Does this new law allow states to discriminate against gay people?

[BrienDoesIt]

I'd like to hear others' opinions. I very much consider this a half step back. Right now, the state is forced to recognize and provide SSM licenses.

If obergefell falls, does this or does this not allow states to discriminate by allowing them to ban SSM in their states even if they're forced to recognize a SSM license from out of state?

I don't understand why people think this is a step forward. It removes some rights from us that we currently have.

[ShazzieB]

1. Looking forward to this discussion.

I'd like to know, too. My gut feeling is that repealing the odious so-called Defense of Marriage Act is a good thing in itself, but I know people have issues with this law, and I'd like to understand better.

[Solly Mack]

2. Here's a decent article on how things could play out.

Here's What the Respect for Marriage Act Would Do

Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the most conservative members of the court, has called for the overturning of Obergefell. He did so in his concurring opinion when the court overturned Roe v. Wade in its Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling. For Obergefell to be reversed, it would take a marriage equality case getting to the Supreme Court, and none is on its way right now, but it’s still a concern.

The U.S. Constitution grants the states — not Congress — the power to determine who may marry in that state, subject to federal constitutional requirements including equal protection of the laws. In the Respect for Marriage Act, Congress is doing all that it can do to buttress the portions of the Obergefell and Windsor rulings that fall within its purview.


Congress is taking decisive, bipartisan action to repeal this offensive language and ensure that even if Loving, Windsor and Obergefell were overturned that the federal government would not itself engage in discrimination again.”


Under the Respect for Marriage Act, “if Obergefell or Loving were to fall, and some states decided to no longer marry same-sex or interracial couples, the federal government would continue to recognize marriages legally entered into in other states,” the organization explains.

One bottom line takeaway is that the states could deny equal marriage within their borders if Obergefell was overturned.

[BrienDoesIt]

5. So it's exactly as I thought - it still allows states to discriminate.

I just want people to see, it's a half step back. I'm not against the law, I'm glad it got through, but in my estimation, it's a half step back. I'm open to being told I'm wrong about that but so far everyone just wants to say "it's good!" Without looking at the further ramifications.

Unless I'm wrong, this statement :

"One bottom line takeaway is that the states could deny equal marriage within their borders if Obergefell was overturned."

Is literal discrimination, is it not? Seriously if I'm fucked in the head like everyone seems to think, then I'll take my lumps. But damn.

[Solly Mack]

6. It offers federal protections but if Obergefell falls, states that want to discriminate can, yes

It's not a cure-all, no. Not a complete relief.

The worry remains.

With this SCOTUS, Obergefell could be overturned. Believe me, I know all too well what harm this SCOTUS is capable of causing.


The protections it offers are important, however.

More from the article -

Under the Respect for Marriage Act, “if Obergefell or Loving were to fall, and some states decided to no longer marry same-sex or interracial couples, the federal government would continue to recognize marriages legally entered into in other states,” the organization explains.

Also, the act would assure that “marriages, adoption orders, divorce decrees, and other public acts must be honored by all states consistent with the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution. This adds additional protection for married couples and families,” it continues. “Legally married couples who experience a denial of their legal rights should be able to seek support from the U.S. Attorney General rather than having to clog the court system litigating incident by incident.”

[BrienDoesIt]

7. I think the fed protections are a good thing. Very much so.

One other question I'd have is, how will this play out if Lawrence V Texas gets overturned as well.

Would the state be forced to recognize my marriage but at the same time arrest me for sodomy? Lol

[Solly Mack]

8. That is one of the many questions - how it plays out on the state level

Should the various laws get overturned. Because look at abortion.

Leaving human rights up to the discretion of the states can and does cause harm.

[BrienDoesIt]

9. No one I'm discussing this with gets that.

Ive used the abortion analogy because I think it's a good analogy - just in the sense of forcing you to go elsewhere for something you have the right to do right now. But no one seems to understand that having a right and then getting it yanked back and then giving you half of what you had previously isn't really a step forward. It's like getting rid of the very core of the issue and saying "well it's protections". It is protections! Those are good! What would be even better is just making states give you the license in the first place. .

And I know that is sticky, that congress can't just wave a wand and get gay marriage forced into every state. But I just can't help but see this as a step backwards.

