"... to help move it through the 50-50 chamber. In one of their first major agenda items in the postelection session, Democrats moved fast to enact the bill — which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal benefits to same-sex couples — while their party still controls both chambers. Should the bill pass the Senate in a vote that is expected after Thanksgiving, it would need to pass the House in its revised form before being sent to President Biden to be signed into law. The push in Congress to pass marriage protections came after Justice Clarence Thomas suggested in an opinion overturning abortion rights that the court 'should reconsider' past rulings that established marriage equality and access to contraception."
Why are they only just now getting around to repealing the Defense of Marriage Act? Anyway, it's good to see this happening at long last. Maybe they didn't think they needed to do it until the Democrats lost the House, or maybe they chose not to do it so that it wouldn't be an issue in the elections. But, really, what kind of people want there to be a threat to existing marriages?
And it's nice to see Wisconsin Senator — and former student of mine — Tammy Baldwin featured on the front page of the NYT on this issue, which I strongly support.
And thanks to all the Republicans who voted for this: Susan Collins of Maine, Rob Portman of Ohio, and Thom Tillis of North Carolina — the co-sponsors — and Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Mitt Romney of Utah, Richard Burr of Virginia, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Todd Young of Indiana, and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia.
Posts
60 comments:
Does legalize polygamous marriage?
John Henry
I'm trying to remember who signed that act. Clinton, wasn't it?
That was in the pre-transgender stage of Democrat policies.
Good. It's here to stay. Love is love. It is not mine to judge, and gay married couples deserve the same legal protections as any marriage. Nobody was going to challenge this anyway. They can enjoy divorce, and maintenance/alimony payments as well in equitable distribution states. Welcome to the party.
Let's not pretend a President Trump wouldn't sign this. He would.
Now do abortion. 14 to 16 weeks. Let's be done with, and deal with it.
But our establishment leaders are not that moral, reasonable, or brave. EVERYTHING is theater to keep us flipping each other the bird. That's how they stay in power. Divide and conquer.
Back Bench Baldwin actually doing something?
Ah..of course...
Darkisland said...
Does legalize polygamous marriage?
--
Boy, that could really rack up the bennies.
Now do abortion. 14 to 16 weeks. Let's be done with, and deal with it.
-------
Lindsey Graham tried, and people freaked out.
As it is, any federal abortion law is likely to get pimp slapped by SCOTUS.
Before the end of this admin, there will be an open recognition of poly "families." My guess is that the WH will host some sort of pride celebration with a throuple as very visible guests.
In other law news, Brooks about to be sentenced. Listen on WISN 1130 am
It would be a foolish for Republicans to spend political capital opposing this. The independents they need to woo broadly support gay marriage, as do a large proportion of their base. I have no idea why it took this long—there’s no political downside for anybody.
Before the end of this admin, there will be an open recognition of poly "families."
Yup. And the end of family health benefits through work, as currently structured. You (or your company) will have to pay a premium based on number of male adults, number of female adults of childbearing years, number of other adults who might be in the market for "gender-affirming care," number of teens of whatever gender identity as above, number of young children, number of current babies...
Dave Rubin and his husband seem to have a good marriage. Dave did surprise me when he told Tim Pool recently that he "had a baby". I'm not joking.
I mean, he never seemed to be showing.
Lindsey Graham tried, and people freaked out.
Of course, because rather than report it as protecting the right to abortion up to 15 weeks (which covers 90% of abortions), the MSM reported it as banning abortion after 15 weeks.
The left loves Europe, but not when it comes to abortion or voting laws. In most of Europe abortion is only up to 15 weeks, and no mail-in voting, results available within about six hours of polls closing. Here it's been 10 days and CA still hasn't counted its ballots.
"And thanks to all the Republicans who voted for this"
Lol. LMAO even.
Graham's stunt was to keep that blessed Senate minority. He likes his..hands tied.
Ironically, this will not be popular among many of the "migrants" Joementia is luring in and shipping around the country.
Before the SCOTUS legalized gay marriage, I supported gay marriage as something that as a matter of secular law ought to be the case, with large cut-outs for religious objection to a matter that ALL of the world's faiths believe is a sin (oh, yes, I know that liberal Protestant & Jewish sects support gay marriage, but these sects have such a tenuous link to their histories that it's difficult to see in what way they are still "Christian" or 'Jewish" in any way other than self-identification).
