The U.S. House of Representatives just passed a bill codifying same-sex marriage into law in response to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling which reversed Roe v. Wade, removing nationwide guarantees to an abortion.
Following that controversial ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, LGBTQ advocates fear that same-sex marriage could be next, especially considering that part of the justification to remove nationwide abortion protections was because it is not "deeply rooted in this Nation's history or tradition."
Just a month later, the House has voted to codify same-sex marriage into law, but the bill heads to the Senate now… where it faces an uncertain future.
The Respect for Marriage Act
The Respect for Marriage Act passed a House vote 267-157. If it becomes law, the bill would ensure that same-sex marriages are valid if same-sex marriage was legal in the state where the wedding took place.
In other words, should same-sex marriage get overturned by the nation’s highest court, states that outlaw same-sex marriages would still be forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.
The bill would also repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a Clinton-era law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and grants individual states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
While DOMA has since been gutted and rendered void by Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015, it nonetheless remains on the books.
The Respect for Marriage Act may have an uphill battle in the U.S. Senate, though. It will need a total of 60 votes to pass.
A Looming Threat
Some have said the Respect for Marriage Act is an unnecessary response, arguing that the Supreme Court wouldn't overturn its own ruling on same-sex marriage after less than a decade.
But for many LGBTQ activists, the threat is very real. And they urge any doubters to reference the Supreme Court Justices’ own language.
The majority opinion from the court argued that “the Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.”
And in a highly controversial concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas opined that the court should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, "including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell” – the rulings which protect the right to buy contraceptives, privacy protections in the bedroom, and legalized same-sex marriage.
What is your take? Is same-sex marriage under threat? Will gay couples win legal protection, or is this issue destined to be decided by the Supreme Court?
Good. Whatever your position on the matter, this should have been done a long time ago one way the other.
And by THIS I mean certain cowardly politicians now bring forced to take substantive action in support of their position and not being able to hide behind the Supreme Court one way or the other.
For example you might have a Democrat politician that has a narrow margin of victory in his district to the point where he can't come out full and unequivocally for same-sex marriage, lease that position be use against him in the next election.
Or you might have a Republican politician whose personal view is same-sex marriage is okay, but likewise is he can't directly come out for that because it might erode his position.
In each case of both of them could just simply point to the Supreme Court and say, "Well, nothing I can do about it. The Court said it's all good and that's that. Can't blame me."
This is a game changer in that now it actually forces lawmakers to do the job they should have done, one way or the other, in the first place.
just as with roe vs wade blocking same sex marriage would set off a hornets nest that would work against conservatives, so back pedalling is happening to sooth those voters
There's also a BIG difference in the TYPE of hornet's nest.
Fighting to save an unborn life, as seen from the conservative perspective, is far different than interfering with two adults who want to do thier thing, so to speak.
All of the anti-abortion laws are political bullsh*t.. They don't care about saving lives. If they truly did, there would be exemptions for rape, incest, medical emergencies. Women would still be allowed to take medication they need to live instead of being not allowed to for fear they might want to get pregnant at some point and damage the fetus. There would be social programs helping single parents forced to give birth. Assistance with medical bills since childbirth isn't free.
No, abortion wasn't in the Constitution but neither are a lot of other things taken for granted. Women weren't allowed to vote originally. The only people who were, and to the best of my knowledge this hasn't actually been specifically changed by amendment, were white male land owners. So if you're a renter, too bad. A lot of things weren't in the Constitution because it was either accepted way back then or not conceived of. Ben Franklin wrote a recipe for abortion so I would guess they didn't think they'd have to protect the right for a woman to choose that from theocrats and religious zealots.
Sure, leave it up to the states to make all these decisions. Oh, but when the states wanted to legalize marijuana suddenly "It's against federal law!! Whaaa!!!" If we're going to leave things up to the states, let the people vote on it. Don't just let politicians pass whatever they want to pander to their party. Kansas is trying to pass just such an amendment which would let the legislature pass an abortion bill without letting it go to a public vote. Missouri simply passed it. Leaving it up to the states isn't working because they're not working for everyone.
