Senate clears key procedural step on bill to protect same-sex marriage

[BumRushDaShow]

Last edited Wed Nov 16, 2022, 07:00 PM - Edit history (3)

Source: CNN Politics

CNN — The Senate on Wednesday cleared a key procedural hurdle toward historic passage of the bipartisan bill to protect same-sex and interracial marriage, voting 62-37 to break a filibuster.

There could be additional votes before final passage, but Wednesday’s successful test vote signals the bill is on a glide path to succeed, a remarkable turn of events given how contentious the issue of same-sex marriage was just a few years ago.

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. So, in the event the Supreme Court might overturn its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized same-sex marriage, a state could still pass a law to ban same-sex marriage, but that state would be required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state.

All 50 members of the Democratic caucus voted to start debate on the bill as well as 12 Republicans.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/politics/senate-vote-same-sex-marriage

---

Article updated.

Previous article -

CNN -- The Senate on Wednesday cleared a key procedural hurdle toward passage of the bipartisan bill to protect same-sex and interracial marriage, voting 62-37 to break a filibuster to advance.

There could be additional votes before final passage, but Wednesday's successful test vote signals it is on a glide path to succeed.

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. So, in the event the Supreme Court might overturn its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized same-sex marriage, a state could still pass a law to ban same-sex marriage, but that state would be required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state.

All 50 members of the Democratic caucus voted to start debate on the bill as well as 12 Republicans.

Original article and headline -

Senate clears key procedural step on legislation codifying same-sex marriage

CNN -- The Senate on Wednesday cleared a key procedural hurdle toward passage of the bipartisan bill to protect same-sex and interracial marriage.

There could be additional votes before final passage, but Wednesday's successful test vote signals it is on a glide path to succeed.

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. So, in the event the Supreme Court might overturn its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized same-sex marriage, a state could still pass a law to ban same-sex marriage, but that state would be required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state.

Without an agreement to speed up passage of the bill that needs consent from all 100 senators, final passage will likely occur after the Senate returns from Thanksgiving recess.

[BrienDoesIt]

1. I know I'm all over these threads, but this is personal for me

This bill is a step back, not a step forward.

Fuck repugnicans. Fuck the SC. This does nothing to/for those states that have gay marriage bans in their constitution. Those will kick in once Obergefell falls.

One step forward, half a step back I suppose.

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. But since there is no existing *federal* law, isn't this a step forward?

So, if a Gay/Lesbian couple lives in a state that does not permit same sex marriages, but they travel to another state that does, get married, and return home, doesn’t this law require the home state to recognize the marriage, including all the legal and financial benefits?

[BrienDoesIt]

4. Not at all

Right now based on the SCs interpretation of the 14th amendment, we cannot be denied a marriage license. It's literally in the constitution that we be given the same rights as everyone else.

This allows states to weasel out of that protection. There shouldn't need to be a federal law because the constitution should be the deciding factor.

[William769]

6. You are so wrong.

Yes, I have a stake in this also. You need to peddle your "talking" points someplace else.

[BrienDoesIt]

7. So then prove me wrong how does this protect gay marriage?

[William769]

8. Federal law trumps state laws, State Constitution. Thats how our government is set up.

What if Alabama suddenly decided they want slavery back and add an amendment to their constitution. Would that be legal? Same with abortion rights? The federal Government passes a law for a women's right to choose, we then say so sorry States, bite it!

[BrienDoesIt]

9. This doesn't protect our right to get married in those states.

You do know that this law will allow states ban on same sex marriage to be enforced right? They are forcing them to recognize marriage under article 4, which shouldnt need to be a law made for.

This will allow states to discriminate against us. Do you disagree that states should be forced to allow abortions in their state? If so, how is this different?

[boston bean]

15. I am not following here. Can you explain this better?

Seems contradictory.

[BrienDoesIt]

16. Sure!

This might be long winded, but thank you for asking this. I'm kind of over being attacked about it.

So right now, by SC ruling, all states must provide SSM just like they do for straight marriage.

With this law (and this is the big key here) AND obergefell get struck down, this will allow states to deny a same sex couple marriage licenses. It DOES force the states to recognize SSM licenses from out of state, and that's amazing! That's fantastic!

