Senate Breaks Filibuster for Respect for Marriage Act (EDIT: Advances 62-37)

[demmiblue]

The Senate has reached the 60-vote threshold to break the filibuster for the Respect for Marriage Act, which would codify federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriages.

Link to tweet

62-37: The U.S. Senate advances the Respect for Marriage Act, which would codify federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriages.

12 Republicans voted with all Democrats.

Link to tweet

[Pinback]

1. Wow. Historic.

Celebrating!

[LAS14]

2. Wo! Who'da thunk? But, maybe yeah. I mighta thunk.

The acceptance of gay marriage was one of the fastest, biggest changes in culture that I know of. Does anyone know of a change that was faster or bigger?

tia
las

[grantcart]

18. 2 days ago the Mormon Church endorsed it

No other change happened so fast in my life time.

[ShazzieB]

32. Wow, really?

That's wonderful!

[grantcart]

33. Per Axios. Lost in the election results Romney voted for it

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. How many of the Republican votes are retiring? Either now or 2024? Nt

[SergeStorms]

69. Therein lies the rub.

You can bet nearly all - if not all - aren't going to be legislators come 2023.

This time the calendar acted as their spines. The republican party didn't develop 12 heroes overnight.

[Hekate]

4. The fact that they felt they had to add interracial marriage to this Act tells you just how far back

… this misbegotten SCOTUS wants to take us.

I applaud the House and Senate. I shudder at what awaits us from the SCOTUS.

[Mr.Bill]

26. It tells me maybe Clarence Thomas

had something to do with it.

[Hortensis]

53. That's just not my impression of Thomas or his history of

black nationalislm, which would be more on the order of "The worse the better."

He's on record, before his appointment but repeatedly, of claiming the constitution is intractably and irreparably incompatible with black interests. AND, also repeatedly, that all laws that have been passed to advance black equality and rights have instead hurt them by making them weaker and LESS independent, MORE vulnerable to white exploitation, etc.

He's a far-right extremist who still stands out among far-right extremists on that court.

[Mr.Bill]

58. I just think he has an obvious personal reason

to support mixed-race marriage.

[Hortensis]

65. One would think so, Mr.Bill! However, how would that

obvious reason (to most people's thinking) comport with his belief that ALL laws like this hurt the black race by weakening them, etc? We're talking real antagonism expressed before he grabbed the SCOTUS golden ring that fortune so perversely offered to someone who despised the constitution?

To my mind, disapproving of protections of interracial marriage, voting rights, workplace equality, etc, for nonwhites, wouldn't be a rational, black-progressive position, but for anyone committed to racial equality and societal integration. But not everyone wants that, certainly not highly ethno/racial-centric X-nationalism adherents.

In a complex world of complex interactions, Thomas really might have given this a push. But it seems more likely that many members of congress, including on this committee, who are newly re-concerned about this issue in this bizarre era, didn't need it. In any case, Thomas is always worth discussing these days...!

[soldierant]

113. Aw gee ...

[Mr.Bill]

114. LOL

[Marcuse]

124. Nt

[yankee87]

94. SCOTUS is Rogue

You are so right. Who knows how bad this rogue SCOTUS will take us back? Maybe bring back poll taxes and threaten a women's right to vote?

[imavoter]

133. I couldn't believe Loving hadn't been codified.

But also doesn't surprise me.
However, at least it's done.

[BrienDoesIt]

5. A step backwards, not forwards. Fuck states rights

[beaglelover]

8. How so?

[BrienDoesIt]

13. The constitution states that we are all equal

Article 14 says we cannot be discriminated based on sex. States have gay marriage bans on the books that will kick in once obergfell gets taken down. Those bans will immediately come into play and we will no longer be able to get married in that state.

This law allows states to discriminate. Right now they can't. That's why it's a step back.

Edit - in addition, god forbid all 50 states decide to ban gay marriage, we are back to square 1. This doesn't actually protect gay marriage itself, it just forces states to recognize gay marriage, which they were already forced to under the full faith clause.

I know people are applauding it and it IS better than nothing, but any law that allows a state to discriminate is not a good law, IMO.

[beaglelover]

15. I don't believe you understand what this new law will do.

What you are describing above this new law will prevent in the event that the USSC overturns same sex marriage.