Interracial marriage isn't protected by the Constitution either, but I guess Thomas can overlook that one, right? Since he benefits from it? That's okay?
Y'all are so full of double standards it's amazing you can make any decisions. And why are so many of you afraid of marriage equality anyhow?
Passed by Congress June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920, the 19th amendment granted women the right to vote.
And only to vote.
They remained chattel property under state laws until much later in the century... and could dragged back by the current Court.
Thank you for saying everything i couldn't articulate. Totally agree.
I do not see anything wrong with same-sex marriages leave it alone let people do what they want to do instead of trying to take control them I'm so tired of the government sticking their hands into things that they don't need to stick their nasty hands into it's sad we have gay senators and lesbian senators do you think that they're going to not fight for their rights you guys are funny and you got another thing coming well I see I'm our damned and I'm registered in Lawton Oklahoma I will marry same sex couples until it's not legal anymore
United States is rapidly becoming a third-world company.
Honey, we are a third world nation in a Gucci belt nock off. We are the only first world nation without universal/affordable healthcare, we are also the dumbest first world nation. We have the largest military on the planet, one that many third world dictators envy. Not to mention most third world nations are ruled by religious superstition and ban marriage equality. We also have the largest imprisoned population. We were there years ago. Y’all conservatives are pretty slow to realize it.
Robert James Ruhnke, all excellent points made, particularly about healthcare. Unfortunately, people make uninformed knee-jerk associations of universal healthcare with socialism, socialism with communism, and managed care with death panels. The third-world element is the quality of public education in this country. Growing up I had two friends who had emigrated from Germany. The spoke perfect English with no accent, and were about 2-5 years ahead of our our school systems in what they had already learned, and what they had learned, they had learned in greater depth and had developed some degree of mastery. For some reason, our culture seems to frown on intelligence and erudition, like America somehow runs better on brute ignorance. That's not working so well for us right now, with all the conspiracy theorists and political extremism. An informed citizenry of a republic has to consist of critical thinkers, not people who elect nitwits like Boebert and Taylor-Green. Idiocracy was meant to be entertainment, not a blueprint for America's future.
A republic need only an elite class to tell its citizens what to do. A Democratic Republic needs the elements you described. Though I fear ignorance was what some of the founders intended for a majority of the citizenry, while the elites had all the best education money could buy. Our Culture only likes intelligence when it designs things that go boom or designs the next fatty heart attack. 🤷🏻♂️
I used to believe that. Now it is painfully obvious that corrupt politicians saw '1984' et al. as blueprints for their desires.
Governments should only control civil unions, which are a state union and they should allow a union between any two consenting adults.
Marriage is a religious thing and should be under church control.
Marriage can be a religious thing or not. People can get married at a church or at city hall. So, please enlighten us on why the church should control anything, in a secular society?
And which church should it be Jewish, Hindu, christian, etc. and what if the people getting married are not religious...?
Having the freedoms to express one's own religious beliefs, is not the freedom to impose those religious beliefs on to others...
Therefore, I strongly support your right to voice your opinions; however, I vehemently oppose allowing any church to have the final say on who should be married to whom...
Our society is not based on religious doctrine, and if so, please consider some religion that you take issue with personally...Now, imagine, if large portions of your life including marriage was under that church,synagogue, or temple's control...
How would feel about that?
If you feel mariage is a religious thing, then you should get legally married in the church of your choice...But you seem to be confusing your personal beliefs with rules that should govern a diverse society comprised of differing peoples...
So, let your church control your marriage choices...that is your decision.
However, shouldn't other people be just as "free" to make their own marriage choices, just like you?