But my personal issue is that it will open the door for states to discriminate by not giving marriage licenses to SSM. The federal protections are great! But when my ex husband and I got married, we had to fly to Iowa because that was one of the few states that had it legal at the time.

My problem is, if a gay couple wants to get married, they can't just go to the courthouse, they will have to travel out of state. And that's a pain, and I feel VERY strongly that this is discrimination based on being gay.

This is great for us! But, if right now we can get married in every state, but after obergefell is struck down, it will only be certain states, that seems like a half a step back to me.

The law is great! But that doesn't mean it won't be a step backwards, if that makes sense

[boston bean]

17. Ok. I think I understand but you may be wrong n

The bill was to provide protection if the scotus overturned ssm.

So it safeguards ssm to be recognized federally. A really big thing.

The law of the land right now is it is legal everywhere.

This codification is a plus to limit damage if scotus overturns, not to make it easier to discriminate. A potential bad future scotus decision does that on its own.

You have to recognize the intent of the law and you are missing the mark there n

[BrienDoesIt]

18. No I get it. It's not bad, it just doesn't go far enough imo.

But does it not still allow states to deny a SS couple a marriage certificate? Is that not discrimination?

At least states have to recognize other states' licenses, but right now in all 50 states, I am allowed to get a marriage license. This law does not grant that. I'm not saying the protections it grants arent good. They are. But if today I can get married in any state, but tomorrow I can't because obergefell gets overturned, have I not lost a right I had previously? Did I not have the freedom to get married in any state and now I do not?

I don't think the law is bad, but I don't think it's quite as great as everyone thinks. It does give us a lot of protections, but if obergefell is overturned, the very fundamental thing it's supposed to be protecting is gone. I will have to go to Iowa again just to get married when only the day before I could have in TX.

The law is good, but it's not great. It allows states to discriminate giving out marriage licenses. It does keep some protections! But it also, due to "religious reasons", let's a state tell me "not here! Go somewhere else! Then I'll recognize you!" That's my biggest gripe with it.

[boston bean]

19. It did away with DOMA completely.

And yes just like with abortion if the supremes says it belongs with the states that is what happens.

However there is now federal protection for ssm.

[BrienDoesIt]

20. True! And that's good!

And those protections are good! They're worth something.

I'm just pointing out that, right now, I don't have to go out of state. If obergefell gets tossed out, I'm now going to be discriminated on the state level, when straight people can still get married in the 35 states where gay marriage is outlawed in the states constitution. That's all I'm saying. Federal level is good! Great even! But, like abortion, I don't think "states rights" should apply here. (I recognize it does, mind you. And that's the reality of the situation. I am not blind to the truth. I'm just pointing out flaws and reason why I don't think it goes far enough)

[boston bean]

21. Welcome to the wombers club.

We get zip.

It will be the Supreme Court that does that to you. Not the new legislation.

[BrienDoesIt]

22. The new legislation won't help in that sense tho.

It doesn't hurt us, but it's still removing equality. Just like, as you said, women and abortion.

Which, by the way, I fully support laws forcing abortion in every state as well. There is zero reason why the states should be able to legislate your body.

[boston bean]

23. Agreed. But the scotus decides what is constitutional no one else. And if they

Change precedence there is nothing that can be done other than an amendment to fix it completely.

The new legislation is what could be done.

[BrienDoesIt]

24. I'm not denying that this is roughly the best that could be done

But, frankly, as someone who might have to go at least one state away, I find it hard to be excited. I just don't. I get it. This is the best they could do with what they have. But I can't jump up and down for joy and pat them on the back when, right now, I don't have to go anywhere.

This doesn't protect gay marriage itself, it protects the rights that marriage affords you. There is a difference there. Still, at the end of the day, I'm going to be discriminated against. And in states where it's outlawed, we will be separate but equal.

All I'm saying is this absolutely let's states discriminate against gay people. Just because they're forced to recognize a marriage from out of state doesn't remove the discrimination it's going to offer up. As of right now that's 35 states. I'm not saying they could have done better, because "states rights". I'm just not thrilled. Not when it's going to take away what I have right now in the name of religious freedom.