[BrienDoesIt]

17. Here's my question - does it allow states to ban gay marriage...

If obergfell falls?

If obergfell falls, will those states that have bans of gay marriage in their constitutions still be forced to allow gay marriage?

[beaglelover]

27. No, here's the information about the new law.

The Respect for Marriage Act would require that people be considered married in any state as long as the marriage was valid in the state where it was performed.

The bill would also repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman and allowed states to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. That law has remained on the books despite being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.


So basically any state that bans gay marriage will be required to consider people to be married if they are married in a state where same sex marriage is valid. So, if Alabama, for example tried to ban gay marriage, a couple from Alabama could just get married in a state that does allow same sex marriage and Alabama would need to recognize their marriage as valid. So, there is really no point for any state to ban same sex marraige once this law passes. It would be pointless.

[BrienDoesIt]

31. First, several states have gay marriage banned in their own constitution

Those bans would immediately kick in, immediately stopping those states from giving same sex marriage licenses (note: i agree they will still have to *recognize* outside marriages)

Second, do you support women having to go to other states to get abortions, or do you think states should be forced to allow anyone have access to abortion care? If we agree with the statement "women shouldn't be forced to go to another state to get an abortion", how is it we agree with "gay people should be forced to go out of state to get married"?

[beaglelover]

35. I don't think the abortion issue and same sex marriage issue are related at all.

So, no need for me to answer your question.

Also, you are assuming that the current same sex marriage SCOTUS ruling will be overturned. I don't believe that it will be in the long run.

[BrienDoesIt]

38. So then you do support gay people being forced into other states to get msrried

It's extremely disingenuine to deny *on this level* that there is a difference between the abortion ban and same sex marriage ban.

Both will force you to go out of state to get what you're after. It boggles my mind that anyone thinks that's acceptable. I guess gay people shouldn't care that their not considered equal in their state.

If obergefell doesn't get overturned then all of this will be moot, but then if you don't think obergefell will not get overturned, then what's the point of this law? Nothing because obergefell forces states to license gay marriages.

And if obergefell does get overturned, it's a blow to gay rights. Not as massive as it could be, but forcing gay people to go to other states shouldn't even be considered acceptable. It's removing us as being equals in that state. I can't believe people on here are for states denying gay marriage licenses. Again, it surprises me.

[vanlassie]

103. How does someone who explains the benefits of this law "support

people having to go to other states to marry?” Your question implies this. One can see the value in a law even if it is also not perfect.

[BrienDoesIt]

104. My point is, it doesn't go far enough.

The protections are great but if I have to drive 3 states away to get married, what have I truly gained?

[vanlassie]

105. I'm sorry you are not getting everything you deserve.

Progress is slow, but it is moving here in the right direction. Another chink in the wall. 🌈🌈🌈

[BrienDoesIt]

106. Thank you.

It's the idea that I have it now, but tomorrow it could be gone. It's harder to have something and get it taken away then to not have had it at all, if that makes sense.

Cheers. Have a good week!

[vanlassie]

107. You as well!

[carpetbagger]

42. Because it's the best we can do with the power we have.

I have a trans son in Florida who is marrying another trans man next year. In Massachusetts, so that Florida can't play games in the future ("oh, here's a typo, so you were never married&quot . This is potentially helpful for him, both directly as well as indirectly by showing political power behind marriage equality.

On edit.. the difference with abortion is that marriage is typically less.urgent.

[BrienDoesIt]

49. *sigh* so as a gay man, I should applaud allowing states to discriminate against me.

Noted.

I'm really disappointed rn based on responses here.

I have not fought for gay rights for 40 years just to be set back like this. This isn't the win people are making it out to be. This will literally set gay people back if obergefell gets tossed out. It will allow states to discriminate against us.

[carpetbagger]

85. You're conflating potential USSC action with this law.

If Obergefell is overturned, you and I and even lots of folks who don't hang out on leftist political chat boards will be pissed. The effect would be worse without this law in place.

We already lost the judiciary. Imperfect legislative action is a pale substitute, but there's not the votes in Congress for judicial expansion.

[BrienDoesIt]

108. I agree with you 100%

I just wish people would recognize that it's not the 5 steps forward everyone thinks it is. Having a right and then having it taken away in 35 of the 50 states hurts

I know this is the best. I know this is what we have and we have to work with what we have. But that doesn't mean i cant mourn what I'm losing, which is 15 states will allow me to get married. 35 won't. That's not even half the states. Some people are going to have to go 2, 3 states over.
.I know, I know this is the best we can get. I know that. But it still hurts. It still hurts knowing today I can go get married. Tomorrow, that will get yanked away.

[swimboy]

120. I see you and hear you.

You are right and I respect your tenacity in attempting to communicate the real situation to people who are angry that we’re not giddy with joy over such a flawed bill. They will try to exhaust us and it WILL be exhausting but we will do what we have to in order to get back to where we need to be.

[Demsrule86]

70. Federal law trumps state law.

This protects folks and yet you are against it? Very odd.

[BrienDoesIt]

73. Yes or no..

Does this law allow states to deny marriage licenses to gay people?

I'm not asking if they're forced to recognize, im asking if it allows states to discriminate and not give licenses out to same sex couples? Is that not the literal definition of discrimination?

[IronLionZion]

37. If even one state has gay marriage, then it has to be recognized in every state

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act

So if a red state bans gay marriage, you can go get married in a blue state and still enjoy all the legal rights and protections of marriage when you go back home to your red state.

They've included DC, Puerto Rico, and all US territories.

[BrienDoesIt]

39. Why should we have to go to another state to get married? Is that not discrimination?

[IronLionZion]

50. Some of us cross state lines every day, you would get married maybe once in a lifetime.

And now the federal government protects your marriage for the rest of your life no matter where you live.

[BrienDoesIt]

52. I've already been gay married and divorced lol

What about a gay couple who lives in the middle of Texas and makes barely minimum wage. It takes what, 8 hours from the middle of the state to get out of Texas.

Now, what happens when they haven't been able to get out of state to get married and one of them goes into he hospital or dies. The hospital can tell the partner that they aren't allowed because it technically isn't their "spouse".

I have 2 questions for you. Does this law, provided obergefell is struck down, allow states to not give marriage licenses out to gay couples? If yes, would that be considered discrimination based on the literal definition?

If both of those are yes, then this is allowing states to discriminate, correct? This is a step backwards from now because states are forced to give marriage licenses out. This law, again provided obergefell falls, will still allow states to deny us, even if they have to recognize out of state marriages.

I honestly don't get it. How this ISNT discrimination is beyond me. Telling a gay couple that they aren't allowed to get married in their state is discrimination. Just because the state is forced to recognize marriages from other states doesn't mean this isn't discriminatory.

[Yoyoyo77]

63. Are you saying don't accept 2 steps forward, because you didn't get 6 steps forward?

[BrienDoesIt]

66. No, I'm saying this is taking us half a step back because it will allow states to discriminate by

We have the right to get married right now. Any state. Doesn't matter.

If obergefell goes down, states will then be able to discriminate by refusing to issue SSM licenses. I'm not sure how "forcing states to give SSM licenses" is worse than "states can refuse to give you a marriage license but they are forced to recognize it from out of state".

It's a step backwards. Right now we cannot be discriminated against by SC ruling. Going forward, this will allow them to discriminate.

Unless I'm missing something, this is a step back, not forward. Right now I'm not limited to any state for my marriage license. With this law, I will be. Is that not discrimination?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

67. So this law overturns Obergfell?

Please get your fallacies straight if you're going to argue about issues that you only care enough to complain on a message board about.

[BrienDoesIt]

71. Man you're really salty.

I love how you can't answer my question about if this law will allow states to discriminate. You know I'm right.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

78. Which states are allowed to discriminate?

The answer is none. Your poor couple in rural Texas could walk into the JP today and get married.
So no, they aren't discriminated against. But you don't care about that poor couple either, as you've said you're too tired to try to change Texas's laws. I'd think that if you were so concerned about Obergfell being overturned, you'd be fighting those laws, instead you're fighting a law intended to protect marriage rights.

[BrienDoesIt]

83. Your projection is hilarious but entirely misplaced.

[Demsrule86]

72. It is not discrimination.

[BrienDoesIt]

74. So allowing a state to deny a marriage license to a same sex couple....

While allowing straight couples to get a marriage license isn't discriminatory?

[BrienDoesIt]

21. Think about the abortion ban. What does that require you to do..

It allows states to ban abortions and if you want one you have to go to another state.

How is that different than what's happening here IF obergefell falls? If you live in a state that bans gay marriage, you'll have to go to another state to get married. Is that actually different than the abortion ban? We all agree the way the abortion ban is handled isn't good yes?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

22. When exactly was a national law protecting abortion passed?

[BrienDoesIt]

25. It wasn't - and it shouldnt need to be based on the constitution.

Right now, the way this law is, *if* obergefell falls, states can now outlaw same sex marriage and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Do you support allowing states to ban abortion OR gay marriage?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

36. Not sure why you are attacking me

When you are the one complaining about a federal law protecting your rights is being passed. But since you seem to think that laws don’t protect rights I’m not sure what you want.
You could try lobbying states with bans to get them changed instead of complaining about proactive positive action from the federal government.

[BrienDoesIt]

43. I haven't attacked you, I'm responding to you

And just by your statements here, you support allowing gay people to be discriminated against in their state. Gay people shouldn't be forced to go to another state to get married. I said it elsewhere but it boggles my mind that people here are for allowing discrimination. States shouldn't be allowed to discriminate, even if they're forced to recognize out of state licenses. Do they do this with straight marriage? They don't right? So why should gay people be allowed to be discriminated against in their own states?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

54. At no point did I say that I support discrimination

So yes, you did in fact just attack me.

And you know what, states aren't allowed to discriminate right now. The best man at my wedding was a litigant in a case that went all the way to supreme court, and they ruled that gay marriage is protected. There was a lot of celebrating around it, you might remember.
They may in the future, which seems to be your concern, which is why the FEDERAL government is passing a law to PROTECT MARRIAGES.

Maybe you can enlighten us all as to a state that you are not allowed to get married in? I'm curious. Then perhaps you can explain why you are complaining about federal actions and not trying to change that state's laws.

[BrienDoesIt]

57. If obergefell doesn't get struck down, then this law is pointless.

Obergefell right now forces states to not just recognize but also *license* SSM.

if obergefell is struck down, but this law is there, are states then allowed to discriminate against SSM by not forcing them to provide licenses to same sex couples? Yes or no?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

59. So your argument is a strawman

You're arguing based on something that hasn't happened. And again, why aren't you trying to overturn laws in the states that have them on the books?
Might be a better use of your time than attacking allies.

[BrienDoesIt]

62. I don't have the energy to go to all 35 states and fight their gay marriage bans

Are you saying that the supreme court hasn't already discussed the gay marriage protection and repealing it? Do you know there's already a case winding it's way through the courts now?

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/courts/2022/07/21/tracking-the-texas-lawsuits-that-target-lgbt-rights-after-the-fall-of-roe-vs-wade/

But I guess now that we have a law saying that's states can discriminate against us as long as they recognize outside licenses. They don't do that for straight people but I guess I should just be happy for any scraps I get, no matter how far back it sets us.


these are the states that will allow bans on gay marriage if obergefell gets struck down

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/07/07/without-obergefell-most-states-would-have-same-sex-marriage-bans

[AZSkiffyGeek]

64. Complaints are not activism

If you are so concerned about minimum wage couples in Texas who have to drive 800 miles to get married, I'd think you'd want to do something to change that - but apparently you don't have the energy.
And that tells me everything about your concern.

[BrienDoesIt]

68. LOL I see you aren't concerned about that same gay couple.

I've been a gay rights activist for 40 years. I've been on national TV. I've led protests.

I'm not the one you want to come after for gay rights issues.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

76. And I was the best man for an Obergfell litigant

I am concerned. I see this is an important step in protecting their rights. You have said that (despite 40 years of activism) you won't fight for the rights in those states.

[BrienDoesIt]

82. Idgaf who you were a best man for

That doesn't make you an expert on gay marriage, nor does it give you any fuckin knowledge into the possibilities of what could happen.

