47 Republicans vote in support of same sex marriage

[Zincwarrior]

It also codifies interracial marriage, just in case.

 

[OKTexas]

We must stop picking each other apart... its what the powers want us to do....

"Committed relationships are not a problem"​

I agree... I don't care who marries who...
The bill passed so why even write a story like this?...
They don't when its the other way around....
What 47 republicans did was to appease their voters but they knew the bill would still pass....
These kinds of stories are harming us by creating anger and division between us....
Which the media and a whole lot of democrat and liberals here want to see....


From the link....
House-passed legislation codifying protections for same-sex marriage is dividing Republican lawmakers in Congress after support for marriage equality hit a record high last month.
Forty-seven out of 211 House Republicans voted for the bill on Tuesday, which Democrats brought forward amid fears the Supreme Court will overturn its 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage as it did for abortion rights.

Division is the whole point, there's an election coming up. They're trying to piss people off thinking it will gain them votes.

.

 

[MAGA Macho Man]

It also codifies interracial marriage, just in case.

That's something that should be outlawed like it was before. There's no sense in Whites having their genes contaminated.

 

[OKTexas]

I'll still point out that if Republicans were in charge...gay marriage would be history...kinda like abortion

That's because the feds have no more constitutional authority over marriage than the did abortion. It's just that simple.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Everybody has an angle and a position to run up the flag pole and see if it waves. I think they are pretty serious about wanting to keep the right or have the right to marry who they please and want to make sure it is law before the midterm elections. If they have time, they'll probably protect interracial marriage also, as the Supremes could do away with that too, on the same reasoning, if they choose to hear a case. It's not like people have a right to privacy or something.

Wrong, this court will not even entertain the reversal of interracial marriage because it was correctly decided as discriminatory.

.

 

[Zincwarrior]

That's because the feds have no more constitutional authority over marriage than the did abortion. It's just that simple.

.

With the exception that state's must respect the actions of other states - in this instance marriages. The law merely confirms that for both SSM and interracial marriage.

 

[OKTexas]

This is why the fucking democrats will get their asses handed to them in November.

We have:

1. Record high inflation
2. Record high gas prices
3. Record high home prices with record low mortgage numbers
4. Record high mortgage rates
5. Record high vehicle repo's
6. Record high crime
7. Record high illegal border crossings
8. Record low number of new vehicles available
9. Record high food prices


And what bills do democrats pass? FUCKING GAY MARRAIGE.

Oh yea, November is gonna be a fun one.....

Mortgage rates are no where near record highs.
This is not the mortgage rate thread or any economic thread. Stay on topic. White 6.



.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Wrong, this court will not even entertain the reversal of interracial marriage because it was correctly decided as discriminatory.

.

As were bans on same sex marriage

 

[OKTexas]

With the exception that state's must respect the actions of other states - in this instance marriages. The law merely confirms that for both SSM and interracial marriage.

Oh, like they do with concealed carry licenses? LMAO

.

 

[sartre play]

This is a new thing with more main line young people. I wonder why,
The vile hate Americans throw at each other?
Fighting over who & how schools are run, NOT KNOWING if your going to get shot if you go to school?
a return to the 1850s, civil war isolationism secede from the union.?
virus + fight over it.?
must be hell to be half grown & not know where you belong.

 

[OKTexas]

As were bans on same sex marriage

Not true, gay men and women were treated just like every other man and woman in the country, they were free to marry anyone of the opposite sex they chose. And many did. Faghadist demanded to be treated differently with no foundation in the Constitution, law or tradition.

.

 

[Zincwarrior]

That was the same argument against interracial marriage.

 

[OKTexas]

That is opinion. Sure, I support it, but still just opinion, not rooted in established codified law, just like Roe, so it is possible for the court to yield to conservative bigoted politics, like it or not. Then the cry would be, it is a state thing, and should be decided in the states. Without a legislated legal code, who could object to that logic? Nothing of this nature us cut in stone anymore as this court has shown a willingness to go for a reset, pitching it back to the states to possibly be fought out in 50 different legislatures.

Actually it is codified in law, civil rights law. You can't discriminate based on race.

.

 

[Lastamender]

Republicans Squeezed Over Same-Sex Marriage Protections

GOP senators are dodging the question of whether to codify protections for marriage equality following the Supreme Court ruling overturning abortion rights.

www.huffpost.com

Republicans are out of step with the nation and catering to their homophobic base

They have that right. Get over it.

 

[Lastamender]

What ...25 years ago?

15 years ago?

Times are changing...too bad the GOP is stuck in the past

Times are not changing, morality is.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That's something that should be outlawed like it was before. There's no sense in Whites having their genes contaminated.

Holy fucking shit!! Really?

 

[Lastamender]

Holy fucking shit!! Really?

Find a safe place, quick!!

 

[MAGA Macho Man]

Holy fucking shit!! Really?

REALLY!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Not true, gay men and women were treated just like every other man and woman in the country, they were free to marry anyone of the opposite sex they chose. And many did. Faghadist demanded to be treated differently with no foundation in the Constitution, law or tradition.

.

Complete, moronic and bigoted bovine excrement! I compiled this a while ago and I find it hard to believe that I still have to shove it it peoples faces:

• When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are, in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.
  
  In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.
  
  Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.
  
  One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)

Kitchen V. Herbert


On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It concluded that “[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual’s ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family.” Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013).


Two landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker v. Nelson ( which was overturned by the Obergefell decision) is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (pg. 17)

Windsor is the other case referred to above

DOMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages . . . .” Id. The statute “undermine[d] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by telling “those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.” Id (pg.21)

It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:

The Turner Court’s description of the “important attributes of marriage [that] remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life,” 482 U.S. at 95, is relevant to the case at bar: First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment…………. (pg 29)


We must reject appellants’ efforts to downplay the importance of the personal elements inherent in the institution of marriage, which they contend are “not the principal interests the State pursues by regulating marriage.”

We nonetheless agree with plaintiffs that in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right. See De Leon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *58-59


A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision” (quotations omitted)). “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Pg.37)
In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Find a safe place, quick!!

I am in a safe place. The modern world surounded by loving and rational people. Where are you?