[boston bean]

25. No scotus allows it. Not this bill.

[BrienDoesIt]

26. Well this bill doesn't say states cant deny you a marriage license. It supports that Right explicitl

It supports the states rights to not give you marriage license. It says no state HAS to provide you a marriage license. They can deny you.

It might not be the same, but it's close enough. Either way the effect is the same. I cannot get married in the state that I live in.

[boston bean]

27. Not quite right.

The bill would not force states that currently have unenforceable bans on same-sex marriage, like Texas, to offer marriage certificates to gay, lesbian and bisexual couples if Obergefell is overturned. But it would mandate that the state recognize a same-sex marriage that occurred in a state where it is legal. The vote on Wednesday in the Senate clears the way for it to pass the chamber easily. It will then return to the House, where members will consider the amendments made in the Senate. The House passed the original version of the bill in July.

It is all based on if obergfell is overturned.

Those laws are still on the books in some states. If the scotus says obergfell is unconstitutional that ends it. It is a states right to determine. unless there is an amendment. What legislation do you think could be passed that would not be immediately challenged to the scotus. And what do you think the outcome would be?

[BrienDoesIt]

28. First, if obergefell isnt overturned then this law becomes moot

In that sense, the law does very little. The most I can say is it gets rid of DOMA, which had no teeth because of obergefell.

While I don't think it would be feasible (which is why, while pointing out the flaws of this law, I still think it's good), the only way to force SSM in all states would be to create an explicit amendment. Which is bullshit that we have to do that when the 14th amendment should protect this shit. Thats, as far as I know, literally the only way.

2 additional things I had thought of regarding this law and it's potential consequences is, a)if Lawrence V Texas gets overturned, could I be arrested for sodomy even if I'm married from another state because sodomy is outlawed under their state constitution? b) could this law be challenged as forcing a state to go against their religious principles since it protects "religious freedom", thereby removing the 1 protection that's needed?

Thinking out loud here, not saying these things will happen.

[BrienDoesIt]

33. I don't see it that way at all

Yes, but the fact that we have to travel to another state when we don't right now is my problem.

The protections for married couples are great. But you shouldn't need to travel to another state to have your marriage rights protected. Or to even get married in the first place.

It's a step back because you literally cannot get any better than "I can get married in every state across the country and every other state must recognize it based on the full faith clause". That's the best possible outcome. We're changing that to "I can get married in some states but all states must recognize it."

it does give us safeguards if the SC strikes down obergefell, but it still takes away what we have right now. Which is the key that I can't seem to get people to understand. I don't have to go anywhere right now. I can go down to the court house. And right now, my marriage is respected in every state. Hell I got married in Iowa and divorced in Arizona LOL If Obergefell falls (and the only way this law matters is if obergefell gets tossed), some people will have to travel up to 2-3 states.

I understand this is the best we're gonna get, just like DOMA was, just like DADT. but that doesn't mean I have to like it, if that makes sense.

[yardwork]

39. It's not a step back and it doesn't take away anything.

As long as Obergefell holds this law is moot. It's a protection if Obergefell falls.

[BrienDoesIt]

40. If obergefell goes down, we will have zero protections of access to gay marriage

Not that I think this will happen, but if all states decide to ban gay marriage, then we have nothing. That's an extreme example.

But having the ability to get married in all 50 states today, but tomorrow in only 15, that's literally removing a right we have. All this does is give us a half-ass safety net.

[Demsrule86]

44. You think New York, Connecticut, California, Massachusetts ETC will ban Gay marriage?

[BrienDoesIt]

46. absolutely not, and I explicitly stated that was not a likely possibility.

I was just explaining what the law does and does not do. And it does not protect gay marriage like people think it will. It protects rights that are conferred from that marriage, not the license itself. There is a difference, especially for people of lower socio-economic class who may not be able to go from Florida up to Viriginia (the closest state to FL that doesn't have a constitutional ban on SSM).

This allows states to discriminate against LGBT people. It forces them to give the same rights as straight people, but it doesn't force them to issue licenses. That's the key difference that no one seems to want to acknowledge.