But that was then. Now the gay lobby has turned gay marriage & trans rights into a club with which to beat the religious communities, in spite of their fervent denials that this would ever happen before legalization. Some brave souls in the gay community, such as Andrew Sullivan, (himself a Catholic) argued against these attacks on believers. But he was far and away the exception. Major gay rights organizations, such as the Human Rights Campaign, joined in the attack, as did the entire apparatus of the cultural Left.
Prof. Althouse is herself a classical 60's liberal, and believes that gays rights and the rights of believers can be supported in some sort of modus viviendi just as so many other basic rights are in society. I no longer believe this. I believe that gay and trans rights are just another in a long line of weapons that the Left will use against believers in its struggle for societal control. I also believe that after the Left takes power that it will turn against gays and other sexual minorities, just as it has in every Marxist-Leninist state.
The Left has sought the demise of faith since its inception in the French Revolution. It believes in an ideology that will brook no other Gods before its God, the State.
A penultimate triumph for the sexual revolution, without which gay marriage would remain a non sequitur. But since heteros mucked up the field with easy divorce and contraception, we totally lost the understanding that marriage was first and foremost a way to channel the human sex drive into a fruitful end, surrounding any children of the union between THIS male and THIS female with guard rails ensuring that she would be raised by the male and female who created her. We have forgotten what a good thing this is. Don’t think this won’t have lasting, catastrophic consequences, this redefinition of marriage. It is now officially about the desires of adults, rather than the needs of children. And soon, like in 30 seconds, we will discover a “right” to children, the “ right” for gays to engage in subsidised surrogacy, willfully depriving children of one half of their biological heritage. Because love is love.
Dave Rubin did not have a child, he procured one employing a desperate, servant class surrogate. Ick.
I'm trying to remember who signed that act. Clinton, wasn't it?
That was in the pre-transgender stage of Democrat policies.
Obama didn't come out in favor of gay marriage until after his second election as president.
Great to see see the Democrats leading in a bi-partisan way. This is how to govern.
Very surprised that Ben Sasse didn’t vote for this. He’s out of the Senate in January.
"But, really, what kind of people want there to be a threat to existing marriages?"
Ahhh Clarence Thomas?
"It would be a foolish for Republicans to spend political capital opposing this."
How does one "SPend political capital"? And there is no such thing as "Poltical capital"
There was zero reason for Republican to vote FOR This. Basically, this is a big fuck you to the Christian Right, which is a Republican consitituency. It gains them no votes with Gays. And look it who voted for it, why its Mr. Mormon Mitt Romney! Gosh, we sure missed a lot when Mittens lost in 2012.
Now, personally I don't care about gay marriage. but if the R's want to win they need the Christian right, and the GOP establishment is constantly telling these people "Vote for us, but if want us to do anything for you, fuck you". Of course, if you like Biden and Democrats winning, keep doing this crap. Oh, and keep attacking Trump, because a contentious primary is the road to victory in 2024.
I thought giving McConnnell a majority was a waste of time, and this confirms it.
Serious question here. If one state legalized a poly marriage does this law for all other states to recognize it as well?
Serious question here. If one state legalized a poly marriage does this law for all other states to recognize it as well?
Most people either don’t get married or get divorced.
The DOMA was ridiculous. States had always been the ones who recognized marriage. The federal government had no business disagreeing with a state in administering federal benefits.
Surely there is a concern that what might be called the substantive right to privacy in sexual matters, a fairly recent discovery, can override the original rights in the Bill of Rights: speech and freedom of religion. If cake bakers can be forced to write words that somehow express gay marriage, can all officiants be forced to marry gay couples, or will it be enough to have a list of officiants who will? Will adoption agencies all have to accept gay couples? Will churches lose tax exemptions? The founders, who were often not exactly Christians, were convinced it was good for society to have a lot of religious people, freely expressing their religious beliefs.
The Court could protect gay marriage and/or contraception by Full Faith and Credit--laws of one state must be respected in another--or Privileges and Immunities--there are civil rights that are normal for Americans throughout the country. This wouldn't necessarily be the same kind of attack on religion as "all marriages between adults are the same as marriages between a man and a woman."