You are straight up refusing to acknowledge that there are court cases going through to the SC now. You are refusing to recognize that NO ONE will ever get Texas to remove their fucking ban on SSM. and your arguments are disingenuous, to say the least.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

87. No, actually I'm saying that your arguments are disingenuous

You've asserted that this law takes those rights away. FALSE.
You've said there are poor couples in rural Texas who CAN'T get married. FALSE.
I've even provided a pretty smart way to ensure those rights are protected. You don't want to use your "40 years of activism" because you're tired. Fine, go take a nap while people are losing the rights you care so much about.

Yeah, Obergfell may get overturned (although I'm not 100% convinced it will, I defintely see the risk). You don't seem to care about doing anything except bitching about a law that a Democratic Congress got passed by a fucking miracle. You care so much about it that you're spamming every thread to complain about how awful it is that Democrats are passing gay rights.

[BrienDoesIt]

89. Again, how do you know what I am and am not doing?

Sorry I'm not omnipotent and can't be everywhere all at once. And don't think you know Jack shit about my life. You have no clue.

Ask your buddy you were best man for if he's nervous. Ask him what he thinks of this bill. I bet you hell say the same thing I am.

"You don't seem to care...." Blah blah blah Don't assume to know anything about me. You know nothing.

As for "spamming" I've posted in 3 posts total about this.

I'm not even unhappy about the law ffs. I just don't think it goes far enough. And here you are attacking ME because I'm scared of what this could lead to. At this point you're just an ass trying to make an argument for arguments sake. Nowhere once did I say I disapproved of this bill. I have just said it doesn't go far enough. That's it.

God forbid I have a fucking opinion on a bill that literally affects my life.

I thought this place was going to be at least a partial safe haven from the rest of the internet. I thought this could be a "safe space" so I wouldn't get attacked for being fuckin nervous about my rights. Thanks for showing me just how wrong I was.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

92. Just going off your own words

"I don't have the energy to go to all 35 states and fight their gay marriage bans"

I've seen nothing in any of your posts to indicate you "aren't unhappy" about the law. All you've done is call it a step backwards and assert that your rights will be taken away by it.

Right now the only people who can take those rights away are the Supreme Court, not a law passed by a Democratic Congress that will be signed by Biden.

My suggestion is that if you want to talk about the problems with this, maybe don't accuse people celebrating its passage of supporting gay marriage bans, tell them it's a step backwards and taking away your rights - because it is none of those things.

And I will agree that it doesn't go far enough, that's pretty much the problem of having to compromise to pass bills. But it absolutely is NOT a step backwards - there are a lot of people who would lose a lot more than the right to get married if Obergfell is overturned and this law is not in place, you seem to only be concerned with that one portion. Marriage rights are a lot more than being able to get a piece of paper - and all those rights will be protected once Biden signs this.

[BrienDoesIt]

95. Bro I'm one fucking guy

What do you think I can do for those 35 states? Do you think I can just rotate out every other day to a new state to petition they get their gay marriage bans overturned?

If I can get married now in any state but if obergefell is tossed, now states can discriminate against me, how is that not backwards. Yes we will be protected federally which is why I said it's a half step backwards.

I don't even get why this is so hard to understand. And if by chance obergefell DOESNT get overturned then this law is moot.

I wasn't aware that pointing out flaws in a law was such a crime. Seriously. I'm just conversing on the shortcomings of it. I'm happy it's in but, even as you said here, it doesn't go far enough. Hence why in my original post I said "this isn't the win everyone thinks it is " because, and you appear to agree with me here, it doesn't protect gay marriage itself. It doesn't protect our right to get married in any state. Yes it protects rights from one state to another, but it's still allowing states to discriminate.

Like I said I really thought this was going to be a better place. I asked you if you supported a gay marriage ban. I didnt even accuse you of shit. Don't put fucking words in my mouth. If you don't, say "no I dont but this is why the law is good". My response would have been "do you see my concern?" Instead you jumped right to attacking based on a perceived comment that I didn't even make.

And then you ridicule me because I AM concerned about my rights. God forbid I don't just worship at the alter of the "protect marriage Act". Sorry if I find flaws in things and point them out. Again, I wasn't aware that discussing a law that affects me is such a fucking travesty. Never, NEVER once did I say this is a terrible thing that was passed. I didnt even insinuate that - because I'm glad it's there. I'm just saying states will be able to discriminate.