[karynnj]

3. You need to look at two cases: 1) as it is now and 2) if the SC over turns same sex marriage rights

In the first case, the new law does nothing. All states must allow interracial and same sex marriage.

In the second case, where the SC overturns that right, it does several things:
It gives the federal rights of marriage and there are many to all marriages recognized by a state.
It requires ALL states to recognize a marriage already granted in another state.

As you point out, it does NOT totally codify the current SC ruling. As you noted, it does not require a state that opts not to to grant marriage licenses.

Summary, is it as good as the current status quo ... no. However, what you ignore is that if the SC eliminates the right, it is far better to have this bill pass than to have nothing.

[BrienDoesIt]

4. I'm not asking for this law to not go through....

It's still something. But I don't understand how it isn't a step backwards (provided Obergefell gets struck down).

[ColinC]

10. It isn't a step backwards. Just a tiny step forward as laws go.

All laws provided right now do not require federal recognition of marriages in all states. This law changes that. It should be more, and one day we might be able to pass something better. But this is better than what is legally on the books right now. It would ensure that that if Obergfell gets struck down, we don't go TOO far backwards.

[BrienDoesIt]

11. But isn't it giving states the right to deny you a marriage license?

35 states have in their constitution that marriage is between one man one woman. That's 35 states that, if obergefell falls, can now deny a marriage license to SS couples.

Forcing a state to recognize another states marriage licenses is good! Removing my ability to get married in any state, especially 35 of them, is not good.

If I have to go two states over to get married, I'm not going to see this as a win. I'm going to see it as a net loss. Because now I have to go elsewhere to get married. Sure the states have to recognize my marriage from California but what good does that do me if I can't afford to go to another state?

I'm not saying rhe law is bad. It is not. I'm only pointing out that it's less of a step forward than people think. It isn't protecting gay marriage, it's protecting certain rights. And that's absolutely wonderful. I also recognize it's probably the best were going to get.

But when I have a right today that gets removed tomorrow and now I have to go somewhere else just to be recognized and given the same recognition that any straight couple would have, I can't understand why people would think I should be jumping up and down for joy.

I have personal experience in this because I got married in Iowa before it was legal in all states. If my exhus and I weren't well off, w wouldn't have made the trek from AZ to IA just to get married. That's 3 states away. And a lot of LGBT people live below the poverty line. What good is federal recognition of a marriage when I can't get to a state that allows it in the first place?

[ColinC]

12. It is. Which is how it is already as far as the laws on the books.

The other parts of the law is where the progress comes in.

[BrienDoesIt]

14. What good is the progress if, in order to be protected by it, I have to take a vacation to get it?

What if I can't afford to go 1-3 states away to get married? I'm guessing the only logical answer is "you're just fuckin shit out of luck". I'm not taking a jab at you, I mean that literally. The only answer is, "go to another state. If you can't, well hope you don't mind being left out of your partners hospital room". Lol

I agree this law makes strides, the strides don't mean near as much if I can't actually take advantage of them.

[ColinC]

15. That's kinda how progress works unfortunately

It usually comes in baby steps. Not so much leaps and bounds

[BrienDoesIt]

17. You're not wrong. At all.

I thought we were good. Ive been working on this shit for a long time. Almost 40 years. I've watched us be drug through the mud during the aids crisis. I have fought since the day I came out for equality. I went on national TV at 15 to show that yes, even gay teenagers exist at a time when you didn't talk about that.

It sucks to have it and then fearing it's going to be yanked back. This isn't just a law to me, it's personal. On a multitude of levels.

That's why I can't see this as the great law everyone else thinks it is. I've fought hard. And now there's a chance it'll be gone . And there is nothing I can do about it. I am literally powerless to stop the idea that we were accepted and now we aren't.

But to your point, it's the best im gonna get. Oh well. I guess if I really hate it I could move lol

[karynnj]

13. It is not a step backwards because it ONLY has consequence if the SC acts

Then, it's impact will be to mitigate what the SC does. Why not wait until the SC acts? The reason is that in January, we will have a Republican Congress and will be able to do nothing on this.

[BrienDoesIt]

16. I guess I don't see it this way.

I am glad the protections are there, but if I have to go 3 states away to get said protections and I can't afford that, then I'm just SOL.

It's disheartening.