[Demsrule86]

47. You know, I live in Ohio where they just passed a law that allows medical professionals to

deny my Gay daughter medical treatment...it also allows discrimination in housing and employment...so yeah I think it is good that the Senate acted. We won't get it all at once. We will have to continue to fight for everyone's rights. And this is a good move.

[BrienDoesIt]

48. Ok so let me ask you - what does this law do? Specifically

[BrienDoesIt]

49. Ohio also has a same sex marriage ban, btw.

So if obergefell falls, your daughter can't get married in ohio either. She can today.

[yardwork]

30. I'm gay and married, and I see this as a protection and good step.

The Supreme Court could overturn Obergefell. If I understand this new law correctly, we are protected as long as there is a single state that allows equal marriages.

[BrienDoesIt]

36. If you're already married though, then this doesn't affect you at all

This is more about those of us who aren't married yet (or anymore).

1 state means I have to go to said state to get married. I have the funds to, but let's say that state is Hawaii - Most people can't afford to just hop on a plane and head to Hawaii to get married. And let's say you've planned your wedding to be in Hawaii and your fiancée gets sick and gets put in the hospital before your wedding. You can be denied if the hospital doesn't recognize "domestic partners".

This has a lot more ramifications than people think.

Edit - thinking about this more, what if those states that are anti-gay marriage decide they want to invalidate the SSM licenses they have previously provided. I'm not sure if that's possible or feasible (I hope not) but I put nothing past republicans.

[yardwork]

37. Yes, I know. It's not ideal but it's a protection.

[BrienDoesIt]

38. I don't disagree with you - just pointing out flaws and personal disappointments

[Demsrule86]

41. Yes it does affect those already married. Their marriages would be deemed illegal.

[BrienDoesIt]

42. And this doesn't stop that from happening

If a state wants to retroactively remove all gay marriages and they have a gay marriage ban in their state, they can do that. This bill doesn't stop that. The only thing it does is say, "if your marriage license is from another state it must be recognized even if the state has marriage = 1 man 1 woman in it."

Nowhere in this bill does it reaffirm marriages that have already happened.

[Demsrule86]

43. I think you are wrong about that...and certainly it could not stop Gay marriage without this bill

that would happen everywhere.

[BrienDoesIt]

45. I hope for the LGBT communitie's sake, I'm wrong too.

But if it doesn't force a state to issue a same sex license and only makes that state recognize said license from other states, that sounds pretty discriminatory to me.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

3. Yeah

Link to tweet

[William769]

5. Kick & highly recommended.

Take that you fuc*ing BIGOTS!

[sheshe2]

29. I'll second that!

[William769]

32. Good to see you!

[yardwork]

31. Both my Republican senators voted in favor.

I expected Burr to do so (he's retiring and suddenly getting all statesmanlike) but I'm a little surprised at Tillis.

[William769]

34. You're lucky.

My two Senators are helping plan the fall of Democracy.

[yardwork]

35. Mine usually are, too.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

10. So states are still free to make gay and interracial marriages illegal for their own residents.

And if you're a gay and/or interracial couple living in one of those states, you have to go to a different state where those marriages are allowed to get married.

[FBaggins]

11. Only if SCOTUS overturns current precedent

Not that they've shown much reluctance to do that so far.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

13. Yeah... and if they do, this law still allows discrimination.

ETA: No wonder any Republicans are voting for it.

[FBaggins]

14. Not as much as if it doesn't pass

[OnDoutside]

12. Is the aim to also get this through the House and onto Bidens desk

before the new Congress ?

[Rebl2]

50. Did the house

already pass this or does senate have to send this to the house?

[BumRushDaShow]

51. The House already passed their own version back in July

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/house-to-vote-on-same-sex-marriage-in-response-to-roe-v-wade-decision

H.R.8404 - Respect for Marriage Act

The Senate invoked cloture on that House bill due to expectation that the Senate version of it proposed modifying it with what I believe is this (possibly as "an amendment as a substitute" ) -

S.4556 - Respect for Marriage Act

And if that passes the Senate, it goes back to the House for either a final vote (most likely, and would probably be affirmative) or for additional changes (unlikely given they are nearing the end of their session).

[Rebl2]

52. Thanks for info

[BumRushDaShow]

53. You're welcome!

(had to run out to go to the store and just got back home )