I see the minister of misinformation spouting more legal illiteracy! Again, take a history class! The first amendment says the government is not aloud to create an official church/religion, but the principles in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are based on Christian doctrine. This is obvious because the writers of these documents even said so on numerous occasions. History books written by Howard Zinn and his commie anti-American buddies say the things you have said. Way to go!
Hey look all a christofascists apologist. You do know you are the actual anti American dontcha? Hell what real American would even keep a last name like England, our first enemy? Yeah you are likely not even American by any real American standard as real Americans know what that only a handful of founding fathers were Christian, and the writers of our constitution and declaration of independence were not remotely members of the cult of Christ.
But keep going on about your lies.
One can be married by a justice of the peace. A couple is still legally wed, just not in a church.
It's principally a contract between two (or more, as the case will be argued one day) consenting adults. A marriage can be officiated by a church or minister, as we all have been empowered to do by ULC, but the license is from the State. And we don't have anything to do over the dissolution of said contract, it's handled by the courts or other legal dispute resolution.
Matthew, though I veer to the conservative side of things, I agree on your take on Civil Union versus Marriage.
On a side note, my mom's maternal grandparent's family name was Maestrogiovanni di Agnone, shorted to Mastroianni. They settled in the Springfield, MA. area.
There were marriages for thousands of years before venal priests and Popes turned into a pseudo-religious scam.
"Marriage is a religious thing and should be under church control"
"Marriage: noun; the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship"
I believe much of the disparity about same-sex marriage comes from the fact that the word "marriage" can mean a religious union or a legal one. Civil unions do not have the same rights and now that same-sex marriage is legalized (as in ALL rights are given), many states stopped offering civil unions. Personally, I just think about marriage as a homonym. The same word means both a legal union and a religious one.
Obergefell was a purely political decision since dems controlled the SCOTUS in 2015. I agree with judge Thomas that the court needs to look at decisions that were politically decided and not actually based on the Constitution. RvW was based on a lie, not the Constitution which has nothing about abortion, nor same sex marriage. This new law, if passed, it won’t, would end up in the SCOTUS and get drop kicked out as unconstitutional. You can’t force states to recognize (view as legal) something that is illegal in their own state just because another state said it legal! That’s just stupid! The dems know it won’t pass in the Senate, it’s purely political time wasting. So tired of this political garbage!
Sorry Mr. England,
But the garbage started with conservative republicans...
Clarenance thomas and the rest of the five justices should be impeached for lying to Congress as well as the American people.
"A person does not have the right to use another person's body without their consent" period
In other words, if a woman does not consent to being pregnant or giving birth then no one including you should be able to force her...
I and a lot of others are tired of this Christian garbage. If a fetus is a person then please refer back to the orginal statement
A "person" does not have the right to use another person's body without their consent period
States are not the arbiter of morality and should not be involved in decscions that do not effect the public...
Maybe, at this rate, there might be a Jan 6 style tour of the Supreme Court...These (5) justices have no right to sit on the bench on should be removed by any practical means neccessary. They are an existential threat to our country...
The Constitution says nothing about ammunition , it does not say anything about carrying around guns, it does not say that we our a christian theocracy either, it says nothing about a lot of things that you and others like you take for granted everday. .
Roe versus Wade was and is about choice and who makes it...
It sure is telling that with everything going on in the world today fetus, sex, and made up CRT claims is the best these right wing zealots have to offer...
People should have the right to marry who they want to marry (period) any infringement on that is simply a continued distraction because republicans offer nothing for the future...
This is just not sustainable...
Keep ridin with Biden dimwheel
Minister of misinformation, if a women helped put the baby in her own womb, then she made the choice to put it there. Changing her mind is murder. Do you not know what the 2nd amendment meant by “…right to bear arms” means? Sheesh, get a dictionary!
Minister of Misinformation ha, ha, that is a good one!!
Now, I know that you understand the english language....so with that said...