You judge me a FUCKTON for a)things I didn't say, b) perceived slights where I wasn't trying to slight you but ask you a genuine fucking question to clarify your statements and c) being scared of my rights when we just fucking got them not even 10 years ago!

I had to go to Iowa to get married because it wasn't legal everywhere. I know what it's like to have to go out of state to get a marriage license. I've protested for marriage equality in DC. I've been here. For decades. And I shouldn't have to provide my fucking activist cred just to point out flaws in a law.

[swimboy]

119. Please stand down.

You are not listening. You are not hearing a real and valid concern we have for ourselves and our community. Do you consider yourself a LGBTQ+ ally? You are exhausting a person with your refusal to understand their issue and then tasking them with fixing the problem you have been belittling. The issue is real. It is not your issue, but it is real. Try to recognize it or at least stop browbeating the persons it affects. Thank you.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

41. One difference: Abortion is only an option for a limited time.

When that time expires, there is a baby born.

If you want to get married, and have to go to another state to do it, there is no such urgency, normally.

Except for that, yes it's very similar to the abortion ban.

The bill could have made same-sex marriage available in every state. That would have been better, clearer. I don't think it would have gotten sixty votes. Take the win.

[beaglelover]

44. Exactly, take the win and this IS definitely a win!

[BrienDoesIt]

45. Sorry but I don't see this as a win. I see this as a partial step back by allowing ..

States to discriminate against gay people. If we cannot get the same protection for marriage as straight people, we aren't equal, and it's discrimination. Giving them an out by saying "you can go to another state" is literally allowing those states to discriminate. It just shocks me that here, we applaud allowing discrimination.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

55. So what states can't you get married in?

[BrienDoesIt]

60. Right now, none. If obergefell falls, 35 states

Don't take my word for it, here's a list

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/07/07/without-obergefell-most-states-would-have-same-sex-marriage-bans

If obergefell falls, states will then be allowed to utilize the bans on SSM in their state, regardless of them being forced to recognize licenses from outside the state. By allowing them the out of not providing SSM licenses, is that or is that not discrimination?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

61. So your whole argument is a strawman

Come back to me when Obergfell is overturned and complain. Until then, why not try to change those state laws?
You don't seem to have an answer to that simple action.

[BrienDoesIt]

80. I did respond. And I told you I've been a gay activist for 40 years now

I guess since you don't think obergefell will be overturned, I have nothing to worry about.

Must be nice not to have your rights threatened. Must be nice to not have to worry about you not being able to marry your partner in the state you live in. Must be nice to see court cases winding their way through the court system and not worry about your rights.

You're right. I'm just overreacting. Like all those who said the abortion SC ruling wouldn't get struck down but then it did.

I'm not going to sit around and wait until obergefell gets struck down. And your insinuation that all I'm doing is arguing on here is absolutely asinine. You don't know me and you don't know my history. You don't know what I have and haven't fought. And you really don't know, apparently, what it's like to have your rights threatened.

Fuck outta here. In done with your disingenuous BS.

[Demsrule86]

86. This is swat can be achieved and it

Would protect existing marriages. That is important and I don’t understand your problem with the bill

[BrienDoesIt]

100. I don't have a problem with it per se

I'm just pointing out that it doesn't go far enough.

Today I can get married in any state. Tomorrow I may only be relegated to getting married in 15 states. (35 states have it in their constitution that gay marriage is banned).

I'm gaining some protections (and good ones!), but I'm losing the literal ability to get married in 35 states. 35 states is a lot of states. For someone in some states, they will have to basically fly to even be able to get married. Or a multi day drive.

That's why I think it's a step back. What good is federal protections if I have to drive over 2 or 3 states just to get married?

[swimboy]

121. Be an ally. Listen.

We’re pointing out that there will be fifty water fountains and that we will be restricted to drinking from one of only fifteen. You’re saying that’s good enough. We’re saying it’s discrimination.
Think how happy this makes Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis when she can once again deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. She should be happy, right? Not the same-sex couple?
Have sit-down-and-chat with your ability to empathize.