"Why are they only just now getting around to repealing the Defense of Marriage Act? Anyway, it's good to see this happening at long last. Maybe they didn't think they needed to do it until the Democrats lost the House, or maybe they chose not to do it so that it wouldn't be an issue in the elections. But, really, what kind of people want there to be a threat to existing marriages?"
According to your former student, there were not enough Republican votes in the Senate to overcome the fillibuster before the election. Which says a lot.
"Mitt Romney of Utah"
Already noted by others, but this I don't get. The Romneys are big among Mormons. Check out Palmyra.
Posturing and sticking to the Christian Right yahoos are more important than the tenets of his supposed faith?
Not that anyone pays attention to the actual Constitution, least of all law profs, but where it authorize Congress to define marriage?
"The federal government had no business disagreeing with a state in administering federal benefits. "
Cough..
And will Althouse support prosecuting ministers and schools such as BYU or Baylor for not allowing gay and lesbian orgies in the student centers?
Or is this the death knell for any religion getting to enforce any sort of moral standard on property they own?
how many ministers and priests and bishops who refuse to marry Steve and Bob will be jailed, and will Althouse care or cheer it on?
These are questions that are occurring with frightful rapidity in other countries where the State is arresting priests and so forth for merely preaching that same sex relationships are sinful. How much will Althouse demand for that to happen here?
clarence now wants to codify Loving vs Virginia 388 us 1 before they arrest him and Ginny! (you'll notice he didn't mention that when he spoke of looking at"all the other laws" after DOBBS vs JACKSONS WOMEN HEALTHS ORGANIZATION NO 19-1392 597 U S. Another bi-partisan deal with the Dems, chips act, infrastructure, Vet burn pits Issue etc. Medicare saving ,caps on insulin for all,and todays test vote before end of week for final vote. and more Ah legislation isn't that nice for a change and bi partisan at that. the good ole days! What was last McConnell legislation passed? ah yes reduce the millionaires' taxes. Very helpful. Sleepy, dementia Joe kickin it along Mitch not much.
“Maybe they didn't think they needed to do it until the Democrats lost the House, or maybe they chose not to do it so that it wouldn't be an issue in the elections. But, really, what kind of people want there to be a threat to existing marriages?“
Maybe the majority of Americans, who voted for Republican representatives? Otherwise why would Democrats fear the issue in the elections?
On the positive side, gay (male) couples don't produce children by accident. They are wanted and loved. Having children by surrogacy is something only stable, high income gays can afford. I suspect their children are better off than those being raised by single working mothers living in poverty.
Lesbian couples: "A study of families in the Netherlands indicates that children raised by lesbian couples 'do not differ in well being or child adjustment compared with their counterparts in heterosexual-parent families.' Among the most interesting findings, lesbian biological mothers were significantly more satisfied with their partners as a co-parent than were heterosexual mothers." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070928215535.htm
See also: Children of Lesbian Couples Do Well in School, Life
Lots of people screamed about the recent Supreme Court decisions but it looks like the court has returned the proper functioning to our legislative branch. win win
The good news is this achievement gives Althouse cause to invoke a student of hers.
Oh, the legacy..
Okay, how about poly? Federal benefits for Bankman-Fried's 10 co-husband/wife/whatever they were?
If not, why not?
I don't know who needs to hear this but same-sex "marriage" isn't marriage.
And anyone who parrots the catchphrase "love is love" is an absolute maleducated imbecile.
"Having children by surrogacy is something only stable, high income gays can afford. I suspect their children are better off than those being raised by single working mothers living in poverty."
Pretty narrowly defined spectrum.
But yes, it's all relative. Clearly.
Rosalyn,
There is one link embedded in your Fox link, which goes nowhere definitive.
Please advise..
Couplets will marry, but equity and inclusion is precluded under political congruence ("="). One step forward, two steps backward.
I don't know who needs to hear this but same-sex "marriage" isn't marriage.
It's a union of couplets, couples, too, and no other under political congruence ("="). The institution of marriage was chosen as a viable target in an act of social justice, social progress, and retributive change.
I've always thought the government should get out of the marriage business altogether and leave it up to places of worship or self-styled "ministers".
Marcus B. THEOLDMAN
Civil unions for couples, trans couplets, and other consenting adults. Marriage as an institution to celebrate couples with a forward-looking view to "our Posterity" in Constitutional law and evolutionary fitness.
