BarryLaverty Posted November 17, 2022 Share Posted November 17, 2022 It advances in the 'lame duck' Senate. Clarence Thomas was eyeballing it. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3738525-senate-votes-to-advance-same-sex-marriage-bill/amp/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osup116 Posted November 17, 2022 Share Posted November 17, 2022 As Long as you don't try and force a pastor to perform ceremony if it is against his religious beliefs . I don't care. I get the legal reasons for it. Just remember with marriage comes divorce. Be careful what you wish for because half your stuff may be gone. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted November 17, 2022 Share Posted November 17, 2022 This won't stand up to the court test ..... Violates the Tenth Amendment..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild74 Posted November 17, 2022 Share Posted November 17, 2022 God does not recognize same sex marriage, just as he doesn't recognize marriage between unsaved heterosexual couples, making a promise before God when you are lost means nothing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PepeSilvia Posted November 17, 2022 Share Posted November 17, 2022 1 minute ago, Wild74 said: God does not recognize same sex marriage, just as he doesn't recognize marriage between unsaved heterosexual couples, making a promise before God when you are lost means nothing. Ummmm, what does that have to do with anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBizzle Posted November 17, 2022 Share Posted November 17, 2022 Legal Marriage does not equal Marriage before God. As long as it's a legal thing and not forcing someone to participate, I got no issue with it. The government has no business in marriages anyhow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyZuco Posted November 17, 2022 Share Posted November 17, 2022 17 minutes ago, JBizzle said: Legal Marriage does not equal Marriage before God. As long as it's a legal thing and not forcing someone to participate, I got no issue with it. The government has no business in marriages anyhow. Actually in this country, while god may be thought highly of, our Constitution says the states are in charge of marriages and other such things, and that those must be reciprocated by other states. While I don't care who marries whom, as long as they don't expect me to come to their wedding or force me to believe in their beliefs, I am fine with them living their life like they want to....just don't expect me to give a darn.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
country Posted November 18, 2022 Share Posted November 18, 2022 Only if they chose to violate the Constitution. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. adding the simplified version as well The Tenth Amendment says that the Federal Government only has those powers delegated in the Constitution. If it isn't listed, it belongs to the states or to the people. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Rab Posted November 18, 2022 Share Posted November 18, 2022 I feel as if gay couples are protected now by almost every single state. Like @osup116 said above, I don’t care what rights our state gives them, as long as it doesn’t violate my rights. Also with @RETIREDFAN1 said, if it’s against the constitution, then leave it to the states. These new age Democrats keep trying to change things out of their control Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youngcoach123 Posted November 18, 2022 Share Posted November 18, 2022 On 11/17/2022 at 6:47 AM, BarryLaverty said: It advances in the 'lame duck' Senate. Clarence Thomas was eyeballing it. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3738525-senate-votes-to-advance-same-sex-marriage-bill/amp/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarryLaverty Posted November 18, 2022 Author Share Posted November 18, 2022 11 minutes ago, Youngcoach123 said: Is that meant to depict that the raping, pillaging, destruction of whole cultures and genocide from the conquistadors was a good thing? Is that what Republicans offer us 'savages'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youngcoach123 Posted November 18, 2022 Share Posted November 18, 2022 1 hour ago, BarryLaverty said: Is that meant to depict that the raping, pillaging, destruction of whole cultures and genocide from the conquistadors was a good thing? Is that what Republicans offer us 'savages'? I see you are up to date on your revisionist history. Republicans are not viewed as saviors to anyone. Some are great, most are dreadful. Can your mind only comprehend D vs R? Is that why every thing talk about gets turned into that binary system? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte1076 Posted November 18, 2022 Share Posted November 18, 2022 1 hour ago, Youngcoach123 said: I see you are up to date on your revisionist history. Republicans are not viewed as saviors to anyone. Some are great, most are dreadful. We shouldn't be settling for "less bad", though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
country Posted November 18, 2022 Share Posted November 18, 2022 lots of reflections in this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youngcoach123 Posted November 19, 2022 Share Posted November 19, 2022 15 hours ago, Monte1076 said: We shouldn't be settling for "less bad", though. Absolutely. The good candidates have to fight both sides. Which makes it hard to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarryLaverty Posted November 30, 2022 Author Share Posted November 30, 2022 (edited) https://www.npr.org/2022/11/29/1139676719/same-sex-marriages-bill-senate-vote UPDATE Senate passes bill to protect same-sex marriages Updated November 29, 2022 With bipartisan support and a 61-36 vote, the Senate passed the Respect for Marriage Act, which codifies same-sex and interracial marriages. Lawmakers moved forward with the vote Tuesday after securing essential Republican support during a procedural vote a day earlier. It now heads back to the House where it is expected to be passed quickly and sent to the president's desk to be signed into law. "By passing the bill, the Senate is sending a message that every senator needs to