reverses its position congress has already taken action to provide protections.
267
u/DayOdd8171
Nov 30 '22
•
Who were the 36 bigoted assholes?
60
u/Six_Gill_Grog Nov 30 '22
16
u/inubert Nov 30 '22
Fuck you Grassley. We were one of the first states for gay marriage originally and you have to continue Iowa’s tradition of fucking things up for the past 15 or so years. It looks like even Joni fucking Ernst was ok with it.
Also, Inhofe is still alive?
33
u/bigpuffy Nov 30 '22
Lindsey is literally gay
→ More replies11
u/Geoff_12889 Nov 30 '22
But not married so he don’t care. And even if he was, he wouldn’t care (see Mitch)
7
u/ThePinkReaper Nov 30 '22
It really is a "who's who" of the biggest piles of shit in the Senate honestly
6
u/IMSOGIRL Nov 30 '22
>Rand Paul
"Libertarian" who wants to leave open the possibility that the government gets to tell people who they can or can't marry.
→ More replies→ More replies5
331
u/DaviJohnsYT Nov 30 '22
Maga republicans. BUT 12 REPUBLICANS VOTED YES WE ARE MOVING FORWARD PEOPLE KEEP FIGHTING!!
→ More replies151
u/well_shoothed Nov 30 '22
I'll bet you dollars to donuts all 12 have a family member (or staffer) in a same-sex relationship.
Hits different when it hits close to home.
Almost kinda sorta helps you prioritize and junk.
114
u/NotPast3 Nov 30 '22
Mitch McConnell to the surprise of no one voted against it despite having an Asian wife.
31
u/heff17 Nov 30 '22
Should've wrote an exception into the bill that specifically left him out.
12
u/NotPast3 Nov 30 '22
Probably would have welcomed that. They don’t seem to like each other at all.
→ More replies→ More replies6
u/well_shoothed Nov 30 '22
Turtle's moral compass is lower than an ant's nutsack.
Why the @#$& Kentucky keeps looking at that numbskull and saying, "Yup! Best we got! Sign him up for 'nuther go!"
→ More replies26
u/Successful_Ad8403 Nov 30 '22
Yeah, but I bet you tons of the 36 have queer family members too. They just don’t think they’re human.
5
u/yagirlsophie Nov 30 '22
yeah my first thought was "that sure hasn't stopped my family from voting to take away my rights every chance they get..."
→ More replies5
u/Jump_Yossarian_ Nov 30 '22
Rob Portman (R) was one of the lead negotiators trying to get Republicans to vote for the bill. Guess whose son is gay? Guess who opposed equal marriage before his son came out? Rob Portman.
→ More replies14
u/Bigdaddylovesfatties Nov 30 '22
John Barrasso (R-WY) Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) John Boozman (R-AR) Mike Braun (R-IN) Bill Cassidy (R-LA) John Cornyn (R-TX) Tom Cotton (R-AR) Kevin Cramer (R-ND) Mike Crapo (R-ID) Ted Cruz (R-TX) Steve Daines (R-MT) Deb Fischer (R-NE) Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Chuck Grassley (R-IA) Bill Hagerty (R-TN) Josh Hawley (R-MO) John Hoeven (R-ND) Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS) Jim Inhofe (R-OK) Ron Johnson (R-WI) John Kennedy (R-LA) James Lankford (R-OK) Mike Lee (R-UT) Roger Marshall (R-KS) Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Jerry Moran (R-KS) Rand Paul (R-KY) Jim Risch (R-ID) Mike Rounds (R-SD) Marco Rubio (R-FL) Rick Scott (R-FL) Tim Scott (R-SC) Richard Shelby (R-AL) John Thune (R-SD) Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) Roger Wicker (R-MS)
Herefrom here
25
→ More replies51
u/Doctor0z Nov 30 '22
Willing to bet 100% of them had an R next to their names.
21
15
u/PixelSpy Nov 30 '22
I don't understand the point of someone holding an office who just votes "no" to every bill that comes across their desk. It's like they don't even read it at this point they just reject everything.
I almost want to know the stats of what Republicans actually say "yes" to because I feel like it happens very rarely.
56
u/PedigreeWWEFigz Nov 30 '22
Why th was interracial marriage not a thing
→ More replies109
u/HarEmiya Nov 30 '22 edited Nov 30 '22
Because it was settled/case law. But seeing as how the current SC doesn't care about legal precedents or case laws (and because SCJ Thomas hinted at wanting to get rid of same-sex and interracial marriage next), dems decided to enshrine it in federal law. That way it's harder for SC to get rid of it.
→ More replies
11
u/InevitableAd9683 Nov 30 '22
I swear politics is so screwed up if I didn't have the additional context I would assume a law called the "Respect for Marriage Act" would be some kind of homophobic nonsense
7
u/DifficultyWithMyLife Nov 30 '22
Makes me wonder if the title was the only reason Republicans voted in support of it at all.
83
u/mraryion Nov 30 '22
My question, why did it even take this long?
128
u/Guido_Sarducci1 Nov 30 '22
Mainly because IR and same-sex marriage had been considered settled by the courts, until recently at least.
