• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'We Have The Votes': The Senate Will Act This Week To Codify Same-Sex Marriage

poweRob said:
Hope there will be enough votes in the house.

www.huffpost.com

'We Have The Votes': The Senate Will Act This Week To Codify Same-Sex Marriage

With the midterm elections over, Democrats have found enough Republicans ready to join them in advancing basic LGBTQ rights.
www.huffpost.com www.huffpost.com
​
The Senate is expected to vote this week on legislation to codify same-sex marriage and, more importantly, the bill has enough GOP support to pass, HuffPost has learned. “We have the votes,” a source close to negotiations confirmed Monday.​
​
A bipartisan group of senators has been trying for months to pass a marriage equality bill to protect same-sex and interracial relationships. The House passed its own legislation in July, but that proposal stalled in the Senate, where some Republicans raised concerns that it would stifle religious liberty.​
​
​
Click to expand...

I have to say I'm surprised they're actually doing something.
 
This is happening because of retiring Sen. Portman.
Good thing he wasn’t Romney’s choice for VP, eh?
 
sub1028 said:
what the **** does that with me paying for a same sex couple wedding or something like that, don't respond with a stupid post
Click to expand...
Who the **** asked you to pay for anything? What other rights are you afraid that you may have to pay for?
 
blue scorpion said:
Who the **** asked you to pay for anything? What other rights are you afraid that you may have to pay for?
Click to expand...
Geez I responded pro-gay marriage, would it better for the simpleminded if I had said it's not costing me money ffs
 
Bullseye said:
Not sure what your point is - was same-sex marriage ever brought to the court before 2015? Obergefel is based on solid constitutional foundations.
Click to expand...
And a woman's right to privacy wasn't? You know applying the logic that it's not a constitutional right under privacy sure opens up a lot of other things once protected by this unenumerated right. That's doors open and flapping in the wind now. It will bite the right in the ass eventually.

I think we should spend the next few years adding a few to the court, and protecting what we can.
 
Ginger Ale said:
And a woman's right to privacy wasn't?
Click to expand...
Apparently not to RGB. She said it was a poor decision. She actually thought the defense should have bosed their case on equal protection.
Ginger Ale said:
You know applying the logic that it's not a constitutional right under privacy sure opens up a lot of other things once protected by this unenumerated right. That's doors open and flapping in the wind now. It will bite the right in the ass eventually.
Click to expand...
Where specifically is privacy enumerated? How come the Justices didn't know that?
Ginger Ale said:
I think we should spend the next few years adding a few to the court, and protecting what we can.
Click to expand...
Or, do something uaeful and work within the states to actually make a difference.
 
Bullseye said:
Apparently not to RGB. She said it was a poor decision. She actually thought the defense should have bosed their case on equal protection.

Where specifically is privacy enumerated? How come the Justices didn't know that?

Or, so aomwrhing uaeful and work within the states to actually make a difference.
Click to expand...
50 years of justices knew that. MAGA justices didn't, do you even have to ask why?
 
Ginger Ale said:
50 years of justices knew that. MAGA justices didn't, do you even have to ask why?
Click to expand...
How often did it come up in those 50 years? Sorry "MAGA judges" rule on the law rather than "feel good slogans".
 
Bullseye said:
How often did it come up in those 50 years? Sorry "MAGA judges" rule on the law rather than "feel good slogans".
Click to expand...
Rule of the law? lol They lied through their dishonest teeth and Trump slide them in during a dang election. They only deserve a slogan, if that. They're a mockery, just like their boss and the extremist religious nut base that begged him to do it. America has spoken, they don't want the Handmaidens version of America. Maga is like that dude in a bar that won't take NO for an answer.

Everyone knows what to protect now, and who to protect it from. You aren't fooling anybody.
 
The me of 2015 cared greatly about legislation to legalize same sex marriage. The me of 2022? Meh.

The Dems didn't pass this when they had a supermajority in 2009. Now it's moot virtue signaling.
 
I kinda want to live in a world where congress passes this, scotus rules it unconstitutional and then congress responds.

Curious to see how that would play out since congress controls scotus
 
tacomancer said:
That is certainly an opinion
Click to expand...
Not really. It's more just a bunch of words scrawled on a chalkboard that don't really relate to each other. Monkeys and typewriters.
 
Last edited:
It's irritating to see the same nonsense phrases repeated ad nauseum in thread after thread by the same posters, without a scintillat of thought evident in them, just rote repetition of right wing talking points. It's almost as if they never bothered to read the Constitution or to think about using basic common sense (or human decency).
 
Bullseye said:
Apparently not to RGB. She said it was a poor decision. She actually thought the defense should have bosed their case on equal protection.

Where specifically is privacy enumerated? How come the Justices didn't know that?

Or, do something uaeful and work within the states to actually make a difference.
Click to expand...
We live our lives based on many unenumerated rights. For example your right to breathe, marry, have sex, work, spend money, own possessions. and eat are well understood but not specifically mentioned in the constitution.

Enumerated vs unenumerated potentially opens the door to a lot of distortions under the wrong judges based on this type of thinking.

In fact many of these very based things have been taken away from people by the courts.
 
One wonders who the source is, and how well does it 'count'? Those votes are very fluid, but its going to be impossible to get them once the new Congress hits town. So if you want this to happen, it needs to go down now, before people start leveraging their yes votes in the next Congress. As it is, I can readily see these leadership manuvers inpacting that count, as the horsetrading begins.
 
Not sure how this gets thru the HoR if the GOP gains a majority. What is to stop a new SOTH from refusing to bring it up for a vote?
 
Bullseye said:
It's already codified by SCOTUS decision. Based on equal rights - a sound basis, unlike Roe.
Click to expand...
You’re assuming that the current court bases decisions on sound objective reasoning. The conservative majority starts with a ruling and then imagineers a reason. They’re playing legal calvinball.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom