What do we pay these people for?

[MarcATL]

Should all (adult )citizens be free to marry whoever they want, assuming that all parties to the marriage consent?

Why would you want to restrict that?

I believe in freedom, so yes.

 

[AMart]

It's posturing. Gay lesbo marriage does not exist. Same sex marriage does exist. There is nothing stopping 2 heterosexuals of the same sex getting married.

 

[rightwinger]

I think you may be right in that some states may pass laws so that it's not called "marriage" and call it a civil union instead; however, a civil union will simply be marriage by another name making such legislation pointless.

Except that gays and their families consider it a marriage and use terms like husband and wife

A civil union is not the same

14th amendment requires equal protection under the law.
Having some marriages protected and other marriages having different rules is not equal protection

 

[Paleman]

Unfortunately, the TRUMPCourt made passing this bill essential

I applaud the bipartisan support of all marriages

Does that include sheep? What the hell, if I can marry another man, why can't marry the animal of my choice?

 

[rightwinger]

Why would you want to restrict that?

I believe in freedom, so yes.

I would also accept consensual polygamous marriages

 

[rightwinger]

Does that include sheep? What the hell, if I can marry another man, why can't marry the animal of my choice?

Why do you guys always revert to stupid?

 

[Paleman]

Why do you guys always revert to stupid?

What is stupid is the act of responding to stupid. I will try to ignore you stupid in the future.

 

[Indeependent]

Unfortunately, the TRUMPCourt made passing this bill essential

I applaud the bipartisan support of all marriages

When are you moving to a 1/2 Black neighborhood?

 

[Indeependent]

Does that include sheep? What the hell, if I can marry another man, why can't marry the animal of my choice?

There are many LibBots who are already consorting with their pets.

 

[rightwinger]

What is stupid is the act of responding to stupid. I will try to ignore you stupid in the future.

No, your comment was incredibly stupid but a typical taunt of gays

 

[Paleman]

No, your comment was incredibly stupid but a typical taunt of gays

I learned everything I know about stupid from you.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Most Americans are against Gay Marriage, RW.

liar

 

[JustAGuy1]

So can I kiss you now

No tongue.

 

[initforme]

Normal people don't care one way or the other. That's the truth

 

[DGS49]

Don't any of you fukkers comprehend the Full Faith & Credit clause?

EVERY State is obliged, under the U.S. Constitution to recognize and accept the legal acts of every other State. That is to say, if a gay couple from Iowa gets married in Massachusetts (while vacationing), Iowa is compelled to recognize that marriage. And that means that Iowa has to recognize that marriage with respect to inheritance, child support, alimony, the whole package.

Because of this fact, no state would even attempt to roll back its marriage laws to eliminate gay marriages within its borders. It would be pointless and ineffective.

The Supreme Court CANNOT change direction on this, with any impact.

 

[rightwinger]

Don't any of you fukkers comprehend the Full Faith & Credit clause?

EVERY State is obliged, under the U.S. Constitution to recognize and accept the legal acts of every other State. That is to say, if a gay couple from Iowa gets married in Massachusetts (while vacationing), Iowa is compelled to recognize that marriage. And that means that Iowa has to recognize that marriage with respect to inheritance, child support, alimony, the whole package.

Because of this fact, no state would even attempt to roll back its marriage laws to eliminate gay marriages within its borders. It would be pointless and ineffective.

The Supreme Court CANNOT change direction on this, with any impact.

You would think that

But when some states started to allow gay marriage, those states that banned them would not recognize the marriage. Married Gay couples were not recognized as such.
It also didn’t apply before Loving v Virginia for mixed race couples

Pretending that some of our Bible Belt States would not revert to their old ways is naive

 

[San Souci]

Roe v Wade was a done deal

TRUMP judges said it was not

Yes. Overturning legalized baby murder was Trumps legacy. Good job , Donald. Abortion is EVIL.

 

[DGS49]

The headlines have already started. "Mitch McConnell, married to an Asian woman, votes against interracial marriage!"

Was I right or was I right?

 

[candycorn]

Same-sex marriage legislation clears key Senate hurdle

Democrats delayed consideration of the legislation until after the midterm elections, hoping that would relieve political pressure for some Republicans who might be wavering on the bill.

www.post-gazette.com

"The legislation would repeal the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act and require states to recognize all marriages that were legal where they were performed. The new Respect for Marriage Act would also protect interracial marriages by requiring states to recognize legal marriages regardless of 'sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin.'"

Article IV, Section 1, U.S. Constitution: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." [NOTE FOR THE CONSTITUTIONALLY ILLITERATE: Every State must recognize any marriage that is valid in the state where it was made.]

So here we have an intrepid group of Congress-persons who are prepared to go out on a limb and RE-STATE WHAT THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION ALREADY SAYS!

The purpose of this law, for those who have not already figured out, is to give Democrats ammunition in the next election cycle to excoriate those Congress-persons who voted against the law (because it is superfluous) as being antagonistic to "gay rights" and miscegenatious marriages. It has no effect and no other purpose.

Proponents neurotically cite Justice Thomas' recent statement that, given the nullification of the fictitious "right of privacy," which was mentioned in the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges case, that holding might require a second look - not to nullify existing marriages, but to clarify the state of affairs going forward. Same-sex marriage and inter-racial marriage are legal...end of story.

As worthless as Congress is for the first 23 months of every session, that standard goes out the window during the "lame duck" session, which in a sane world would not exist.

What, exactly, do we pay these people for?

To codify the law so a radical Supreme Court like we have now won't ignore 50 years of precedent to do the political bidding of their appointer.

 

[candycorn]

The headlines have already started. "Mitch McConnell, married to an Asian woman, votes against interracial marriage!"

Was I right or was I right?

What news organization published that headline? You will be wrong until you post it.