- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Respect for Marriage Act passes House (258 to 169) - now heads to Biden's desk
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:09 pm to DoubleDown
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:09 pm to DoubleDown
quote:Yes, legal under the Obergefell decision.
Pardon my ignorance on the topic but don't a large majority of states already have this legal? What exactly is this changing?
This sort of legislation just codifies it, in case SCOTUS flips on its prior ruling. e.g. Roe/Dobbs
0
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:10 pm to DoubleDown
quote:
Pardon my ignorance on the topic but don't a large majority of states already have this legal? What exactly is this changing?
Or is it another feather in the cap of virtue signaling?
It's simply codifying it rather than relying on the supreme court (which could change). It actually doesn't even go as far as the supreme court did which made it legal in every state. This simply requires each state to acknowledge a marriage from another state.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:10 pm to Pettifogger
quote:The left is trying to to religion what theyve done to guns. Denormalize it, ostracize participants, make it difficult to perform, and chip away rights with incrementalism.
It's meat to the lefty base and a flex against Christians and the right.
One must be wiling ignorant, delusional, or have naïveté of a pre-teen not to see what is happening. Usual suspects in this thread.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:11 pm to Swamp Angel
quote:
Just out of curiosity - exactly where in the Constitution of the United States does congress find federal authority to define, recognize, or in any other fashion regulate marriage?
9th and 10 Amendments could be used to good effect to nullify this legislation if (when) it is passed.
This bill isn't making gay/interracial marriage legal in every state. It uses the full faith and credit clause to require each state to recognize marriages performed in other states.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:12 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
While the bill would not set a national requirement that all states must legalize same-sex marriage, it would require individual states to recognize another state’s legal marriage.
This is weird, as the Constitution already has this in it. As long as one states laws are not in direct violation of another state's laws, it is to be mutually accepted.
Since at the Federal Level, there is not a law allowing same-sex they are using Obergefell v. Hodges as cover. Should the decision be reversed, Respect for Marriage Act would be invalid in any state that bans same-sex marriage. Those states would have a direct conflict and Federal cannot force one state over other, unless it has a Federal Law backing.
Like abortion, they are using the courts as cover and coming up short actually making same sex marriage a legal right by Federal Law.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:13 pm to Taxing Authority
The hand-wringing over the RFMA is kinda silly. Doesn't codify what Dems claim, also isn't the threat the GOP claims.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:14 pm to BuzzSaw 12
It's been a long time since I saw anyone more in need of a joint of primo weed and a glass of sixty year old single malt.
Step back and R E L A X.
Step back and R E L A X.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:14 pm to BuzzSaw 12
Double post.
This post was edited on 12/8/22 at 2:18 pm
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:15 pm to DarthRebel
quote:
Since at the Federal Level, there is not a law allowing same-sex they are using Obergefell v. Hodges as cover. Should the decision be reversed, Respect for Marriage Act would be invalid in any state that bans same-sex marriage. Those states would have a direct conflict and Federal cannot force one state over other, unless it has a Federal Law backing.
Correct. I think it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 33 states that have laws banning SSM still on the books (which is why RFMA supporters are silly in saying interracial marriage is also being protected--the last state that had a law banning IR marriage was Alabama, and their last such law was struck down in 2000).
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:16 pm to Swamp Angel
quote:Obergefell found that the right to such a marriage is protected by the 14th Amendment ... both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, as I recall.
Just out of curiosity - exactly where in the Constitution of the United States does congress find federal authority to define, recognize, or in any other fashion regulate marriage?
9th and 10 Amendments could be used to good effect to nullify this legislation if (when) it is passed.
This legislation is designed (in part) to retain interstate recognition of SSM if SCOTUS decides to change its mind on Obergefell and Loving (interracial marriage). Of course, if SCOTUS reverses course on those cases, you will soon see judicial challenges to the RMA under the 10th, but RMA will be in place pending resolution of those challenges.
This post was edited on 12/8/22 at 2:46 pm
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:17 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:Has Congress ever passed such a bill for heterosexual marriage? And that isn’t all the bill does.