Does legalize polygamous marriage?
Wouldn't be politically congruent ("="). Social justice, progress advocates and activists have a notoriously Pro-Choice ethical (i.e. religious/behavioral) bent. That said, civil unions for all consenting adults. Marriage to celebrate couples and "our [unPlannned] Posterity".
If this was the end of it, I would support it. But we know it is not. the slippery slope continues. And Ann supports it all
Now the gay lobby has turned gay marriage & trans rights into a club with which to beat the religious communities
They targeted Mormons in what was purely an act of retributive change for the democratic choice of
"People of Color" outside their community. Take a knee, beg, and we'll come for your children, too.
Read the statute.It's not long. It's a compromise. But 70% of poll respondents and a majority of Republicans support freedom to marry.
Or is this the death knell for any religion getting to enforce any sort of moral standard on property they own?
Supposedly the bill includes protections for religious organizations, schools, etc. Which is why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints announced support for it.
Interestingly, Mike Lee (and others) didn't think the bill included strong enough protections for religious liberty, and voted against it.
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, used his old "I support the law of the land" dodge, completely ignoring the fact that, as a Senator, it's his job to MAKE the law of the land.
Walter, thanks for bringing that to my attention. I had tried the link and it worked twice, and then it didn't. I don't know why that happened.
Here it is, copy and paste:
https://www.foxnews.com/health/children-of-lesbian-couples-do-well-in-school-life
"Posturing and sticking to the Christian Right yahoos are more important than the tenets of his supposed faith?"
Yes, why of course Mittens is supporting Gay Marriage. Its in the book of Mormon. Along with abortion on demand, which Mittens used to support till he was age 52. In fact, he used to brag in Massachutes that his mother had an abortion & openly supported abortion rights in the 1950s.
Of course, that's in the book of Mormon too. That's why Mitts not a "Christian Yahoo", he's a God fearing mormon who believes in the "Tenents of his faith".
Historically marriage was not about love, but building families and providing protections and tax advantages for parents that undertake the expense and commitment to raise children, something necessay to the perpetuation of society and the economy. Extending these to couples that can't produce children males little sense.
If our wives pre-decease us, my brother and want to marry. After all, love is love.
I see Mitt is playing the long game, if plural marriage is made legal then The Manifesto is no barrier to Mormons entering (again)!into plural marriages.
The Manifesto is no barrier to Mormons entering (again)!into plural marriages.
It was always a minority indulgence, inferred as a majority under diversity [dogma] by people with competing interests.
That said, the primary interest is social liberals who want to enjoy friends with "benefits"... a wife in every closet and underfoot, of feminists who think they can abort the baby, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and have her, too. Not every woman is from Venus or Uranus.
In the early 80s, AIDS hit.
And hit my friends.
As I recall, if your love was hospitalized, you had no rights to visit.
You weren't family.
That was wrong and it set the stage for legal rights - the same as in marriage.
No argument.
But marriage is and was the wrong word to use.
Marriage already had a specific definition.
Civil union was the correct legal term for same-sex couples and should've been used.
You can say Hey, dude, it's over.
It is, but it's still incorrect.
Moreover, it set the stage for the kind of gender re-definitions we have now.
Serious question here. If one state legalized a poly marriage does this law for all other states to recognize it as well?
No, it doesn't. It explicitly exempts poly marriages from being protected under the law.
Scott said...
If this was the end of it, I would support it. But we know it is not. the slippery slope continues.
11/16/22, 10:56 PM
^^^This
When has the Left, the coalition of social progressives, ever, ever, imposed limits on itself? When has it ever said, "Well, we won this objective, so we're done here"? No, with every gain, they revise their platform to ask, nay demand, just that little bit more..., and more..., and more.... Because they are a movement more than a set standard of values, and if they declare a target achieved, they lose their reason for existence: like sharks, they must keep moving to survive.
It explicitly exempts poly marriages from being protected under the law
No judgment? No labels? Political congruence ("=") giveth and taketh in a proud parade of bigotry.
Didn’t both Obama and Clinton say they believed marriage should be between one man and one woman when running? Then when the polls changed they “evolved”, and people on the left pretended they actually cared about gays.
Post a Comment