The Respect for Marriage Act easily accumulated enough votes to advance Wednesday, netting 12 Republican yes votes and putting it on a glide path to final passage.
The Respect for Marriage Act does not go as far as Obergefell : it requires that all states recognize marriages conducted where it’s legal, but does not require all states to grant same-sex marriages.
I assume this is the horse-trade that was necessary to bring in the GOP votes to get past the 60-vote filibuster threshold. Overall, the bill is a good thing. It clears up the legal ambiguity of the status of those who got married in a state where it is permitted, and then returned to or moved to a state where it is not. States banning same sex marriage are going to miss out on a lot of tourism and party bucks.
I appreciate this bill. I think it does make a difference.
IANAL, but “your state has to recognize all marriage certificates issued in other states” seems on absolutely rock-solid footing, while “you have to issue marriage certificates in XYZ circumstances” does not. Seems like a good call to take the rock-solid option.
I aNaL?
When does the full Senate vote on it.
Anita Bryant must be rolling in her grave…
…oh, wait, turns out she’s not dead, yet.
Another step towards taking this seriously:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Marginally better than nothing. Hopefully it has a provision to stop Y’all Queda states from retrospectively canceling same-sex marriage certificates they’ve already issued, because that for sure is coming.
Small government my ass.
This is a great advance. Has the house passed the same measure? When does it go to the President?
It’s not OK to be gay, but it is OK to be a divorced 2x bankrupt.
Per wikipedia
Though the campaign ended successfully with a 69% majority vote to repeal the ordinance on June 7, 1977 (Dade County restored the ordinance in 1998), it permanently damaged her public image, and her contract with the Florida Citrus Commission was terminated three years later. This, as well as her later divorce from Bob Green, damaged her financially.[3] Bryant never regained her former prominence and filed for bankruptcy twice. She lives in her home state of Oklahoma.
There are a few extra provisions, stating that religious organizations don’t have to perform same-sex marriages, etc. so it will need to go back to the House, but I don’t think they’ll have problems passing it.
That is contingent on Obergefell being overturned before it can become an issue. At this point, only Thomas has shown any appetite for taking a bite from that poisoned apple. Most of the rest of the Justices seem to realize there’s no prince’s kiss to rescue them from their fate should they join him.
But it is still good to have a legislative backstop to Court decisions since we’ve been shown that the Court is far more fickle than they like to pretend they are.
If your church won’t perform a same-sex marriage, find another one that will. They’re a dime a dozen, and it’s your life that we’re talking about here.
On the whole, Democrats expand freedom and rights. Republicans take them away.
Both sides get to retain their brand identities.
At the moment, there should be zero of those. I agree that this is the horse trade necessary to make sure the fascist six can’t completely pull the rug out from under gay households but it still hurts my heart that we are on a path to saying it’s okay for states to outlaw gay marriage
I’m sure people can live without the great attractions in those 19th century states, like monuments to cousin fucking or the world’s largest pile of mountain dew cans.
This is a great moment for our LGBTQ2Spirit community. Congratulations!!!
I winder if this vote was taken before Nov 8th whether it would have made a difference for Barnes
“Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable—the art of the next best.” - Otto von Bismarck
I agree with you completely, and I think the 14th Amendment makes our position the constitutionally correct one, but the Sanctimonious Six would at best carve out a sincerely held religious belief exception and at worst say the 14th only requires that all married couples be treated equally, not that all LGBTQ couples be allowed to marry.
So we accept “the next best” even though it might require a lot of LGBTQ couples to have an out-of-state wedding.