It actually doesn't even go as far as the supreme court did which made it legal in every state. This simply requires each state to acknowledge a marriage from another state.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:17 pm to SOSFAN
quote:
Sorry you got upset that I proved you wrong.
You didn’t prove me wrong. You were pretending the idea of marriage tied to the church only arose in the 8th century and later. That’s a level of dumbfrickery not often equaled on the interwebs.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:18 pm to Taxing Authority
Unfortunately it will be easier with Christianity than with guns, I think. It's amazing how broad the gun-owner base is. There is a huge silent swath of people who probably lean D, are secularists, are black, are women, etc. who get uncomfortable with the gun law talk.
The contingent of Christians and Christian churches holding fast to orthodox beliefs is shrinking and is increasingly being targeted by purported Christians/churches on the basis of social/political issues. That will quickly normalize the attacks for people on the sidelines who might otherwise be uncomfortable with the general idea of government/media/institutions targeting people of faith ("I mean look, even the other churches are going after them, they must really be extremists.")
But I 100% agree.
The contingent of Christians and Christian churches holding fast to orthodox beliefs is shrinking and is increasingly being targeted by purported Christians/churches on the basis of social/political issues. That will quickly normalize the attacks for people on the sidelines who might otherwise be uncomfortable with the general idea of government/media/institutions targeting people of faith ("I mean look, even the other churches are going after them, they must really be extremists.")
But I 100% agree.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:20 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
This legislation is designed (in part) to retain interstate recognition of SSM if SCOTUS decides to change its mind on Obergefell and Loving (interracial marriage).
Correct. From my layman's perspective, it's more of a legal backstop than a proactive codification.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:21 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:That is how I see it, and why (IMO) the RMA was not drafted to go as far as Obergefell or Loving.
From my layman's perspective, it's more of a legal backstop than a proactive codification.
This post was edited on 12/8/22 at 2:46 pm
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:29 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:I hope you are right. But i’ve seen first hand the open bigotry of ghey marriage advocacy groups.
The hand-wringing over the RFMA is kinda silly. Doesn't codify what Dems claim, also isn't the threat the GOP claims.
And the incremental push allows people to consistently say “it’s not happening” the entire time it’s happening. The left has used that playbook for everything from drag queen story hour, to taking over school curriculums for me not to be suspicious.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:29 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
and why (IMO) the DMA was not drafted to go as far as Obergefell or Loving.
Bingo. In looking at it, if they'd tried to go further with the RFMA, it'd have run into some plausible roadblocks.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:35 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Has Congress ever passed such a bill for heterosexual marriage?
Well there is DOMA, Defense of Marriage Act, which this bill repeals.
quote:
And that isn’t all the bill does.
What else does it do?
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:36 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
When you have the votes.
It's already a Constitutional right, whereas abortion and gay marriage never were. Why can't the left's new gay marriage law be used as precedent to make one state honor another state's gun laws?
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:39 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
I hope you are right. But i’ve seen first hand the open bigotry of ghey marriage advocacy groups.
And the incremental push allows people to consistently say “it’s not happening” the entire time it’s happening. The left has used that playbook for everything from drag queen story hour, to taking over school curriculums for me not to be suspicious.
I preface this by saying my personal views RE: sex/marriage in general are probably more left of center than right. I don't see the problem with RFMA--I'd have an issue if, say, hetero marriages were under threat of revocation/non-recognition, but that's clearly not the case. I'm of the mind that prostitution should absolutely be legalized, and the same with bigamy/polyamory. I suppose I'm less "conservative" and more "libertarian" on such matters. Two (or more) consenting adults want to enter a legally recognized union, I have no problem with an ostensibly free society allowing them to do so.
I draw the line at minors (hence my involvement in the other thread yesterday). Storytime in drag is inappropriate. So are puberty blockers for minors, sex reassignment surgery for minors, etc.
But marriage? Nah. That's not a hill worth dying on.
Page 9 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News