[Zeitghost]

125. If Obergefell falls

Is the situation worse or better with the passage of this law?

[Zeitghost]

129. I don't think you understand my question.

Obviously if Obergefell falls, things are worse.

But if it does fall, would things be better if this legislation were passed or not?

[Ohio Joe]

6. Good news

[demmiblue]

7. The 12 GOP yes votes were:

The 12 GOP yes votes were:

• Blunt (MO)
• Burr (NC)
• Capito (WV)
• Collins (ME)
• Ernst (IA)
• Lummis (WY)
• Murkowski (AK)
• Portman (OH)
• Romney (UT)
• Sullivan (AK)
• Tillis (NC)
• Young (IN)

Link to tweet

[AllyCat]

19. Some of those are really surprising

Tillis? Ernst?

[Mr.Bill]

28. Lately Ernst has been trying to

rehab her toxicity.

[KPN]

81. Yeah, wherever the wind's blowing, right or wrong.

[AZLD4Candidate]

116. Moscow Mitch is married to a Chinese woman and voted against it.

Being married to a Chinese woman, I can't understand that.

[IronLionZion]

122. Judge Clarence Thomas is married to a white woman

and has been open about wanting to overturn the gay marriage ruling, which could easily impact interracial marriage in some backwards red states. Unless he wants an excuse to leave Ginni.

[Zeitghost]

130. It's because there is no serious threat to interracial marriage

So he feels comfortable voting against anything that is pro gay marriage.

Unlike abortion or gay marriage, reversing protections for interracial marriage won through the courts (Loving) isn't likely to result in any State's reviving old bans. No State legislature is going to pass one in 2022.

[wryter2000]

117. Thanks

I've been going crazy trying to figure out which Rs might vote for this. A few I would have guessed and a few surprises. Good on them all.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

9. Wonderful news!

[Alexander Of Assyria]

123. Note to Self... Manchin and Sinema voted Aye! Remember...

[LetMyPeopleVote]

10. Yeah

Link to tweet

[Captain Stern]

11. Great news, and shameful news at the same time.

Great that it passed.

But shameful that in 2022 there even has to be a vote held about this....and that it didn't pass unanimously.

[onetexan]

29. THIS!!☝️

[onecaliberal]

12. Can we pass a bill to make women full citizens now?

[ShazzieB]

46. Yes, please!

[niyad]

93. Exactly.

[honest.abe]

14. Frankly I am amazed we got 12 Rs but fantastic news!

[jaxexpat]

16. You mean they're actually legislating?

How novel. Will the nation survive?

[FreeState]

20. Too bad it's a shitty law

It’s been amended to the point where this gay man thinks it’s not even worth it.

[BrienDoesIt]

23. Thank God Im not alone.

Forcing someone to go out of state to get an abortion is bad, but apparently forcing gay people to go to another state to get married isn't bad.

It doesn't compute in my head, personally.

[FreeState]

99. Unfortunately

This is one party attempting to paint a pretty picture for the LGBT community and everyone here falls for it. This is not the support we need from our party. This law does nothing but give religions more rights should Obergefell v. Hodges be overturned.

[BrienDoesIt]

102. Oh my god thank you

35 states have gay marriage bans on the books. If obergefell gets overturned, some people may have to fly or drive 2 or 3 states over to get the protections that this law is providing. Right now you don't have to go to any other state. What good are federal protections if you can't even get off work to go get married?

Thank you.

[DonCoquixote]

111. the thing is

this is not a substitute for Hodges, it is at best, first aid for the wounds inflicted. That begin said, if getting first aid keeps you live ong enough to get to the er.

So is it good, no...but it is something we had to do while the iron was hot so that we could keep the proverbial patient alive until we can get more supreme court justices. Is first aid better than full surgery, no, but when you are bleeding, it buys time.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

56. So what states can't you get married in?

[FreeState]

98. Every state currntly

This law is aimed at if the Supreme Court turns it over. The only thing it does is make it so that other states must recognize the marriage (which is already settled federal law outside of Obergefell v. Hodges and faces no serious threat).

[AllyCat]

24. Wish they would move forward with a Defense of Women's Rights act

We are, sadly, just property to half our elected bodies.