People have sex all the time without the intention of procreation... Not to mention that, consenting to sexual activity and consenting to a pregnancy are two separate things. Some people use protection or some form of contraception to avoid pregnancy which proves this point...
So, how is she changing her mind if she never intended to get pregnant...?
Your thinking appears real sloppy or intentionally ignorant on this point...
Your reference to murder shows how uninformed you are about this topic, so I take it that you must also believe that miscarriages are murder as well, huh?
Well, based on the current evidence, if you factor in fertilized eggs that fail to implant along with pregnancies that end in miscarriage, around 70% to 75% of all conceptions will end in pregnancy loss...
Are these "murders" too? How can the authorities differentiate between a natural or an induce abortion?
I guess you also belive that raped 10 year-olds should give birth even if they are usually not developed enough to do so? Is this murder too? What if the 10 year dies in childbirth was it for the greater good, you know, all part of gods plan type of schitck....
So, can anyone use your body or organs without your consent? If not, then why should women have any less rights to their own bodies than you, or even a corpse for that matter, because a person still needs to provide consent for organ donation...
Do you know what a well regulated militia is, seems funny how that part is always left unmentioned...Your the one bloviating about what is in or not in the Constitution...
So, lastly, please share with us what it is that you believe I have misinformed anyone about...Or are you just being cute with some kind of drive-by posting with little to no substance or serious thought?
pew, pew, pew...
The Constitution was designed to grow as the Nation matured. This "Constitutional Fundamentalism" being espoused by this Extreme Court is utter nonsense. Are they saying that the United States and its freedoms should have remained unchanged from the 18th century? Should we return to slavery and remove the right to vote from women and those who are not landowners? What is suddenly driving their perceived need to revisit settled case law? No longer is congress the opposite of progress - now it is regress: a sign of immaturity and fear. Perhaps these so-called Justices of the Court would prefer to return to the comfort of their mother's wombs? Is that why they're trying to protect the uterus as a safe-haven for immature beings?
Lol, abortion is not in any amendment! The right to vote is. Take a history class!
"You can’t force states to recognize (view as legal) something that is illegal in their own state just because another state said it legal!"
Not another state, but federal law takes precedence over state law. If there is a conflict, federal law is followed.
The Constitution has nothing in it about all sorts of rights and freedoms. Not a single word allowing for an Air Force, or police, or internet messaging or heart transplants. You must be confused... it's North Korea/Russia/China etc. where everything is banned unless spelled out as explicitly allowed.
First and foremost, if a state passes a law discriminating against a same gendered couples, or groups it would be overturned in the SCOTUS. If the SCOTUS ever upheld a law like this, it would be unconstitutional and we would know we no longer have equal justice for all. Neither the court nor the government have jurisdiction over the relationships between consenting adults; this includes how many spouses they may have. Second, the case would never reach the high court. Even the evangelical christians know it's a constitutionally protected right, which is why they would never take the issue to the SCOTUS. So, don't worry about the SCOTUS, they'll do the right thing.
The right thing is to ban Homosexual unions. God does not like them, he says so throughout the bible but you wanna force him to bless them ? Are you crazy ?
Just because your bronze-age imaginary friend says so? Nope!
I love how the same group is always on here using the same two things to hate on gay marriage. You religious does NOT dictate my life. As to the constitution, it was written by a bunch of atheists and didn’t include a LOT of things that we have today. But hey, let’s keep using the same tires lines. Grow up already and let people live. And incidentally, marriage is older the Christianity.
It amazes me to see so many illiberal comments here. I would hope this church could be a refuge for all people. People ask me to perform their marriage ceremonies specifically because I officiate marriages involving people of all genders and have since long before they were officially recognized by the state. People have rights to civil or legal marriage of their choosing. If it isn’t your ceremony, stay in your lane. People who don’t believe in same-gender marriage should try to marry outside their gender, just as people opposed to abortion are free to choose not to have one. It really is that simple.