Edit: a word
→ More replies→ More replies86
u/cleantushy Nov 30 '22 edited Nov 30 '22
Congress usually doesn't bother to pass things that are settled due to supreme court cases. Usually the court cases stand on their own
The current supreme court has shown that they don't care about settled law and some judges have expressed intention to overturn a number of past cases.
So Congress decided to pass this bill to make it so the Supreme Court would have a harder time overturning their past ruling.
Previously they would have had to decide "the past case that decided this was incorrect/based on faulty logic". Now they have to say "the past case that decided this was incorrect AND this bill passed by Congress is unconstitutional". Which is extremely unlikely
→ More replies26
u/Hinote21 Nov 30 '22
Congress
usually doesn't botherhasn't bothered to pass things that are settled due to supreme court cases since the 70s.FTFY
53
u/Impossible_Series412 Nov 30 '22
Anyone know offhand why the no votes? They usually have some nonsensical reasons? Even the Mormon church supporters this iirc?
→ More replies54
u/KoreyYrvaI Nov 30 '22
I kept seeing elsewhere that this bill contained provisions which opened the door for States to not honor these marriages or something to that effect. The no votes apparently wanted it spelled out that the States could make their own decisions.
→ More replies33
u/pi22seven Nov 30 '22
I don’t trust state governments for shit.
You know who’s in your state house? All the crazy ass whackadoodles that can’t be elected to national offices.
We have less than a month to get all the important shit in writing.
→ More replies
10
68
u/paul-d9 Nov 30 '22
This is awesome but at the same time wholely and extremely depressing. It's almost 2023 and it's like the US is regressing. Taking away women's rights to their bodies, demonizing drag queens and having to vote on same sex and interracial marriage as if it should even be a question.
Like seriously, what year is it? There had to be a vote to ensure that two people of different races could marry?
→ More replies
34
u/jdash Nov 30 '22
Hate to be the downer but this is not the victory people think it is. It is a compromise and does not codify or make legal same-sex marriages. This bill ONLY says that if you get married in a State that allows it and you go to another State that does not allow it, that second State must "respect" the marriage. This is not a federal mandate requiring all states to allow full and free marriage between partners. Some people in some States may be prevented from marrying.
Why was this done now? Because of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which effectively said same-sex marriages were not recognized by the federal government. Clinton signed it into law. It was challenged to the Supreme Court and they ruled that same sex couples were not receiving due process privileges under the 14th amendment. Which states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That decision is what helped lead to the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision that guaranteed same-sex marriage in all States. This is still the case law, which means it is a legal requirement based not on a legislative effort - like passing a bill through Congress - but based solely on court decisions. As of now, everyone can marrying whom they choose which was widely celebrated in 2015 if you were around for that.
However, if this religious majority Supreme Court decides to overturn the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, as they did with Roe v Wade, then the Respect for Marriage Act comes into play. As of right now, it doesn't change anything. It is only a backstop if the Supreme Court decides to upend that pivotal 2015 case.
And again, if the Supreme Court does that the only people it will protect are those that are already married. It's more than just a little bit of a toothless law because legislation already exists for these "new" protections. States must already respect the authorities of another State in the legislative Full Faith and Credit Clause which states:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
If the Supreme Court overturns the 2015 law, States may pass laws forbidding same-sex or really any kind of marriage they would like to discriminate against. The only difference is that if you were already married and you moved to one of those States, you could not be denied visitation rights to your partner if they were in the hospital or have to go through lengthy probates in the event of death or any of the myriad reasons why marriage is more than just about 'loving the one you want'. It's a legal contract that gives you rights with respect to your partner.
This is a Political cop-out. You should not be happy or satisfied that instead of codifying marriage equality for all, these scumbags passed this anemic bill that doesn't actually do anything.
Some references for more info:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/29/politics/respect-for-marriage-act-what-matters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
→ More replies20
u/LadyZenWarrior Nov 30 '22
Yeah.
The media was so quick to point out that conservative religions were supporting this bill (the mormons, for example). This bill protects their tax status and allows them to continue to discriminate against lgbtq marriages. They supported the bill to protect themselves, they aren’t being an inch more progressive than before.
And there are a lot of states with trigger ban bills in place for same-sex marriages if anything gets overturned by SCOTUS.
So, I agree. This is a mixed bag at best. And a lot of work still to do.
→ More replies
7
u/PM_BIG_TIDDIES_PLS Nov 30 '22
I love this and am super excited this happened.
I do have a question, how is posting a Screencap of someone else's tweet OC?
→ More replies
8
u/TitsOut_4_TwinTowers Nov 30 '22
What's laughable is the 36 are obviously all Republicans and you don't even have to bother to lookup the names to already know.
7
u/DaviJohnsYT Nov 30 '22
Actually, one democratic senator didnt vote.
Yes, the 36 are all republicans, but one democratic didnt vote, which is scary. Also, 12 republicans did vote for the act, rather than against it like their other republicans.
6
6
u/evanweb546 Nov 30 '22
As someone IN an interracial marriage the fact we need to codify into law interracial marriage in 2022 makes me smile a little less. It should be a given.
66
31
•
u/citawin Nov 30 '22
This is not your content.