hear," said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., ahead of the vote. "No matter who you are, or who you love, you too deserve dignity and equal treatment under the law." The bill would require that all states recognize same-sex and interracial marriages performed in any other state. It would not require that states individually allow these marriages to be performed. The measure also would recognize these marriages for consideration of federal benefits such as Medicare and Social Security. Amendments to the original House-passed bill, led by GOP negotiators Sens. Susan Collins, Thom Tillis and Rob Portman, make sure that nonprofit religious organizations are not required to help perform a same-sex marriage. HISTORY Congress considers codifying same-sex marriage after long battle for gay rights Earlier this month, 12 Republicans joined 50 Democrats in a vote that ended debate on the measure, avoiding a filibuster, and permitting the legislation to advance toward a final vote in the chamber. It quickly became clear that there might be a critical mass of Senate Republicans willing to support the legislation, and party leaders held off scheduling a final vote to give negotiators time to find the deal, which they reached this week. The measure was first born out of the House this summer following the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson, which held that access to abortion was not a constitutional right. Marriage rights advocates and Democrats expressed concern that the reversal could call other decisions regarding civil liberties into question, including marriage equality. In his concurring opinion of the Dobbs case,Justice Clarence Thomas made a point to say that the landmark 2015 case that legalized same-sex marriage, Obergefell v. Hodges, rests on the same legal principles that underscored Roe. While no case challenging the right to marry has yet made it to the Supreme Court, advocates feared Thomas was setting the stage for Obergefell's reversal. The legislative victory comes as a surprise. House Democrats brought up the legislation ahead of the election with little to no expectation that it would become law so quickly, but rather to put Republicans on record on a social issue that has the vast support of American society. A notable number of House Republicans joined with Democrats to pass the bill, ultimately forcing the Senate to act on legislation that Democratic leaders did not initially have on their fall agenda. The bill now heads to President Biden, who as vice president publicly broke with then-President Barack Obama to voice support for same-sex marriage rights in 2012. Edited November 30, 2022 by BarryLaverty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte1076 Posted November 30, 2022 Share Posted November 30, 2022 Quote "By passing the bill, the Senate is sending a message that every senator needs to hear," said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., ahead of the vote. "No matter who you are, or who you love, you too deserve dignity and equal treatment under the law." Does this mean that polygamy will be legal, then? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
country Posted November 30, 2022 Share Posted November 30, 2022 The Lame Duck Congress is showing one more final time of how they have avoided the Constitution. The last big hoorah for many of em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarryLaverty Posted November 30, 2022 Author Share Posted November 30, 2022 4 hours ago, Monte1076 said: Does this mean that polygamy will be legal, then? Is polygamy mentioned in the bill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte1076 Posted November 30, 2022 Share Posted November 30, 2022 (edited) 7 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said: Is polygamy mentioned in the bill? Irrelevant. I'm going by Schumer's quote. Specifically, the part I bolded. By his logic, if more than two unrelated people want to marry, he should be OK with that, right? And who's to say they have to be unrelated? See where I'm going here? Yes, I know it's Reductio Ad Absurdum, with some Slippery Slope mixed in, but I'm doing it to make a point. The point being, his premise statement is very flawed. Edited November 30, 2022 by Monte1076 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarryLaverty Posted November 30, 2022 Author Share Posted November 30, 2022 9 minutes ago, Monte1076 said: Irrelevant. I'm going by Schumer's quote. Specifically, the part I bolded. By his logic, if more than two unrelated people want to marry, he should be OK with that, right? And who's to say they have to be unrelated? See where I'm going here? Yes, I know it's Reductio Ad Absurdum, with some Slippery Slope mixed in, but I'm doing it to make a point. The point being, his premise statement is very flawed. Blather...this bill was aimed at protecting same sex marriage and interracial marriage. Why didn't you throw in some nonsense about 'marrying a duck if you want to' or something else irrelevant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ObiOne Posted November 30, 2022 Share Posted November 30, 2022 Just now, BarryLaverty said: Blather...this bill was aimed at protecting same sex marriage and interracial marriage. Why didn't you throw in some nonsense about 'marrying a duck if you want to' or something else irrelevant? #virtuesignaling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarryLaverty Posted November 30, 2022 Author Share Posted November 30, 2022 1 minute ago, ObiOne said: #virtuesignaling #protectingmarriagesfromClarenceThomasandextremeconservatives, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youngcoach123 Posted November 30, 2022 Share Posted November 30, 2022 Include everything in the definition of marriage then if you’re going to change it. Polygamy, beastiality, etc., inclusivity is degrading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ObiOne Posted November 30, 2022 Share Posted November 30, 2022 Just now, BarryLaverty said: #protectingmarriagesfromClarenceThomasandextremeconservatives, actually. Oh yes. Ol Clarence hates interracial marriage Do you listen to yourself or do you just type directly from cnn close captioning? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now