I agree with you; it is that simple. However, this does not control other people's lives so it is just too wacky a solution.
Same sex marriage has been around for a long time in some states and nationally since June 26, 2015 and the world did not fall apart. Same sex marriage has not taken away any rights from heterosexual marriage. Gay married couples just live their lives like anyone else. I believe that Clarence Thomas has suggested that same sex marriage should be overturned. He should realize it was illegal to be in an interracial marriage until June 12, 1967, when Loving v Virginia made it legal for interracial marriage. Therefore, being a hypocrite! If same sex marriage is overturned then so should interracial marriage. I believe that anyone should be able to marry the person they love regardless of gender, sexuality, and color of their skin. It’s no one’s business!
Yes. We know you are. Thank you.
Keep man's law out of holy matrimony please! Why is anybody ok with the government in our bedroom???
Some are ok with the government in the bedroom because it is not their bedroom. It is the bedroom of those they hate because they were born gay. It seems to be about exclusivity. They can do something an entire category of people cannot do. They LOVE that.
Shelly wrote a poem about marriage, which concluded with the lines “and thus marriage, with one's chained friend, or, perhaps a bitter foe — the longest and weariest journey go.
Google it to read the entire poem — and share it with those who might benefit accordingly.
What about the Senate?
SAMS ole' SAME ole' N O T H I N G !
My only concern about same-sex marriage was whether the SCOTUS decision was just and constitutional in the first place. Certainly it was just, arguably it was constitutional. I would think the 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments would make it constitutional, but I am not a lawyer.
Actually those amendments say it is a state’s decision since marriage is not in the Constitution. It can easily be argued that since the Constitution is based on Christian doctrine (as stated by the writers) that it is understood that marriage is between one man and one woman. None of this new age gender nonsense included either.
Hey Mr England,
See you have done that ole switcharoo again...
[It can easily be argued that since the Constitution is based on Christian doctrine (as stated by the writers) that it is understood that marriage is between one man and one woman.]
You can argue all you want this is a secular society where the goverment is not supposed to favor religion over non-religion and vis-versa...And marriage could also be argued as a civil right which does include the federal goverment to ensure that states honor those individual's rights...
Besides, what would be the states compelling interest to prohibit gay marriage?
Because christian values? Who cares, what about non christians living in each state... If you dont want to marry a man Kirk then dont...
So, why should other non-christians follow the christian doctorine...?..Think it through...
Plus, gays have been around for quite some time so there is nothing new other than just being more open and honest about their sexual preferences...in a "free society" right?
So, this country is not a theocracy, so your just plain wrong, there really is no other way to say it...
While so many argue that the founders of the United States were Christians and our constitution was based on Christian values, I beg to differ. Thomas Jefferson who was the author of much of the constitution was a product of the Enlightenment in which much of what was considered Christian beliefs were challenged by philosophers such as Voltaire. We are based on philosophy, not theology.
Well said, Susan!
Yea sure, lets bow to 3% of the population....I don't think so, don't tell me what you think is right or wrong, I don't care. There is a spiritual side of evil concerning Homosexuality, why do you think God says don't do it and try and stay away from it.
Well, I guess no one has asked the question: "if god doesn't like gay people, why did he create them?"
From what I learned, "god is love" and "love" is without gender, or parents wouldn't be able to "love" their kids who are of the same gender (as an example).
70% of Americans support marriage equality. 70% is a majority.
"There is a spiritual side of evil concerning Homosexuality"
No, there is an imaginary sky daddy that hates homosexuality.
Love is love and we all should be able to be joined in matrimony. If your a national this process is mute anyways. You have rights and the right to private marriage is one of those
No stop this same sex stuff and defend Christian family This is what The USA built on Christian morals the one national under God united we stand but we are the devil is making us fall Allowing This on going lg stuff on
Personally I think they just add more letters to make them self look better which a pastor picked out. Some letters mean the same . God coming back soon I fill sorry for you all