[onetexan]

30. And the voting rights act

[littlemissmartypants]

34. ❤️

[James48]

40. Wrong Headline.

It should read
“Thirty-seven republicans vote in favor of a ban on interracial marriage. “

[TNNurse]

47. I would like to apologize for the Senators from TN

Marsha is a known idiot and Haggerty has never had an original thought of his own. He apparently just does what she does.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

101. KY: Moscow Mitch, in an interracial marriage, voted against it.

The Squirrel-Who-Lives-On-Random-Piles also voted against it, but that (alleged) senator from Kentucky votes against anything that might help a human being.

[catbyte]

48. Yay! I guess some GQP Senators don't want to look like complete hateful nut jobs.

Now, if enough of them would just acknowledge that we women have brains and let us make our own healthcare decisions and if they'd shore up the VRA, I'd really be like:

[Scottie Mom]

51. Great start!

Need reproductive rights protected.

I cannot believe I am living in 2022 and going through the same shit I saw in my 20s waaaaaaaaay back when.

[Wounded Bear]

75. Great news! nt

[KPN]

77. Now this is a big deal! Good work Speaker Schuler et al.

[Warpy]

79. What fucker threatened the filibuster?

And did he actually get up and start talking? No? For the love of all that is decent, Democrats, end that damned idiocy. IF you can't talk Manchin and Sinema into ending it, talk them into a hiatus that can be reviewed when the new Senate is eated in 2 years.

I'm sick of having Republican sacks of filth able to hold every piece of legislation that comes in front of them hostage to their egos.

[DET]

91. Surprise!

I heard it was Grassley. Can’t verify, but don’t think that would shock anyone. Thanks to the 12 Republican senators who seem to be starting to grow something resembling a spine.

[Warpy]

97. I can't believe the voters gave that useless old fossil another term

Some things just defy any explanation.

[DET]

109. Well, it is Iowa...

And he’s THEIR useless old fossil.

[MayReasonRule]

84. The 12 Republicans

Mitt Romney, Joni Ernst, Cynthia Lummis, Roy Blunt, Shelley Moore Capito, Lisa Murkowski, Rob Portman, Dan Sullivan, Thom Tillis, Todd Young, Susan Collins.

[AZLD4Candidate]

115. McConnell is in an interracial marriage and voted against it? What a tool!

[MayReasonRule]

134. McConnell is a turd with a tie

He voted against providing marriage equality for reality's rainbow of love.

McConnell is a Nat-C turd.

May he get flushed like the turd he is.

[Samrob]

88. Voting rights, NOW! nt

[AllaN01Bear]

90. eggscllent . get rid of the fillibuster and the electoral college .

[moose65]

96. 12 Republicans haven't voted for the bill,yet

Save your thanks to them until after the bill passes. What they voted on here was to end debate on the bill.

I assume, for final passage, that the bill only needs 51 votes. So some of these Republicans could still vote No on the bill itself.

[vercetti2021]

110. So wait

If its overturned. You can't get married unless you go to another state to do so? A lot of people can't afford to drive over state lines to get married, the same way they can't drive to get an abortion. So I don't understand how its a good thing outside of protecting marriages that exist currently. Its putting hurdles in the way for future couples that wanna get married.

[moniss]

118. Look at the history in the Loving v Virginia case

for some background and also it's true that what was the "norm" in the US at the time was that a marriage might be recognized in one state but then if you move or simply travel to another state that doesn't recognize (in this example an interracial marriage) you could run into all kinds of trouble if you tried to register at a motel, buy real estate, file taxes etc. It all really is a legacy of Jim Crow.

[republianmushroom]

112. their are some Republican that see the handwriting on the wall.

[PlutosHeart]

128. Ha! I find this so absurd really.

So my 25 yr. marriage to an Indigenous man is now legally protected as if it was not before? How far behind are we as a species? Pffft*

Am glad about same sex marriages being protected though.

[Zeitghost]

131. Not exactly

This did nothing to change the current legal status of your relationship, for the better or worse. It just puts some basic safeguards in place in case future court decisions undermine previous decisions.

[moniss]

132. My guess is

that the GQP is banking on their SC pals to find a reason to knock down whatever is passed and signed into law.